I n t r o d u c t i o n
In this chapter, I present the rationale for my pedagogic approach as discussed within this thesis. As I have noted earlier, in citing Anderson (1995, p. xvi), “a fairly exclusionary psychological emphasis on teaching and learning has given way to a multidisciplinary point of view (which includes sociological and anthropological perspectives).” It would seem that there are many ways of knowing which potentially enhance an understanding of teaching and teacher education. In drawing on aspects of the realistic approach of teacher education as discussed in Chapter 2, I draw upon visual images that act as pedagogical Gestalts to elucidate my rationale. With reference to paintings by Jeffrey Smart as an illustrative⎯and visual⎯device, I elucidate the themes which informed my pedagogical decisions. These paintings, resonant with multiple layers of meaning, seem particularly pertinent to a study focusing on sites selected as fieldwork locales.
I discuss the paintings as visual texts, in some detail, as a teacher educator seeking to integrate theory and practice through the role of fieldwork and the selection of places as field sites. Through my deconstruction of these paintings, and very specifically, their signs and symbols, I illustrate my understanding of the relationship between place as text, place as iconography and place as process. Integral to my discussion are seemingly disparate themes related to children’s place knowledge, understandings of place and space, and fieldwork pedagogies⎯all within the context of teacher education in Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE) for early childhood and primary children. Due to the close alignment of fieldwork pedagogies and understandings of place and space within the discipline of geography, my discussion draws on literature in this area. At the conclusion of this chapter, I locate the discussion also within the parameters of SOSE in teacher education in the Tasmanian context. Very specifically, I relate my discussion to the three pedagogical moments which serve to frame the research and which were outlined briefly in Chapter 1. Initially, my focus moves back and forth between a discussion of Jeffrey Smart’s 1976 painting, Corrugated Gioconda, (Capon 1999, p. 146; also see Appendix A) and issues that emerged from my viewing and deconstruction of the painting as a whole as well as its signs and symbols. In the next section, through a discussion of
Corrugated Gioconda, I set the scene with a brief analysis. Following this brief introductory discussion, I elaborate on the themes arising from my initial and continuing deconstruction of the visual text and which are integral to my pedagogic decision-making. Before beginning this discussion, I include a table (Table 3.1) that summarises the phases of the pedagogical framework for this study. The rationale emerges from my consideration of the issues in this chapter as well as previous chapters. The actual approach arrived at in light of these discussions is outlined briefly in Table 3.1 and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Table 3.1 Three pedagogical moments: Sites for learning about fieldwork
Pedagogical moment Site for data collection Nature of analysis 1. Students as
“knowers” ; Fieldwork pedagogies⎯some consensus
Practical fieldwork on campus Data analysis⎯Recording and analysis of “preferred sites” self-selected by students
2. Site selection: a perennial issue
Bulletin-board display
Critical reflection of the kinds of sites selected for basis of assignment: Consider a site which is both significant to you and suitable for Social Education fieldwork. It may be (for example), a street, a place in the city, a beach, town, village, a particular house, building, suburb, a stream or mountain.… Based on the site you select, develop a plan for teaching and learning that incorporates field experiences designed to encourage a class of children to thoroughly
investigate the site. (University of Tasmania, 1997)
Data analysis⎯What kinds of sites were selected for planning for teaching and learning through fieldwork?
3. Fieldwork in a symbolic environment
Practical fieldwork⎯City Park (Launceston, Tasmania)
Debriefing⎯Discussion regarding the nature of findings
I n t r o d u c t o r y a n a l y s i s o f C o r r u g a t e d G i o c o n d a a s vi s u a l t e x t
On first seeing Jeffrey Smart paintings, I was struck with a jolt of awareness as if looking across the landscape to see, spotlighted by concentrations of light, something for the first time. Here were everyday landscapes, usually relegated to the periphery of our awareness, brought sharply into focus. On closer examination, here were images with the quality of puzzles so dense were they with iconographic and textual references. One painting that has been referred to as “a classic Smart composition” (Capon 1999, p. 20) is Corrugated Gioconda. This painting prompted me to reflect on the many aspects of fieldwork⎯aspects that I felt were a cause for further enquiry. Against this backdrop, I discuss the disparate issues that informed the rationale for my own teaching and reflection about the curriculum and pedagogy of fieldwork in SOSE in teacher education. The composition of
Corrugated Gioconda, named for the central image of Gioconda⎯the Mona Lisa⎯is described in
some detail by Capon (p. 20).
The foreground [is] dominated by the corrugated fence, rattling and dishevelled, plastered with torn and ragged posters the most prevalent of which carries an image of the Mona Lisa, that most powerful and familiar icon of Western civilisation, promoting a new publication which is in itself brought to a kind of absolute reality with the name of the publishing house, Fabbri Editori. Yet, she still manages to smile serenely and enigmatically through the debris of time that has sought to obscure it. From this foreground of grubby decay, in the distance, rises a glistening new apartment block and the stately palm trees set against a brilliant blue sky. The contrast, both compositionally and psychologically, is startling.
This painting allows me to illustrate the differing strands of thought which relate to the rationale for fieldwork and recommended fieldwork pedagogies, as well as associated debates integral to the area⎯notably, debates from the sub-discipline of cultural geography. I reflect on some of these issues through the motifs and symbols in addition to the composition of Corrugated Gioconda.
A particularly intriguing motif is the graffiti faintly inscribed on the lower left of the painting. Here is the voice of Jeffrey Smart himself, declaring publicly his relationship with, I can only surmise, his partner Ermes de Zan (Smart, 2000): the name for whom the initials ED stand. Here is the voice of Smart reminding the viewer that the world of the painting is a human, peopled world. Within the structural, architecturally planned heroic environment, Smart conveys a sense of agency at many levels. This is a socially constructed world, a world that consists of more than visual appearances: “In the air, the space, the clarity of these works, a reality beyond mere appearance exists” (Capon, 1999, p. 19). This is a world peopled, and constructed, by those of sexualities other than heterosexual males; sexuality is an issue discussed by Smart (2000) in his autobiography, Not quite straight: A memoir. The environment of Corrugated Gioconda is also a post-colonial world: juxtaposed with the modernist tower are palm trees, an emblem of the exotic, a token of rejoicing, victory and justice (Chambers English Dictionary, 1988, p. 1037). The world of the painting is not naturally given; it is constructed⎯at once, shaped and represented in images of global consumer culture, of a textual world, but with texts in which identities generally excluded from official public space find a voice.
D i s c u s s i o n o f t h e m e s
As I have indicated, I mention my brief deconstruction of Corrugated Gioconda to illustrate a number of issues integral to my pedagogical decision-making. In the following sections of this chapter I consider each of these in turn. Where possible, I discuss these themes as discrete entities⎯at times, however, so closely entwined are the issues that I have discussed them in relation to each other. I begin with a discussion of students as active agents whether children or students of teaching. It is this view which underpins my pedagogy; it is also a view which is integral to the key questions and data gathering for this thesis.
E x p e r i e n c e a n d p l a c e k n o w l e d g e : C h i l d r e n a n d s t u d e n t s o f t e a c h i n g