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

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 0 - , 16.09.2013

Hilary Inwood

https://izlik.org/JA67LE76WW

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

• Adams, E. (1991). Back to basics: aesthetic experiences. Children’s environments quarterly, 8(2), 19-29.
• Anderson, H. (2000). A river runs through it: art education and a river environment.
• Art Education, 53(6), 13-18.
• Anderson, T. & Milbrandt, M. (2004). Art for life: Authentic instruction in art. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Barbosa, A. (1991). Art education and environment. Journal of multicultural and cross-cultural research in art education, 9, 59-64.
• Birt, D., Krug, D. & Sheridan, M. (1997). Earthly matters: learning occurs when you can hear the grass singing. Art Education, 50(6), 6-13.
• Blandy, D. and Hoffman, E. (1993). Toward an art education of place. Studies in art education, 35(1), 22-33.
• Blandy, D. and Cowan, D. (1997). Imagine Yellowstone: Art education and the reinhabitation of place. Art education, 50(6), 40-46.
• Capra, F. (1999). Ecoliteracy: The challenge for the next century. Retrieved on
• July 24, 2006 from the Center for Ecoliteracy website at http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/pdf/challenge.pdf
• Congdon, K. (2000). Beyond the egg carton alligator: To recycle is to recall and restore. Art education, 53(6), 6-12.
• 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.
• Elliot, S. & Bartley, S. (1998). Materials arts design: An exploration in creativity, ecology and culture. Art education, 51(3), 52-55.
• Eisner, E. (1997). The new frontier in qualitative research methodology. Qualitative inquiry, 3(3), 259- 273.
• Gablik, S. (1991). The re-enchantment of art. New York: Thames and Hudson.
• Gablik, S. (1995). Connective aesthetics. In S. Lacy (Ed.), Mapping the terrain: New genre public art, (pp. 74-87). Seattle: Bay Press.
• Garoian, C. (1998). Art education and the aesthetics of land use in the age of ecology. Studies in art education, 39(3), 244-261.
• Gomez, A. (1999). American art of conspicuous recycling. Art education 52(3), 25-28, 38-39
• Gradle, S. (2007). Ecology of place: Art education in a relational world. Studies in art education, 48(4), 392-411.
• Graff, T. (1990). Art, art education and the ecological vision. NSCAD papers in art education, 5(1), 79- 96.
• 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.
• Gurevitz, R. (2000). Affective approaches to environmental education: going beyond the imagined worlds of childhood? Ethics, place and environment, 3(3), 253-268.
• Herr, K. & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hicks, L. & King, R. (2007). Confronting environmental collapse: Visual culture, art education, and environmental responsibility. Studies in art education 48(4), 332-335.
• Holmes, S. (2002). Creative by nature: Integrating the arts into environmental science education. Green teacher, 69, 23-28.
• Hungerford, H. & Volk, T. ( 1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of environmental education, 21 (3), 8-21.
• Inwood, H. (2008). At the crossroads: Situating place-based art education. Canadian journal of environmental education, 13(1), 29-41.
• Inwood, H. (2009). Artistic approaches to environmental education: Developing eco-art education in elementary classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
• Inwood, H. (2010). Shades of green: Growing environmentalism and sustainability in art education. Art Education, vol 63(6), pg. 33-38.
• 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.
• 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.
• Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2003). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin &
• Y. Lincoln, (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd edition) (pp. 336-396). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• 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
• Lankford, E. (1997). Ecological stewardship in art education. Art education, 50(6), 47-53.
• 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.
• Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper and Rowe.
• Lindholdt, P. (1999). Writing from a sense of place. Journal of environmental education, 30(4), 4-10.
• McFee, J.K. & Degge, R. (1977). Art, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• 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
• Mills, G. (2003). Action research: a guide for the action researcher. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Neperud, R. (1995). Texture of community: an environmental design education.
• In R. Neperud (Ed.), Context, content and community in art education: Beyond postmodernism (pp. 222-247). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
• Oja, S. & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: The Falmer Press.
• Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern
• world. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental Education in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge.
• 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
• Rosenthal, A. (2003). Teaching systems theory and practice through environmental art.
• Ethics and the environment 8(1), 153-168.
• Sanger, M. (1997). Sense of place in education. Journal of environmental education, 29(1), 4-8.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Smith, G. & Williams, D. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture and the environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Smith, G. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi delta kappan, 83, 584-594.
• Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.
• Sobel, D. (2005). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education.
• Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.
• Taylor, P. (1997). It all started with trash: Taking steps toward sustainable art education. Art education, 50(2), 13-18.
• Thomashow, M. (1995). Ecological identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• 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/
• wwwdocuments/programs/ecoschools/docs/GRASP%20FINAL.pdf
• Ulbricht, J. (1998). Changing concepts of environmental art education: toward a broader definition. Art education, 51(6), 22-24, 33-34.
• Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Notes
• 1I use the term ‘eco-art’ to encompass both environmental and ecological art, taking my lead from
• Matilsky (1992). She proposed that ‘environmental art’ be used to designate works that call attention
• to nature and establish ‘a reverent relationship between the viewer and the earth’ (p. 37). In contrast,
• ‘ecological art’ embodies more of an activist stance, not only raising awareness of ecosystems but also
• proposing or creating solutions to their human-induced challenges.
• 2For a fuller cataloguing of artists working with environmental themes or foci in their work, refer to
• the database of artists on Green Museum [http://greenmuseum.org].
• 3For a fuller discussion of these scholars’ contributions to the discourse on eco-art education, refer to
• Inwood (2008, 2009).
• 4Gablik is one of the first in the 20th century to articulate a need to move towards a more
• collaborative, community-oriented form of art-making, in which the ‘paradigm of social conscience
• replaces that of the individual genius’ (1991, p.114). She calls for art to move beyond ‘nonrelational,
• noninteractive, nonparticipatory’ aesthetics of Modernism towards ‘connective aesthetics’, that is art
• that builds community, engages with the reality of contemporary issues, and ‘speaks to the power of
• connectedness and establishes bonds, art that calls us into relationship’ (1991, p.114).
• 5Herr and Anderson (2005) noted the inherent tension that can arise in this type of situation,
• stemming from between the dualities of practical/formal knowledge and the insider/outsider status
• of the research team.
• 6Arts-informed research is a family of approaches to inquiry that bring together ‘the systematic and
• rigorous qualities of conventional qualitative inquiry with the artistic, disciplined, and imaginative
• qualities of the arts’ (Cole and Knowles, 2008, p. 59). Exploring new means of conceiving meaning
• making and knowledge creation is central to arts-informed research, as traditional modes of research
• offer limited means for investigating and understanding arts-based learning. Eisner (1997) has
• identified the potential benefits that arts-based educational research can offer, and believes that it
• forces a re-examination of the assumptions and values that underlie social science-based research,
• many of which run counter to the ways the arts are involved in education. By better integrating the
• arts into a new paradigm of research, art educators are offered a better means to ‘fit their interests,
• [be] congruent with what they wish to study, and play to their strengths’ (p. 265).
• 7For a fuller introduction to this program, please refer to the TDSB’s Ecoschools website at:
• http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=207&menuid=1425&pageid=1052
• 8As a means of recognizing their contributions to the development process and this research project,
• the teacher-researchers agreed that their real names should be used in this article.
• 9It should be noted that the local school board, the TDSB, did have a growing Ecoschools program in
• effect at the time of the study, but with a small team of leaders supporting over 600 schools in the
• board and limited release time for bringing teachers together, it was hard for teachers in individual
• (and often geographically dispersed) schools to identify and/or connect with others who shared their
• interest in environmental education.
• 10The three tenets of environmental education, used by the Toronto District School Board (2007) at
• that time to inform curriculum development and classroom practice were sense of place, ecosystems
• thinking, and human impacts. Due to a change in provincial policy in 2009, they now use the
• categories of learning in, about and for the environment more commonly.
• 11While not the focus of this study, there are indications that the students might have improved
• their environmental literacy as part of their eco-art lessons. While viewing the gr. 2/3 students’
• ‘Solution to Pollution’ video might be sufficient evidence for this assertion in and of itself, Anne
• reinforced this in a reflection on her students’ work on eco-art installations for the waterfront:
• …you sort of hope that they grow in many ways, but to see that kind of very observable growth in
• terms of their understanding about the environment, about art, and its implications on the
• environment and so on…that’s been very exciting.
• Further study is required to more fully investigate and understand the effects of student learning in
• eco-art education and its impact on students’ environmental literacy.