Kunstpädagogische Essentials

Der Begriff der Kunstpädagogik geht weit über den engen Rahmen schulischer Bildung hinaus; hat aber seine spezifische Entfaltung erst in diesem Kontext entwickelt. Die damit verknüpfte Praxis war von Anfang an Gegenstand fachlicher Kontroversen, die über Ausrichtung, Zielsetzungen und Referenzen kontinuierlich und im Hinblick auf unterschiedliche Adressaten debattierte. So formierte sich die Kunsterzieherbewegung in Abgrenzung von der obligatorischen Zeichenmethode des Hamburger Schulrats Adolf Stuhlmann, der ein stringentes Lehrsystem entwickelte und curricular etablierte. Dem stellte man ein kindbezogenes, künstlerisch und bildungstheoretisch fundiertes Programm gegenüber, das nicht allein die schulische Reformbewegung der Jahrhundertwende beeinflusste, sondern Inhalte, Zielsetzungen, Potenziale und Grenzen institutioneller Kunstvermittlung reflektierte.

Eine institutionell gebundene Kunstpädagogik ist somit kein homogenes Programm, sondern konstituiert sich diskursiv. Gemeint sind regionale Akzentuierungen, Curriculare Vorgaben, die sich wiederum auf unterschiedlichste Bildungseinrichtungen und Lebensalter beziehen. Dennoch gibt es zentrale Essentials, die auch die Kunstpädagogik der frühen Kindheit tangieren.

Aisthesis und Kunsterfahrung

Kunstpädagogische Zielsetzungen orientieren sich an zwei Bezugssystemen, die sich zum einen aus den Prinzipien einer allgemeinen und aisthetisch konnotierten Bildung ableiten lassen, und zum anderen die Begegnung und Auseinandersetzung mit bildender Kunst fokussieren. Dieser Zusammenhang soll näher bestimmt werden.

Ästhetische Erfahrungsbildung: Hier geht es um ein allgemeines Bildungsprinzip, das besagt, dass sich der Mensch von Anfang an selbsttätig bildet – und zwar primär ästhetisch. Ausgehend von der Sinneswahrnehmung, die zu ästhetischen Mustern verdichtet wird, formieren sich ästhetische Erfahrungen, wobei Neues mit der zugrunde liegenden Erfahrungsgeschichte abgeglichen und in diese integriert wird. Dies ist ein komplexer Prozess, der auf die Vernetzung unterschiedlicher Sinnesdaten angewiesen ist und mittels Kognition ein Bewusstsein von Selbst und Welt ausbildet. Gemäß Wolfgang Klafki lassen sich die fünf Aspekte unterscheiden (vgl. Klafki 1996:33):

(1) Bildung der „Empfindsamkeit“,
(2) Entwicklung der Einbildungskraft,
(3) Entwicklung der ästhetischen Urteilskraft,
(4) Entwicklung von Genussfähigkeit und
(5) Befähigung zum Spiel und zur Geselligkeit.

Begegnung mit Kunst: Die kunstpädagogische Praxis der Auseinandersetzung mit bildender Kunst gliedert sich in zwei Kompetenzbereiche: die künstlerisch-gestalterische Kompetenz und die bildanalytische Kompetenz. Diese Bereiche sind miteinander verwoben, wobei sich die curricularen Zielsetzungen unterscheiden. Es geht dabei um die bereits auf dem ersten Dresdener Kunsterziehertag (1901) gestellte Frage, ob es um „Erziehung zur Kunst“ oder „Erziehung durch Kunst“ gehe (vgl. Legler 2012: 191-212).
In diesem Zusammenhang hat sich eine Fülle von didaktischen Modellen entwickelt, wobei diese in konkreten Lernarrangements nur selten in dieser Fokussierung umgesetzt werden.

Diese Einlassungen gelten für die schulische Kunstpädagogik, in den Lernarrangements der frühen Kindheit stellen sich diese Zusammenhänge aber anders dar – spielt doch bereichsspezifisches Lernen eine untergeordnete Rolle.

