THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS, THEATRE, AND DANCE THE SHELF LIFE OF DBAE: ART

TEACHER RETENTION OF DISCIPLINE-BASED ART EDUCATION STRATEGIES IN THE CLASSROOM By ANN TIPPETTS CHRISTIANSEN

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Art Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2007

The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Ann Tippetts Christiansen defended on March 1, 2007

Tom Anderson Professor Directing Dissertation

Stanford Olsen Outside Committee Member

Pat Villeneuve Committee Member

Melanie Davenport Committee Member

Approved:

Marcia Rosal, Chair, Department of Art Education

Sally McRorie, Dean, School of Visual Arts, Theatre, and Dance

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Frank M. and Janet B. Tippetts, for instilling in all of their children a strong work ethic, to my father for imbuing me with a sense of the art world, and to my husband, Bill, and children, Nathan, Shawn, Brandon, and Alissa for their unwavering support of my goal to attain this degree.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge thank the following people for their contributions to the completion of this work: Nathan and Shawn Christiansen for their electronic and graphics expertise and willingness to share it Tom Anderson for his guidance in writing and his unflagging encouragement to stay the course under exceptional circumstances

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Abstract

1

................................................................................................

viii ix
1 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 11 12 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 16 18 18 18 18 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 24 24 26 29 31 31 31 32 32 33

......................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION Problem Statement Guiding Question Supporting Questions Objectives of Study Personal Motivation Rationale for Study Justification of Study Scope and Limitations of Study Overview of Procedure and Methodology Definition of Terms Summary

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Part I: A Brief History Approaching the 21st Century Behaviorism Progressivism Reconstructionism Social Efficiency Between World Wars Education Progressivism vs. Behaviorism Teacher Education Normal Schools Standardized Teacher Training Art Education Child-Centered Art Levels of Art Education World War II to the Demand for Excellence Education Progressivism Under Attack Education Reform Child-Centered Schools Excellence in Education Teacher Education Art Education/Art Teacher Training Child-Centered Art Education Content-Based Art Education Summary of History Part II: A Paradigm Shift Discipline-Based Art Education Why Discipline-Based Art Education? Art as a Subject of Study Art as a Discipline DBAE Articulated

Justification for DBAE DBAE Content & Strategies DBAE Curricula Art For Every Student DBAE Assessment DBAE at Florida State University Graduate Degree Programs The F.I.A.E. Diverging Paths Choices in Art Education Critics of DBAE Comprehensive Art Education Visual Culture Art Education Summary of Review of Literature 3 METHODOLOGY Problem Statement Guiding Questions Supporting Questions Objectives Non-technical Overview of the Study Theoretical Foundation Phenomenological Research Qualitative Research The Survey The Interviews Population Survey Sample Interview Sample Procedures and Instruments: Overview Literature Review as a Tool Survey Instrument Interview instrument Coding the Data Reporting the Data Summary 4 STUDY RESULTS Guiding Question Supporting Questions Survey Survey Participants Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D Teacher E Teacher F Teacher G Teacher H Teacher I Teacher J Teacher K

33 34 35 36 37 37 38 39 39 40 40 42 43 43 46 46 46 46 47 49 50 51 52 55 56 59 60 61 62 64 65 66 67 70 71 73 73 73 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 78 79 79 80 80 81

vi

Survey Responses Demographic Responses Descriptive Responses Evaluative Responses Summary of the Survey Findings Demographic Findings Descriptive Findings Evaluative Findings Interviews Interview Participants Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I Interview Responses Demographic Responses Descriptive Responses Evaluative Responses Summary 5 CONCLUSIONS Guiding Question of the Study Supporting Questions Summaries of Responses to Supporting Questions Supporting Question 1 Supporting Question 2 Supporting Question 3 Supporting Question 4 Emergent Foci Age and Experience Early Training Continued Education Administrative Support Summary of the Findings Presented Thematically Conclusion Implications For Theory and Practice in Art Education Future Research

82 82 89 96 101 101 102 104 105 107 107 108 108 109 109 119 127 137 138 138 138 139 140 140 141 143 145 146 147 147 148 150 152 154 156

APPENDICES

................................................................................................
Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A: B: C: D: E: D: Survey Questions & Results Interviews Schedule & Results Human Subjects Committee Approval #1 Informed Consent Form #1 Human Subjects Committee Approval #2 Informed Consent Form #2 158 170 194 195 196 197

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..............................................................................

198

211

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Teachers Ages............................................................................................. Teachers Academic Degrees/Certificates...................................................... Teachers School Levels ............................................................................... Teachers School Districts ............................................................................. Special School Designations......................................................................... School Letter Grades.................................................................................... Teacher Grade Level Assignments ............................................................... 82 84 85 86 87 88 89

viii

ABSTRACT Ann Tippetts Christiansen This research is primarily a phenomenological qualitative study of how art teachers who were trained in the approach continue to use Discipline-Based Art Education. The study assessed how the graduates of the formerly-DBAE-focused art education program at Florida State University currently use that paradigm as the focus of their art programs. The selected art teachers were interviewed, which was the primary research strategy for this study. The teachers who were interviewed were selected from the results of a survey that was the supporting strategy. During the twentieth century, art teacher preparation changed periodically to meet the challenges inherent in growth in the field (Day, 1997; Dobbs, 1992). It has been acknowledged that DBAE, or Discipline-Based Art Education, is a theoretical approach rather than a curriculum (Day, 1991). As a result, the DBAE approach has been revised and redesigned to suit teachers, resources, and school and classroom circumstances. By the beginning of the twenty first century discipline-based art education had become ingrained in art teacher preparation, but since that time, there has been a shift away from DBAE a s the dominant art education paradigm being taught in teacher education programs in higher education. This is the case even though practicing teachers continue to use it as the dominant model. With that understanding, it would be of value to know how that approach is still utilized. Since the FSU Art Education Department revised its teacher education training program in the early years of the twenty first century, the Departments approach to teaching art in schools has changed in response to the context in which students learn art and teachers teach it, to the globalization of information, to the relative ease with which one can access information about differing cultures and ideas, as well as to the changing nature of art (Anderson, 2006; Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005; Stokrocki, 2004). Currently within the North American art education community, there is no single approach to art education, although the tenets of DBAE remain foundational with branches growing in different directions a s new notions of what should be included in art curricula emerge.

ix

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

In the late 1980s, teacher education in the visual arts, noted Sevigny (1987), [was] at the threshold of significant opportunity (p. 121), with the advent of disciplinebased art education. That opportunity grew from nineteenth century studio-based art education, through traditions such as progressivism and child-centered art education, to the challenges issued by the excellence movements that characterized art education in the second half of the twentieth century. As the end of the twentieth century approached, paradigms were shifting toward an approach to art education that expanded the perception of it to include not only the instruction of studio practices in art production, but also some knowledge of arts history, a grasp of the principles of aesthetic judgment, and an understanding of at least a few of the puzzles inherent in our reflections on art (Smith, 1987b, p vi). Discipline-based art education (DBAE), as it came to be known, grew from that perceived need and was the driving force in art education through the end of the twentieth century (Day, 1997; Greer, 1984). Art teachers who used the DBAE approach required significant training whether they had taught art or were new to the field. The training came primarily from university art education programs, but significant opportunities for training also were provided through institutes of art education under the auspices of university programs and the Getty Center for Education in the Arts (Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1993). The institutes made summer training available to art teachers, classroom teachers, and school administrators whose presence was required to ensure subsequent administrative support at each school. With changing times institutions of higher learning have had to strive to keep pace by offering improvements in teacher education programs. Day (1997) remonstrated that with change must also come the determination of colleges and university teacher preparation programs to strengthen

and improve current art teacher preparation programs, to ensure that all programs are at least adequate and preferably better (p. 11). During the twentieth century, art teacher preparation changed periodically to meet the challenges inherent in growth in the field (Day, 1997; Dobbs, 1992), and now DBAE is no longer the dominant art teacher education paradigm. The dynamic nature of the field of art education requires examination of teacher preparation in the context of the times as well as an investigation into the effectiveness of that preparation to ensure that the significant opportunity that concerned Sevigny is maximized and enhanced. In that context, all that is older is not useless. An assumption of this study is that we shouldnt dispose of the good along with the bad, the baby with the bathwater. So the question is, what has been good about DBAE? What should we keep? DBAE is a theoretical approach to teaching and learning rather than a curriculum (Day, 1991). As a result, the DBAE approach has been revised and redesigned to suit teachers, resources, as well as school and classroom circumstances. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, discipline-based art education had become ingrained in art teacher preparation, but since that time, there has been a shift away from DBAE as the dominant art education paradigm being taught in teacher education programs in higher education. This is the case even though practicing teachers continue to use it as a dominant model. With that understanding, it would be of value to know how that approach is still utilized. How is DBAE currently used in K-12 schools? What is still useful about it? How have some of the components of DBAE changed as individual teachers have had opportunity to use the approach and determine its success in the classroom? This research is primarily a phenomenological qualitative study of how art teachers who were trained in the approach continue to use DBAE. The study assessed how the graduates of a formerly-DBAE-focused art education program currently use that paradigm as the focus of their art programs. The selected teachers were interviewed, which was the primary research strategy for this study. They were selected from the results of a survey that was the supporting strategy. Graduates from The Florida State University Art Education program were chosen for this study as a result of the selection of that program by the Getty Center for

Education in the Arts as a training venue for prospective art teachers (1988). As a result of the Snowbird initiative (1988), Florida State University became a primary institution for training prospective art teachers the DBAE approach. The students who graduated from FSUs art education program during the period from 1987 through 2003 were trained in fundamental approaches to teach a comprehensive art program including the four tenets of DBAE, specifically art history, art production, aesthetics, and art criticism (General Bulletin, 1997). Since the FSU Art Education Department revised its teacher education training program in the early years of the twenty first century, the Departments approach to teaching art in schools had changed in response to the context in which students learn art and teachers teach it, to the globalization of information, to the relative ease with which one can access information about differing cultures and ideas, as well as to the changing nature of art (Anderson, 2006; Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005; Stokrocki, 2004). Currently within the North American art education community, there is no single approach to art education, although the tenets of DBAE remain foundational with branches growing in different directions as new notions of what should be included in art curricula emerge. Some of the courses at FSU were informed by an expanded version of content-centered comprehensive art education with seven foci including four tenets of DBAE (studio production, art criticism, aesthetics, and art history) and three more: creativity, visual culture, and emerging technologies (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005). With recent developments in mind, it can be beneficial to determine the viability of discipline-based art education, or at least aspects of DBAE, in the minds of art teachers who were trained in its use and continue to use it or aspects of it. Once DBAE-trained teachers began to practice their craft, they made choices as to what to emphasize and what to omit to accommodate each teachers situation. To determine where art education stands at this time, it is appropriate for the discipline of art education to step back and evaluate the shelf life of DBAE. Does it continue? Is it used as it was originally intended? What changes have emerged? Are the changes occurring with any consistency, or are they differing from teacher to teacher? What are the implications for art education? The answers to these and similar questions lie, at least in part, with the practitioners of art education.

