PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158

UnitPlanArt&IdentityExplanation/Discussiononthe
DiversityofLearners
v. Range of Abilities
The uniqueness of each student is one of the great challenges, as well as joys, of teaching.
The challenge, in one form, comes from the huge range of abilities which students bring to
the classroom, and although some see streaming as a possible solution to this, in regard to
teaching art, not only is streaming not usually based on results in the visual arts, but a
natural aptitude for creativity or practical drawing skills often means that some students
start with more ability than others in this area. With this inbuilt challenge however, art
education does enable more individual attention to students than other subjects often do,
due to the structure of teaching a practical subject, and, as the Ministry of Education
confirms, the best way to cater to the range of abilities of our students is to differentiate
learning for individual students through flexibility and individualisation (MOE, 2000;
MOE, 2008). This is an aim for all lessons in this unit.
Further to that, in lesson planning, the same way to give agency and maintain investment
from student is also one of the best ways to address the needs of students with diverse
levels of ability: Providing choice within activities. The technique exercise introduced in
Lesson 5 is a good example of this (Resource 4: Technique Practice - Impressionism and Pop
Art Worksheet). Students are given two options to choose from in practicing their painting
techniques after looking at Modern Art, without judgement being placed on either by the
teacher as to their difficulty - one a Van Gogh painting to emulate, the other a
Lichtenstein. I have found in the classroom,, as planned, that the more able students are
drawn to the Van Gogh painting, which is certainly harder as it requires Impressionistic
techniques, applying repeated dabs of paint to build up the required effect, while the less
able students tend to choose the Lichtenstein option based on a comic book image which
requires only flat colour.
Even a simple choice as above given to students allows them to have agency in their
learning. Jim Fay and David Funk, in their book Teaching with Love and Logic refer to this
as shared control and advocate for it even in behaviour management situations as a way of
enhancing students self-concept (1995). We either give control on our terms, they point
out, or [they] will take it on theirs. (pg. 139).
With the large practical assignment at the end of the unit (Lessons 11-16), where students
1

PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158
design and paint a large self portrait artwork, there is open choice when it comes to the
images they use, the artists models they are influenced by, and the techniques they
employ. At this point in the unit also, the teacher is available for the majority of each
lesson to aid less able students and encourage those who are doing well but are unsure.
A good way of framing this individualised approach pedagogically is through the
Response to Instruction (RTI) system, which was originally introduced in the US to cater
for students with diagnosed learning difficulties (Ashman & Elkins, 2012). RTI consists of
a three-tiered approach that allows the amount of input from the teacher for individual
students to be increased to fit the level of need (pg. 238).
Tier 1 addresses students with low performance and a poor response to instruction by
implementing classroom-wide interventions (this is said to be sufficient for 80% of
students) (pg. 239). In the case of this unit this tier would account for clear instructions
being provided on the board and verbally so students are more likely to understand, and
by starting new exercises with beginner level instruction so all students have an
understanding of the basics. In regard to using the appropriate language of art Lesson 3 is
particularly aimed at this by introducing students together to the different kinds of
words used to analyse an artwork. Likewise, before starting the self portrait exercise,
Lesson 9 provides a basic drawing the face exercise so that students understand the
correct proportions of the face. As both exercises may be largely unnecessary (but still
helpful) for the brightest students, they can be classed as fitting into Tier 1 of the RTI
framework.
Tier 2 is for those students for whom tier one alone in insufficient (pg. 239). They may or
may not have learning difficulties as such but none-the-less still require further
instruction to achieve the learning outcomes. Said to account for a further 15% of
students, their needs, in an art classroom, can be addressed with one-on-one or small
group instruction, or even minimal full class instruction while students are working
(although this can miss students who have attention issues).
Tier 3, which is not necessarily required in every classroom, particularly where streaming
is taking place, refers to the more specialised individualised intervention required by
the remaining 5% or so of students, most likely affected by one or more learning
difficulties (pg. 239). This is where extra attention outside of lesson time, and specially
altered activities can be useful to attaining student achievement. The flexibility of
2

PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158
practical activities within the art classroom pays off for these students particularly.
vi. a. Learning Styles
VARK - First proposed by Neil Fleming the VARK (previously VAK) model of recognising
the diversity of learning styles/modalities of students is designed to incorporate the
various ways in which we experience the world (Leite, et al., 2009). Standing for Visual,
Aural, Reading, and Kinaesthetic, the aim of the Fleming model is to acknowledge that
students interpret the world in different ways and may have differing natural strengths
as to how they best receive and interpret knowledge. All four of these learning styles are
emphasised throughout this unit, with some lessons incorporating all four.
Multiple Intelligences - In response to the mathematical-logical/linguistic understanding of
intelligence he saw being solely promoted in standardised IQ tests, Howard Gardner
conceived the influential theory of Multiple Intelligences, which he expounds in his
seminal work Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983), where Garner
explains the numerous fruitful ways in which we can understand intelligence outside of
this framework. His understanding has particular relevance for the art classroom, and
Howard has had a focus on arts education in his career as an educationalist. The Multiple
Intelligences theory suggests that a better way of thinking about intelligence would be
by breaking it down into its constituent parts to acknowledge that different people have
different strengths in different areas.
Initially the 7 types of Intelligence he proposed were: Logical-mathematical, Linguistic,
Spatial/Visual, Musical, Bodily-kinaesthetic, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal (Naturalistic
was added in 1993). Logical-mathematical refers to the kind of maths knowledge seen in
the likes of physics or calculus. Linguistic acknowledges those who are skilled in
understanding and using languages, word-smarts. Spatial/Visual incorporates the kind of
creative approach traditionally seen in art classrooms, but also applicable to some areas of
science and even geometry (1983). Musical Intelligence is fairly self-explanatory and
refers to a natural aptitude in music and rhythm. Bodily-kinaesthetic designates those
people who can be said to think by moving and is an intelligence often seen in dancers or
sportspeople (Robinson, 2009). Interpersonal Intelligence is seen in those who are
particularly charismatic, often leaders, who are excellent at working in a group and
interacting with others; and Intrapersonal has more of a focus on the personal, referring
to those (poets say) who experience the world primarily internally, through intuition and
emotion, often by cultivating a rich thought life (1983).
3

PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158
All of us are said to have different levels of each of these, being stronger in some more
than others, and they have an application to Learning Styles in that teaching can be
designed to cater to those who are adept in different elements of this wide range of
intelligences.
vi. b. Rationale for Acknowledging Learning Styles
While the argument that acknowledging learning styles is important because students
learn better under teaching methods which are geared towards their natural inclinations,
and there is contention over this (Leite, et al., 2009), is a potentially valid point taken into
account here, it is my understanding that the main reason for applying these ideas is as a
way of ensuring variety in teaching methods to maintain interest and provide students
with multiple avenues to explore the given subject matter (Zepke, 2003). As Nick Zepke
points out, Trying to be everything to everyone all the time ends in nervous collapse. All
you can expect is to vary your teaching enough so that students feel that their individual
learning needs are recognised and addressed some of the time. (pg. 95).
It is with this in mind that I chose to focus on Aural and Reading skills for a little under
half of the unit (Lesson 3-7 & 10) and Spatial/Visual and Kinaesthetic skills (using
Flemings model) for the remainder of the unit. The result of this is that the transitional
lessons, between the more critical and the more creative thinking lessons, are able to
incorporate all four Learning Styles. Lesson 7 is a good example of this. Students start the
lesson looking at Modern Art on slides (with images and text) and their written timelines,
and then move on to a practical technique activity based on these images (Resource 4). One
informs the other and reinforces the ideas explored in a different way. They see an artistic
style, learn about when it was popular and why is was used, and then choose one of these
styles to practice using the technique itself as a way of using established practice to
inform their own work.
The simple act of always keeping lessons interesting by changing the way students
interact with content is of enormous value (Intrator, 2003).
As regards Gardners theory of Multiple Intelligences, this is said to be of use to teachers
in that a wide range of intelligences being recognised in the classroom both adds variety
to teaching and reinforces students self-concept, as most people are strong in at least one
or two of the intelligences (Marsh, 2004).
Of the 7 Intelligences listed above all but two (Logical-mathematical and Musical) are
4

PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158
aimed to be comprehensively included in this unit, however Logical-mathematical
Intelligence is called on for Lesson 9, when students need to pay attention to proportions
and measurement to learn to accurately draw the face. I can also see playing music in the
art classroom as part of my practice, and there are certainly ways to fully incorporate both
of these emphasises in art education.
While Spatial/Visual, and to a lesser extent Bodily-kinaesthetic, Intelligences are
naturally incorporated into practical art practice, the further Intelligences are a particular
focus of this unit.
Linguistic Intelligence, linked to literacy which is discussed above, is strongly relevant to
Lesson 3-7 as we look at the language used when talking about art and art history. Further
to that Interpersonal skills are encouraged throughout the unit through class discussion
(as discussed under the Key Competencies section above) and particularly through the
applied group work required in Lessons 6 & 10. (Marsh, 2004).
With these acknowledged, a major area of engagement incorporated into this unit based
on Gardners ideas is that of Intrapersonal Intelligence. This is present and an integral
element of Lessons 1-2 & 10-16 as a reflection of the title of the unit: Art & Identity. In fact
my inclusion of the acknowledgement of Intrapersonal Intelligence is a key reason for
choosing Gardners Multiple Intelligences as a way of looking at learning styles. It
promotes self-reflection in students which is integral to students developing their
Identity Mandalas in the first two lessons (Lessons 1 & 2) and to creating meaningful self
portrait paintings towards the end of the unit (Lessons 10-16), not to mention to
developing a meaningful art practice overall.
x. Gender and Sexuality Diversity Inclusivity
As a final note, I have included this section in my unit planning as an acknowledgment
that in the study of art, and particularly with art history, is has been the unfortunate case
that while female representation has been prevalent (particularly when it comes to the
female nude), the acknowledgement and study of female artists has been overwhelmingly
under-representative (Berger, 1973). Womens experience has largely been defined by
male artists and there is still a massive inequality in the contemporary art market.
Likewise it has been common for queer histories and identities to be obscured by
historiography.
With this in mind, just as I see it as important to include a diversity of cultures in the
5

PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158
artist models I incorporate, I make a concerted effort to include women and queer artists
in my lesson planning. Lesson 10 is a good example of this. Of the seven artist models used
by students four of them are women, and even in the art history aspect of this unit I have
included women artists while pointing out to the class the disparity of female to male
experience in the Western canon.
6

PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158
References
Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Ashman, A. & Elkins, J. (2012). Education for Inclusion and Diversity (Fourth Edition). NSW:
Pearson.
Ayers, W. (1995). To Become A Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Berger, J. (1973). Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books.
Blackledge, D. & Hunt, B. (1985). Sociological Interpretations of Education. London: Croom
Helm.
HarperCollins Publishers. (1997). Collins New English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fay, J. & Funk, D. (1995). Teaching with Love and Logic: Taking Control of the Classroom.
Golden, Colorado: The Love and Logic Institute, Inc.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Harris, B. & Zucker, S. (2013). Smarthistory. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from
http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/.
Heer, R. (2012). The Knowledge Dimension / Cognitive Process Dimension Model. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State university Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York:
Routledge.
Intrator, S. M. (2003). Tuned in and Fired Up: How Teaching Can Inspire Real Learning in the
Classroom. USA: Yale University Press.
Johnson, E. (1997). Cultural Norms Affect Oral Communication in the Classroom, in New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, Summer 1997.
Jones, A. (1991). At School Ive Got a Chance. Palmerston North: Dunmore.
Kelly, A. V. (2007). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M., & Shi, Y. (2009) Attempted Validation of the Scores of the VARK:
Learning Styles Inventory With MultitraitMultimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models.
New York: SAGE Publications.
Marsh, C. (2004). Becoming a Teacher (Third Edition). NSW: Pearson.
Meyer, L. H., Penetito, W., Hynds., Savage, C. Hindle, R. & Sleeter, C. (2010). Evaluation of Te
7

PaulStevens,Nov2013ID:1075158
Kotahitanga: 2004-2008. Wellington: EducationCounts.govt.nz.
Ministry of Education. (1999). Non-English-Speaking-Background Students: A Handbook for
Schools. Wellington: Learning Media Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2000). Gifted and Talented Students: Meeting Their Needs in New
Zealand Schools. Wellington: Learning Media Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media
Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Nurturing Gifted and Talented Children. Wellington:
Learning Media Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Te Kotahitanga. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from
http://tekotahitanga.tki.org.nz/.
Ministry of Education. (2013). International Students in New Zealand, Education Counts.
Retrieved November 13, 2013, from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/international/internatio
nal-students-in-new-zealand
Robinson, K. (2009). The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. New York:
Penguin Books.
Ross, A. (2000). Curriculum Construction and Critique. London: Falmer.
Wong, S. H. (1990). Locus of Control and Ethnic Membership: A Study of Secondary School
Students. Hamilton: University of Waikato.
Wood, P. (1992). Teaching Our Students: Adapting Teaching Styles to Cultural and Class
Differences. In Set: Research Information for Teachers. Number 2, 1992.
Zepke, N. (2003). Inclusive Teaching: Making a Space for Difference, in Zepke, N., Nugent,
D. & Leach, L. (eds.). (2003). Reflection to Transformation: A Self-Help Book for Teachers
(pgs. 99-103). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

8