Cultivating Artistic Approaches to Environmental Learning: Exploring Eco-art Education in Elementary Classrooms

Öz

This article explores curriculum development in eco-art education, an integration of art education and environmental education, as a means of increasing awareness of and engagement with the environment.  It reports on a qualitative research study that tracked teachers’ experiments with the design and implementation of eco-art education in elementary classrooms.  Guided by the framework of collaborative action research, a team of educators generated practical and theoretical knowledge to plan, implement, observe and reflect on eco-art curricula and pedagogy.  As the first inquiry to examine eco-art education in a sustained way across multiple school sites, it makes a significant contribution to the emerging knowledge and growing discourse of eco-art education by demonstrating how arts-based learning at the elementary level can align with and support environmental education concepts and pedagogy. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• environmental education, arts-based, environmental art, artistic activism, eco-art education

Kaynakça

1. Adams, E. (1991). Back to basics: aesthetic experiences. Children’s environments quarterly, 8(2), 19-29.
2. Anderson, H. (2000). A river runs through it: art education and a river environment.
3. Art Education, 53(6), 13-18.
4. Anderson, T. & Milbrandt, M. (2004). Art for life: Authentic instruction in art. New York: McGraw Hill.
5. Barbosa, A. (1991). Art education and environment. Journal of multicultural and cross-cultural research in art education, 9, 59-64.
6. Birt, D., Krug, D. & Sheridan, M. (1997). Earthly matters: learning occurs when you can hear the grass singing. Art Education, 50(6), 6-13.
7. Blandy, D. and Hoffman, E. (1993). Toward an art education of place. Studies in art education, 35(1), 22-33.
8. Blandy, D. and Cowan, D. (1997). Imagine Yellowstone: Art education and the reinhabitation of place. Art education, 50(6), 40-46.