Problem Statement It was necessary to explore how art teachers have not only put into practice the approach in which they were trained, but also explore what has influenced the changes they have made in their art curricula (Day, 1997; Thurber, 2004; Zimmerman, 2004). This study was designed to determine the opinions of selected art teachers who participated in and graduated from the FSU program with a bachelors and/or a masters degree in art education on a teacher certification track during the period when the DBAE paradigm was taught to determine whether they still practice the DBAE approach, what aspects of it they find useful, and what aspects they think should be retained in future teacher preparation. The study included a contextual examination of trends in art education during the twentieth century to indicate the place DBAE occupied in that history. With an understanding of the place DBAE occupied, the question this study examined was whether the components of DBAE were still viable for future directions in art education as perceived by selected DBAE-trained art teachers. The guiding research problem for this project was: Given that it was the dominant paradigm in art education for twenty years, given that we are currently moving into other paradigms of art education, particularly Comprehensive Art Education, one form of which is Art For Life (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005) and Visual Culture Art Education (Duncum, 2001; Tavin & Hausman, 2004), and given that there must have been something valuable in discipline-based art education to make it such a dominant paradigm for that period, what is it that is still valuable about discipline-based art education, what would be desirable to retain from DBAE, what were its most successful aspects, what were its most useful qualities, in the eyes of selected practitioners who continue to use that paradigm? Guiding Question The guiding question for this study was: What aspects of discipline-based art education do art teachers trained in DBAE find useful and valuable in teaching art, and what aspects would they recommend retaining in future art teacher training?

Supporting Questions Through an extensive literature review of significant literature of teacher preparation, the following supporting questions emerged that helped frame the conceptual foundations of this study. 1. 2. 3. 4. What have practitioners trained in the DBAE approach retained and used consistently? Why is this so? What non-DBAE components have been added to teachers DBAE-framed programs? Why? What components have been discarded, from the DBAE approach, and why were they discarded. What aspects of DBAE do practicing DBAE-trained art teachers recommend be retained in future art teacher training? Objectives of Study The objectives of this study were to: 1. Determine the historical context in which discipline-based art education developed and to gather other information related to the research problem through a review of literature; 2. 3. Design a survey instrument and survey teachers to find a base of information and an interview population; Design an interview instrument and interview selected teachers to assess the uses of DBAE and the attitudes of selected teachers trained in the DBAE paradigm to DBAE as well as the modifications they have made since they began using the approach; 4. Describe, analyze, interpret and evaluate the data to determine how the selected teachers continue to use DBAE or not, what aspects they use, modifications made, reasons why, and the value they put on given aspects of DBAE as well as their recommendations for its future use in teacher training programs; and

5.

Draw conclusions regarding the DBAE paradigm and its current use in selected schools based on the supporting data and suggest possible uses of aspects of DBAE in future art teacher training. Personal Motivation for This Study There was personal reason for me to follow this particular line of research. As an

art teacher in a middle school, I was concerned with the preparation I received as a certification track undergraduate. As a 1972 graduate with a major in art from another university, I was not as prepared to teach art as I was prepared to make art. With the completion of a Master of Science degree in art education in 1992 from FSU, which at the time was using the DBAE paradigm, I felt prepared to teach the subject and to inspire my students. As a teacher who found satisfaction in using components of DBAE, I was curious about the other practicing art teachers who came through this program. Were they as satisfied as I was with DBAE as the foundation of their art curricula? What have they changed since they implemented the DBAE model? I felt it was important to research the teaching and learning strategies of other graduates of the program in which I received that focused training in DBAE to see if others currently practice DBAE and why. In short, I felt that there were valuable aspects of DBAE, and I wanted to see if others did, too, and why.

Rationale for the Study Discipline-based art education has been a useful paradigm. As a practitioner of the approach, I was in a position to know this first hand, so I was curious as to the opinion of others who were prepared to teach using DBAE of the efficacy of that approach. During the decade that FSU primarily trained art teachers in the DBAE approach, that paradigm was a tool to reform teachers who had been practicing earlier methods as well as to prepare new teachers (Day, 2000). This study sought to determine what aspects of DBAE remained useful and what was advised to be retained by practicing teachers for future teacher training. The current viability and projections for future directions were based on responses from teachers who, first, were trained in the DBAE approach, and, second, have taught using that approach and adapted the

approach to fit the needs of their students and schools. With the results from the interviews, recommendations are made as to what could be fostered from the original DBAE approach, and, conversely, what should be discarded as no longer useful. Justification of the Study The last half of the twentieth century was marked by the cry for improvements in the nations schools (Barkan, 1960; Bigge & Shermis, 1991; Brown, 1991; Bybee, 1998; Clowse, 1981; Efland, 1990b; Eisner, 1972; McFee, 1965; Rhoades, 1985; Rippa, 1992). Critics claimed that the American educational system was not doing its job. The movement toward higher academic standards dominated the debate over the direction of American education with an emphasis on math and science, curtailing the influence of Progressive Education (Bruner, 1960, 1962; Barkan, 1960). When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, criticism of the American educational system escalated (Efland, 1990; Rippa, 1992). Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958. Art educators responded to the movement but with differing approaches. DBAE was accepted by many as the definitive approach to art education that would include art production but also art history, art criticism, and aesthetics as means to mold art education into a viable discipline that could place it on a level comparable with math or science in the school curricula (Greer, 1984). Day (1997) noted that for significant progress to be made in the implementation of any new approach, it was vital that art teachers be included in the research and improvement process. It is appropriate and needed now, as it was then, to allow art teachers who participated in the art education program at the Florida State University to provide the data for assessing the success of the approach taught at that time (Anderson, 2000; Hutchens, 1997). With the feedback from the teachers trained in the DBAE approach to art education, a more accurate measure of the value of the approach is possible. The practitioners who have put the approach in place are in an excellent position to assess its practical merits.

Scope and Limitations of the Study Primarily, this phenomenological qualitative study has the potential to inform the art education community about the practical value of DBAE, or aspects of DBAE, as seen through responses of the selected teachers who were trained in the paradigm and teach using that paradigm. I interviewed selected art teachers to obtain their responses to queries about the success of DBAE in their art programs and about where their programs have diverged from the DBAE approach. The study is limited in that the survey participants consisted of 11 teachers, and there were three teachers who were interviewed so the results are not generalizable. More teachers would increase the generalizability of the results, but the focus on the three teachers, instead, provided an in-depth look at their perspectives from a phenomenological perspective (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Overview of the Procedures and Methodology This is a phenomenological qualitative study (Krathwohl, 1993; Charles & Mertler, 2002). The selection of art teachers to be interviewed was made from those who graduated from The Florida State University with bachelors and/or masters degrees in art education between 1990 and 2000, who were currently teaching art in the state of Florida. The interview participants were selected from a population responding to the earlier survey about DBAE conducted by the researcher. This study evaluates those in the field as to their perception of the DBAE approach to art education, its current viability, aspects of the paradigm that are more or less useful to them, and their ideas about future directions for emergent art education paradigms. DBAE is an approach to art education that evolved in response to conditions in the world and the United States of America as they impacted the course of education. In order to place the program at FSU in the context of its time in art education, I conducted a literature review of the history of art education and art teacher training practices couched in the context of notable events during the twentieth century. Since education is impacted by events in history, it was critical that trends in education and teacher training be examined in the historic setting that gave impetus to change. By extension, it was equally critical that art education and art teacher preparation also be

analyzed as it was framed by general trends in education. The first portion of the literature review laid the foundation for the inception of DBAE. Included was the development of the plan by researchers accompanied by art teachers for the transition from teaching using the predecessors of DBAE to its use as the basis for art education in Americas schools. The DBAE paradigm was delineated, including descriptions of the positions of its advocates as well as those of its detractors. In 2005 an inquiry was conducted of 28 of the teachers who graduated from the FSU Art Education program during the DBAE period to set foundational information about potential participants and their perceptions of their DBAE-centered art education. From the eleven respondents to this survey, three participants were selected who were interviewed. The selection of the interviewees was based on demographic data and appropriateness of the potential interviewees to the purpose of this study. This is called purposeful sampling (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Seidman, 1998; Schultz, Chambless, & Decuir, 2004). I am the researcher for this study, and am responsible for the creation of the questions used in the interviews of the art teachers, the search for the art teachers where they now reside and are now employed, and for contacts with the art teachers with a request for assistance in this study through participating in the interview process (Eisner, 1991; Seidman, 1998). I am also the person who completed the descriptions, analyses and interpretations of the interview transcriptions. Thus, judgment of the value of DBAE as well as its current status is based on the data collected through the interviews and my analysis of them. As a middle school art teacher in Florida, I, too, impact this study as I brought my own experience to the study simply as a result of the impossibility of absolute objectivity due to my involvement in art education. As much as possible, as the researcher, I reported the responses as they were recorded and summarized the data without distortion, but my influence is reflected, and I acknowledge that (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Definition of Terms These terms are framed from a DBAE point of view as articulated by scholars engaged in that theory and practice.

