Diversifying Form: Rethinking how mainstream institutions approach arts education

I’ve been working with a really great group of students in acting class. It’s the kind of class where you see growth and dedication that leads to a really exciting classroom to be a part of. You know the kind, the kind where education is happening. Mine and theirs. I’ve had a couple of down days where I trudged off to acting class only to return feeling rejuvenated and eager to work more and not less. It’s also caused me to turn my focus to just how deeply different the methodology used in an arts class is, or should be.

I would argue that the structure of arts classes in generally needs to be reworked. Administratively, I can see the appeal to keeping general methodologies fairly cohesive across the board, but for arts classes, I think it’s time to move in a different direction.

When we are creating arts classes, first look at the desired outcome. Sure there are classes like history and analysis where it is possible to do a pretty spiffy job with a class in a lecture/testing paper writing format. But other arts classes are there to help the artist develop their primary skill. Beyond the very beginning introduction to the various techniques, the course cannot fit that same model.

Art teachers know this. (Or they should). We sort of sneak along and work with students and give grades even though we know that there is no assessment method that can speak directly to the students work and progress. Sure I can assign points to things, but how are those things graded? I can give a monologue 100 points. Let’s say 20 points for memorization, . . . but then what? Do I give them points for realism? How do we put that into a rubric? Characterization? Risk taking? Progress? And what if student #1 progresses from a 2 to a 5 and student #2 starts at a 6 but never progresses. Does student #2 get a higher grade than #1? And what determines progress?

Art classes don’t have an “end”. A student can take acting, or water color, or ceramics over and over and over and never be at their end of their creative journey. A good artist says that you are never at the end. How do I determine when a student has reached the end of Acting I?

Additionally each art student brings to the classroom their own unique set of problems, particularly in theatre. Most of those problems are a part of their past, their personality. Self confidence, repressed emotion, poor body image. Each student’s needs are highly individualized and I work with each student in turn, directing my work to address their specific needs. This isn’t something that is limited to theatre. Most arts classes are this way.

The acting classroom needs to be smaller, 8-12 max. When someone talks about putting 20 people in my acting class my head spins a little. No student will get the attention they need in that sort of setting.

Arts teachers need to embrace the subjectivity of arts instructions. Instead of feeling obligated to create items that can be quantified, embrace that each arts class will be unique and different and that the students learn as much from watching and communicating with each other as they do with you.

In this way, each student meets the course at the place where they are able and grows throughout the class at the best pace for them. Learning your craft is not a predictable series of events, but rather, a series of fits and starts. Huge leaps and frustrating limitations. By accepting each student at their arrival level you also avoid risking the temptation to norm your students the first week of class. “Yes, I recognize that you are far beyond the level of these other two students but just because the syllabus says that we must all do step 1 first and then step 2 and by the time you get to 10 you get an A doesn’t mean that because you came in at a 12, you get an A. You get to start at 12 and move forward from where you are and will be graded on that.”

And the really beautiful thing about dealing with individual students rather than a collective in an arts class is that that disparity between skill levels becomes an asset rather than a liability. Students watch each other. New students see the road ahead of them, the are introduced to land marks of the evolution of the craft. They also see when the more advanced students falter and struggle that their process will always have an element of backwards and that that is ok. The advanced student has the opportunity to review the basics, to watch less experience students being mentored, and they learn TO mentor.

I think the arts in general have suffered a little bit of industrial burn at the academic levels as the push to create quantifiable outcome results become more and more important. I also think that many artists generally shy away from pedagogy discussions on principle. I wish they wouldn’t. In a time when education in general is changing fluidly and rapidly, we should give the way that we approach arts education a closer look.

Tags: art, education, highered, pedagogy, theatre