문화예술교육에서 예술강사의 수업설계경험에 관한 해석학적 현상학 연구

Abstract

문화의 시대를 맞아 문화적 감수성과 창조성이 강조되면서 문화예술교육의 새로운 전개가 마련되었다. 문화예술교육은 기능·기술 중심의 교육에서 문화예술을 느끼고 표현하고 창작하는 향유자 중심의 교육으로 변화했다. 이를 지원하는 다양한 정책이 시행되면서 문화예술교육은 양적 성과를 재고했으나 질적인 측면에서 부족하다는 문제가 제기되었다. 따라서 문화예술교육의 질적 성장을 위해 수업의 주체인 예술강사에 관한 연구와 정책적 지원이 활성화되고 있다. 그러나 이러한 지원에도 불구하고 예술강사는 수업설계와 교수·학습 방법 측면에서 어려움을 겪고 있다. 자신이 경험한 전문예술교육에서 벗어나 향유자 중심의 문화예술교육에 맞는 수업을 설계하고자 하지만 방법론에 대한 논의가 일부 관점에 머물러 있다. 이러한 한계점을 극복하기 위해서는 문화예술교육 현장에서 실천되는 수업설계에 관한 연구가 필요하다. 이때 수업설계는 이미 수많은 이론과 담론에 지배를 받고 있는 현상이기 때문에 현상의 주체인 예술강사의 경험을 통해 선입견 없이 있는 그대로 드러내고자 하였다. 이에 본 연구는 해석학적 현상학 연구를 기반으로 문화예술교육 현장에서 숙련된 예술강사의 수업설계 경험을 살펴보았다. 이를 통해 예술강사는 어떤 관점과 과정으로 수업을 설계하며 수업설계경험의 의미는 무엇인지 탐색하였다. 그 결과 예술강사의 수업설계경험은 크게 ‘능동적 주체로 나아가기’, ‘예술의 장을 형성하기’, ‘협력과 긴장의 관계 맺기’로 3가지 영역으로 도출되었다. 첫째, ‘능동적 주체로 나아가기’영역은 ‘수업을 다르게 바라보기’, ‘수업을 끊임없이 성찰하기’가 주제로 드러났다. 둘째, ‘예술의 장을 형성하기’영역은 ‘수업을 유동적으로 계획하기’와 ‘역동적인 현장에 반응하기’가 주제로 드러났다. 셋째, ‘협력과 긴장의 관계 맺기’영역은 ‘기관과 상호보완적 관계 맺기’, ‘학습자와 상호보완적 관계 맺기’, ‘긴장 속 관계 맺기’가 주제로 드러났다. 이를 통해 도출된 수업설계경험의 의미는 4가지 주제로 해석될 수 있었다. 첫째, ‘다양한 길을 모색하는 수업설계’이다. 문화예술교육에서 배움은 기존에 드러난 것을 재현하는 것이 아니라 드러나지 않은 차이 생성의 장으로 들어가는 것을 의미한다. 따라서 ‘차이생성의 바다에 잠입하기’와 ‘우연과 창발을 수업자원으로 끌어안기’가 강조됨을 알 수 있었다. 둘째, ‘현장성을 지향하는 수업설계’이다. 현장 밖에서 계획한 수업이 현장에서 만능키가 될 수 없다. 따라서 ‘역동적 상황에 빠져들기’, ‘가변적 수업계획서 작성하기’가 강조됨을 알 수 있었다. 셋째, ‘함께 걸어가는 수업설계’이다. 문화예술교육은 예술강사 혼자 이끌어가는 것이 아니라 수업을 둘러싼 관계자들과 함께 소통하고 타협해나가는 것이다. 따라서 ‘전지적 설계자의 지위 내려놓기’와 ‘갈등과 타협 속에서 소통하기’가 강조됨을 알 수 있었다. 넷째, ‘끊임없이 돌아보는 수업설계’이다. 예술강사는 수업의 능동적인 주체로서 무거운 책임감을 가지고 자신의 관점과 태도를 끊임없이 점검해야 한다. 따라서 문화예술교육에서는 ‘숨겨진 수업과정을 드러내기’, ‘실천과정에서 성찰하기’가 강조됨을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구가 교육공학과 문화예술교육에서 당연하게 여겨지는 수업설계 논의에 의미 있는 실천적 이해를 마련하고, 예술강사의 교육전문성 제고를 위한 예술강사 양성교육을 개발하고 실행할 수 있는 작은 실마리가 될 수 있기를 소망한다. |Since cultural sensibility and creativity are being emphasized in this cultural age, culture and arts education has entered a new phase. Culture and arts education has converted from functional technology-based education to education which is based on those who feel, express, and create culture and arts. With the implementation of diverse policies supporting this trend, culture and arts education has enhanced quantitative performance but is facing qualitative scarcity. Therefore, the studies and policy support are actively taking place for teaching artists who design and perform classes for qualitative growth of culture and arts education However, in spite of such support, teaching artists are undergoing difficulties in instructional design and teaching-learning methods. In addition, they try to conduct instructional design away from professional art education that they experienced for the culture and arts education based on those who enjoy it even though the discussions on the methodology remain at certain viewpoints. In order to overcome such limitations and improve educational expertise of teaching artists, the studies on instructional design performed at culture and arts education environments are necessary. Since instructional design is already dominated by a number of theories and discourses, this study aimed to reveal it as it is through experiences by teaching artists who are the main character of this phenomenon. In this light, this study explored instructional design experiences by experienced teaching artists in culture and arts education environments based on hermeneutic phenomenological studies. Through this, it explored that which viewpoint and process experienced teaching artists conduct instructional design and what the instructional design experiences mean. As a result, instructional design experiences by experienced teaching artists have been classified into the following three domains: 'going to an active subject’, 'forming stage of art', and 'forming the relationship between cooperation and tension'. First, the main themes of the 'going to an active subject’ domain have been identified to be ‘looking at the class differently' and ’stantly reflecting on the class classes'. Second, the main themes of the 'forming stage of art' have been identified to be 'planning classes in a fluid way' and 'responding to dynamic learning environments'. Third, the main themes of the 'forming the relationship between cooperation and tension' domain have been identified to be 'forming complementary relations with institutes', 'forming complementary relations with learners', and 'forming relations amid tension'. The implied meaning of derived instructional design experiences have been interpreted in the following four themes. The first is 'instructional design seeking a variety of paths'. Learning in culture and arts education is not reproducing what already exists but entering the stage of producing hidden differences. In that sense, it can be identified that 'embracing coincidence and emergence as instructional resources' and 'infiltrating the sea of difference generation' are being emphasized. The second is 'instructional design pursuing learning environment'. Instructional design conducted outside of learning environment cannot be the multifunctional key in the environment. Thus, it can be identified that 'writing a flexible class syllabus' and 'falling into a dynamic situation' are being emphasized. The third is 'instructional design in which everyone goes together'. Culture and Arts education is not to lead the Teaching Artist, but to communicate and compromise with the