Kunstpädagogik der frühen Kindheit

In der Pädagogik der frühen Kindheit taucht die Kunstpädagogik selten explizit auf – sie hat zumeist eine integrierende Funktion im Sinne einer interdisziplinär ausgerichteten ästhetischen Bildung. Damit ist weniger eine explizite Kunstvermittlung gemeint, sondern eine fokussiert sinnlich-emotionale Auseinandersetzung mit lebensweltlichen Phänomenen (vgl. Ebert 2008). Kunstwerke werden in diesen Zusammenhängen selten thematisiert. Stattdessen spielen alle Dimensionen ästhetischen Handelns eine zentrale Rolle und werden in fächerverbindenden Projekten entwickelt (vgl. Schäfer 2001). Der experimentelle, handlungsorientierte Umgang mit Material steht dabei im Vordergrund (Kneten, Zeichnen, Malen, Bauen). Von besonderer Bedeutung ist das „wilde“ Basteln/Bricolage, bei dem Kinder spontane Materialexperimente situativ und narrativ ausdeuten (vgl. Kolhoff-Kahl 2007).

In vielen frühpädagogischen Einrichtungen ist der Bereich der Kunstpädagogik/Ästhetischen Bildung ein blinder Fleck. Es wird nach Anleitung und unter Mithilfe von Eltern und Erzieher*innen nach Bauplan „gebastelt“. Die reformpädagogisch geprägten Einrichtungen sind hier grundsätzlich anders ausgerichtet. Die Waldorfpädagogik thematisiert z.B. elementare Materialerfahrungen und auch die Fröbel-Pädagogik orientiert sich am sinnlich-ästhetischen Gehalt von Bildungsprozessen in vielfältiger Art und Weise – dennoch orientieren sich diese Angebote an spezifischen Lehrsystemen, ohne dass diese im Hinblick auf Wirkungen dezidiert untersucht werden. Das gilt auch für das quasi semi-therapeutische Setting wie beim „Mal-Ort“ von Arno Stern, dessen Programmatik der Bildgenese auch im Kontext der frühkindlichen Bildung zunehmend an Popularität gewinnt.

Eine explizite Ausnahme stellt hier die Reggio-Pädagogik dar, in der eine umfangreiche gestalterische Praxis Gegenstand erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung ist (vgl. Ullrich/Brockschnieder 2001).

Wenn man also zentrale Desiderate der Kunstpädagogik benennen will, so ist dies zum einen eine konzeptuelle und theoretische Unterbestimmung Auseinandersetzung mit Möglichkeiten des bereichsspezifischen Lernens und zum anderen ein Mangel an empirischer Forschung, dem die hier vorgestellte Studie von Valentina Fernandes begegnen will.

Early childhood children and the environment

Young children are always finding ways to connect with the environment, they are constantly experimenting with materials and trying different ways to put things together, sometimes more instinctive than in conscious ways, but even so, following meaningful paths. To understand the environment, children deal with experimentation and creation all the time. Creative processes are something inherent in human beings, and during childhood, they are especially present. When children can explore situations that interest them, being free to guide themselves through experimentation, they can build knowledge, starting from their own needs when facing the context they’re inserted to the development of more complex processes.

In his book Art as Experience, John Dewey expresses some conclusions about the interaction of an organic self with the environment. These conclusions can help to understand this explorative way that children deal with the context they are inserted. For Dewey, there are internal needs that demand completion. These needs can only be supplied through an interaction with the environment, which leads to a dynamic acknowledgment of the dependence of the self for wholeness upon its surroundings (Dewey, 1934:68). Dewey also defends that life goes on in an environment, not merely in it, but because of it, through the interaction with it. For him, the experimentation can come across moments of distraction and dispersion and not always be composed like an experience.

Following his thoughts is possible to affirm that children don't necessarily envision creating or experimenting with something, they simply do it, because this is the way they interact with the context they are inserted, in a way that the established relationships and their results are a natural action.

Still looking to the idea of interacting with the environment and to the way this interaction leads to more complex actions, Dewey goes further. He believes that things retained from a past experience, that would grow stale from routine or inert from lack of use, can be a starter to new experiences, receiving a fresh meaning (Dewey, 1934:163). Understanding the way children interact with the environment as a starter to creative processes, Dewey’s beliefs can be easily related to the further introduced research.

