Switzerland & Southcaucasus

Author: dagmarreichert

Some of the participant’s after-thoughts…

Salima Bartsyts:

1. What was important for you in this project?
It was really important for me to have the opportunity to see and understand from the inside another method, another world-view, way of life, and approaches towards resolving problems and issues. Also important was the chance to immerse myself in an unusual environment and to see the differences.

2. Which part of the project did you like the most and what would you like the project to keep?
The collaborative work with the Swiss students was a highlight for me during this project. It really helps to understand one another and find common answers to different questions. [Added verbally: I also like the idea to have the pupils unaware that they are going to have an unusual lesson. I was impressed how well and quickly they adapted to the new conditions and how productively they worked.] Another positive factor that I would like the project to keep is the opportunity to live with the participants of the project, rather than in hotels. This helps to develop a better sense of daily life and to understand the way of thinking [here].

3. What should be avoided in the future?
Exhaustion, I did not have enough time to socialize outside working hours and get enough rest. I would feel greater enthusiasm to teach if I had more time to rest.

 

Arsoy Berzenia:

1. What was important for you in this project?
For me a very important thing in this project was the opportunity to go beyond my usual constraints, to think completely differently. I liked the approach and the whole system of education.

2. Which part of the project did you like the most and what would you like the project to keep?
The project should retain our only goal – interacting with pupils by engaging abstract thinking.

3. What should be avoided in the future?
I liked everything in this project.

 

Aida Adzhba:

1. What was important for you in this project?
For me, the most important thing in this project was the experience of working in the schools and of working with children. Furthermore, for me personally, a major aspect of this project was the experience of working together with Swiss colleagues. It was important to work with a different methodology.

2. Which part of the project did you like the most and what would you like the project to keep?
I think that nothing in the project should be changed. All in all, everything should be left as is. Especially the work in schools!

3. What should be avoided in the future?
Accordingly, I think that there is no need for changes whatsoever. The project has only positive aspects.

 

Lasha Gabeliia:

1. What was important for you in this project?
Important for me was, of course, the collaboration with our Swiss colleagues. While our approaches to teaching were of course different, we had the same goal, and we were able to find common ground. With time, we will rethink this more concretely [sic].

2. Which part of the project did you like the most and what would you like the project to keep?
I think the project should keep the mutual collaboration, see the answer to the first question.

3. What should be avoided in the future?
If possible, we have to eliminate the language barrier.

 

Zita Strübi:

1. What was important for you in this project?
I am very grateful that I could participate in this project. In both cities, I was exposed to various moments of cultural exchange which were at times enlightening, frustrating and very complicated. It showed me how different cultures have different approaches to working, which can make working together a challenge. This difference I believe, created a space for discussion and cultural learning.
At the same time however, working together, side by side also revealed many overlapping similarities. It was interesting to see how similar the youth culture of each group was. Both very eager to learn from the other, exchange favourite music, art, celebrities/role models, film, etc.

2. Which part of the project did you like the most and what would you like the project to keep?
For me, the most valuable part of the project was the first week, working together in teams, developing a lesson structure. It is within this setting that we were able to exchange ideas, have didactical discussions, have debate about how a lesson should be structured and examine learning outcomes. This process in the first week was very valuable, and I would have liked to have more time for this aspect. In my opinion, this is exactly where we learn the most and have the chance to learn from each other. I would have really liked to have spent more time learning how the Abkhazian group plans lessons, how do they explore a topic, how they transfer practical skills and implement learning in a creative setting. I found this aspect for the exchange did not receive the time it should have.

3. What should be avoided in the future?
For the next round of the project, I would recommend that the implementation of the double lesson be reduced. I don’t believe that we spent enough time after each lesson getting feedback from the professors (Swiss and Abkhazian) to justify spending 6 double lessons teaching. The main aims of the project I believe, are revealed the preparation for these classes and the discourse which it creates. While I believe that we should watch how classes are taught in the first week (hospitieren), teaching perhaps only 2 double lessons would have been sufficient.

From the workshop in Zurich…

 

From a report about the workshop in Zürich and Bülach by Judit Villiger:

Die zwei Wochen ermöglichten Einblicke in kunstpädagogische Situationen auf der Sekundarstufe II in verschiedenen Institutionen. Durch die Zusammenarbeit mit den Fachschaften Bildnerisches Gestalten an den Kantonsschulen Zürich Nord (Oerlikon) und Zürich Unterland (Bülach) konnten die Teilnehmenden hospitieren und bekamen damit Einblicke in Doppellektionen, wie auch Einblicke in Aufgabenreihen über längere Zeiträume. Ein Besuch mit Führung an der Atelierschule Zürich und zwei museumspädagogische Führungen im Museum Rietberg und im Kunsthaus Zürich zeigten weitere Aspekte kunstpädagogischer Lehr-/Lernsituationen auf.

