Philosophy

Aesthetics and Value

of Art classroom
Reconstruction lesson design
using the IPED model

By Michael Allan

Opportunities of Critical Literacies & The iPED Method in Philosophy: Aesthetics

Link: Campbell and Green (2000) suggest familiarity is
central to decoding visual semiotics. Given the signifiers in visual texts are explicit rather than implicit,
students require a sound grasp in the outlier knowledge
behind the image itself. Therefore to introduce students to connotations of beauty, the selected images
should be well known to students. For example in a class
of predominantly first-generation Australians, the
ideological beauty of the sun tanned Aussie may be
difficult too interpret.

Challenge: A critical perspective on language involves

knowing language for what it is, that is social practice
and what it can get done in the world (Knobel and
Healy, 1998, p.7)
The unit explores language and the nature of beauty,
however this can be extended by asking what can
beauty achieve? The relationship between beauty
and money, power or pleasure is not fully explored
without the teachers guidance. Students should be
made aware of the social ideologies between both artist and viewer that informed the choices made to
shape the work. This will lead to students independently critically evaluating relationships with
beauty in visual literature.

Page 2

tical Literacies & The iPED Method in Philosophy: Aesthetics and Value of Art
Cocreate: The metamodal kineikonic approach signifies
a way for students to understand visual mediums as a
conglomerate of contributory modes rather than a
specific creation from one persons mind (Burn, 2013).
When considering the meaning behind David Lynchs
Eraserhead the emphasis of artistic construction
should not solely rely on Lynch. The use of embodied,
auditory and visual modes should all be considered
equally. Likewise when constructing their own art, there
should be greater encouragement on collaborative
projects to exemplify how multiple ideas and modalities
can amalgamate to create visual meaning.
Share: Students out of school literacies kindle
processes of learning that are deeper and richer than
the forms of learning to which they are exposed to in
schools (Clary, Lachuk, Corley, & Spence. 2011, p.136)
It is important for the unit to embrace the multimodal
learning outside the classroom. Homework tasks should
leave students engaged in multimodal literacies in
everyday life. When completing their final assignments
students should be considering a broader audience to
share their work with outside the classroom. Families
should be involved in the learning process through the
integration of positive visual literate practices in the
home as well as school.

Page 3

Review of how well the

iPed model is currently
used in the unit
The unit will be improved by first examining
what features of the iPed model are currently
already being utilised. Each iPed element will be
reviewed with a grading allocated to each.
Revised improvements to each element will be
listed next to the grade. Specific activity
improvements will be further improved based on
the how well each element is being adhered to.
The grading system used is as follows:

Page 4

iPed Standard: Optimum level of iPed literacy

aims and cooperates fully with all other

Very efficient use of iPed: Strong use of iPed

aims that significantly align with the aims of
critical and visual literacy. Does not wholly
connect with all other facets of iPed model

Good: Some aims of the iPed model are consistently followed. Higher order aims of visual
literacies are not fully engaged with.

Room for Improvement: Some features of the

iPed model can be observed on a low level

Page 5

Link: Lessons heavily incorporate components of

text to self and text to
culture. Many immediate
response activities are
collaborative flowcharts,
text polls etc. but these
activities do not
construct the classroom
learning. Few sociocultural links are made
throughout activities
iPed Grade: RFI

Challenge: Most classroom discussions and

assessment tasks revolve
around origins, purpose
and audience of text. The
unit makes a direct link to
the question whose
interests are being
served with particular
texts. Students are
taught to question the
merits controversial art
IPed Grade: Efficient
Page 6

How to improve: The

teacher should use
gathered feedback to
direct the learning.
Homelife participation
could be encouraged by
asking students to explain what is deemed
beautiful in their own
culture. Families could
view and interact with
the conversation online
to add greater context
to the aesthetics
debate
How to improve:
When students are
observing art or
gallery websites ask
them to identify the
purpose of the art. Is
there political affiliations behind the
works? Students could
create a matrices to
compare the power
relations of different
art institutions and
theories

Cocreate: Students test

theories with each other
through class discussions
on regular occasions. Class
polls require students to
debate with each other to
reason a compromise.
Students also complete a
rebuttal feedback sheet
for a peer as part of the
summative assessment.
Students final assessment
is mostly individual work.
IPed Grade: Good
Share: Students present
their art and/or debate in
front of class. To
satisfactorily complete
the task students must
actively engage with
anothers presentation by
asking at least one
philosophical question.
IPed Grade: RFI

How to Improve: The unit

scaffolds theory learning
but does not scaffold
creative elements.
Teachers should Predict
useful functions for
students to create their
own ideas and art before
commencing. An artistic or
ICT workshop could be
organized to cross
collaborate ideas of
Philosophy, Visual Art and
ICT.
How to Improve: While
students engage with local
and global communities
within the unit they do not
effectively interact with
them. The assessment is
sound, however the
teacher could provide an
online space to upload
presentations. This way
students can involve
themselves with the online
conversation of aesthetics
outside of the classroom.
Page 7

Original Linking Activity

(Lesson 1) As homework students took notes on how
their friends, family and people in the community
used the word beautiful to refer to things. What did
they call beautiful? In what context was the word
used? What was the exact phrasing and how does it
compare to the ways other people use the word? In
the following lesson, students would complete a
think-pair-share on their notes.

