It's been a few days since I first read the article by Vaughn and Winner and I'm still at a loss. At first glance, I applauded the research conducted that proved the value of arts education. According to their research, students who study the arts in high school have higher SAT scores than those who do not study the arts" (77). As a drama major in high school and university, reading that statement I feel as though the public has cheered for the underdog and has finally won! Science, math, puh! Who needs it? But the arts! Wow.
Ok...so my reaction wasn't that extreme. But my smiles were soon stunted with a flip of a page. It turns out that all art forms are not created equal. In the many charts and graphs and tables, Vaughn and Winner retell how students that are enrolled in drama and music slightly outperform those in visual arts and even more so than those students enrolled in dance.
How can that be? What is so different about drama than dance? I scowered the article. There must be a reason. But Vaughn and Winner simply shared the process of the study without answering the all important "why". That is now left for me to explore and, ultimately, attempt to answer.
To try and solve this new mystery that has been gnawing and plaguing me for these past few days I turn to the current Ministry of Ontario Secondary Arts Curriculum. Revised in 2010 I focused on the Grade 11 and 12 curricula since those students would most likely be the ones to take the SAT. Understanding that the SAT is an American test and I am looking at a Canadian document, I chose to sift through the Ontario curriculum since it is most familiar to me as both a student and a teacher. Additionally, not all curricula is standardised or unified in each American state.
Before even looking at the document, my hypothesis as to why these results are so is linked to the difference in verbal and kinaesthetic emphasis. Drama, especially acting (the strand where students performed the best) requires high verbal skill. Actors are often called upon to heavily research text, apply current events or narrative, and memorize many pages of material in a short amount of time. To me, this process is identical to that of studying for the verbal component of the SAT. Students must cram a lot of material in a rather brief amount of time. They must use their skills of memory recall, language acquisition and narrative to achieve a high score. On the contrary, dance is a different form of literacy. As I adhere to in my previous blog posts, I am quite a fan of dance and believe that dance can tell as much of a story as any actor. I would label dancers as actors that use their body as the primary vehicle to tell just as important a story. However, choreographers do not often instruct their dancers to memorize text. Though they may be as likely to research background content to apply narrative to movement, they are not as likely to apply this research through a more common type of print literacy in demand for a test like the SAT.
Now, looking at the curriculum documents, I started by comparing the overall expectations of both the drama and dance curricula. As stated, the three overall expectations in the Grade 11 and 12 drama curriculum are: 1) Creating and Presenting; 2) Reflecting, Responding, and Analyzing; and 3) Foundations (2010, 81). To my surprise, the overall dance expectations are exactly the same as the ones for drama (2010, 51). As I dig deeper into the specifics however, I do find more of a verbal focus connected to the drama curriculum than that of the dance, thereby backing up my rough hypothesis. Specific strands of conversation, text analysis, role play and verbal enhancement string through each separate expectations. The word "movement" is smattered all over the dance curriculum connected to any reference to text analysis.
For me, my this is just the beginning. Vaughn and Winner sparked my interest to research this topic further. Until now I never considered a hierarchy of the arts. Creativity to me is simply that, creative. And I believe that everyone can be creative no matter the field, or subject, or curriculum strand. I understand that creativity must be assessed, but are some subjects truly that formatted to be better evaluated than others?
Graduate studies can shine a light for us about how very much we don't yet know, in the field and study of education... your questions and research strongly illustrate that, as you draw so many pieces/clues together - and shine a critical eye on what you've found!
ReplyDelete... we have bits of information, which involve interpretation, and continual study... what we measure and apply is not necessarily transferable between locales/countries/regions... curriculum, expectations, and measures may be inconsistent... And what we measure is most often an 'association', rather than a causal relationship.
And, then, what is the sort of question(s) that most compel you? There IS the question of whether/how arts education may contribute or be associated with academic performance... there are also questions involving how arts education/integration can build community, enhance cultural communication, and motivate/engage kids to keep them in school! What motivates you, as a teacher, to promote arts education within your kids' lives?
Thanks Kimberly for your comments. I really appreciate your last comment, what motivates me as a a teacher in regards to arts education. The arts is so important to me because I think, through arts especially, any subject can come to life. There is something special about performing, role playing, directing, and drawing that connects the real and the imaginary. Experiencing text as I call it not only helps comprehension skills and application skills, but opens the door to higher order thinking and deeper connections between text to self, text to text, and text to the world at large.
ReplyDelete