people concerned about the class. Therefore, it has been identified that 'putting down omniscient instructor status' and 'communicating amid conflict and compromise' are being emphasized. The fourth is 'instructional design to reflect ceaselessly'. Teaching artists, as active beings of instructions, should reflect on one's own viewpoint and attitude with huge responsibility. Thus, it has been identified that 'reflection in action' and 'revealing hidden instructional processes' are being emphasized in culture and arts education. This study is meaningful in the sense that it can be a small clue in organizing meaningful practical understanding of instructional design, which tends to be taken for granted in the fields of culture and arts education and educational technology, and in cultivating teaching artists for reconsidering educational expertise of teaching artists.; Since cultural sensibility and creativity are being emphasized in this cultural age, culture and arts education has entered a new phase. Culture and arts education has converted from functional technology-based education to education which is based on those who feel, express, and create culture and arts. With the implementation of diverse policies supporting this trend, culture and arts education has enhanced quantitative performance but is facing qualitative scarcity. Therefore, the studies and policy support are actively taking place for teaching artists who design and perform classes for qualitative growth of culture and arts education However, in spite of such support, teaching artists are undergoing difficulties in instructional design and teaching-learning methods. In addition, they try to conduct instructional design away from professional art education that they experienced for the culture and arts education based on those who enjoy it even though the discussions on the methodology remain at certain viewpoints. In order to overcome such limitations and improve educational expertise of teaching artists, the studies on instructional design performed at culture and arts education environments are necessary. Since instructional design is already dominated by a number of theories and discourses, this study aimed to reveal it as it is through experiences by teaching artists who are the main character of this phenomenon. In this light, this study explored instructional design experiences by experienced teaching artists in culture and arts education environments based on hermeneutic phenomenological studies. Through this, it explored that which viewpoint and process experienced teaching artists conduct instructional design and what the instructional design experiences mean. As a result, instructional design experiences by experienced teaching artists have been classified into the following three domains: 'going to an active subject’, 'forming stage of art', and 'forming the relationship between cooperation and tension'. First, the main themes of the 'going to an active subject’ domain have been identified to be ‘looking at the class differently' and ’stantly reflecting on the class classes'. Second, the main themes of the 'forming stage of art' have been identified to be 'planning classes in a fluid way' and 'responding to dynamic learning environments'. Third, the main themes of the 'forming the relationship between cooperation and tension' domain have been identified to be 'forming complementary relations with institutes', 'forming complementary relations with learners', and 'forming relations amid tension'. The implied meaning of derived instructional design experiences have been interpreted in the following four themes. The first is 'instructional design seeking a variety of paths'. Learning in culture and arts education is not reproducing what already exists but entering the stage of producing hidden differences. In that sense, it can be identified that 'embracing coincidence and emergence as instructional resources' and 'infiltrating the sea of difference generation' are being emphasized. The second is 'instructional design pursuing learning environment'. Instructional design conducted outside of learning environment cannot be the multifunctional key in the environment. Thus, it can be identified that 'writing a flexible class syllabus' and 'falling into a dynamic situation' are being emphasized. The third is 'instructional design in which everyone goes together'. Culture and Arts education is not to lead the Teaching Artist, but to communicate and compromise with the people concerned about the class. Therefore, it has been identified that 'putting down omniscient instructor status' and 'communicating amid conflict and compromise' are being emphasized. The fourth is 'instructional design to reflect ceaselessly'. Teaching artists, as active beings of instructions, should reflect on one's own viewpoint and attitude with huge responsibility. Thus, it has been identified that 'reflection in action' and 'revealing hidden instructional processes' are being emphasized in culture and arts education. This study is meaningful in the sense that it can be a small clue in organizing meaningful practical understanding of instructional design, which tends to be taken for granted in the fields of culture and arts education and educational technology, and in cultivating teaching artists for reconsidering educational expertise of teaching artists.