Aesthetics: This is an area of philosophy that deals with the perception of the beautiful and the value of art. Aesthetics is that branch of philosophy that endeavors to understand our experience and perceptions of art (Crawford, 1987). Art criticism: This involves judgments about art based on standards supported by good reason. Art criticism seeks to inform and educate peopleabout art by providing insights into its meaning so as to increase the understanding and appreciation of art and to illuminate the cultural ands societal values reflected in it (Risatti, 1987, p. 219). Art education: Art education is the instruction of visual art as a subject in school using a set approach designed to meet set criteria of knowledge and accomplishment. Art is taught as a subject in school curricula with specific content, objectives, and practices (Smith, 1987a). Art history: Art history is the examination of art in the context of the times in which it was created and with reference to the artist or culture that made it. It is an area of knowledge concerning examining works of art to the end that they become meaningful in the scheme of history through writing and discussion (Kleinbauer, 1987). Art production: Art production is the creation of art. In art production that is within a DBAE approach, students learn to join imagination to a sensitivity for materials, tools, and processes, and technique becomes an accomplishment that contributes significant quality to their work (Spratt, 1987, p. 202). Creative Self-Expression: Creative self-expression is art is the act of making forms that [bear] human meaning. This is an intentional, purposeful act of making meaning through the use and manipulation of aesthetic tools such as composition, technique, and concepts. It may be judged by the appropriateness of the means in relation to the perceived expression in a social context (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005, p. 235). Discipline-based art education: DBAE is an approach to teaching art that incorporates the study of art history, aesthetics, art criticism and art production in the student experience with the goal of developing students abilities to understand and appreciate art. This involves a knowledge of the theories and contexts of art and abilities to respond to as well as to create art. Art is taught as an essential component of general education and as a foundation for specialized art study (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987, p. 135).

10

Interview: A meeting during which someone is asked questions, for example, by a journalist or a researcher. It is a purposeful conversation, usually between two people (but sometimes involving more) that is directed by one in order to get information (Bogdan &Biklen, 1982, p. 135). Paradigm: An example that serves as a pattern or model for something, especially one that forms the basis of a methodology or theory, is a paradigm. Paradigms are noted for being loose collection[s] of logically-held together assumptions, concepts, or propositions that orient thinking and research (Bogdan & Biklen, 1981, p. 30). Phenomenology: The study of things as they are perceived as opposed to the study of the nature of things is phenomenology. This is subjective and requires researchers to attempt to gain access to their subjects understanding of the world, for it is that understanding that constructs reality for the subjects (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Summary This study is designed to determine through empirical evidence the perceptions and opinions of the art teachers who participated in and graduated from the FSU DBAEbased program for teacher education between the years 1990 and 2000 with a bachelors and/or a masters degree in art education on a teacher certification track to determine how the DBAE approach has served their goals for teaching art. Through a literature review the program familiarly known as DBAE is placed in its historical context and delineated in terms of the reasons for its content, development, and implementation. The preliminary survey set the stage, provided the means for selecting participants, and provided initial information about their responses to DBAE as a paradigm. The interviews serve to provide further demographic detail about individual teaching situations, but the primary purpose of that activity is to allow art teachers who were prepared to teach art by means of using the DBAE paradigm to evaluate the value of that approach. With the growing concern for educational reform, art educators in higher education are determined that the preparation of art teachers be addressed in terms of the directions the subject may take (Day, 1997; Efland, 1990a; Smith, 1987; Spring, 2004). This study seeks to add insight and information to accomplish that task.

11

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Discipline-based art education was the dominant paradigm in art education toward the end of the twentieth century (Clark, 1997; Day, 1997a; Day, 1997b; Stankiewicz, 2000; Wilson, 1996.) Prior to the advent of discipline-based art education, its antecedents characterized the swinging pendulum of change. Depending on the events in local, national, or global communities, approaches to art education have responded to the prevailing attitudes of the day. When the arc of a pendulum reaches its most extreme in either direction, it begins to swing back, but it retains the energy of the previous stroke (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005; Bell, 2005; Kuhn, 1970; Mittler & Ragans, 1999). Art education is at the apex of a new change, or a paradigm shift, as practitioners of discipline-based art education review the past decades and opt for new paradigms. The question, here, is what is valuable about DBAE? What should be retained in the eyes of practitioners? This literature review, initially, then, must focus on what DBAE is and what its qualities are. In order to determine the place DBAE occupies in history and the reasons for its inception, the patterns established by previous changes in art education policy need appropriate, but brief, examination. Mary Erickson (1979) noted that one reason to study histories of art education would be to create dialogue and ask questions about current and future directions in art education. The first portion of the literature review, therefore, is an examination of art education in the last half of the twentieth century leading to the perceived need for a discipline-based approach to art education. This examination contributes to an understanding of what was realized in the years just prior to the adoption of a new model in art education as the end of the twentieth century approached (Sevigny, 1987). A study of DBAE within frameworks of "social values, cultural reproduction, economic production, and political issues" (Stankiewicz, 1992, p. 172) of the times is essential to an understanding of the implementation of the approach. 12

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries there were three dominant movements in art education (Efland, 1990a). The expressionist, reconstructionist and scientific movements, in turn, dominated or contributed to change and growth in education and art education. Placing a new approach to art education in the context of national movements and the responses of general education to those movements enables the impetus for change to become more apparent. Additionally, providing context for the implementation of DBAE allows researchers to measure the effects of that approach more effectively as art education moves to new paradigms. Although an examination of DBAE in isolation offers the opportunity to dissect it and study the elements that made it successful, it is advantageous to first examine the approach in the context of that time, thus giving the researcher the advantage of knowing the foundations that led to its development and implementation (Seidman, 1998; Sevigny, 1987). Armed with this understanding, conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of DBAE in achieving the goals as well as to the perception by its practitioners of what direction they take when given a need or opportunity for change in approaches. The inclusion of this portion of the literature review assists in setting the stage for DBAE, in the determination of what made DBAE significant in art education history, in the measure of its success, and some of the reasons for diverging from the path established by the advocates and practitioners of that approach. Part two of the review of literature focuses on discipline-based art education as presented to the art education community by those who prepared the approach for use in the classroom. With the context of trends in education, teacher education and art education established, an examination of that approach is detailed. Section two of the literature review also introduces noted trends in art education that have come about since DBAE.

13

Part One: A Brief History Approaching the Twentieth Century As the twentieth century opened it was apparent that the societal goals of the nineteenth century, to educate future citizens, reduce crime, and provide equality of opportunity, (Spring, 2004, p. 8) had not changed. Although the church was the organization most likely to promote these goals in past centuries, by the twentieth century the school had become the institution on which pressure was placed to sort out societal problems (Spring, 2004). According to Bigge and Shermis (1992), there were two dominant learning theories in education of the twentieth century through which these goals were met. The behaviorists determined that the stimulus-response approach, or educating children through conditioning, would reap the best results. On the other hand, learning through the interaction of children with their environment to gain an understanding of new information was the appropriate approach for the cognitive interactionist group. The two models are alternately woven in the fabric of twentieth century education. They moved art education toward the abandonment of the creative expressionist model and toward the implementation of a discipline-based model. Behaviorism With the publication of works by Charles Darwin, new approaches to education were filtered through the lens of social Darwinism, through the stimulus-response lens of the behaviorists, and rejected notions of compassion and social responsibility in favor of survival of the fittest (Callahan, 1963; Efland, 1990a; Gardner, 1991; Rippa, 1992). Business became a player in this process when profits appeared to hinge increasingly on the desire and ability of immigrant children to adapt to the American dream of economic independence. Unless vocational training to prepare children for factory work was provided, business considered schools to be a poor investment of tax dollars. School administration was viewed as managing the business of education, as social efficiency increasingly influenced decisions in education.

14

In balancing the three goals of academic instruction, assistance to immigrant families, and vocational training, educators struggled to serve the interests of business groups, reformers, politicians, religious organizations, and welfare associations, among other groups, all demanding that schools teach in a manner that would serve those interests (Amburgy, 1990; Cremin, 1961; Efland, 1990a; Rippa, 1992; Spring, 2004). The increasing interest in solving social problems brought the philosophy of progressivism to the forefront. Progressivism promoted action in making social change. The means of making social change came through education. Eventually the efficiency of teachers came into question and was measured by student intelligence tests and productivity aspects of curricula. Progressivism The progressive education movement commonly associated with John Dewey, brought teachers to a greater awareness of the humanity of children and a renewed focus on personal relations between students and between students and teachers (Sellers & May, 1963; Efland, 1990a; Hurwitz, 1990; Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies, 2003; Spring, 2004). Dewey, as a cognitive interactionist, believed that children could learn intellectually as they interacted in a life-like setting, where learning was a byproduct of social interaction in a classroom community. The progressive education movement was attacked for pampering children at the expense of academic performance, but the approach assisted many who worked for rational, democratic solutions to social challenges of the twentieth century. Dewey determined that the interests of the child and social interaction were the two key sources of child learning. Reconstructionism The reconstructionist mode of thinking believed in the transformational qualities of education (Amburgy, 1990 & 2002; Efland, 1990a; Siegesmund, 1998). In this vein, manual training proponents persuaded educators that along with preparing students for vocations, the approach was inherently beneficial from a mental discipline perspective. Good craftsmanship and the notion that a well-functioning article could also be made

15

paralleled goals of art education. Eventually vocational education, with its emphasis on the arts-and-crafts movement, and art education began to diverge, with art teachers retaining a focus on teaching art appreciation. This direction removed art education from a utilitarian status and relegated it to the position of an elective course. Social Efficiency Social efficiency sought to measure student intelligence, teacher efficiency, and curricula effectiveness as the beginnings of the scientific rationalist thread (Efland, 1990a; Rippa, 1992). Since art instruction was not determined to be essential for the survival of civilization, it was to have a place in life, but was not as important as other school subjects. Between World Wars Progressivism produced some reform in better schools, improvements in city slums and working conditions in factories (Efland, 1990a; Rippa, 1992). Winning the right to vote in 1920, women entered the workforce in increasing numbers, and changed the traditional family pattern of father as breadwinner and mother as nurturer of children and home. In the 1920s Victorian attitudes were challenged, liberating society from puritanical repression. The decade was marked by optimism spread following the victory in World War I. The 1929 stock market crash ended that outlook, plunging the country into the Great Depression. The 1930s saw a retrenchment of society in solving problems facing so many during the Depression. Education Before World War I, scientific methods of administration, changes in curriculum, and educational testing, were used to improve social efficiency (Efland, 1990a). Notions of improving social conditions, and, by extension, the conditions of the country, were woven into the fabric of education. Progressivism versus Behaviorism. Progressivism relied on the principle that learning, and thus teaching, must be founded on childrens natural development, life experiences and community life in a cognitive interactionist vein (Dewey, 1915/1953;

