Groups of people exploring material innovation

This is a follow up to my recent post on the role of materials in children’s learning through art. If you have not read this already, I recommend checking it out before reading on. 

Here I present four different organisations – a university research centre, a design consultancy, a creative recycle centre and a children’s art studio – who are all exploring materiality in new and experimental ways. I selected these organisations as I am interested in thinking about how materials are being researched and considered in a collective way, among groups of people with diverse interests, skills and expertise.

An image illustrating the generation of one of Bjork’s ‘Rottlace’ masks – a collaboration between the musician and the MIT Media Lab’s Mediating Matter group. Image credit: http://www.creativeapplications.net

MIT Media Lab: Mediating Matter group (USA)

I am a massive fan girl of the MIT Media Lab. For those of you who are not unfamiliar with this university research centre, it is an interdisciplinary lab ‘that encourages the unconventional mixing and matching of seemingly disparate research areas’ (MIT website, 2018). I have always seen the Media Lab as an epicentre for innovative and ground-breaking work across a myriad of disciplines such as art, technology, design and education.

The Lab has numerous research groups, including the Mediated Matter team. This team of scientists and designers explore ‘material ecologies’ – a research area at the intersection of material science, digital fabrication, computational design, biology and design. Their week particularly focuses on how biology and nature can be used to inspire the creation and use of materials. This can then be used to then generate new forms of design and innovative material practices and processes that can then be applied in many different ways from 3D printed death masks to digitally created molten glass that transmits media to Bjork’s Rottlace mask.

Neri Oxman leads the Mediating Matter team. She has a great TED talk on the design at the intersection of technology and biology where she discusses how digital fabrication can come together and interact with the natural world.

The Cooper Hewitt collection contains numerous objects made by the Mediating Matter group. The museum also featured this video on their work as part of their Design Triennial. Please watch this – it beautiful and interesting as hell:

Material Driven (UK)

Material Driven is a platform that brings together artists, designers and architects that are producing new materials or working with pre-existing materials in experimental ways. The organisation aims to highlight ‘innovative materials, their processes of making, and the creators behind them.’ The Material Driven blog features really interesting articles and interviews with creative professionals exploring material fabrication in creative ways. I particularly enjoyed this article on Hannah Elizabeth Jones’ BioMarble material that brings together processes and practices from textiles, recycling and biodegradable matter. Last year Material Driven also put together a travelling material library called ‘Materials in Motion’ that aims to further showcase and share innovative ways creative work with materials.

ReMida Bologna (Italy)

ReMida centres are creative recycle centres that support the idea that waste such as recycled materials and industry cut-offs like plastic, wood and cardboard can be used as creative and artistic resources in communities. There are numerous ReMida centres located around the globe, including this one in Reggio Emilia:

ReMida Bologna is a part of this international network. The centre has an exceptional education programme for children, teachers and adults that allows people from different communities to creatively play and learn through the recycled materials. ReMida Bologna also has a great Instagram account (pictured below) where they post documentation from their various recycled material projects.

ReMida Bologna’s Instagram feed

I love ReMida centres, or any place that promotes creative learning through recycled materials. When I scroll through the Instagram feed of ReMida Bologna I find it so inspiring to see how people are using familiar materials in unfamiliar ways. Like being creative with the combination of materials that are presented together and how they are placed and situated in a space. Loose part materials provide a special way of encouraging new processes of exploring and connecting with the world. All of these things can be used to ignite children’s imagination in new ways, generating interesting entry points for experimentation and learning.

Atelier M (Japan)

Some of the most interesting artists and educators that I ever met are renegade souls doing their own innovative things in their little corner of the world. This is how I would describe Atelier M. The organisation is essentially a children’s atelier, or art studio, located in Naha, Okinawa in Japan. I love their experimental approach to working with materials and children. It feels so fresh and creative. Atelier M also have great YouTube and Instagram pages – check these out. They speak for themselves.

Children play in an activity at Atelier M. Image credit: atelier-m.tumblr.com

I hope you find these groups as inspiring as I do. I am sure there are many more organisations out there that are doing amazing work with materials so please comment below!

Have an awesome week.