Im Austausch und der Reflexion in gemischten Gruppen, zusammengesetzt aus Teilnehmenden aus Abchasien/Georgien und der Schweiz, aus Dozierenden und Studierenden (ZHdK: Bachelor- und Master-Studiengang), sowie je einer Übersetzerin, wagten wir den Versuch, eigene Unterrichtseinheiten für die Stufe zu entwickeln, in welchen methodische Anteile aus beiden Systemen integriert werden sollten. Gemeinsame Runden im Plenum bei der abendlichen Zusammenkunft im Büro von artasfoundation (Leitung Dagmar Reichert) unterstützten den Austausch, der bei unserem Besuch diesen April in Suchum/i begonnen hatte. Wir versuchten damit weiter, Differenzen in kunstpädagogischen Vorannahmen auf den Grund zu gehen. So war es bereits bei unserm Besuch in Suchum/i den Studierenden der ZHdK eher ein Anliegen, Prozesse in Gruppen auszulösen, während die Kooperationspartner/innen den Lernerfolg in gelungenen, abgeschlossenen Einzelarbeiten der Schüler/Innen sahen.

Schon unsere unterschiedliche Herangehensweise an die Unterrichtsplanung legte Unterschiede zutage, welche namentlich implizite Lehr/Lern-Vorstellungen betrafen. Neben der sprachlichen Herausforderung – alles musste ins Russische und von da für uns wieder ins Englische übersetzt werden – stellten wir fest, wie wenig wir noch immer von den gegenseitigen ‘Lehrplänen’ wussten. Wir stellten fest, wieviel mitgemeintes Wissen ‘zwischen den Zeilen’ erst ausformuliert, nachvollzogen und in die je andere Kultur übersetzt werden muss, um uns eine gemeinsame Ausgangslage zu erschaffen. Die CH-Studierenden begriffen beispielsweise, dass die thematische Ideensuche, die ihnen als selbstverständliche Ausgangslage zum Vorbereiten erschien, alles andere als gegeben ist, wenn von Seiten der Kooperationspartner/innen Portraitzeichnen im akademischen Stil initiiert wird, wie es bei ihnen auf dem Plan steht. Wir fragten uns je länger je drängender, was wir voneinander wissen und lernen müssen, um überhaupt erst die Grundlagen zu legen, die es erlauben, in den Austausch kommen zu können.

Schliesslich unterrichteten alle Gruppen je 6 Doppellektionen Bildnerisches Gestalten an der Kantonschule Zürich Unterland in Anwesenheit der BG-Lehrpersonen, mit welchen die Unterrichtseinheiten im Anschluss reflektiert wurden. Die Gespräche indes sind noch lange nicht zu Ende, und auch der Austausch zwischen Suchum/i und Zürich scheint damit erst richtig begonnen zu haben: Die Studierenden und Dozierenden wünschen sich für eine nächste Phase, sich als Gruppen je gegenseitig zu unterrichten, um die System-Unterschiede, die Methoden-Ansätze, die Auffassungen möglicher Kunstbegriffe und das, was da alles ‘dahintersteckt’, möglicherweise noch besser und ‘am eigenen Leib’ erst zu erfahren. Wir haben immerhin gelernt, dass wir noch viel mehr voneinander wissen und voneinander lernen müssen, damit wir als disparate Gruppen erst handlungsfähig werden.

 

From the lectures of the participants in Bülach

Through the support of the docent-team for Art Education of  the Kantonsschule Bülach, in particular Priska Senn,  the lectures could took place in different classes of this school. The participants of our workshop divided in three groups, all of them with participants from Zurich and from Suchum/i. Each group focused on a particular theme.

        Group Nr. 1: Portraits

          Group Nr. 2: Trad. & innovative dresses

     Group Nr.3: From small to large

 

Welcome Dagmar

My name is Dagmar Reichert, I initiated this exchange project and am responsible for it on the side of the Swiss foundation artasfoundation (www.artasfoundation.ch). I very much look forward to all the encounters, to the sharing and exchanging that this project – hopefully! – will bring!

© 2022 Art Matters

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