16

Sellers & May, 1963; Bigge & Shermis, 1992; Efland, 1990a; Efland, 1990b, Gardner, 1991). However, with Americas involvement in World War I, Progressive education reforms were postponed. World War I revealed shortcomings in American schools when a high number of those inducted into the military earned very low scores on the army Alpha tests. Following the War, school reform was increasingly based on behaviorist scientific research, as part of the scientific movement, in the form of standardized testing. The tests were also useful as schools began tracking students according to ability and aptitude. In reaction to the rigidity of the scientific movement, the expressionist movement was funded by the idea that the child in people was crushed by rigid teaching methods and expectations (Bigge & Shermis, 1992; Efland, 1990a; Efland, 1990b; Hurwitz, 1990). The innate need to create and express oneself was considered vital to the development of children. Creative self-expressionism grew with the interest in Freuds writings about the unconscious. Educators used his ideas to direct the learning of socially acceptable behaviors through creative expression. The child-centered school emerged as a model for children to escape the rigid strictures of industrialized society, allowing children to grow and flower through individual creative expression rather than through groups or community interaction. Noting that John Deweys progressivist efforts were funded by the desire for educational reform by guiding children through learning experiences in a school community setting, another group of reformers, known as reconstructionists, attempted to remake Deweys early progressive positions with less focus on the childs choices and more emphasis on providing appropriate curricula to guiding children (Efland, 1990a; Eisner, 1985). Opposing sides faced the problems of enhancing educational opportunity and its maximization (Bigge & Shermis, 1992; Efland, 1990a; Hurwitz, 1990; Spring, 2004). On one side were those who based school reform on scientific research based on behaviorist notions of stimulus-response attempting to measure a childs educational growth and to quantify what aided in the process. On the other side were child-centered schools enabling students in their progress toward self-fulfillment. Overlapping the two were variants of Progressivism using researched methods designed to enhance the childs opportunity to learn school subjects in a community setting.

17

Teacher Education Normal Schools. Normal schools provided prospective teachers with opportunities for learning, but the majority of universities had classical curricula and was critical of normal schools (Dewey, 1965; Harper, 1970). With progressives and reconstructionists placing the child at the core of their approaches, there was a belief in academia that normal schools were schools of methods rather than scholarship. Standardized Teacher Training. By the turn of the century many normal schools had expanded into four-year degree-granting teachers colleges and by the 1920s and 30s, teachers colleges, generally supported by the public, were training substantial numbers of the nations public-school teachers (Elsbree, 1939; Clifford & Guthrie, 1990; Spring, 2004). In at least twenty states, state normal schools required four years of high school work for admission, and private normal schools were also tending to establish such a requirement. By 1933, forty-two states required licensing at the state level, and the requirement was primarily the completion of teacher education courses. Since that time, the pattern to certify on the state level and base that certification on teacher education courses has continued. Many normal schools have become university departments of education. In the 1930s the American Council on Education established a National Teachers Examination that tested the subject matter taught. Schools of education attacked the examination. The National Education Association can claim responsibility for much of the systematic standardization of the training of teachers (Ravitch, 2004; Wesley, 1957). The Associations Normal Department had surveyed teacher education institutions since the nineteenth century and was involved in addressing perceived needs. Eventually teacher education became identified with the completion of a teacher education program instead of passing subject matter exams. Art Education Child-Centered Art. During the period between the two World Wars art education took its direction from dominant movements of the time (Efland, 1990a; Korzenik, 1990). Devotees of Franz Cizek, an Austrian who promoted a concept that became known as child-centered art, insisted on avoiding adult influence in teaching art to children and

18

allowing much greater freedom for children to make art in their own way. From those who practiced Cizeks approach, he acquired the reputation as the father of freeexpression. Creative self-expressionism evolved as a method in which children made their own art as a means of expressing themselves without adult intervention. It was determined that teaching this method was best left in the hands of artists, as they were singularly equipped to be sensitive enough to measure the expression in child art. The trend from the expressionist focus on the individual childs artistic expression to a societal view of art education came in the wake of economic pressure of the Great Depression (Efland, 1983; Efland, 1990a). Greater emphasis on art as a part of life and less on art in isolation as personal expression grew under the influence of John Deweys approach that put art as part of daily experience. In the same manner that connected art to religious worship, had it depicted war and peace, and used it to enhanced industrial design, reconstructionists integrated it into education. During the Depression art education was not eliminated from most school districts in spite of cost-cutting measures, but it was reduced in some, with some entertaining the goal of implementing or expanding an art program retrenched in response to the dire financial straits in which the country and much of the world found itself (Efland, 1990a). To retain support for art education it was necessary to refocus the goal of art curricula from the nature of art and beauty to art as contributing to solutions for societies problems. Reconstructionists integrated art into such subjects as language arts, history, science, and math (Efland, 1990a). Art education was a tool to dissolve boundaries between subjects and provide a unified educational experience for children and adolescents. Art was often paired with social studies, and followed trends of the time. The art deco style of drawing, in favor in architecture and other areas of design, replaced drawings in the style of the arts-and-crafts movement of the turn of the century. Levels of Art Education. Art supervisors were present in school districts in large cities to supervise elementary art taught by classroom teachers (Efland, 1983). Elementary art teachers were rare in the period between the World Wars, since it was financially sound, instead, to maintain an art supervisor in a district to work with

19

classroom teachers and their endeavors in art instruction. In secondary education the curriculum was organized into separate subjects by classes. The number of art teachers increased for that reason. Unlike previous generations in which many students dropped out of school to enter the workforce in factories, most students remained in high school until they graduated due to the lack of jobs during the Great Depression. From World War II to the Demand for Excellence With the Holocaust perpetrated by the Third Reich and the dropping of atomic bombs, the landscape of Americas future had changed (Efland, 1990a). The magnitude of atrocities had grown globally. Opportunities for a piece of the American Dream increased at home following World War II. With the return of soldiers to their homes in America, birthrates skyrocketed. This phenomenon was called the Baby Boom, and it continued into the 1970s. Postwar prosperity also continued into the 1970s. Families moved into the suburbs and contributed to the effects of the Baby Boom, the subsequent children of Baby Boomers. By the end of the World War II one third of the women were in the labor force, but many left employment after they were married (Rippa, 1992). Women became a strong political voice as more entered the work force and/or represented their families interests. Before the war the pattern of separate-but-equal schools followed an 1896 Supreme Court ruling that sanctioned separate but equal facilities and services for African Americans (Rippa, 1992). This provided the basis for schools systems providing separate but equal schools, but by erasing segregation in the armed forces, the war expanded the outlook of African Americans on race relations. As soldiers returned home many moved north instead of returning to the south, contributing to an increasing population shift of African Americans into such northern cities as Chicago, Detroit, and New York City. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court reversed the 1896 decision and was followed with a ruling on May 31, 1955 in which it was determined that desegregation must proceed quickly. The sudden end to segregation did not occur, and a civil rights crusade to influence government policy and public attitudes reached a

20

climax with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. It enforced the right to vote and the prevention of discrimination based on race. Following World War II, the United States and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, became the dominant world leaders, engaging in tension and conflict through third-party countries. Espousing communism since early in the twentieth century, the Soviet Union was seen by the United States as a threat to peace and to independent nations unwilling to bow to Soviet pressure to follow their communist lead. This era was known as the Cold War (Andressen, Berry & van Hoesel, 2003; Garber, 2003). Americans who were concerned about the threat of communism to democracy labeled those who exhibited liberal political leanings as communists, and waged campaigns against the threat of communism on American soil. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, the space age was sparked, and with the space race the beginning of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ignited (Sellers & May, 1963). With advances in communications and electronics, Americans had increasing access to events as they unfolded (Andressen, Berry & van Hoesel, 2003). Television brought civil rights developments, the days following the assassination of President Kennedy, and the Vietnam conflict and its atrocities into the homes of Americans. One result was a heightened sensitivity to, or tension with, social and political problems and their proponents or detractors. Education Progressivism Under Attack. John Deweys ideas, the life adjustment approach to education, as well as other notions of progressive education, came under further attack after World War II. Critics wanted a return to an emphasis on basic academic curricula (Brown, 1991; Bybee, 1998; Bigge & Shermis, 1991; Clowse, 1981; Efland, 1990b; Rippa, 1992). This assumption was based on the notion that education in the recent and distant past was more efficacious than the current means. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, criticism of the American educational system escalated. Were Soviet students better educated? Had their system of education prepared better scientists and mathematicians? Critics claimed that the American educational system

21

was not doing its job. The debate over the direction of American education ended in favor of the movement toward higher academic standards with an emphasis on math and science, curtailing the influence of progressive education (Efland, 1990; Rippa, 1992). Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958. The Act was designed to support educational efforts toward producing future scientists to advance the American position in a space race. It was in this context that the historic Woods Hole Conference was held. Education Reform. The Woods Hole Conference of 1959 influenced a reform movement of discipline-centered education (Bruner, 1960); Clowse, 1981; Rippa, 1992). According to participant, Jerome Bruner, the thrust of curriculum problems was that subjects taught in schools, in many cases, were not to be found outside of the school. Conversely, students and professionals alike, in a need to further knowledge and understanding, pursued disciplines. Reformers designed curricula based on mathematical problem solving and scientific research. Students learned science and mathematics as disciplines and more challenging requirements were implemented. New instructional media, such as filmstrips and 8- and 16- milometer films, were funded by government and were integral to most new approaches in an effort to catch up with Soviet education. This symbolized a growing involvement of federal government in education. This is discussed further in a later section of the literature review. At the same time that education reform was spurred to improvement by scientific developments with political and financial ramifications, social concerns also surfaced (Brown, 1991; Rippa, 1992; Spring, 2004). The concept of separate-but-equal educational opportunities for blacks was challenged, and members of the Supreme Court determined that separate facilities for blacks did not guarantee that the opportunity was equal according to the Constitution. Nationwide integration of schools began. Although it took place quietly in most of the country, areas in which there were confrontations or public demonstrations in support or in defiance of the ruling confirmed that public opinion was divided on the issue. Social and political problems in the 1960s and early 1970s stimulated movement toward the notion that education should address the diversified clientele that it served (Brown, 1991; Efland, 1990b; Rippa, 1992; Spring, 2004). Coupling this