Contributing to the research theoretical frame, a look into ideas about children's choices while exploring the environment, posited by Walter Benjamin, can be useful as well. For Walter Benjamin, children should deal with heterogeneous materials in their explorations, like stones, dough, wood, and paper, but still according to him, even if this diversity of supplies is important, no one is less exigent in dealing with materials than children, for them, a simple piece of wood, a pinecone, or a stone can already offer a lot of possibilities (Benjamin 1972:92).

Children in early childhood don’t have rigid concepts about the world, their relationship with the environment is more fluid. Even when they already know how something works or the functions attributed to specific objects, early childhood children don’t always feel compromised with the reality of things, they usually feel free and comfortable to follow their instincts and their imagination. Regarding the way children interact with the environment and how they navigate through processes of creation, Benjamin believes that children are inclined to look for the most variable sort of materials to use in their creations. Remains of adults’ activities such as construction, gardening, sewing, or woodwork could be very meaningful for them. Benjamin says that in this kind of material, children can recognize things they see in the environment, using them not aiming to reproduce adults’ results but to establish relations that are totally new and disconnected from reality, building their own world, inside of the world (Benjamin 1972:104).

It is possible to look at experimentation and creative processes not only as something important to let children understand the world but as something intrinsic and necessary to this understanding and at the same time as a powerful source of aesthetic experiences, ways of communication (expression), and development of notions about spatiality. 

Introduction to the current research

Departing from the briefly introduced idea about creation and experimentation in early childhood, and more than 15 years of personal experience as an art teacher working with this same age frame, the research on which this article is based started to be delineated.

The research’s central point, and the topic, which will be pointed here, is to discuss how children come through creative processes and aesthetic experiences during early childhood, and also to think about the role of the environment in this context. To do so, an explanation about how the research is being conducted and which methods are being used to analyze the collected data will be first introduced, and then the already achieved results will be pinpointed.

Research design

The research that generated this article is being conducted at CEDER (Center for Early Childhood Development and Education Research), which is part of the University of Osnabrück, being also the fruit of a partnership with a Kindergarten located in Münster, both in Germany. For the conduction of the research, the observation of children was fundamental. So, after a brief period dedicated to the central ideas' edification, the partnership with a kindergarten was established, and a group of children to be observed could be settled.

The first part of the in loco observation was dedicated to the kindergarten’s routine. This moment gave an idea not only about the children’s daily activities but also about the kind of processes they were already experiencing, which relations they have established with the educator and peers, and which skills to deal with materials they had. During this moment, also a relation between children, the kindergarten educator, and the researcher was established. As is going to be better explained soon, the research brought to the children a new context. Facing the novelty of the situation, it was important for all the persons involved in the research to have a trusting relationship.

After a few weeks of observation at the kindergarten, the pandemic situation got worse, and the presence of external people in the kindergarten was not possible anymore. This new rule coincided with the moment where a specific situation would be proposed to the children, leading them to the central point of the research.

The first idea was to propose to the group of children, aged between 3 and 6 years old, different art pedagogical learning settings, and as a researcher to be in loco to conduct the proposition and observe its development.

The objective behind the learning settings was to present a new environment to the children, where they could experiment and create, without any guidance or expectation imposed by an adult.

Facing the already mentioned new corona rule, the mismatch between the initial idea for the research, and the real possibilities imposed by the pandemic, came the need to look for new agreements with the kindergarten.

To keep the research going as similar as possible to its first design, to propose to the group of children the already envisioned art pedagogical learning settings, was imperative. To do so, four different experimental working sessions were planned. For each session, a range of art pedagogical supplies was curated, pictures of the way the supplies should be displayed were taken, and instructions about the way the sessions should be conducted were delineated. This material was sent to the kindergarten, so the kindergarten educator could apply the sessions by herself, documenting it by pictures and video-record.

After the four working sessions, the educator sent back the collected data, which is now being analyzed under different aspects.

