I've mentioned before that I follow a certain line of teaching in my classroom called Inquiry Based Learning. In reality I use a mix of teaching pedagogy, as do all teachers I know, but they all share the common theme of making the learning child centered.
Inquiry Based learning is a type of learning that stems from the students questions that are connected to what is being taught. Think of it like this:
For every class I write a lesson plan that outlines what we are going to do that day and when we are going to do it. Since this is such a long class the lesson plan is actually a few lesson plans and a schedule. Each day has a similar structure - lunch, class time, work time, break time, class time, and work time. Each lesson plan has a main goal - imagery, coloring techniques, different kinds of animation, etc. Each class also has a limited amount of time - a little less than 2 hrs. (Not including lunch). There is no way I could get through everything I plan for each class, nor do I ever go into class expecting to. There are two reasons for this - one is that as a teacher having too much to do in a day is much better than finding yourself without anything to do. The other is that I know the day is going to fluctuate depending on the kids needs, wants, and questions.
I could, and many teachers do, walk into the class with a detailed outline of every moment of the class and expect the kids to follow that. And there are points were I expect the kids to follow certain lessons, or to hold off working for 10 minutes so we can talk about what concept art or frames per seconds means. But I find it much more beneficial to all of us if I let them be a part of what happens in the class. Any parent who has a child in this class can attest to the fact that things are run in a very "democratic way" and any child in the class can tell you that we vote on nearly everything. This is because, in this environment, it is important that the kids feel that their input is just as important as mine. So each day I'll ask if they want to work, or if they want to learn about animation. And if break is planned for 1:25 but at 1:23 they are all quiet and concentrated and into their work, I'll shift break, in the same way I would shift it up to 1:15 if they were active and clearly needed to get out.
But inquiry based learning goes beyond a democratic class. I spend a lot of 1-on-1 time with the kids, talking about their projects, their plans, and what they want to do. And if what they want to do is spend the time I set aside for concept art focusing on how to draw a foot at a certain angle for a certain pose, then that is what they will get to do. Or if they want to rush through their flipbook project because it is less interesting to them than some of the work in their sketchbooks, than so be it. This class is based around what the kids want to explore, and I am only there to guide them. Yes, there are certain requirements and certain areas being taught, but that is to help them focus in their questions. After all, while I would love to spend time exploring with kids why it is that snow doesn't always collect on the ground, but an art class is not the place for that. So instead we can shift our focus to our production, or learning about animation, or going over a quick guide to drawing a face, rather than just what it says in the lesson plan.
Inquiry based learning is very similar to constructivist based learning, another pedagogy that I work to incorporate into all of my lessons. According to the book Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach "the premise of constructivist learning is that children discover new concepts for themselves and internalize these concepts by constructing valid connections to prior information." In other words, kids will learn when they can connect new concepts to old concepts.
I have used the term prior knowledge before without bothering to define it, as it sort of defines itself, but for clarity purposes I will state it here. Prior Knowledge is knowledge that kids (and adults) already have on a subject. It is knowledge that has been internalized, and can be called on again to help them learn new things.
So for example, if kids are learning about the water cycle, they will likely already have prior knowledge that the sun heats up water and forms some droplets, they just may not know that the vocab word of "condensation" or that it goes one step farther and "evaporates" the water. But through experimentation where they get to see this happen, and through a teacher giving them vocab words like evaporation, they will make the appropriate connection with the knowledge they had before, and internalize these concepts. This is a lot more affective than having them read about evaporation and then testing them on the vocab.
In an art class kids have a lot of prior knowledge. They have been drawing for ages, and they likely know a lot about how to make marks on a paper. So I don't teach kids how to draw or even how to draw well, I teach them what they think will help them, and what I think they can connect to. Blending with colored pencils, for example, or using different sized pens to make the right line thickness. And if there is something that they will benefit from doing themselves - like learning that you need to do pen, then watercolors - I will let them experiment and make those connections for themselves. And, if it's something almost entirely new, like animation, I will work with them through discussion after discussion, to help them draw their own conclusions and learn the vocab words like "plot" and "style" in their own time.
Essentially, it is important to me that the class feels less structured and less strict than a typical general curriculum classroom. Of course I have a lot going for me - no standards, no testing, fewer kids, longer classes, etc. - than most teachers get in their everyday classroom. But seeing what works and what doesn't in this small class will give me a lot of prior knowledge for my general curriculum classroom teaching. Also, by flowing with the kids, I learn more about their learning; what they do and do not understand, what they can and cannot abstract, and what they are and are not yet ready for. Which, in turn, helps me distinguish what is the result of developmental level, and what is the result of the individual.
For more information of Inquiry learning: Follow This Link
And for more information about Constructivist Learning: Follow this link
Martin, David J. (2012) Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
