Bresler.+Liora

//** The Subservient, Co-Equal, Affective, and Social Integration Styles and Their Implications for the Arts. Liora Bresler **//

ABSTRACT This publication summarizes the various ways that educators interpret “arts integration” and the implications of each interpretation as it is translated to the classroom. //“Obviously, integration, like other concepts, is a construction, and can mean very different things in terms of contents, resources, structures, and pedagogies to different people; yet the multiplicity of meanings is not always explicit in the ways that the term is used. Each of the constituencies presented (subservient, co-equal - cognitive, affective, social) brings to the concept its own visions on contents and pedagogies in the arts and a different model of what integration implies”.// The following arts integration perspectives are defined: · //infusion – integrating a particular subject across the curriculum// · //topics-within-disciplines – integrating multiple strands of the same discipline within the instructional setting// · //interdisciplinary – maintaining traditional subject boundaries while aligning content and concepts from one discipline with those of another// · //thematic – subordinating subject matter to a them, allowing the boundaries between disciplines to blur// · //holistic – addressing the needs of the whole child, including cognitive, physical, moral, affective, and spiritual dimensions// · //multidisciplinary – looking at a situation as it was portrayed in different disciplines// · //interdisciplinary – considering a problem in terms of different disciplines and then synthesizing these perspectives in coming up with a more general account// · //metadisciplinary – comparing the practices within a particular discipline// · //transdisciplinary – examining a concept as it appears in political and in physical discourse// Each arts integration style //(subservient, co-equal - cognitive, affective, and social)// is discussed in terms of historical origin and implications for learners and educators. Specific examples are usually cited for each. The publication explains that these styles are rarely implemented in pure form and that components are often blended as they are translated to the classroom. It points to the ideas that it may be important for teachers to understand the fundamental differences in assumptions about the relationship of art and art instruction to other content areas and learning goals. It concludes that the most common arts integration styles operating in schools today are subservient and social integration. It suggests reasons as to why this is so and also points to why co-equal and cognitive arts integration styles should be considered. QUESTIONS/IMPLICATIONS • The terminology used in this publication seems like good foundational understanding for us and for our participants. What vocabulary should we select and present and in what ways would this understanding be most useful? • The four arts integration styles discussed may help us and our participants to clarify goals, values, and pedagogical issues. Is it important for our participants to understand these styles and their historical origins? To what extent do we want to guide our participants in the process of clarify their values and goals regarding teaching and learning? Is this an important component in developing arts integration? How do we know if this is something that we should do? How will we do it? • Implementing each of these different arts integration styles requires drastically different structures and pedagogical skills. We may value one style but due to resources and schedule restraints be confined to another. How will we work with that tension?