Data collection

To present the development of the research and the different aspects of the data analysis, it is interesting to go a little deeper into the purpose of the experimental working sessions. Those sessions were planned to work as starters for the children's creative processes and aesthetical experiences. As already mentioned before, early childhood children are always experimenting and finding ways to deal with the context they are inserted in. Even so, looking from a researcher's perspective, it was interesting to achieve a more genuine situation to observe. It was important to take the observed children out of their comfort zone, proposing situations, that are not part of their daily routine at the kindergarten. In this way, the children wouldn't be repeating something, which they are already familiar with, presenting instead reactions, processes, and experiences, that are more genuine.

During each session, the children worked around a table (children’s table), while the curated supplies (main materials) were in another table (materials table). There were also support materials (tools), to be used when needed. The educator was instructed to work as a facilitator for the situation. She could introduce the materials, ask questions about children’s processes and final products, and help the children when needed.

For the first session were offered to the children materials based on paper and cardboard, such as paper cups, paper tubes, paper rolls, cardboard cones, cardboard pieces, and cardboard baskets. As tools, they had scissors and tapes. In the second session, the children received blocks of clay, colorful beads, malleable wire, wood and popsicle sticks, scissors, and tapes. The materials sent for the third session were PVC tubes and pipes, rubber bands, corks, paper rolls, wood sticks, scissors, and tapes. For the fourth and last session, the children received a very large assortment of materials, such as pieces of fabrics, carton boxes, kitchen utensils, plastic packages, wool, metal caps, wood sticks, clothespins, corks, tubes, etc.

The materials from each session presented different levels of familiarity and complexity to the children, bringing to the experience diverse challenges and situations to be observed. More about the sessions, and about the way the children navigated through them, is going to be mentioned further in this text, together with the impressions about the current achieved results.

The following images were sent to the kindergarten, showing the supplies for each session and the way they should have been displayed on the materials table.

Methods

To be analyzed, the material was divided into three different parts. These parts are verbal expressions, actions, and pictures of the final products. The verbal expressions and the actions were extracted from the videos recorded by the educator. Since a video is a complex material, which has multiple layers, splitting it into what can be listening and what can be seeing, was an interesting solution.

The sessions took over one hour each, which means that the video material last more than five hours. For a careful examination of the material, parts of the videos were selected to be transcribed. This decision was made taking into consideration meaningful moments of each session. To classify a moment as meaningful, some aspects were observed. Those are:

• The beginning of each session – children’s first contact with materials, children choosing materials, children going back to the work table, children starting to work.
• Moments when children reveal what they plan to do or how they are going to manipulate the chosen materials.
• Moments of significant interactions between peers or/and between child and educator.
• Moments that reveal specific characteristics of children's flow – children verbalizing an aesthetic experience, children singing or talking to themselves, children dealing with problem-solving situations, and other perceptible turning points.
• Moments when the children announce they have finished a process.
• Final moments of the session.

At a first moment the Grounded Theory was considered for the analysis of the whole material, but after observing the material several times it became clear that the analysis could be done in a very effective way following the Content Analysis. This decision was taken regarding the amount of transcribed material, pre-established ideas about subjects to find on it, and possibilities offered by the next steps of the analysis. While the Grounded Theory can bring to the surface aspects of the material that could be hidden until the analysis, the Content Analysis emphasizes aspects that were probably already observed, putting a new light on them, and this emphasis is particularly interesting. This characteristic of the Content Analysis goes along with the background of the research and the familiarity with this sort of data.

Categorization of the verbal expressions

For the analysis of verbal expressions, the Content Analysis (Inhaltsanalyze), proposed by Philipp Mayring (2014), was elected. The central idea at this point was to categorize the verbal expressions, to better recognize their role during the processes of creation.

Through the Content Analysis method, the categorization of the transcribed material can be divided into main and subcategories.For the achievement of the categories, the software QCAMAP was used.The categories were achieved inductively, but an idea about which kind of categories could be found was already there, which gives a deductive background to this inductive process.

This methodology suggests that a small amount of the material should be analyzed first, generating the first categories (and codes). Then a second part of the material should be worked on, using the already found categories and generating new ones. Then the first amount of the material should be reviewed under the recently found categories.

The categorization of the whole material was reviewed several times, so the groups of main and subcategories could be enough clear and objective. Through this system of categories, it was possible to understand the paths and patterns of verbal experimentation and communication the group experienced during the sessions. The system pointed to a constant interaction between peers, between the children and educator, and the frequency of solo verbalizations. It also allowed to distinguish the types of verbal expression and to observe in which situations these expressions emerged.