Original Challenge Activity: (Lesson 7) Students read

article Censorship is stifling Art and formulate
arguments by connecting the arguments used in the article
and classical philosophical arguments of Plato, Hume or
Dante. Students receive a planning sheet to assist in
structuring their arguments. The formulated arguments
can be used as the basis to begin formulating their own
oral presentation. Formative Assessment tasks such as
the unmade bed activity precede this in the following
lesson to ensure students are critically engaging with the
ideas of theorists and visual literacy to respond.

Page 8

New Linking Activity :

Instead of writing individual notes away from the class, the
teacher could create a GoogleDoc word map which all
classmates could collaboratively add to. Using an online
format students will be able to visually incorporate
symbols and references that relate to the semiotics of the
word beautiful. Instead of spending the following class
sharing findings, the findings would already be visible for
all students to see. The mindmap could act as a stimulus for
students to de-construct the coded forms of beauty. It
will provide a sound practical reference in the following
lessons when focusing on theoretical approaches to beauty
through the works of Plato (Lesson 2) and Hume (Lesson 4).

New Challenge Activity:

After reading Censorship is stifling Art students explore
the websites of the Art Galleries referred to in the article.
Students will complete a matrices chart displaying whether
there are political, social or power connotations when
referring to the art the gallery represents. Students are
encouraged to contact either the gallery or artists of the
works. The planning sheet is used as an optional task to
support students who would require more structure when
formulating arguments. This task emphasises the purpose
of the art rather than identifying characteristics of the
art work. Students may use their research to foster a
contention for the summative oral presentation.

Page 9

Original Co-create Activity

(Lesson 9) Students complete a Presentation feedback form of another student to assist in improving
their work. The motivation of this activity is to ensure students are considering multiple philosophical
opinions in their work. Students are made aware that
without acknowledging the counter argument, students are just completing half of the assignment.
Students are to prepare a rebuttal to counter-claims
for their presentation.

Original Share Activity:

Part of the assessment was to ask a philosophically engaging
question to a presenter. This would artificially create the sense
of debate and disagreement within the artistic community.
However by simply making the class the audience to the work,
the students become limited in comprehending where they
position themselves in the overall artistic debate.

Page 10

New Co-Create Task:

Instead of a specific formally assessed feedback sheet, students
should be encouraged to work collaboratively throughout their
assignments and artistic works. Provided students take different
approaches to analysing art work, it would be helpful for students
to design an art piece together or deconstruct an art piece as a
group. Given the ways visual art can impact individuals
differently, this could allow for intriguing contrasting views to be
further explored independently .
It is also important that students philosophical thoughts are not
be influenced by teachers, to ensure this each study session
should begin with a 15 minute Do period as advised in the iPed
model. During this students may only use each other as support
and guidance.

New Share Activity:

The summative assessment task will remain the same, however
there will be a shift in focus from the classroom to the wider
artistic community. A BlogSpot will be created for students to
upload their presentations and to interact with other art
enthusiasts wanting to engage with the conversation.
Possible blog spots include GoogleDocs, scoopit, weebly, and the
conversation. Students are able to continue on debating their
thoughts and refining their arguments long after the unit is
completed. While this aspect will not be assessed, this provides
an avenue for students to further pursue passions and engage in a
higher form of visual literacy in the wider community.

Page 11

Original Unit Allocation

Link
Text to self
activities
Justify
opinions

Challenge
Newspaper articles
Opinion articles
Structure essays
Art vs Graffiti
Eraserhead
assessment
Complete
Rebuttal
sheet

Co-create
Multiple polls
Classroom
Discussions

Page 12

Ask presenter
questions

Share
Present
to class

Revised Unit Allocation

Code breaker semiotic

activities

Link

Challenge

Unchanged

GoogleDocs
Reference
sheet

Family interaction to
beauty
Art Gallery Matrices
Rebuttal sheet

Collaborative
design

Co-Create
unchanged

Space to
upload
presis

unchanged

Online
engagement

Share

Considering the iPed model as four elements working

together, it becomes patent that the revised model
considers a much more levelled approach to visual literacy learning. The original linear plan does not fully explore the possibilities of the learning objectives. The
revised unit views multiliteracy as an intricate relationship between the self and the selfs position within the
rest of the world. Students are continually shifting between different multimodal skills and this has now been
accounted for in tn the revised unit.
Page 13

Learning Objectives met

through New Media
Literacy

Students will be able to offer justified critical

responses to viewpoints and arguments associated with problems central to aesthetics

