Learning Spaces

Learning Spaces:

This past weekend I visited a learning space that is called Cookies and Canvas (When adults are there it is called Wine and Canvas).  This spot offered a perfect opportunity for my observation, as one of my children was attending a birthday party there.  At first glance, I thought Cookies and Canvas might be the perfect example of what this assignment called a “creative learning space”.  It did initially seem to fit the criteria, which called for a place where people are creating projects -- and learning from one another as part of the process. 

When first entering the space, it felt inviting, there were paintings lining the walls, a small snack bar area, and small easels, and paint smocks for children to use when they paint.  There were paint splatters on the tables, smocks and floors indicating that it was okay to explore with paint. When the painting part of the party began, what I found was that this art studio had adopted many of the “school project” procedures and policies and was not what I had dreamed it would be.

The projects created in this space were acrylic paintings that were replicated from the teacher’s sample onto each individual’s canvas.  The children were situated in rows to face the painting instructor, who sat on an elevated seat with a larger easel at the front of the room.  Every child made the SAME picture as the instructor.  It was as if I had walked into a very top-down traditional classroom. Every stroke of the paintbrush was modeled before the kids were turned lose to create the very same stroke on their own canvas. This process took up a ‘follow the leader’ approach to painting.  It was the opposite of discovery learning in which Kafai, Peppler, & Chapman (2009, in The Computer Clubhouse) explain that learning happens as children interact with a carefully considered learning environment without the use of direct instruction.  Alternately, in this place there was only direct instruction and no open ended design, this was instructionism to it’s core.

The 8 children, all young girls, sat quietly as the instructor demonstrated each step.  While the rules and norms were not explicitly covered, the children somehow knew that they should fall in line to obey the teacher instructions and to silently await the next steps.  They were performing “good student” identities.  They must have “read” the whole situation and taken on the assumed roles from clues they found from the layout of the space. If someone was talking when the teacher had something to say, she would announce, “ I need everyone’s attention please.” This set the tone for not being chatty.

The birthday girl may have chosen the painting she wanted to do for her party, but it was the instructor who wielded the power to get all these girls to make the same painting.  Interestingly, no one went off course or tried something unique with the paint, not one child tried to bust out of the scripted ‘paint by stroke’ curriculum.  In Chapter 1 of The Computer Clubhouse (2009) Rusk, Resnick, & Cooke assert that  the core of the Clubhouse learning approach is that young people don’t simply interact with technologies, they design and create with technologies.  This focus on construction, design and creation was missing from the painting experience at Cookies and Canvas.  Children at the party were interacting with paint, but they were not creating or exploring with paint. 

This space wasn’t set up for social interactions as the seats were in long rows, with easels blocking the view of the person across the table.  Children did talk quietly to neighbors about supplies that they needed and how they thought they were doing with their paintings, but there didn’t seem to be collaboration or sharing of ideas, nor did this room set-up appear to have a goal of supporting or encouraging collaboration.   All the mentoring came from the instructor. The only roles that were visible were those of the instructor/teacher and her pupils.  

The materials present included smocks, easels, paints (limited to the colors in the painting on display by the instructor), brushes, paper towels, and water. The colors being limited definitely lessoned the possibility of children creating deviations to the scripted painting.  The materials were authentic and calling to the children to create their own masterpieces, although their voices weren’t heard. The space itself seemed to quiet to be creative.  Adding music and some flexibility in what the kids can paint would be very welcome by this party attendee. 

My daughter left the party with a cute painting that she was proud of.  She seemed to enjoy the whole experience overall.  I left wondering if the children’s understanding of themselves as artists was decreased today.  Will they see painting as a process that they aren’t capable of doing on their own?  Will they think that in order to succeed as a painter, their work needs to look like other peoples?  What messages did my daughter absorb about her potential as an artist? 

As I read about the Computer Clubhouse (2009) I felt like this painting experience was very deprived. It certainly got me wondering.  What would the children have created if Cookies and Canvas adopted a creative design spiral (pg. 19),  as the Clubhouse programs did?  What if the children could have imagined what they wanted to do, then created a project based on their own ideas, all while having  had the opportunity to experiment with alternatives and finally, share their ideas and creations with others?  I’d like to think that many meaningful masterpieces might have grown from that.