The main categories and subcategories are listed below, together with samples of the verbal expressions.

Verbal expressions - main categories and subcategories samples
Educator's actions
Educator gives instruction, suggestion or comment	So, guck mal. Jetzt können wir starten. Jetzt dürft ihr einfach anfangen...
Educator responds positively to child's action, process or product	Da sieht ja schick aus…
Educator offers help	Soll ich denn mal wiederholen, wie du am Anfang weiterkleben kannst?
Educator poses questions to a child about its actions, process or product	Was den für ne Rakete?
Verbalizations that include the educator or peers in an action
Child asks or looks for the educator's approval:	Brauchen zwei? Brauchen wir nur noch ein?
Child clearly explains its actions to peers and/or educator	Ich will (incomprehensible) was basteln.
Child explains its product during the process to peers and/or educator	Wo soll ... wo soll ich das reinkleben? Ich will ein bisschen darein machen und dann (incomprehensible) vor machen.
Child asks the educator for help	Kannst du mir helfen das hier so zusammen kleben, weil das soll eine Rakete werden.
Child gives instructions to educator or peers while receiving their help	Ja, du sollst das hier festhalten.
Child asks peers for materials or help	Jo. Können wir uns die teilen?
Child shows a material, the way of handling a material, or product to peers and/or educator	Guck!
Child explains to peers and/or educator its product after finishing it:	…Hier… hier reinkletter.
Child agrees with comment, an offer of help, or suggestion made by peers and/or educator	Uhum…
Child offers material, help, or explains techniques to peers	Cl., hiermit kannst... kannst du... kannst du die hier auch festmachen, dann stellst du ein Loch rein. dann steckst du wieder rein.
Child disagrees with something said by peers and/or educator?	Nein! Wie kann man den Roboters klauen?
Child calls the attention of peers and/or educator aiming to show something	Guck mal!
Child poses question to peers about its own product or process	Fi., wem findest du am cooleste?
Child rejects comment, an offer of help, or suggestion made by peers and/or educator	Geht doch.
Children engage together, or with educator, in creation or play or intend to do it	Darf ich auch mal das... du kannst...
Verbalizations that sign turning points
Child verbalizes the end of a process	Ich bin schon fertig.
Child intends to continue the process, or to initiate a new one	Noch basteln...
Child reflects on questions about its process or products	Ehhhh...
Child finds a solution for a problem:	Ich habe schon eine Idee, wie ich das hinkriege.
Verbalizations of feelings or impressions
Child expresses surprise	Oh, eine Hülle!
Child expresses impressions, feelings or needs about materials	Ich brauch ein von den und ein von den…
Child expresses insecurity about process or product	Wo soll... Wo soll ich das reinkleben?
Child expresses frustration or verbalizes difficulties	Oh nein... ich brauche noch mehr Kleber.
Child expresses confidence about its process, product or decisions	Das wird eine richtige coole Murmelbahn.
Child expresses contentment	Ich hab schon ganz viel gebastelt.
Child expresses excitement	Uau!!
Child recognizes or makes associations between product or material and daily utilitarian objects	Das sieht wie ein Rettungsseil.
Verbalizations that emphasize peers’ processes or products
Child gets influenced by peers’ process or product	Ich auch eine Rakete (?) basteln (?)
Child comments or makes suggestions to peer's process or product	Kutsche? Aber dafür braucht ein Reh!
Child recognizes peers’ processes or products	Musik machen.
Child compares its abilities, process, or product with peers	Ich kann es besser als Ma.
One direction verbalization
Child narrates loudly its actions or thoughts	Bieg alle nach außen…
Child plays alone with its product or materials	Turutu turu (making sounds while playing with his product).
Conversations that outspread
Conversation between peers and/or between peers and educator not connected to the practice	Ja. und Jo. und Cl. irgendwann waren wir auch hier oben…
Conversation between peers and/or educator that emerged from the practice	Es gibt die Pflanzen... es gibt die Pflanzen Fingerhut wirklich und ist leider sehr sehr giftig. S: Was ist ganz giftig?

