The Room 13 model

What was it about our seminar that either confirmed or contested the view that “Room 13 is the most important model for artistic teaching in schools that we have in the UK” [Nicholas Serota].

The Room 13 model for artistic teaching is undoubtedly a very significant one. In terms of whether this is what we want for our schools, it has caused me to ponder again exactly what we should be seeking to teach in art education - whether it is the technical skills or the development of creativity? However, perhaps before this can be answered, we should consider what kinds of skills one needs to be an effective worker in today’s world. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008, have also considered this question and conclude that “what we are seeing now is the need for workers who are creative, who are able to think for themselves, who are able to work with diverse teams to accomplish collective ends.” (p168)

Thus, in terms of adequate provision for life, the Room 13 model is indeed very important. It’s approach and practice clearly fit into the pedagogies of the ‘imagination’ or of the ‘possible’ strongly advocated by writers like Greene (Teacher College, Columbia University, 2008) and McLaren (2003, p92 -93).

In particular, on reflection of the seminar, the fact that the ownership and control of the learning process is given over to pupils is one of the most confirming aspects of Serota’s view: “‘What have I got to make it out of?’ he inquires. That he won’t be told, that he must decide for himself, is the first and fundamental lesson Room 13 teaches.” (Yarker, 2008, p. 372), “Users of Room 13 arrive when they choose and because they choose, to work in the ways they choose, on their own projects, by themselves or with friends, at their own pace” (Yarker, 2008, p. 368). In the Room 13 model, many of the traditional constraints are removed and pupils can direct their own learning. This engenders a strong sense of ownership and personal engagement in work that is undertaken out of a personal impulse: “Instead of external pressure, the mobilisation of intrinsic desire” (Yarker, 2008, p. 368).

This is perhaps the most significant result of the Room 13 model, that “it testifies, against the general stance of the mainstream, that the process of learning is not teacher-dependent, nor understood adequately when likened to meeting a quota or climbing a ladder. Less predictable in its course and motion, learning is a continuous innate power quickened by the felt and anticipated needs of the individual, by interest, opportunity, surroundings” (Yarker, 2008, p. 371). I feel that this realisation is desperately required by art educators today and that a more effective art education can only be implemented on this foundation.

REFERENCES:

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., and Morrell, E., 2008. The Art of Critical Pedagogy. New York: Springer Science + Business media B.V.

McLaren, P., 2003. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts. In: Darder, A., Baltodano, M., Torres, R. D., eds., 2003. The Critical Pedagogy Reader. London: RoutledgeFalmer, pp.69-96

Teacher College, Columbia University, 2008. Maxine Greene: Towards Pedagogy of Thought & Imagination [educational lecture] 3rd November 2008. Available at: <http://blackboard.uws.ac.uk> [Accessed 26th March 2011]

Yarker, P., 2008. Lifting the Lid and Mucking about with Minds: the example and challenge of Room 13. Forum, 50 (3), [online] Available at: < http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=forum&vol=50&issue=3&year=2008&article=15_Yarker_FORUM_50_3_web > [Accessed 25th March 2012].