22

mandate with the drive for greater emphasis on math and science curricula jarred the nations school districts from the complacency characterizing the mid-century. These improvements gave impetus to universities and school boards to reform education and ensure that it served the needs of the populations it served while setting standards high enough to challenge students in need of that approach. Child-Centered Schools. In the 1970s there was countermovement to the focus on math and science (Efland, 1990a). Alternative schools were developed to protest the strictures imposed by public school systems guided by the momentum created with Sputniks launching. The new schools were child-centered in the mode of progressive education, but did not have a driving philosophy. They were primarily formed as a reaction to the increasing academic focus rather than as a means of implementing an approach funded by new ideas for education. Excellence in Education. In 1983, under the direction of David Gardner, the National Committee on Excellence in Education presented the results of a study in which it was determined that the state of education in America was immersed in a rising tide of mediocrity (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Zeller, 1984); Rippa, 1992, p. 285). The report, A Nation at Risk, refocused attention on reform initiatives structured to raise the quality of education. However urgent the need appeared, the approaches considered were similar to methods imposed on educators during previous efforts: a longer school year, higher teacher salaries, greater emphasis on core academic subjects, and the need for more time spent by students on homework. The effort in the 1980s was also similar to previous reforms in that it was a top down approach; decisions about content and methods designed to improve performance were made by those in positions of authority or who studied results of committees such as that of David Gardner, and made recommendations (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Authorities on educational practices were determining practice without involving those who would implement the approach. Without the involvement of teachers in the process of curriculum reform and design, the opportunity for equal access to education diminished as did the quality of the implementation of the approach.

23

Teacher Education Following World War II there were growing numbers of students as a product of the Baby Boom (Anderson, 2000; Ravitch, 2004; Rippa, 1992). Additionally, students stayed in school longer. These two trends led to a demand for secondary education that traditional college teacher preparation programs were pressed to meet. Many teachers were hired without proper credentials or background in a subject area, and interest was lost in subject area testing. Since that time the majority of teachers colleges have expanded their missions and become liberal-arts colleges offering a broad general education in addition to specialized courses in pedagogy. In addition to preparing prospective teachers to immerse their students in subject area content, universities routinely require preservice teachers to spend time in schools observing the environment and populations found there. Art Education and Art Teacher Training. With the end of World War II there was a dearth of art teachers (Efland, 1990a). Often programs for elementary teachers included a course in teaching art. Graduate programs at universities offered masters degrees in art education through art or education departments and prepared one to serve as an art supervisor in a school district. A growing interest in research on the university level influenced change from the number of Ed.D graduate degrees completed, with a focus on education, to an increasing number of PhD degrees awarded, with a greater emphasis on research. During and after World War II, art was perceived by some as a tool for the defense and promotion of freedom and democracy (Rhoades, 1985). Many art educators retrenched and promoted a degree of nationalism through directing the making of patriotic posters defending the war effort. Art also became one of the means of promoting peace through the global exchange of childrens art works. Child-Centered Art Education. At the same time schools were criticized for the progressives child-centered approach and the lack of rigorous academic coursework, creative self-expression was the driving force for art education (Dobbs, 1992; Efland, 1990a; Horwitz, 1990; Korzenik, 1990; Lowenfeld, 1950; Lowenfeld, 1958; Siegesmund, 1998; Hoffa, 1984; White, 2004). The notions of progressive education persisted in art

24

education through such textbooks as Creative and Mental Growth by child-centered art advocate Viktor Lowenfeld (1950). The application of the arts to daily life became the means of injecting art appreciation into children. It was determined to be a developmental activity rather than a subject to study. With this approach, teachers who had minimal knowledge of the subject of art could teach through motivating children to express themselves. The psychological importance of art funded much of this movement promoting art as a tool in the curriculum for shaping young personalities. Lowenfelds art education encouraged self-expression as a means toward personal growth. Rather than look at the art children made, Lowenfeld focused on the psychologically therapeutic production process of children in various developmental stages. Adult intervention in a childs drawing was frowned upon, since the drawing was more a measure of what the child might be feeling or was a record of the childs development. Advocates of creative expressionism argued that art was vital to a childs education because creative problem solving skills developed more rapidly with the advantage of exposure to art instruction in school (Efland, 1990a). Lowenfeld was of the mind that art was a useful tool for developing creativity. He subscribed to the notion that the creativity developed within art instruction was transferable to other domains. There were art educators who challenged Lowenfelds approach (Barkan, 1955; Eisner, 1972; McFee, 1961). Manuel Barkan saw self-expression as a tool through which children learn to interact with others. June King McFee challenged Lowenfelds developmental stages of expression, suggesting that so many human variables could not be accounted for in so few stages. Elliot Eisner (1972) determined that children should not be taught art simply as a means of self-expression. Eisner included instructional resources to encourage the inclusion of content in art education. Thus art educators were divided between creative expressionism and art taught as a subject worthy of study. The launching of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, made arts position in school instruction more precarious. In the midst of the movement to promote more rigorous math and science standards, arts position in the schools had to be defended (Lowenfeld, 1958). Some of the art education community countered that art enhances

25

creative solutions to problems in the Lowenfeld vein, while others supported the curriculum reform movement and encouraged content-based instruction. Lanier (1977) was critical of the apparent lack of direction in art education, observing that creativity was the most justifiable rationale for studio-based art curriculum, and he commented on the number of approaches to art education and the resulting lack of unanimity in the field. Content-Based Art Education. The Woods Hole Conference of 1959 influenced Jerome Bruner (1960) whose writings began to influence art education. Barkan (1960) noted that Bruners position was to lead students to an understanding of the structure of a subject, giving the subjects context. Applied to art education, he explained that for art to have merit in the current climate, it must be addressed as a subject with content that is important to teach. The education reports of 1983, examining the status or success of the education system in America, concluded that education needed to examine what was taught in the schools and to justify its approaches or change them (Clark, 1984b; Dorn, 1984; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Clark noted that instead of approaching the mediocrity he felt that creative self-expressionism fostered, it would simply require that art teachers mobilize against art activity that encouraged production of substandard student art. Zeller (1984) wrote in response to the publication of A Nation at Risk that, not only was it a call for higher standards for U.S. education, it was a mandate for change in art education and encouraged art educators to take the offensive in assuring that children have the opportunity to be engaged participants in the nations cultural heritage and its cultural offerings. Art teacher preparation was found lacking when art student performance was examined. Zimmerman (1984) commented that it was vital that art teachers prepared to teach art in a manner that encouraged excellence in knowledge about art. Implementing change in approaches to art education would require that art be taught as a content area subject coupled with art as a performance area. Creative expressionist art education, with a studio emphasis, in the footsteps of Lowenfeld (1950), maintained a following, but the challenges facing the nations schools were reflected in concerns raised by McFee who sought to address concerns for access

26

to art education for urban students with fewer economic and social advantages (Bruner, 1962; Dobbs, 1992; Eisner, 1965a; Hurwitz, 1990; McFee, 1965). Elliot Eisner expressed concerns regarding art curricula, testing in art and the current lack of content in art appreciation. In the climate of school subjects filtering through the lens academic disciplines, Bruner commented that knowledge such as that in science could be found in other subjects such as humanities or social studies. Cognitive growth proponents determined that art education could make significant contributions to the notion that, although children were not considered to be reaching their full potential, with a wide variety of visual experiences and activities, mental functioning could be enhanced. While curriculum was developing in the science arena, the idea that approaching art as a discipline had merit not only in terms of teaching students about art but, more importantly, the concept would also serve to strengthen the curricular position of art education (Barkan, 1966; Clark & Zimmerman, 1978). As science education received the attention that was necessary to bring it into the format of a discipline, other subject areas in the school class schedule were shuffled around or eliminated. Art education had been on the fringe of consideration with the withdrawal of public support for creative expressionism as reflected in the progressive approach. Leaders in art education began to measure the need to provide the subject as a mode of inquiry parallel to that of science. This focus encouraged art educators to shift attention from variations of selfexpression, from art serving a community purpose, as well as from art having the mission of stimulating the senses instead to a content-based approach, laying the foundation for a model that would place art amid school curricula as a discipline. At the Penn State Seminar of 1965, the notion came to the forefront that it was necessary to approach art education as a subject worthy of study, or a discipline, with objectives to be set and reached (Barkan, 1966). Barkan determined that, although studio art was the foundation of art instruction in the past, for art to be recognized as a subject worthy of study, art history and art criticism needed to be part of art education curricula. Following that seminar, there was a flurry of projects designed to place art education in the realm of disciplines of study (Barkan, Chapman, & Kern, 1970; Hubbard & Rouse, 1981; Chapman, 1987; Efland, 1990). The Central Mid-Western

27

Regional Educational Laboratory, familiarly known as CEMREL, designed the Aesthetic Education Program that was a series of instructional packets designed to meet the goal of molding art education into a subject of study. The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory, or SWRL, created a sequential elementary art curriculum that included aesthetics, art criticism, art history, and art production. Two textbooks were published, Art: Meaning, Method, and Media by Hubbard and Rouse (1981) and Discover Art by Laura Chapman (1987), that lead toward the establishment of the idea of art as a discipline. On the opposite side of the field was the Arts-in-Education movement. Its proponents put forward the approach as a means of teaching the arts through other subjects in an interdisciplinary mode (Efland, 1990). The movement used communitybased resources such as local artists and agencies. The motivation for the movement was the improvement of self-image and the accommodation special needs of the students. It had strong anti-establishment and social activism ties. Although it did not stem from university populations who were in favor of a discipline approach, it brought notice to the arts of the need for their inclusion in school curricula. Accountability became a factor in education that asked teachers to plan and write behavioral objectives and measure actual outcomes in efforts to meet mandates imposed by state legislatures (Efland, 1990). Although there was some reluctance to accept this approach, the art teachers who moved forward with this regimen were those who were moving away from the creative expressionism era and toward more precise means of measuring progress in learning. Opposing this position were the qualitative inquiry proponents who preferred a holistic approach to measuring growth in a subject area. Rather than measuring progress according to measurable objectives the qualitative caucus preferred to describe the progress of students or classes through descriptive observations of events and participants. The years from the Penn State Seminar in 1965 until the excellence movement of the 1980s recount the movement in art education from a creative expression mode toward a discipline-centered approach (1990). According to a study funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, art education at that time is not viewed as serious; knowledge itself is not viewed as a