Students will be able to explain the relationship between relevant contemporary debates
and viewpoints and arguments arising in aesthetics

Students will be able to formulate informed

responses to problems in aesthetics and explain, defend and refine those responses in
philosophical exchanges with others

Extend student engagement beyond the classroom through use of iPED model

Prepare multimodal learners to critically examine visual literature

Page 14

New Media Literacy has found itself to be particularly useful in the Philosophy classroom. Philosophy
asks students to study and involve themselves with
the modern landscape of art. For students to
achieve these skills they must first be proficient
critical digital text users. Knobel & Healy (1998) indicate that critical literacy stems from sociocultural theories designed to analyse the relationship
between text-users and text recipients. The aesthetics unit directly challenges the discourse of visual imagery and studies its power implications on
against a contemporary backdrop. The teacher first
introduces the unit by breaking down the signified
codes associated to the word beauty in lesson one.
Through these activities the students are already
beginning to contemplate the myriad of signal systems at work in the visual image world. While the
unit originally had a strong foundation in semiotics,
the iPED model highlighted that the unit did not accurately engage with the students own experiences.
Students were able to learn the information, but
they were not accurately able to rearrange that
knowledge to consider how it impacted themselves
personally. The new linking activities break down the
perceived boundaries between homelife and
schoolife. Students [are] most engaged when when
the teacher selected multimedia texts that addressed themes that were familiar to stdents (Mills
& Levido, 2011, para. 11). By making these
Page 15

Learning Objectives met

through New Media
Literacy

Offer justified critical responses to viewpoints and arguments associated with problems
central to aesthetics

Explain the relationship between relevant contemporary debates and viewpoints and arguments arising in aesthetics

Formulate informed responses to problems in

aesthetics and explain, defend and refine
those responses in philosophical exchanges
with others

Extend student engagement beyond the classroom through use of iPED model

Prepare multimodal learners to critically examine visual literature

Page 16

alterations, the students become aware to the intermodal

socio-cultural textualities that influence the reader when
viewing a visual text (Unsworth, 2008, p.5). Additionally,
the context of [adolescent] literacy practices are both is
both temporally and spatially hybrid yet...there is little
synergy between their learning in school and their literate identities at home(Vasudevan & Campano, 2009,
p.330). By composing documented connections between
both practices, the student is utilising all literacy faculties at their disposal. The unit was adapted to include
critical evaluation of art gallerys as they form an institution of visual literacy. Proponents of visual literacy contend that if the physical act of seeing involves active construction, then the intellectual act of interpreting what is
seen must require a critical viewer (Felton 2010, p.61),
therefore it is beneficial for students to critically engage with the galleries. By understanding the conflicting
political designs between post-modern artists and gallery
institutions, students become more adept at reading between the virtual lines of visual imagery. Under the new
learning styles, the classroom is transformed into a collaborative workshop where students ask questions together, in order to attain the knowledge. iPed initiatives
such as the Doing time allows for students to fully engross themselves in the visual project (Mills & Levido,
2011). The scaffolded learning model is gradually removed
to create independent a host of multiliterate learners
who are able to collaborate and share their knowledge
with the larger community.

Page 17

References

Burn, A. (2013). The kineikonic mode: Towards a

multimodal approach to moving image media. National
Centre for Research Methods, London, UK.
Campbell, R. & Green, D. (2000) Visual literacy:
reading and the contemporary text environment. In Literacies and learners: current perspectives, pp. 155-172.
Prentice Hall.
Clary, D., Lachuk A.J., Corely A.M. & Spence L.,
(2011) Review: Professional Book Reviews: Critique! Design! Engage! Opening New Spaces for Multimodal Experiences In. Language Arts, Vol. 89, No. 2, Beyond Powerpoints and Scavenger Hunts, pp. 136-140
Felten, P. (2008) Visual Literacy, In: Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 40:6 p60-64 DOI:
10.3200/ CHNG.40.6.60-64
Knobel, M. & Healy A. (1998) Chapter 1: An Introduction to Critical Literacies in. Critical Literacies in the
Classroom, Sydney: PETA,

Page 18

Mills, K.A. & Levido, A. (2011). iPed. The Reading

Teacher: A Journal of Research-Based Classroom
Practice, 65(1), 8091. doi: 10.1598/RT.65.1.11
Unsworth, L. ed. (2008). Multimodal Semiotics:
Functional Analysis in Contexts of Education. London,
GBR: Continuum International Publishing,

Vasudevan L. & Campano G. (2009) The Social

Production of Adolescent Literacies, Review of Research in Education, Vol. 33. Risk, Schooling and Equity, Washington: USA pp.310-353
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
(2014), Philosophy Study Design 2014-2018, State
Government of Victoria, pp.7-24 Retrieved from
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/
philosophy/PhilosophySD-2014.pdf

Page 19