Louisa xx

The role of materials in children’s learning through art

This post discusses the possibilities of materials and material play in children’s learning through art. I draw on the theories of loose parts and new materialism to argue that materials, including artworks, play an active and participatory role in opening-up divergent thinking and inquiry-led learning in schools, home and informal learning contexts such as art museums.

Why do materials matter?

Materials and material exploration have long been a part of artistic inquiry. Since Frobel’s development of the kindergarten in the late 1700’s, they have also held an important place in early childhood settings. In the 1970’s Simon Nicholson presented the theory of loose parts – the proposition that young children’s creative empowerment comes from the presence of open-ended materials that can be constructed, manipulated and transformed through self-directed play. It is fair to say that material content, including artworks and art materials, hold tremendous possibilities for facilitating children’s inquiry-led learning in new and divergent ways. I consider materials to be one of multiple forces that learning can emerge from in an art museums. Others may include social interaction between people, spatial layout of things and the delivery of curatorial content such as through audio guides or information resources.

As reading and writing are often privileged in school curriculum, experimentation with different materials can provide new opportunities for alternate and aesthetically-driven pedagogies to be produced (check out this blog for how I define pedagogy). This is to say that different materials may encourage different ways of thinking, learning and being. For example, in a previous posts on ‘suggesting as a technique for facilitating children’s learning through art’ I talk about the different cognitive, social, emotional and aesthetic learning pathways that two different materials: plastic cylinders and large paper sheets may present. Whilst the cylinders may provoke explorations around stacking, placing, dismantling, balancing, arrangement and construction, the large paper sheet may suggest gentle movements, swaying, rolling, folding, hiding and enveloping. Through experimentation, the properties and abilities of a material may change, creating new starting points for further inquiry and experimentation.

The active role of materials in art practices and learning

In the arts, different materials such as paint, clay, paper, resin, fabric, wood or plastic can be experimented with in a myriad of ways. In art forms such as dance, live art and socially engaged practices, materials may be slightly more abstract such as the human body, sound, participants and society. I believe that art materials are not just a tool for self-expression or a thing for children to manipulate; they are an active and participatory force in the production of learning and knowledge. For example, check out this lovely video by visual artist Shirazeh Houshiary in which she talks about the active role of materials in her practice:

I really connect with this, especially the comment: “… they are not representation of the form but a pulsation of the form. I am not interested in painting. I am not interested in the processes of making in the conventional sense of representation. I am trying to get into how something works. This process has taught me a huge amount about who I am, which is surprising. It a process of learning for me more than anything else.” The paint and paintings are active, participatory and dynamic in the artist’s creative experimentation.

Art materials as an invitation to experiment

Material play has the ability to encourage emergent thinking processes, allowing children to produce new understandings as well as experiencing the world from multiple perspectives. However, materials also have the ability to be used in static and predictable ways that shut down creativity and divergent thinking. Whilst I do love Instagram feeds and craft blogs that share ideas for children’s art activities, I am cautious that these may unintentionally encourage imitation and fixed ways of using materials with children. This may then reduce the ability for experimental thinking and practices to emerge.

The challenge to me – and everyone working in learning settings with children – is to keep experimenting, keep questioning, keep venturing into the unknown and the yet-to-be-discovered of art, play, materiality and pedagogy.

I am sure many of you have really interesting insights on this topic and it would be lovely to hear them. Why is children’s play with materials important to you? What are your favorite materials to experiment with?

Further links

The Institute of Making at the University College of London has a great online material library – perfect for anyone who likes to nerd out about different material forms: http://www.instituteofmaking.org.uk/materials-library

My friend Nina Odegard has written a brilliant article on children’s learning with recycled ‘junk’ materials. Nina formally ran a creative recycle centre in Norway: http://www.academia.edu/14201590/When_matter_comes_to_matter_working_pedagogically_with_junk_materials

Professor Pat Thomson, Nina Odegard and I recently did a conference symposium on children’s material play. Check it out: https://louisapenfold.com/2017/12/06/childrens-learning-with-new-found-and-recycled-stuff-symposium-at-aare/

Here is the link to my blog post on Simon Nicholson’s theory of loose parts: https://louisapenfold.com/2016/05/23/simon-nicholson-on-the-theory-of-loose-parts/

I also love the book ‘Encounters with Materials in Early Childhood Education’ by Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw, Sylvia Kind and Laurie Kocher.

