.jpg)
International Seminar on Languages and Arts (ISLA-2), “Empowring Theories and Pedagogical Aplication Languages and Arts”, FBS Universitas Negeri Padang, 5-6 Oktober 2013, di Hotel Pangeran Beach, Padang
Oleh: Nasbahry Couto [1]
& Ramalis Hakim[2]
Abstract
The assumption that the field of pedagogy and the arts are rooted in the same science that is psychology, would attenuate the differences between: the practice of the art learning and pedagogical practices. This can result in a lack of attention to the art science teacher. Really it's just the art of science is rooted in the science of psychology? Apparently not. In a clear pedagogical practices that aim arts education can not be generalized to any ranking elementary, junior high and high school. If this is true, then the teacher of arts majors are not needed, because it can be replaced from the teachers of the graduates of the Faculty of Educational Sciences. Conversely, if there are teachers and professors who believe that the roots of the art science just skills (technological arts) and to be an artist, this assumption is not true, because learning does not mean the same as the art of learning Expertise Group (KK) Art Practice, because there another lesson is learning families of Arts (Aesthetics and the Sciences of Arts). Of Arts is mastery over territory controlled by families that have art teachers and lecturers. And according to the writer, it is too weak from the central (compilers curriculum) to the lower level (implementing the curriculum). Learning art is distinguished in rank elementary, junior high and high school, hence the term "art education" can not be generalized to all this education rankings. Important note there should be debriefing science teacher and lecturer on art, particularly art theories relevant, especially about the sociology and anthropology of art is a relatively new art developed in Indonesia.
Key Words: Beliefs About Learning, The Sciences of Arts, and Curricullum