9. Capra, F. (1999). Ecoliteracy: The challenge for the next century. Retrieved on
10. July 24, 2006 from the Center for Ecoliteracy website at http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/pdf/challenge.pdf
11. Congdon, K. (2000). Beyond the egg carton alligator: To recycle is to recall and restore. Art education, 53(6), 6-12.
12. Cole, A. & Knowles, G. (2008). Arts-informed research. In G. Knowles & A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methods, examples and issues (pp. 55-70). London: Sage Publications.
13. Elliot, S. & Bartley, S. (1998). Materials arts design: An exploration in creativity, ecology and culture. Art education, 51(3), 52-55.
14. Eisner, E. (1997). The new frontier in qualitative research methodology. Qualitative inquiry, 3(3), 259- 273.
15. Gablik, S. (1991). The re-enchantment of art. New York: Thames and Hudson.
16. Gablik, S. (1995). Connective aesthetics. In S. Lacy (Ed.), Mapping the terrain: New genre public art, (pp. 74-87). Seattle: Bay Press.
17. Garoian, C. (1998). Art education and the aesthetics of land use in the age of ecology. Studies in art education, 39(3), 244-261.
18. Gomez, A. (1999). American art of conspicuous recycling. Art education 52(3), 25-28, 38-39
19. Gradle, S. (2007). Ecology of place: Art education in a relational world. Studies in art education, 48(4), 392-411.
20. Graff, T. (1990). Art, art education and the ecological vision. NSCAD papers in art education, 5(1), 79- 96.
21. Graham, M. (2007). Art, ecology, and art education: Locating art education in a critical place-based pedagogy. Studies in art education 48(4), 375-391.
22. Gurevitz, R. (2000). Affective approaches to environmental education: going beyond the imagined worlds of childhood? Ethics, place and environment, 3(3), 253-268.
23. Herr, K. & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Hicks, L. & King, R. (2007). Confronting environmental collapse: Visual culture, art education, and environmental responsibility. Studies in art education 48(4), 332-335.
25. Holmes, S. (2002). Creative by nature: Integrating the arts into environmental science education. Green teacher, 69, 23-28.
26. Hungerford, H. & Volk, T. ( 1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of environmental education, 21 (3), 8-21.
27. Inwood, H. (2008). At the crossroads: Situating place-based art education. Canadian journal of environmental education, 13(1), 29-41.
28. Inwood, H. (2009). Artistic approaches to environmental education: Developing eco-art education in elementary classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
29. Inwood, H. (2010). Shades of green: Growing environmentalism and sustainability in art education. Art Education, vol 63(6), pg. 33-38.
30. jagodzinski, j. (1987). Towards an ecological aesthetic: Notes on a ‘green’ frame of mind. In D. Blandy, & K. Congdon, (Eds.), Art in a democracy (pp. 138-163). New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Keifer-Boyd, K. (2002). Open spaces, open minds: Art in partnership with the earth. In Y. Gaudelins and P. Spiers, (Eds.), Contemporary issues in art education, (pp. 327-343.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2003). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin &
33. Y. Lincoln, (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd edition) (pp. 336-396). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Krug, D. (2003). Teaching art in the context of everyday life. Retrieved on July 30, 2003 from the Green Museum website at http://greenmuseum.org/generic_content.php?ct_id=134
35. Lankford, E. (1997). Ecological stewardship in art education. Art education, 50(6), 47-53.
36. Leeming, F., Dwyer, W., Porter, B. & Cobern, M. (1993). Outcome research in environmental education: a critical review. Journal of environmental education, 24 (4), 8-21.
37. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper and Rowe.
38. Lindholdt, P. (1999). Writing from a sense of place. Journal of environmental education, 30(4), 4-10.
39. McFee, J.K. & Degge, R. (1977). Art, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
40. McKibben, B. (2005). What the world needs now, is art, sweet art. Retrieved on Feb. 25, 2008 from the Grist website at http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/04/21/mckibben- imagine/index.html
41. Mills, G. (2003). Action research: a guide for the action researcher. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
42. Neperud, R. (1995). Texture of community: an environmental design education.
43. In R. Neperud (Ed.), Context, content and community in art education: Beyond postmodernism (pp. 222-247). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
44. Oja, S. & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: The Falmer Press.
45. Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern
46. world. Albany: State University of New York Press.
47. Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental Education in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge.
48. Puk, T. (2002). Ecological literacy as the first imperative. Retrieved on July 16, 2006 from the Lakehead University Faculty of Education website at http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~tpuk/Version%20Principles.pdf
49. Rosenthal, A. (2003). Teaching systems theory and practice through environmental art.
50. Ethics and the environment 8(1), 153-168.
51. Sanger, M. (1997). Sense of place in education. Journal of environmental education, 29(1), 4-8.
52. Sauvé, L. (1998). Environmental education between modernity and postmodernity: Searching for an integrating educational framework. In A. Jarnet (Ed.), A colloquium on the future of environmental education in a postmodern world (pp. 44-55). Whitehorse: Whitehorse Yukon College.
53. Schensul, J. & Schensul, S. (1992). Collaborative research: Methods of inquiry for social change. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 161-200). San Diego: Academic Press.