‘Children’s learning with new, found and recycled stuff’ symposium at AARE

This post discusses the symposium presentation ‘Material play: children’s learning with new, found and recycled ‘stuff’ given by Professor Pat Thomson, Nina Odegard and Louisa Penfold at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) in Canberra, Australia.

Image: Bradley Cummings

On November 27, 2017 Pat Thomson (University of Nottingham), Nina Odegard (University College of Oslo and Akershus) and myself (University of Nottingham) presented at the AARE conference on young children’s learning with materials through play. Julianne Moss from Deakin University was the session discussant. The symposium was put together as a result of our common research interest in material-led play in early childhood education.

The symposium was built upon the proposition that many educators and artists working with young children are committed to play-based practices and understand this as critical to individual and social learning. The session focused specifically on early years arts-orientated play through asking: when children are ‘doing art’ play what are they learning with the materials they choose? The presentations explored the idea that when children are playing with materials they are simultaneously:

• learning about concepts such as line, pattern and form;
• learning about the properties and potentials of materials such as how they can be pushed, pilled, stretched and transformed;
• learning what materials are and do in the world;
• being called and directed by the materials, forming possible selves with materials and forming new relations with the world
• being given the possibilities to work with materials without having to name, define or categorize what they are doing

Why is this important? Academics and education practitioners are becoming increasingly interested in ways that humans can and need to be de-centred in order to take account of the importance the material, both organic and inorganic, worlds in which we live. This is essential in creating discourses and practices that offer hopeful action in an ecologically and ethically challenged world. This also comes at a time when policy makers around the world increasingly position play-based early childhood curriculum as trivial and not sufficiently focused on knowledge and skills. Consequentially, we identify an urgent need to push further with discussion on why materials matter in early childhood play-based arts programmes and projects. Our concern was to not only explore and explain the importance of play in early childhood and to promote the value of the arts, but also to broaden our explanations of what this is.

Young children’s thinking with natural materials in art museums

Image: Louisa Penfold

Louisa’s presentation explored the invitations natural materials such as logs, leaves, sticks, stones and clay offer in young children’s play in art museums. Data generated in an early year’s art studio session at the Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester, was used to consider the encounters (Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2017) between children, artists, curators, artworks, materials and the museum space. Lenz-Taguchi’s notion of intra-active pedagogies (2010) – where one’s attention shifts from interpersonal relationships to the relations between humans and non-human entities – was drawn upon to consider children’s learning with and through artworks and materials in the art museum.

Descriptive examples of visual documentation including photography and video footage was discussed in relation to how the ‘stuff’ curated for the art studio provoked open-ended possibilities for children’s thinking and learning. The presentation concluded with the suggestion that through thinking with materials, new pedagogies are able to be constructed that allow artists, learning curators, children and their families to continuously produce and reconsider the relations between themselves, others, artworks, materials and the natural world.

Imagining immanent didactics

Image: Louisa Penfold

Nina’s paper focused on the concepts of aesthetics and aesthetic explorations, ethics and how these open possibilities for creative thinking, doing and being. Concepts of new materialism were discussed in relation to the potential they bring for expanded discourses and practices relating to recycling, sustainability and consumption.

The presentation drew upon data generated in a ReMida creative recycle centre in Norway. Results suggested that children were ‘rhizomatic thinkers’ (Dahlberg, 2016, p. 131) in their aesthetic explorations of recycled materials in which children’s learning shifted between disciplines to make use of the ‘vibrant matter’ (Bennet, 2010) and ‘how matter comes to matter’ (Barad, 2008). Nina also focused on pedagogical practice in which children’s process itself is valued, and there is a reduced or no focus on the result (Dahlberg, 2016). This builds on previous research out of the ReMida centre (Odegard, 2016) that argued that recycled materials can open up to the discovery of new ‘hidden’ pedagogical spaces, that produce meeting places for the emergence of new ideas (Odegard, 2012). The children´s exploration with vibrant matter like recycled materials seems to evoke creativity, curiosity, problem-solving and narrate stories. Through this, the paper argued for a paradigm shift away from the neoliberal way of measuring and categorizing learning and towards an emphasis on the collective and creative pedagogical processes.

