Period: April - September 2021
Leader: Anette Damkjær/Lene Bomerholm
Artist: Tina Drejergaard/Mette Trillingsgaard
Art form: Music
Kick-off meeting: April 2021
The process has been hampered by corona, a change of artist and a new pedagogical leader was added along the way.
Asked how/if the pedagogical environment has changed, the pedagogues say: no - the first activity was too transgressive - the children were painted from head to toe and for the second activity they were only supposed to wear underpants, but we (the pedagogues) stopped that before the activity because we got complaints from parents that the children were so covered in paint. Instead, the action was moved outside. We were happy with the 2nd activity and the children loved the songs and moving to music, but it has not been fully integrated into our practice because it was so short.
Did educators learn anything new? Expectations were not quite aligned. We had an expectation that the educators would be inspired, and it was just more a case of getting out the paints - we could have done that ourselves.
We didn't quite get enough time with the music, it is still used a little, but we also forget it sometimes in a busy everyday life. We have almost forgotten about the light and dark/fast and slow music, possibly because it was not anchored enough. However, we have been confirmed that children need structure - within the framework there can easily be free play.
Do the children play other games/play with others now? no, not so much - maybe also because of corona. But especially the girls have pulled other children in and have sung the songs in the playground.
How were the children's perspectives expressed/included? In the first activity course, the children were allowed to paint freely all over the place - they thought it was fun, but the adults (including the parents) found it difficult to accept that it was so free. There was experimentation, but the educators did not feel that there was much aesthetics or education in the process. However, the educators had some "aha-experiences", e.g. that some children could concentrate for longer periods of time. In the second activity course, the project where the children were to write their own song did not quite come to fruition. The children did not fully understand the process and quickly became unconcentrated and uninterested, but when we gave it up and switched to something more physical, the children were inspired to move to classical music and it was a good experience. We would have liked this part of the program to be longer so that the children could have contributed more to the play, but education and aesthetics were part of it, especially we see it now when the girls sing the songs and involve others in the playground.
Was there a reason why the teachers got more out of the last 4 sessions compared to the first 4? It was a new area for both children and adults. Opened their eyes to what music can also be - sneaking around to quiet music and stomping to the loud - trolls and fairies for example.
Which elements from the meeting with the artist have been incorporated in practice? Not so much, we will try to see if we can focus more on the music in the future and, for example, play the classical music and some of the dances so that the children can experiment with movement themselves.
What else has been difficult along the way? Cleaning up! Especially after the first actions, there was a lot of cleaning of both the institution and the children, and it was not fully agreed who would be responsible for it.
Wonder: why didn't PlayArt become something that stuck with us - do we have to schedule it to bring it back in?
What should we do differently for a possible new course? alignment of expectations, the artist must use his own skills, preferably some drama. It could have been 2 mornings a week instead of once a week.