Advertisement

Arts Education in Iran

Reclaiming the Lost Ground
  • Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 11)

Harry Broudy (1979) posed this serious and thought-provoking question to policymakers throughout the world about 25 years ago. In the light of the inadequate attention paid to the arts in education systems, the question has preserved its validity to the current day, even though Broudy, along with many other education specialists, have provided rather persuasive answers to it. Their answers, although resting on different grounds, all point to the fact that art education should be part and parcel of any defensible basic education scheme, or the fourth R.

Elliot Eisner, for example, has taken up a position along these lines rooted in a different definition or conception of literacy (1983, 1998). He contends that the term ‘literacy’ should no longer be limited to reading, writing and arithmetic. A broader and a more comprehensive account of literacy should encompass all the symbolic systems and languages that have been created to perform a unique epistemic function (Eisner, 1998, p. 11). He further insists that these different languages have been created out of absolute necessity, since redundancy and repetition would have resulted in a less pluralistic situation than we are witnessing today (Eisner, 1983, p. 50). The ability to decode and encode meaning within each of the extant symbolic systems, therefore, is an essential power and skill that a fully literate (in contrast to ‘semiliterate’) individual should possess. The arts, representing the prime example of non-conventional symbolic systems, can effectively complement the range of languages or cultural tools available to the next generations for the purpose of communication and mutual understanding.

Keywords

Education System Elementary Level Symbolic System Aesthetic Experience Educational Leadership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amini, M. 2001. An ideal art curriculum for the elementary level in Iran, 2001. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in the Department of Education of T.M.U., Teheran, Iran.Google Scholar
  2. Arnheim, R. 1989. Thoughts on Art Education. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Centre for Education in the Arts.Google Scholar
  3. Broudy, H.S. 1972. The Enlightened Cherishing: An Essay on Aesthetic Education. Kappa Delta Pi, Urbana, IL: Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  4. Broudy, H.S. 1979. Art Education: Necessary or Just Nice? Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 347–350.Google Scholar
  5. Broudy, H.S. 1999. The Role of Imagery in Learning. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Centre for Education in the Arts.Google Scholar
  6. Dissayanake, E. 1991. Art for life’s sake. In Caroll, K.L. (ed.) What Is Art For? pp. 15–25. National Art Education Association, 1991 National Convention Keynote Addresses.Google Scholar
  7. Eisner, E. 1983. The kind of schools we need. Educational Leadership, October, 48–55.Google Scholar
  8. Eisner, E. 1994. The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Eisner, E. 1998. The Kind of Schools We Need: Personal Essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Greer, W.D. 1984. A discipline-based art education. Studies in Art Education, 25, 4, 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs, H.H. (ed.) 1989. Interdisciplinary Curriculum Design and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobs, H.H. 2003–2004. Creating a timely curriculum: a conversation with Heidi Hayes Jacobs. Educational Leadership, 61, 4, 12–17.Google Scholar
  13. Mehrmohammadi, M. 2002. Curriculum: Orientations, Theories and Perspectives. Teheran: Behnashr Publishing House.Google Scholar
  14. Navvab Safavi, M. 2002. Report on the Validation Study of the Curriculum Guide for Arts at the Elementary Level. Teheran: ORCD.Google Scholar
  15. Ohler, J. 2000. Art becomes the fourth R. Educational Leadership, 58, 2, 16–19.Google Scholar
  16. Organisation for Research and Curriculum Development (ORCD) 2003. Curriculum Guide for Arts at the Elementary Level. Tehran: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  17. Pike, G. and Selby, D. 1995. Reconnecting: From National to Global Curriculum. Godalming: World Wide Fund for Nature.Google Scholar
  18. Rooholamini, J.H. (ed.) 2001. The Evolution of Curriculum at Elementary and Middle School Level in Iran (1922–2001). Teheran: Headquarters of the Higher Council of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Walling, D.R. 2000. Rethinking How Art Is Taught: A Critical Convergence. New York: Crowin Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi
    • 1
  1. 1.Tarbiat Modarres University (T.M.U.)Iran

Personalised recommendations