What can rope do with us? Agency/power and freedom/captivity in art play.

Image: Bradley Cummings

Pat’s paper, co-written with Anton Franks, discussed an ongoing ethnographic study conducted within the ‘World without walls’ programme run by Serpentine Galleries in London. The programme supports artists undertaking residencies in one early childhood centre in central London. The residencies focus on different kinds of art/play that draw upon the artist’s practice and selection of materials for the programme. The presentation discussed data generated from Albert Potrony’s residency in which the artist elected to use large material objects such as card, plastic, foam and rope.

Throughout the sessions, numerous children were drawn to/called by the rope (Bennett, 2010). Perhaps unexpectedly, the children wrapped/tied up their teachers and the learning curator with the rope. The data suggested an explicit exploration of the kinds of power-laden relationships that exist between adults and children in educational settings. Drawing on field notes, photographs and interviews, the paper presented an analysis of the materials on offer and their affordances. The presentation concluded considering the material differences made by, with and through the rope, and probe further the ways in which it co-produced caring and ethical experimentations with power, agency, captivity and freedom.

Following the presentations, attendees had an opportunity to play with an array of materials arranged in the symposium space. As a group we then asked and explored questions such as why were particular materials chosen and not others? What was possible with the materials and what wasn’t? What about the play experience can be put into words and what can’t? Did you feel a desire/need to name, categorize or define your installation? What senses were used, and what feelings were evoked through playing with the materials?

Overall, we hoped that the symposium shared thinking and opened up new discussions around early childhood education, play, the arts and materialism. We were inspired by the questions and discussion amongst the group throughout the presentation and hope to build upon this in the future.

Image: Bradley Cummings

Image: Bradley Cummings

References

Barad, K. (2008). Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. In S. Alaimo & S. J. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 120-157). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Bennet, J. (2010). Vibrant matter, a poltical ecology of things: Duke University Press.

Dahlberg, G. (2016). An ethico- aesthetic paradigm as an alternative discourse to the quality assurance discourse. 17(1), 124-133. doi:10.1177/1463949115627910

Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Odegard, N. (2012). When matter comes to matter – Working pedagogically with junk materials. Education Inquiry, 3(3), 387-400.

Odegard, Nina, & Rossholt, Nina. (2016). In-between spaces. Tales from a Remida. In Ann Beate Reinertsen (Ed.), Becoming Earth. A Post Human Turn in Educational Discourse Collapsing Nature/Culture Divides. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Pacini-Ketchabaw, V; Kind, S; & Kocher, L. (2017). Encounters with materials in early childhood education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Thinking through making

This post introduces Tim Ingold’s concept of thinking through making alongside the work of three contemporary artists: Takesada Matsutani, Tino Sehgal and Katharina Grosse.

Film still from Eric Minh Swenson’s film ‘Takesada Matsutani’ (full clip below).

The title of this blog is borrowed from Tim Ingold’s text ‘Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture’ (2013). In this, he explores the idea that the thought processes of makers and the materials they use are in a continuous process of correspondence and becoming with one another.

Ingold argues that creativity emerges from within an ongoing, improvisational process between makers, materials and other non-human things such as tools and the physical environment. These non-human play an active role in influencing the thought processes of the maker and vice-versa. The creation of objects and learning transpires from within complex and reciprocal relations between these forces.

This suggests that new objects and artefacts such as artworks, are not produced from humans projecting ready-made thoughts onto the materials as this approach “… leaves out the very creativity of the processes where both things, and ideas are generated. They (the new objects and artefacts) are generated on one hand in the flows and transformations of materials and on the other hand in the movement of the imagination and the sensory awareness of the maker… (Ingold, 2012).” Artworks become moments of materialised intensity that work to constitute a much larger, expansive and continuously interconnected network of relations. Through this, Ingold challenges the premises of what creativity is and how it is produced.

How does an art museum differ from an art studio in relation to the production of ideas, meanings, artworks and culture?

How do artworks and materials ‘speak back’ and influence the thought processes of humans, and vice-versa?

