Art Beyond the School Wall

In this reading review, I will be highlighting perspectives of contemporary out-of-school education in relation to challenging negative stereotypes, transforming self-esteem, and expressing experiences through experiential learning practices. Authors Adejumo, Charland, Green, Kindseth, Heise, Macgillivray, and Kieffer recounted in this analysis contribute to the theories explaining and analyzing the impact that out-of-school learning experiences has on innovation, artistic output, learning environment, and community involvement of a variety of students. This reading review more specifically explores various connections between socio-cultural theories and experiential learning environments through the collection of case studies, narrative essays, analyses, and research from various scholars. The conclusion of this reading review values the cultural, emotional, and physical practices of the 21st century out-of-school and/or after-school arts-rich programs that help advance the approach, appreciation, and love for learning.

Key Points

It is by now axiomatic that the role of the school is vital in our students’ educational journey; however, the educational journey of our students does not start and end with the school day. Indeed, after school programs have proven to be just as vital in the advancement of learning and providing an experiential learning experience where students transform in ways different from the traditional classroom setting. According to Green and Kindseth’s (2011) article Art All Day: Distinction and Interrelation of School-Based and Out-of-School Arts Learning, non-school, art-rich activities “create[] transformative experience[s] for students . . . by enlisting them as active participants in the learning culture. This role shifts from that of the learner to that of leader and visionary” (p.339). Providing students with experiences where they are able to collaborate, analyze, and ultimately share their learned expertise is pivotal in the development of their own self-identity. “The arts-rich environment . . . outside of those walls transforms students’ sense of self, [and] nurtures a passion for learning through creative thinking and practice” (Green & Kindseth, 2011, p.337). In turn, students will gain confidence in themselves as they learn through non-school experiences that will positively guide their own educational journey though instruction. In other words, non-school environments—e.g., homeless centers that incorporate art programs, recreational centers, afterschool programs—are the ultimate loci of the learning-by-doing ethos, providing students with the opportunity to employ their creative talents against the tabula rasa of the non-traditional learning environment.

Art, more than any other subject, is most about the journey and utilizing critical thinking processes, visual expressionism, and innovative techniques to develop a deeper understanding and learning experiences. According to Christopher Olubunmi Adejumo’s (2010) article Promoting Artistic and Cultural Development Through Service Learning and Critical Pedagogy in a Low-Income Community Art Program, “engaging in experiential learning through community service has transformative potentials for participants, in that pedagogy becomes more meaningful on a personal level” (p. 24). Adejumo’s longitudinal study has found that various of the projects involve establishing a safe community in which students are able to learn differently in a non-traditional way. “Participants involved in service-learning programming, community service experiences enhances their self-esteem, pride in their community, and enthusiasm for participating in future community development projects” (Adejumo, 2010, p. 24). Alike, through participation in outside-of-school service learning programs, educators gain “exposure to student behaviors, interests, and artistic and intellectual aptitudes within a non-school, community-based learning environment would enable teachers to learn differently about their students” (Adejumo, 2010, p. 33).

Non-school art-rich activities can range in the diversity of the participants, context, and community. Regardless of all variance, all of the out-of-school programs provide students with a safe environment in which students can learn to express their experiences and challenge negative stereotypes. According to Heise and Macgillivray’s (2011) article Implementing an Art Program for Children in a Homeless Shelter, “form, content, meaning, and value of art are determined by art’s context . . . in cultural and socially diverse settings” (p. 324). Thus, the programs must take into account varying socio-emotional factors of the community in which they are to target with their program. Through the case study, research has shown that “visual expression is easier than verbal expression” (p. 324). Donalyn Heise and Laurie Macgillivray concluded through their experiences of teaching art within a homeless shelter that art has a therapeutic effect on the students through their transformation of self-identity—along with promotes a positive environment for academic learning both in-school and out-of-school learning.

According to William Charland’s (2005) article, The Youth Arts Apprenticeship Movement: A New Twist on a Historical Practice, youth in the 21st century struggle to understand the path required to transition from an amateur artist to a professional artist. Various art rich paid-internship programs are becoming more visible (and accessible) throughout the nation. “Thus, cognition and culture—of the workplace, of the neighborhood, of society—build upon and reinforce each other” (Charland, 2005, p. 42). These internship programs are guiding young artists within the community to identify a path to create a professional career within the art field.

Conclusion

When an art teacher (like me) operates under a monolithic assumption that the traditional school setting is the end-all and be-all of art education, a crucial educational opportunity is lost. In this way, the authors both affirmed and yet challenged the way that I originally viewed out-of-school activities and involvement. Although I have always been a proponent of providing students with as many opportunities as possible, the readings this work highlighted the importance (and promise) of a holistic learning experience which benefits from both in-school and out-of-school programs. With this said, however, I never considered the limitations that art programs both in-school and out-of-school may have within a community due to monetary restrictions, limited parental support, and lack of access to the artistry. After reading these articles, I believe that both in-school and out-of-school programs are equally important, but play completely different roles in the educational journey.

References

Adejumo, C. (2010). Promoting artistic and cultural development through service learning and critical pedagogy in a low-income community art program. Visual Arts Research, 36(1), 23-34.

Charland, W. (2005). The youth arts apprentice movement: A new twist on an historical practice. Art Education, 58(5), 39-47.

Green, J., & Kindseth, A. (2011). Art all day: Distinction and interrelation of school- based and out-of-school arts learning. Studies in Art Education, 52(4), 337-341.

Heise, D., & Macgillivray, L. (2011). Implementing an Art Program for Children in a Homeless Shelter. Studies in Art Education, 52(4), 323-33