28

primary educational objective; and those who determine school curricula do not agree on what arts education is (National Endowment for the Arts, 1988, p.19). This position indicated a need for change in direction for art education that allowed it to be established as a continually viable school subject for study. Whether through a discipline approach, Arts-in-Education, the Accountability movement or Qualitative Inquiry, art education was moving away from the creative expressionism swing of the pendulum and toward a paradigm that dictated measurable excellence (Dobbs, 1992; Doerr, 1984; Efland, 1990; Helberg, 1985; Michael, 1991; Saunders, 1983; Smith, R. A., 1987c; Zeller, 1984). Discipline-based art education was introduced to educators as vital to a childs full educational development (Getty, 1985, p. 4). The stage was set for an approach to address the need for excellence in art education in its breadth and depth and place it firmly in the curriculum, interwoven throughout other disciplines as well as throughout the fabric of the cultures of schools. The approach could be taught nationwide with caveats to address state, district, teacher, and student differences. Thus, the ideas that bore the fruit called DBAE were planted and nurtured throughout previous decades. Summary of History In the latter half of the twentieth century American education and art education fluctuated between meeting the personal needs of its students and meeting the financial needs of their future employers. Progressives, behaviorists, or reconstructionists: each promoted agendas that were designed to move the nation forward. From the progressives one can gain greater understanding of child-centered approaches to education and, by extension, the creative expressionist movement in art (Efland, 1990a; Hurwitz, 1990; Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies, 2003; Spring, 2004). Behaviorists advanced approaches to education that filtered through the lens of social Darwinism, through the stimulus-response lens, and rejected notions of compassion and social responsibility in favor of survival of the fittest (Callahan, 1963; Efland, 1990a; Gardner, 1991; Rippa, 1992). Reconstructionist and Social Efficiency approaches focused education on reaping the greatest results from the least expenditure, the notion of the benefits of mental discipline, and the transformational

29

qualities of education (Amburgy, 1990 & 2002; Efland, 1990a; Siegesmund, 1998). At various times one or more of the approaches dominated the field of education as well as that of art education. During this period there were two dominant paradigms in art education known as creative expressionism and content-based art education. They were based on progressive, behaviorist, or reconstructionist theories of education or combinations of the three. The creative self-expression art education periods emphasized a childcentered approach in which art is given meaning by the student artist (Efland, 1990; Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005). The practices for which the movement is characterized are the lack of intervention by a teacher imposing adult art concepts on children and the inclusion of motivational stimuli such as verbal descriptions designed to assist school children recall events that might assist in conjuring ideas about which to make art. Art was a tool to measure and address a childs growth and development. Teachers with minimal art training could teach art in a classroom if they understood the developmental stages and could successfully motivate children. Creative problem solving skills were believed to be the by-product of the creative self-expression movement and could contribute to improved problem solving in other areas of education through transfer of the skills learned in art classes into other academic pursuits. The movement flourished with progressive education approaches. The behaviorist theories of education came into acceptance with the concern produced by the launching of Sputnik, the Soviet satellite (Bruner, 1960; Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987; Efland, 1990). With the apparent success of the Soviet Unions space program, US education rapidly moved to address the presumed lack of success demonstrated within the math and science education communities by reforming curriculum. Discipline- or content-based approaches to education changed the direction of education away from life-experience curricula of the progressives to approaches in which fields of study were pursued as disciplines. Art education responded by promoting an approach that allowed students to become familiar with art as a discipline worthy of study, a dramatic break from the creative expressionist mode that emphasized art production. Through this approach students would be taught about the world of art, with art production as a component of the approach rather than as the foundation of art

30

education curricula. Through a variety of content-based approaches, art education evolved into a player in the excellence movement of the 1980s in response to the reports issued, such as A Nation at Risk (1983), in which concerns were raised about the ability of the US to compete globally with other nations in the world market. Discipline-based art education emerged as the behaviorist camps response to the perceived challenges facing the country and the need to elevate the degree to which students understood the world of art through curricula designed to support an approach that combined art criticism, aesthetics, art history, and art production (Greer, 1984).

Part Two: A Paradigm Shift

Discipline-Based Art Education Discipline-based art education was the dominant paradigm for the art classroom for more than twenty years beginning in 1985 (Erickson, 2004; Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1985). It has been described as a comprehensive approach to teaching and learning in the visual arts, developed primarily for K-12 schooling but also useful in art museums and adult education (Dobbs, 2004). There were other approaches to art education that emphasized some of the components of disciplinebased art education prior to its espousal and promotion by the J. Paul Getty Trust. Formation of the Getty Center for Education in the Arts in 1982 was one impetus that put in motion and coordinated the efforts of various proponents of similar approaches to art education to orchestrate the resulting approach known as discipline-based art education. Why Discipline-Based Art Education? Commonly known by its acronym, DBAE, the discipline-based approach emerged as part of the excellence movement in response to a national concern over the quality of American education (Clark, 1984; Efland, 1984, 1988, 1990; Greer, 1984; Clark, Day & Greer, 1987). In this usage the word, discipline, evolved from the sciences. By 1957, when Russia launched the satellite, Sputnik, placing America in the role of runner-up in the science and math arenas, the quality of education in America

31

was already an issue. The science arena responded by designing a curriculum in which there was an organized body of knowledge, specific methods of inquiry, and a community of scholars who generally agree on the fundamental ideas of their field (Efland, 1990a, p. 241). It was suggested by Jerome Bruner (1960) that scholars pursued inquiry in subject area disciplines, and that education could benefit by following that model to higher levels of learning. Art as a Subject of Study: The Theoretical Base of DBAE Those representing the arts determined that art education reflect the attitude that art be taught as a subject with specific content, scope and sequence, content-specific goals, and appropriate means of assessment (Eisner, 1965b; Hurwitz, 1990; Smith, 1987). DBAE set its sights on solving the issue of balancing learning accomplished through direct experience, studio art experiences, with learning accomplished through intellect, such as art criticism, aesthetics, and art history. Elliot Eisner (1965b) recommended curricular reforms in which students would not only become familiar with art media and method, but would also become learn about the world of art. This approach would be modeled from the disciplinary approach of the sciences, thus lending merit to the notion that the arts be recognized in scholarly arenas. Art as a Discipline The DBAE approach to teaching children about art was not entirely new. The emphasis on child-centered art had diminished, and greater emphasis was placed on teaching about the world of art in the 1970s. The emphasis on content lent itself to the notion that art education was becoming a discipline. Greer (1984) noted this trend and described the emerging approach as discipline-based art education: The focus of discipline-based art instruction is on art within general education and within the context of aesthetic education. Four parent disciplines aesthetics, studio art, art history, and art criticism are taught by means of a formal, continuous, sequential, written curriculum across grade levels in the same way as other academic subjects (Greer, 1984, p. 212).

32

The J. Paul Getty Trust entered the fray with research in which art education programs were examined as to their substance and quality (Duke, 1983; Efland, 1990; The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1993; Korzenik, 1990). The Getty Center for Education in the Arts was formed in 1982. Beyond Creating: The Place for Art in Americas Schools (1985) was published as a report on schools which espoused an approach to excellence in which art production remained as a component, but also included were aesthetics, art criticism, and art history. These four components were determined to be the disciplines of art education. Thus, DBAE derived its approach from the disciplines that enable enlightened creation and appreciation of art. Adopting a phrase from W. Dwaine Greers treatise (1984), the approach supported by the Getty Center became known as discipline-based art education, or DBAE. DBAE Articulated. In 1987 a special issue of The Journal of Aesthetic Education focused entirely on discipline-based art education (Price, 1987). Three recognized art educators, Gilbert A Clark, Michael D. Day, and W. Dwaine Greer definitively articulated the approach (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987). The authors delineated the rationale for considering art education through a discipline-based approach. In entitling the article, Discipline-Based Art Education: Becoming Students of Art, the recommendation was made that art educators need to teach art, not only as a subject with content worthy of study, but one that is essential to education. As the recognized defining publication describing DBAE, that article is the primary source for the following description of the approach as proposed by proponents of that time: DBAE would seek to develop students abilities to understand and appreciate art, its theories and contexts, and the ability to respond as well as to create art, and that art be taught as an essential component of general education (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987, p. 135). Instructional content was focused primarily on the disciplines of aesthetics, art history, art history, and art production. The four disciplines are listed alphabetically rather than in any order designed to negate the emphasis of one discipline over another. Justification for DBAE. Art production is the discipline that had centered art instruction from earliest times, but the production of a work of art did not avail one the ability to understand or appreciate art (Mittler, 1986; Panofsky, 1955). Art had been the

33

handmaiden of education in a variety of roles from creating opportunity for craft training or moral educator to enhancer of creativity or social worker. Standing alone as a subject of study, art needed to be examined by its students in the context of history, critically analyzed and interpreted, to have its meaning appreciated, and to acquire an understanding of it. Like educators in most subjects of study in education, the goal for art education was an understanding of that subject from formal study of it. With formal study of visual art students could develop skills with which to understand the significance of that knowledge. Smith (1981) drew salient conclusions from Beardsleys (1981) discussion of the long-range benefits from the study of visual art as a subject within general education. Smith noted, first, that the acquisition of the ability to discern subtle differences within works of art through the DBAE approach could enhance perception in other areas of study. Second, working with a wide range of images in a DBAE classroom could increase the degree of complexity with which students view and portray their world in terms of other academic areas. Finally, with the study of images representing some of the highest among human achievements, students could bring the understanding gained with these images, their creators lives and intentions, and an analysis of the ideals represented into future opportunities with visual metaphor. Increased discernment between subtle differences, broader ability to perceive the world from exposure to diverse images, and improved understanding through visual metaphor combine to support art as a subject of study far beyond art production. DBAE Content and Strategies. The term, discipline-based art education, was created to reflect the notion of a just such a comprehensive approach to the study of art as a subject (Anderson, 1991; Clark, et al, 1987). Clark and his co-authors focused on three features of disciplines noted by Arthur R. King, Jr. and John A. Brownell (1966). First, a league of artists, aestheticians, art historians and art critics were necessary as resource for learning about and giving meaning to art as a subject. Next, disciplinespecific ways of knowing and examination of subject matter were important in gaining an understanding of the world of art. Finally, the conceptual structures of each of the disciplines of art education under a discipline-based approach possess their own ideas, terms, and principles. Rather than studying four different subjects, subscribing to an