Does the role of the ‘material’ change when it is not a physical thing, such as in performance, sound or live art? If so, how?

References

Ingold, T (2012). Thinking through making. Presentation from the Institute for Northern Culture ‘Tales from the North.’ Viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygne72-4zyo

Ingold, T (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Oxon: Routledge.

 

What is a children’s ‘creative learning environment’ in an art museum?

In this post I explore the question of ‘what is a children’s creative learning environment in an art museum?’ Various understandings of this question are drawn upon to consider its relationship with other terminology such as ‘space’ and ‘relational learning.’

A shadow self-portrait taken by child

Creativity stems from the latin word ‘creō’ that means to make or to create. This word  suggests that creativity is a process that supports the formation of previously inexistent things such as ideas, physical objects or meanings. An environment can be understood in various ways, including possible associations with the natural and physical world. The Oxford online dictionary gives two definitions of environment. Firstly as ‘the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates’ and secondly as ‘the setting or conditions in which a particular activity is carried on.’ Both definitions imply that an environment is something that extends beyond physicality to non-material forces such as society, emotions, discourse (the way we talk and communicate) and concepts.

A creative learning environment can therefore be seen as a specific temporal, social, historical and cultural context in which these forces intertwine and momentarily shape how, what and why a learner is learning. Once this moment has passed, the forces unravel before continuing to transform and recombine in future learning contexts. This connects with what cultural geographer Doreen Massey’s (2005) describes in her writing on ‘space’ as forming from the emergent interrelations between human and non-human things over time and place. A learner’s experience in a learning environment can therefore be seen as a series of interconnected relational moments in which these diverse and complex forces come together.

This framing is built on an assumption that the world, and human knowledge, is in a continuous state of change, transformation and interconnection. In an art museum context, this could take many forms such as a dedicated space for children and families, a workshop, a performance, an exhibition or even a person’s experience of walking through the building to go to the bathroom.

A creative learning environment allows for the expansion of possibilities for learning instead of limiting them. Pre-set curriculum, guidelines, policy and regulations in schools have tendencies to control and reduce children’s ability to construct new relations in their learning and play (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 2007). Moving away from this, art museums are uniquely places sites for learning through their separation from formal curriculum. Whilst art institutions still have their own rules, regulations and guidelines, they also offer the potential for expansive learning possibilities with and through art. This then presents the possibility for new and complex relations to form over time, creating a network of connections between peoples, places, meanings and things.

To relate this back to the physical design of a learning environment, Mark Dudek argues that architecture for early childhood centres is not driven by a need for what is novelty and new but rather by an environment’s capacity “to grow and develop alongside the evolving patterns of its hosts, especially those of the children themselves… (Dudek, 2013: 7-9).” This suggests that a significant strength of a physical learning environment is in its ability to be creatively adapted and modified to new relations that emerge over time. Flexibility in design is therefore critical.

I am also drawn to the term ‘creative laboratory’ as a means of describing the pedagogical principles outlined above. The associations connected with a lab, such as it being a place that encourages experimentation, questioning, testing things out and productive failures seems like a metaphorical fit for these ideas. However it could also be argued that these qualities are simultaneously emblematic of an artist’s studio, FabLab or makerspace. Perhaps the term ‘creative learning environment’ is an over-arching expression for any learning context that encourages the expansive, dynamic and unpredictable growth of human knowledge.

References

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. R. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

Dudek, M (2016). Nurseries: A design guide. Oxon: Routledge.

Massey, D (2005). For Space. London: SAGE Publications.

‘Researching young children’s experiences in museums’ event at MMU

This post reports on the ‘Space, materials, the body: Researching young children’s experiences in museums’ symposium held at Manchester Metropolitan University on May 23, 2017. 

Photo pinched from: underfivesinmuseums.com

I almost did not write this post. In fact, I had basically written it off as I didn’t have the mental capacity to do it immediately after the event and now several months have gone by and it seems kind of outdated. However, the ‘Space, materials, the body: Researching young children’s experiences in museums’ had quite an impact on me and my thinking. I want to write about it because it I felt like the ideas that were discussed made a real contribution around the possibilities of early childhood education in cultural institutions.

