How might the ideas explored in this seminar [please draw on your reading of Tim Ingold] be useful to you in your own professional teaching and learning environment?
The contrast between what Ingold describes as a “wayfaring” modality of travel, that of a line that goes along or out for a walk, and a “transport” modality of travel, that of a line that goes across or connects up a series of separate points (Ingold, 2008, p. 75), has a number of points of relevance for my own professional practice as a teacher and an artist.
The ‘drift’ as explored in the seminar can be defined as a wayfaring research methodology. When this approach is applied to teaching the result is an open, exploratory learning experience where “the value of not always knowing ‘the outcome’ has found favour” (McAuliffe, 2013, p.5) and is highly regarded. This is very different to much of the ingrained educational practice today which is based on a transport methodology that results in the removal of individual agency. This is largely due to external assessment and evaluative constraints that have caused a tendency to “read creativity ‘backwards’, starting from an outcome in the form of a novel object and tracing it, through a sequence of antecedent conditions, to an unprecedented idea in the mind of an agent. (Ingold, 2011, p. 215). This can be very detrimental to the learning process as “to determine the final outcome is often to cut short an individual’s learning journey” (McAuliffe, 2013, p. 5). This type of practice results in a finite, complete construction from which “there is nowhere further for the line to go” (Ingold, 2008, p. 74) rather than a practice that is improvisory and open to possibilities, that results in “an endless process of transformation” (Ingold, 2011, p. 213)
This value of the latter type of teaching practice is emphasised by Greene’s ideas of transformation and incompleteness where she states that “The thing that keeps you going is incompleteness even though you yearn for the absolute answer. To think in terms of incompleteness and include this in our pedagogy is to open the door to possibility.” (Teacher College, Columbia University, 2008).
This type of wayfaring practice is what I aim to foster in the individual pupils that I work with. I have found that this is much more possible with pupils in the early years of secondary and, where embraced, is motivating, engaging and energising, giving pupils a deep sense of ownership of their work. However, in the senior years, there are many difficulties with developing a wayfaring approach. This is specifically due to the conflict of interests there appears to be between what Hulme et al (2011) describe as “the double edged sword of innovation and evaluation” (pp. 444 - 445) where “accountability practices hinder innovation” (Priestly and Minty, 2012, p. 9). Although the advent of CfE is beginning to change this in principle, there needs to be a further shift in the practicalities of accountability before a wayfaring approach can be established.
References
Hulme, M., Menter. I. and Conroy, J (2011) Creativity in Scottish School Curriculum and Pedagogy. In Sefton-Green, J. et al (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Creativity Learning. London: Routledge. Ch 44.
Ingold, T. (2008) Up, Across and Along. In: Lines, A Brief History, London: Routledge. Ch 3.
Ingold, T., 2011. The Textuality of Making. In: T. Ingold Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. Ch 17.
McAuliffe, D. (2013) Mapping and Forecasting the Change Agenda in Scottish Art and Design Education. In Bryce, T. et al [Editors] Scottish Education [Fourth Edition], Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Priestley, M and Minty, S (2012) Developing Curriculum for Excellence. Summary of findings from research undertaken in a Scottish local authority. Sterling: University Of Sterling.
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].
Bibliography
Ingold, T., 2011. Drawing Together: Doing, Observing, Describing. In: T. Ingold Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. Ch 18.
No comments:
Post a Comment