34

examination of the disciplines of aesthetics, art criticism, art history, and art production meant that they worked hand-in-glove as the tools with which to study art. The art that was considered important to be studied was designated as folk, applied, and fine arts from Western and non-Western cultures and from ancient to contemporary cultures (Clark, et al, 1987, p. 163). This was a very broad range from which to select art for discussion and study (Hamblen, 1985). As a result, a large collection of images would be amassed for students of the end of the twentieth century to study from the present and past as well as from cultures around the world. Works of art could be studied in the context of their cultures and times. Studying art, artists, movements, or styles in the context of the culture and time in which they were created, would allow students of all ages to become more fluent in understanding the unfamiliar and in appreciating what had been done to bring those objects to fruition. DBAE Curricula. With such an array of images and possible content, it was vital to have criteria for content selection appropriate for the age group, school goals and budget, district priorities, and values of the community and of the population attending each school (Clark, et al., 1987). Within these and other considerations resided the assumption that all deserved access to art. Making learning about art available to the general public was in alignment with the goal of general education to bring education to all. Selecting and organizing DBAE curricula would depend on local factors. DBAE curricula were to be organized and written sequentially across grades. Content from the four disciplines would be articulated, and educational objectives would assist in avoiding duplication across grade levels. Organizing and writing curriculum was to follow a prescribed scope and sequence assisted in the implementation of the art approach district-wide (Clark, et al., 1987). Images, production activities and media, and art criticism activities and discussions were to be selected based on maturation levels of students. The foci of curricula were the works of art (Clark, et al., 1987; Galbraith & Spomer, 1986; Silverman, 1988). With an image at the center of the curriculum, students could learn about a particular work of art, the person who created it, the context in which it was created in time, within the culture, and within the world of art, be able to discern the degree of success the artist reached in creating the work, and be

35

able to compare that work with others by that artist or from that era or genre. With art production as the focus of an art program, the exposure to the world of art and its history would be limited. With the addition of the other three disciplines, the scope would broaden to ensure a students ability to connect with other disciplines and transfer information and understanding to make connections in their world. For students to be immersed in the disciplines to the degree that understanding and transfer could take place, it was determined that DBAE needed to be developmentally appropriate (Clark, et al, 1987; Miller, 1983). With art as a subject of study, the art teacher needed to be involved in the selection of appropriate content and activities. Although this required a change from the teacher as the person in the class room who inspired creativity, in the Lowenfeld creative self-expression vein, the DBAE teacher needed to be involved with all aspects of the curriculum and determine the content of art instruction based on developmental readiness, as would be the case in any other subject area of study. Art for Every student. Art teachers were to be facilitators, meaning that rather than design curricula themselves, art teachers would be provided with teaching materials designed by curriculum specialists (Duke, 1988; Greer, 1985; Hamblen & Galenes, 1991). Armed with these materials, art teachers, and classroom teachers to some extent, were to select and adapt the curriculum to their students levels. The training of art teachers was designed to be accomplished on a district level, with teachers meeting together to receive in-service instruction that thereby the students in that district might receive consistent, cohesive art instruction. Districts that espoused the DBAE were to employ art specialists to guide teachers through in-service activities that could help them prepare and implement the approach. The Center for Education in the Arts, as an arm of the J. Paul Getty Trust, established Institutes for Educators on the Visual Arts to assist in the introduction of DBAE into schools in school districts in the Los Angeles area. To ensure that art would be available for every student, it would have been essential to have teachers trained in the DBAE approach, but that would not have been sufficient to guarantee success (Clark, et al., 1987; Lankford, 1990; Mims & Lankford, 1994; Stout, 1990). Although the success of any classroom approach would have

36

needed teacher support and acceptance, implementation of a new approach required the support of district and school-based administrators for success. Electronic equipment, art books, slides, filmstrips, art prints, and videotapes would be necessary for the implementation of the DBAE approach. Financial and material support would be necessary for the success of the approach. DBAE Assessment. Although the success or failure of a math or science program would be assessed by both class-specific and standardized tests, art has not been included in the arena of standardized testing nor has art assessment been typified by written exams (Clark, et al., 1987). Although class exams have a place in art classes, such was not always the case. Tests were determined to be just one of many means of assessing program success in DBAE art instruction and student learning. Student portfolios, journal entries, questionnaires, interviews with students, and art products were just some of the measures used to assess student learning in DBAE classes. The evaluation of the program at a given school or throughout the district would be measured through observations and interviews, both formal and informal. Student or district assessment was ameliorated with the use of written, sequential curricula implemented district wide. By measuring accomplishment of the unit outcomes for students, assessment was embedded within the curriculum. When art production was involved on age-appropriate levels, the product was evidence of learning and understanding. In writing about their own art or that of artists in the curriculum, students would be involved in art criticism. Tests were only one method of assessing students understanding of art history; they could also write about the events surrounding art movements or artists. Armed with assessment measures such as these, districts would have been able to justify the investment of the time, training and financial investment necessary to support the discipline-based approach district wide for every student. DBAE at Florida State University The development of DBAE instruction for art teacher preparation developed at FSU as a two-pronged platform. According to the Graduate Bulletin, 1997-1999, the primary source for training in DBAE resided in the masters degree program (Graduate

37

Bulletin, 1997). Art teachers already in the field, classroom teachers, and administrators of those teachers had the opportunity to participate in the alternate form of teacher training in DBAE, the Florida Institute for Art Education, a summer in-service camp for educators. Graduate degree programs. The program at the university led to the masters degree and provided for necessary instruction to assist in preparation for teacher certification and guidance for students as they prepared to teach art production, art criticism, art history and aesthetics (Graduate Bulletin, 1997). Three emphases were available for specialization: an art focus including training with studio, art history, criticism, and aesthetics; an education focus including public school certification and preparation for work in higher education; and an art therapy and special populations focus that provided exploration into theory and practice for students interested in working with special populations or in health facilities. Core requirements for the three options included the following courses as described in the Graduate Bulletin, 1997-1999 (pp.120-121): Curriculum and Programs: Exploration and development of curricular and/or program development in the arts in formal and informal educational settings; Critical Analysis: Critical appraisal of historical, philosophical, and contemporary trends and issues in the arts and art education; Research Survey: Survey of research in teaching, learning, and administration in the arts in formal and informal settings; survey of resources and published studies; proposal and grant writing and evaluation; Seminars: Current and Comparative Studies in Art Education: Exploration of current issues in art education: 1) theory, research, and practice in the field, 2) teaching aesthetics and art criticism, 3) teaching art history, and 4) the history of art education. Beyond the core requirements students at FSU in the Art Education masters degree program took courses in related fields of education and courses outside of art education or education that related to a student areas of interest. The program concluded with either the completion of a successfully defended thesis or a major project.

38

The Florida Institute for Art Education. Students at FSU had access to the Gettyfunded Florida Institute for Art Education. The Institute provided students with the opportunity to study, research, and use products that were developed for the implementation and use of the DBAE approach in schools (Lovano-Kerr, J. & Roucher, N., 1995). Each summer that the Institute was funded, art teachers, classroom teachers, and their administrators participated in one-week seminars that introduced novices and gave added support and encouragement to practicing art teachers in the implementation of DBAE into their schools. Since it the optimal situation for implementation of a new approach required administrator approval and support, teachers who participated in the program were required to register and participate with an administrator from their schools. Thus the teacher, both art and classroom, worked hand-in-glove with school administrators in advancing the implementation and integration of the approach into the fabric of the school. With administrative support, necessary funds were forthcoming that allowed images of art in the form of prints to be accessible to all. With the degree program at FSU and the continued support of art teachers through the Florida Institute of Art Education that was an extension of the FSU program, the approach gained momentum with each teacher who graduated from the program. When opportunities came for in-service training through the Institute, art teachers and classroom teachers could develop curricula based on DBAE tenets. The program at FSU with the Institute as an extension of that program, FSU became a recognized source for DBAE training. Diverging Paths The preceding description of the discipline-based approach to art education touches on the justification, content, curricula, and dissemination as described by the then-proponents of the approach (Anderson, 1985; Burton, Lederman, & London, 1988; Chalmers, 1987; Eisner, 1988; Hamblin, 1987; Hamblen, 1988; Hausman, 1987; Hausman, 1988; Hurwitz, 1990; Lanier, 1987; London, 1998; Muth, 1988; Silverman, 1988). Although the approach was supported and promoted by art educators who had preliminarily taught art with the notion of enhancing student awareness of the world of

39

art, there were other leaders in art education who did not embrace the proposed approach wholeheartedly. For example, Karen Hamblin (1985) noted the opportunity DBAE provided for students of art to become informed about the world of art, but she recommended that it be considered as one of several modes of art education that could approach it through study of disciplines. London (1998) was concerned that art education could short sell art instruction by competing with other subject areas for time on the school schedule by dividing art into the four disciplines. Although DBAE did become the dominant paradigm in art education for roughly twenty years, it was not the only approach taken to assisting those in art classes in becoming students of art. Eventually, the other voices began to be heard with greater clarity, and DBAE found itself as one in the midst of several approaches to teaching art students. Choices in Art Education Much of the increasing diversity in art education approaches lies in recognizing that knowledge is growing at an exponential rate (Hope, 2004). With information a computer click away, it is expected that access to increasing numbers of data and images both art influence students and their teachers. With a predominance of art educators having accepted DBAE as the course to follow based on one or even a select few influential leaders in the field, staying the course or changing direction was in the hands of that leadership. Diverging opinions on approaches to a myriad of activities in art education grew, including how art is taught (White, 2004). When DBAE was introduced and throughout the years of its greatest influence there were detractors (Hamblin, 1988; Topping, 1990; Wright, 1990; London, 1998). While DBAE was the dominant approach to art education, the role played by the detractors was to prod art educators to constantly examine the approach, its effects, the success or lack of it in accomplishing what it set out to do. Critics of DBAE There was a divide between proponents of DBAE, those who might support parts of the approach, and others who rejected it out of hand (Topping, 1990; Wright, 1990).