Categorization of the actions

Following the analysis of the verbal expression, comes the analysis of what is being called “the actions”. The results of this phase are still being analyzed, but some interesting aspects can already be pointed out.

Since Mayring’s method was developed based on the verbal analysis, this stage of the research is following the ideas proposed by Udo Kuckartz (2018), which are also addressed to the content categorization under main categories and subcategories but can be relied on to image descriptions.

The video excerpts were transformed into single frames, and now this material is being analyzed and categorized. For this process, the software Atlas was chosen. The frames are being observed as single pictures, but also in function of the sequence of images they belong to, and then transcribed as a text description. The categorization process is similar to the process experienced while coding the verbal expressions. The categories are also emerging inductively, having the same idea of a deductive background. The coding is being done directly on the material. To do so, the pictures (video frames) are being marked, based on the description they generated. The following image and samples of categories exemplify this process. 

Actions - main categories and subcategories samples
Dealing with main materials	Child combines different materials in a construction
	Child has chosen main materials to work with
	Child manipulates or holds a main material or construction
	Child touches or points at material from the materials table
Dealing with tools
	Child has chosen tools to work with
	Child manipulates a tool in an unusual way
	Child manipulates or holds a tool
Getting influenced by peers
	Child manipulates a material or constructs something in a similar way to peers
Moving around the space
	Child is back to his/her seat
	Child moves in the children's table direction
	Child moves in the materials table's direction
	Educator looks or moves in a child's direction
Observing peers, materials and space
	Child looks at materials (main materials, tools, or construction) on the children's table
	Child looks in peer(s)'s direction
	Child looks in the camera's direction)
	Child looks in the educator's direction
	Child looks in the materials table's direction
	Child seems to have the attention caught by something external
Particularities of the process' course
	Child seems to be concentrated on their own actionsare
	Child seems to experience a problem-solving situation
	Child seems to experience a turning point situation regarding the handle of a material
	Child seems to face a problem situation
Recognizable peers/educator interactions and verbal expressions
	Body (bodies) aspects that suggest an interaction or verbal expression
	Child gets help from the educator
	Child shows a material or construction to the educator
	Educator helps a child
	Educator shows something to a child

Current conclusions

Even if the research is still being developed, and certainly new findings are going to emerge, some important points can already be mentioned. Since the beginning of the analysis, the interactions between the group and the context were in big evidence

The observation of interactions was already expected by the beginning of the research since the sessions were proposed as a group situation. Despite that, it was important to verify that the interactions were found in different levels, such as between a child and the environment (session context), between peers (children), between children and the educator. By this fact, it is possible to affirm that the interactions were at the center of the creative processes developed during the sessions.

While dealing with the materials offered in each session, the children were already experiencing interaction situations, but different events reinforced, even more, this fact. Through the observation of the interactions was possible to verify how the children dealt with problem-solving situations, asking for help or looking for solutions by themselves. The children looked at the problems they were facing and could think about how they should proceed to find a solution. The solutions also came as interactions, either with the educator, or with peers, or even with other materials.

The interactions also evidenced how the aesthetic experiences are already present in the first contact with materials, in the way children choose to manipulate the materials, in the way children decide to conduct their practice, and in the impressions caused by own final products, and by processes and products from peers. From the interaction perspective, it is also possible to look at the turning points, achieved by the development and use of skills, by the manipulation of materials, by the aesthetic experiences, by the problem-solving situations, and by the contact with peers.

To conclude the thoughts about the role of the interaction in this research, it should also be mentioned the co-creation and playing situations. Both situations were observed in different moments and sometimes at the same time. While creating, the children interacted with their peers, exchanging materials, helping each other, giving opinions one to another, sharing constructions, explaining their processes and products, creating narratives, and playing together, either during the processes or with the final products.

Next steps of the research

At the end of the current phase of the analysis, the focus is going to be turned to the final products achieved by the children. The pictures of the final products are going to be analyzed under categories, also achieved inductively. In this way, even if the analyzed materials are very distinguished from one another, a sort of pattern can be created, envisioning a concise triangulation. The achieved products can be seen in the images below.