54. Selby, D. (2000). A darker shade of green: The importance of ecological thinking in global education and school reform. Theory into practice, 39(2), 89-96.
55. Smith, G. & Williams, D. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture and the environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
56. Smith, G. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi delta kappan, 83, 584-594.
57. Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.
58. Sobel, D. (2005). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education.
59. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.
60. Taylor, P. (1997). It all started with trash: Taking steps toward sustainable art education. Art education, 50(2), 13-18.
61. Thomashow, M. (1995). Ecological identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
62. Toronto District School Board. (2007). Grasp: A tool for developing ecological literacy. Retrieved on June 30, 2008 from the TDSB website at http://www.tdsb.on.ca/
63. wwwdocuments/programs/ecoschools/docs/GRASP%20FINAL.pdf
64. Ulbricht, J. (1998). Changing concepts of environmental art education: toward a broader definition. Art education, 51(6), 22-24, 33-34.
65. Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Notes
66. 1I use the term ‘eco-art’ to encompass both environmental and ecological art, taking my lead from
67. Matilsky (1992). She proposed that ‘environmental art’ be used to designate works that call attention
68. to nature and establish ‘a reverent relationship between the viewer and the earth’ (p. 37). In contrast,
69. ‘ecological art’ embodies more of an activist stance, not only raising awareness of ecosystems but also
70. proposing or creating solutions to their human-induced challenges.
71. 2For a fuller cataloguing of artists working with environmental themes or foci in their work, refer to
72. the database of artists on Green Museum [http://greenmuseum.org].
73. 3For a fuller discussion of these scholars’ contributions to the discourse on eco-art education, refer to
74. Inwood (2008, 2009).
75. 4Gablik is one of the first in the 20th century to articulate a need to move towards a more
76. collaborative, community-oriented form of art-making, in which the ‘paradigm of social conscience
77. replaces that of the individual genius’ (1991, p.114). She calls for art to move beyond ‘nonrelational,
78. noninteractive, nonparticipatory’ aesthetics of Modernism towards ‘connective aesthetics’, that is art
79. that builds community, engages with the reality of contemporary issues, and ‘speaks to the power of
80. connectedness and establishes bonds, art that calls us into relationship’ (1991, p.114).
81. 5Herr and Anderson (2005) noted the inherent tension that can arise in this type of situation,
82. stemming from between the dualities of practical/formal knowledge and the insider/outsider status
83. of the research team.
84. 6Arts-informed research is a family of approaches to inquiry that bring together ‘the systematic and
85. rigorous qualities of conventional qualitative inquiry with the artistic, disciplined, and imaginative
86. qualities of the arts’ (Cole and Knowles, 2008, p. 59). Exploring new means of conceiving meaning
87. making and knowledge creation is central to arts-informed research, as traditional modes of research
88. offer limited means for investigating and understanding arts-based learning. Eisner (1997) has
89. identified the potential benefits that arts-based educational research can offer, and believes that it
90. forces a re-examination of the assumptions and values that underlie social science-based research,
91. many of which run counter to the ways the arts are involved in education. By better integrating the
92. arts into a new paradigm of research, art educators are offered a better means to ‘fit their interests,
93. [be] congruent with what they wish to study, and play to their strengths’ (p. 265).
94. 7For a fuller introduction to this program, please refer to the TDSB’s Ecoschools website at:
95. http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=207&menuid=1425&pageid=1052
96. 8As a means of recognizing their contributions to the development process and this research project,
97. the teacher-researchers agreed that their real names should be used in this article.
98. 9It should be noted that the local school board, the TDSB, did have a growing Ecoschools program in
99. effect at the time of the study, but with a small team of leaders supporting over 600 schools in the
100. board and limited release time for bringing teachers together, it was hard for teachers in individual
101. (and often geographically dispersed) schools to identify and/or connect with others who shared their
102. interest in environmental education.
103. 10The three tenets of environmental education, used by the Toronto District School Board (2007) at
104. that time to inform curriculum development and classroom practice were sense of place, ecosystems
105. thinking, and human impacts. Due to a change in provincial policy in 2009, they now use the
106. categories of learning in, about and for the environment more commonly.
107. 11While not the focus of this study, there are indications that the students might have improved
108. their environmental literacy as part of their eco-art lessons. While viewing the gr. 2/3 students’
109. ‘Solution to Pollution’ video might be sufficient evidence for this assertion in and of itself, Anne
110. reinforced this in a reflection on her students’ work on eco-art installations for the waterfront:
111. …you sort of hope that they grow in many ways, but to see that kind of very observable growth in
112. terms of their understanding about the environment, about art, and its implications on the
113. environment and so on…that’s been very exciting.
114. Further study is required to more fully investigate and understand the effects of student learning in
115. eco-art education and its impact on students’ environmental literacy.