The symposium aimed to bring together researchers and practitioners working with young children in museums. Key questions explored throughout the sessions included:

• How can we conceptualise child in museums differently?
• How can we think about the material, spatial and bodily nature of very young children as they explore and move through museum spaces?
• What are the implications of this for museum provision (such as programming and interpretation), and what does research need to look at next?

The event was coincidentally held the day after the Manchester terrorist attack. As I walked through the university to the conference venue I could feel the meteorite storm of emotions from the morning news circulating inside me. Manchester holds a special place in my heart. I absolutely loved the three months that I lived there in 2016. The mix of the industrial buildings and vibrant artistic communities reminded me much of my beloved hometown of Melbourne, Australia. My experience of living in Manchester was of a place full of proper hard-working people, doing quite innovative things in a very understated way while also being warm, genuine and welcoming. Of course, there are exceptions to this Northern England stereotype but I felt so at home there. I was very excited to be back in town. I guess this is why the attack felt like such a momentary dagger to the heart.

Abi Hackett, Christina MacRae and Lisa Procter presented a keynote paper on the topic of ‘Vibrancy, repetition, movement: Reconceptualising young children in museums.’ The presentation drew upon post-humanist theory to re-frame how we interpret children’s behaviour and learning in museums. I was particularly interested to hear how the team described museum objects as ‘entanglements’ of the human and non-human worlds. Through drawing on data from various research projects, the team also discussed aspects of human experiences that were difficult to rationalise or capture in words. These ‘non-representations’ add to the complexity of museum programming and construct new ways of thinking about children’s meaning-making experiences.

I most enjoyed Rachel Holmes and Christina MacRae’s workshop on de-centring children as the sole locus of meaning-making in museums. The session used data collected from the Clore interactive studio at Manchester City Art Gallery to explore three different constructions of childhood: the cognitive child, the socio-constructivist child and the post-human child. As a group we analysed and interpreted the data through these different lenses and discussed the limitations and possibilities of each construction. A convincing point was made in relation to the necessity to think beyond one’s discipline when interpreting data and developing programming.

I unfortunately missed Andrew Stevenson’s presentation on ‘sound walking as a method’ as a result of our presentations being run in parallel. I was disappointed as upon first reading of the abstract, ‘sound walking’ sounded suspiciously like something one may have thought up whilst taking ‘shrooms at Burning Man. On second reading it also sounded like an interesting, left-of-centre methodology that may illuminate non-verbal ways of experiencing places.

I gave a talk on pedagogical documentation as a tool for learning and change in children’s art museum programming. The presentation reported on a 13-week action research project that introduced pedagogical documentation – a process that seeks to make children’s and adult’s learning visible –  to the early year’s Atelier programme at the Whitworth, University of Manchester. Key findings from the research suggest that pedagogical documentation can be made specific to gallery learning and used to record a wide array of children’s and family’s experiences. These observations can then be used to generate collaborative critical reflection that can then be used to inform future programme planning. The research also indicated that pedagogical documentation is useful in supporting gallery team’s reconsideration of assumptions, ethics and practices towards children in art museums. This then allows for practices to become more complex, for that complexity to be made visible and therefore open to interpretation from others. This process can be used to support the emergence of alternate pedagogies that are constructed from within a specific social, political, cultural and temporal context. Any die-hard pedagogical documentation fans can read the full abstract here.

I also attended Laura Trafi Prat’s practical workshop on ‘drawing as a method of inquiry’ that explored this artistic process as a means of encountering museums in a more embodied and material way. As a group we created a series of unfinished abstract drawings that were ‘responsive to life as movement, change and flow’ (taken from the workshop abstract).

Overall, I felt the event really pushed the boundaries of how academics and practitioners think about young children in museums. A challenge that researchers, including me, may face in drawing upon post-humanist constructions of childhood is around how these ideas are put into a simple, concise and useful form that non-academics can then incorporate into their everyday practices with children in different museum contexts.

Abi Hackett has also setup a new ‘Under 5’s in Museums’ website that includes extended outlines of the presenter’s abstracts from the event as well as updates on museum related research projects from the Education and Social Research Institute at Manchester Metropolitan University.

 

Techniques for facilitating children’s learning in art museums: Suggesting

This is the second post in a series on techniques for facilitating children’s learning with and through art in museums. The first presented broader ideas and debates underpinning facilitated learning. Each post will include a description of a technique in addition to how and when it may be useful. These should not be seen as all-conclusive methods of teaching and learning but more as different options to experiment with. I see these posts as thinking snapshots and hope they might generate deeper consideration around how others understand and implement methods in their context. So, let’s hear it for….

Suggesting

To suggest something means to present an idea for consideration (Cambridge Dictionary online, 2017). Suggestions give children a choice as to how their learning path may proceed (Mac Naughton & Williams, 2009). Suggestions can be made verbally through language or non-verbally through actions such as selecting materials, the positioning of equipment or physical gestures. Like other facilitated learning techniques such as questioning, modelling and giving feedback, suggestions can encourage children to explore their learning processes in a new or deeper way, leading to more complex thinking over time.

Image one credit: Centro Internazionale Loris Malaguzzi

Suggesting differs from direct instruction in that it implies there are options. If a suggestion is being used, it is important to consider that a child may not want to act upon it. If a child does not have an option, for example if an artwork cannot be touched due to conservation requirements then direct instruction may be a more appropriate means of communicating information. This could also be accompanied by an explanation as to why there is no choice. For example, “we cannot touch this picture as we have special oils on our hands that are good for keeping our skin soft but if we touch the artwork these can damage it.” If this information was delivered as a suggestion such as “perhaps you could try not touching the artwork” it might be unclear and confusing as to what the child can and cannot do.

Image two credit: Centro Internazionale Loris Malaguzzi

Suggestions can also be made without human intervention. The selection and arrangement of artworks, materials, concepts and resources could propose particular ways of thinking and physically experiencing a gallery space. For example, the plastic cylinders in Image One (top) and the large paper sheets in Image Two (bottom) may prompt significantly different cognitive, social, emotional and aesthetic learning processes. The cylinders may provoke explorations around stacking, placing, dismantling, balancing, arrangement and construction. Alternatively, the large paper sheet may suggest gentle movements, swaying, rolling, folding, hiding and enveloping. These ways of experiencing art and gallery spaces may then catalyse or restrict particular meaning-making and thought processes. An immersive art installation such as Yayoi Kusama’s Obliteration Room could also make various suggestions towards people’s engagement that changes over time as the materials, spatial arrangement and meanings associated with the artwork also transform.

Extending upon this, here are some possibilities for how suggesting could be implemented in an art museum learning programme. Some of the questions have been adapted from Glenda Mac Naughton & Gillian Williams’ book ‘Teaching Young Children’ (2009):

Verbal

• “You could have a go at… drawing the sculpture from different angles.“
• “This printing tool might work better if… you push harder on the handle so that the paint stamps onto the fabric.”
• “Maybe you could… have a look at different artworks that are made out of clay… to think about how you could approach… making your vase using different sculptural techniques.”
• “How about we see if we can find… some artworks that explore the concept of infinity.” 
• “Perhaps you could think about how… this artwork relates to your experience of being in a family?”

Non-verbal

• Using body language to demonstrate or model different behaviours or techniques.
• Altering the aesthetic arrangement of a space so that it stimualtes the construction of new thought processes and relations. REmida centres often do this through presenting familiar recycled materials in unfamiliar ways.
• Carefully considering the grouping of artworks, concepts and materials. What ways of thinking might a particular arrangement provoke?
• Considering how the placement of things (artworks, materials, resources, furniture) allows for people to physically interact and move in a space.
• If an artwork cannot be touched then consider putting a barrier around it or asking floor staff to politely let children know they they cannot touch it as they enter the space. This may fall under ‘direct instruction’ but I had to sneak it in somewhere (#1 pet peeve when it does not happen).

I would love to hear your insights and feedback on using suggestions to facilitate children’s learning in art museum. Coming up as an exciting sequel to ‘facilitation’ and ‘suggesting,’ the next post will discuss the technique of ‘questioning.’

References 

Cambridge Dictionary online, 2017. Cambridge Dictionary website. Cambridge University Press.

Mac Naughton, G & Williams, G 2009. Teaching young children: Choices in theory and practice. Second edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.