40

There was disagreement about what students should learn about art. Teaching art through the DBAE approach grew to dominate the field, but some preferred expansion of studio-based approaches and indicated that they could include portions art history and art criticism. Movements paralleled DBAE, but were varied in distinctive additions to or subtractions from the approach, and were fueled by leaders in art education. Vincent Lanier (1987) proposed A*R*T*, or Aesthetic Response Theory, as a step in the progression from DBAE and aesthetic education rather than a rejection of DBAE. Although supporting DBAE as a move in the right direction, Lanier proposed that it was an elitist approach and should be replaced one that would be more egalitarian, such as his Aesthetic Response Theory. This approach would limit the disciplines taught to one, that being aesthetics. James Gray (1987) also preferred that aesthetics take another tack, one in which art teachers include aesthetics in the context of art criticism, art production, and art history. Graeme Chalmers (1987) was concerned that DBAE was too narrow in the concepts of the four disciplines as complete tools for the study of art and preferred a broader multicultural approach that incorporated sociology and anthropology in a comprehensive view. Karen Hamblin (1988) was concerned about the mainstream flow of DBAE into general education, the influence that general education could have on defining DBAE parameters in its quest for status in core curriculum, and the possibility that these concerns could restrict individual interpretation necessary for application of an art education approach within a school district or city. Concern about the general preparation of art teachers who, for the most part, were trained in teaching art production was also apparent (Hagaman, 1988; Hamblin, 1987; Parks, 1989). Peter Smith (1989) proposed a curriculum that would include studio production, art history and art criticism under the umbrella of theories of art, such as emotionalist, formalist, or imitative theories of art, rather than under the discipline of aesthetics. Such an approach was to have offered art teachers a manageable curriculum framework while assuring an inclusive view of the world of art. Kristin Congdon (2005) pursued the apparent lack of inclusiveness of or sensitivity to art that was outside the mainstream of DBAE-inspired images produced for use in art curricula, and brought to the attention of the art education world the notion that the study of art of other cultures, people and

41

social strata would benefit students in art classes as they learn the place of art for that people or culture. Viktor Lowenfeld and creativity reentered the art education scene occasionally in response to the swing of the pendulum (Unsworth, 1992; London, 1998). DBAE appeared to be at one end of the arc with Creative Expressionism at the other. Proponents of the creative expression movement wrote to remind art educators of the place that it would always have at the table, regardless of current trends. Art educators responded to the DBAE approach with support, criticism, or positions somewhere between the two. Along the way, art teachers who used the approach adapted it to meet the needs of their clientele: the students, parents, principals, superintendents, and school boards and the climate of the towns or cities in which they taught. They also changed the paradigm, if ever so slightly. Combining these changes with the concerns of DBAE critics, divergent paths, or new paradigms, change was inevitable: comprehensive art education (Parsons, 2004; Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005) and visual culture art education were two dominant models that emerged (Duncum, 2001, 2002; Freedman & Stuhr, 2004; Tavin & Hausman, 2004). Comprehensive Art Education The modified DBAE approach to art education came to be known as comprehensive art education (Parsons, 2004). One facet of CAE evolved to become an integrated approach paralleling the trend in education towards an integrated curriculum (Parsons, 2004). When the curriculum of a school or grade level works with an integrated approach, a theme is followed throughout the curriculum, with art, math science, music, literature and subject areas uniting around the theme and integrating all subjects through the theme, such as heroes or celebrations. One comprehensive art education model is that of Art for Life (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005). In the art for life model, art instruction is integrated within the context of personal and social cultures and, as such, is perceived as a tool for teaching and learning within the school setting and to be transferred to life experiences outside of the school (Anderson, 2006). The foci of art for life include the traditional four from DBAE, with creativity, visual culture,

42

and new technologies added, with the rationale being that any component useful for dealing with life through art is fair game. Visual Culture Art Education Visual Culture Art Education, or VCAE, combines art production with criticism of student art and of imagery in society (Dorn, 2005; Duncum, 2001; Duncum, 2002; Efland, Eisner, 2001; 2005; Heise, 2004; Tavin & Hausman, 2004). As in art for life, in VCAE, the visual experiences of students are scrutinized in efforts to understand the meaning of visual objects within and across cultures. In bringing Feldmans (1996) position that visual culture is a lens through which students learn about the world, visual culture advocates place the approach in a position that is difficult to avoid. Although VCAE advocates do not claim that the critical analysis of fine art is equivalent to analysis of an NBA basketball jersey, they do posit that both exercises bring students through a process of analysis and interpretation. The rationale for VCAE involves engaging students in learning experiences in art that prepare them to be informed consumers and able to make judgments in society with an emphasis on visual experiences of everyday life. Critics of VCAE submit that the approach may be limited in that the focus is on the critical thinking relating to visual culture. Another concern is that number of images that concern VCAE may be so broad that limiting the images to which one is exposed and thus able to submit to discourse would be impossible. The question for this study, then, is as paradigms for teaching and learning continue to shift in art education, what of value should be retained from the DBAE model.

Summary of Review of Literature

The two-part literature review produced salient points that provide significant relevance and purpose to this study. With the review of the events in the United States that had the most effect on education, teacher training, art education and art teacher preparation in the last century, a greater understanding is possible of the context in which a discipline-based approach to education in general and art education, more specifically, evolved. From the beginning of the twentieth century it is apparent that

43

there was engagement in an ongoing discussion about the choice between a philosophy of education based on the needs of American children and one that was based on education as a viable business. The goals of the nineteenth century, educate future citizens, reduce crime, and provide equality of opportunity had not changed (Spring, 2004, p. 8). Scientific methods of administration, changes in curriculum, and educational testing were used to improve social efficiency (Callahan, 1963; Efland, 1990a; Gardner, 1991; Rippa, 1992). Business became a player in this process when profits appeared to hinge increasingly on the desire and ability of immigrant children to adapt to the American dream of economic independence. Unless vocational training to prepare children for factory work was provided, business considered schools to be a poor investment of tax dollars. Reflecting these trends, child-centered art education engaged in a tug-of-war with the movement toward accountability (Barkan, 1966; Getty, 1985). Art education, which had been on the fringe of serious consideration with the withdrawal of public support for creative expressionism in the progressive approach, began to measure the need to provide art education as a mode of inquiry parallel to that of science. In this climate, discipline-based art education was introduced to educators as essential to a childs complete education. These ideas are important to this study because of the noted trend to change from one position to another and, sometimes, back again in an effort to maximize the results of those invested in the movement. With the review of previous trends in education, couched in a history of American events and peoples, future research can note current trends in the context of what has gone before. That knowledge assists researchers base projections of future practices with greater accuracy. Future goals for art education are somewhat dependent upon practices of todays art teachers. Todays art teachers are in the best position to maintain the course or to change direction by a few degrees or by several degrees. While researchers are noting change or lack of it or projecting future change, it is the teachers who make the changes or stay the course. As teachers are interviewed, the knowledge gained from those conversations and reflections take on greater significance when placed in the context of

44

the history that has been outlined. By the same token, current events in America and new directions in American education impact the choices future art educators make regarding the direction of art education in the future and the reasons for that direction as perceived by the practitioners. To that end, the review of literature provides a model for placing choices made by art educators in the future within the context of their times, thus allowing for possible projections as to future directions in the field. The review of literature established that discipline-based art education, or DBAE, was an approach to art education that evolved in response to conditions in the world and in the United States of America as they impacted the course of education (Clark, 1997; Day, 1997a; Day, 1997b; Stankiewicz, 2000; Wilson, 1996). DBAE dominated the art education landscape for approximately twenty years at the close of the twentieth century. The DBAE paradigm was pervasive to the degree that national standards of assessment in art education, as well as state standards, were structured around the expectations and objectives associated with the use of that approach (Artsedge, 1999; FLDOE, 1996). Art teachers were trained in the DBAE approach and implemented that approach into art curricula and classrooms (Duke, 1988; Greer, 1985; Hamblen & Galenes, 1991). As the twenty first century began art educators trained in the approach taught art with varying degrees of a discipline-based approach, and those who had rejected it initially gained support for a change. New ideas about art education gained support and momentum, and it was apparent that support for DBAE was challenged (Topping, 1990; Wright, 1990). Art educators questioned the direction the field would take, and it remains to be seen how art teachers are responding to the choices facing them (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005; Dorn, 2005; Duncum, 2001; Duncum, 2002; Efland, 2004; Eisner, 2001; 2005; Heise, 2004; Tavin & Hausman, 2004; Parsons, 2004). This study seeks to determine what forms that response is taking for three teachers who became the subjects or participants in this project.

45

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Problem Statement

Given that it was the dominant paradigm in art education for twenty years, given that art education is currently moving into other paradigms of art education, particularly Comprehensive Art Education (Parsons, 2004; Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005) and Visual Culture Art Education (Freedman & Stuhr, 2004; Tavin & Hausman, 2004), and given that there must have been something valuable in discipline-based art education to make it such a dominant paradigm for so long, the question is what is it that is still valuable about discipline-based art education, what would be desirable to retain from DBAE, what were its most successful aspects, what were its most useful qualities, in the eyes of selected practitioners who continue to use that paradigm?

Guiding Question
The guiding question for this study is: What aspects of discipline-based art education do art teachers trained in DBAE find useful and valuable in teaching art, and what aspects would they recommend retaining in future art teacher training?

Supporting Questions
Through an extensive literature review of significant literature of teacher preparation, the following questions emerged that helped to frame the conceptual foundations of this study. 1. What have practitioners trained in the DBAE approach retained and used consistently? Why is this so? 2. What non-DBAE components have been added to teachers DBAE-framed programs? Why? 3. What components have been discarded, from the DBAE approach, and why were they discarded. 4. What aspects of DBAE do practicing DBAE-trained art teachers recommend be retained in future art teacher training? 46

Objectives
The objectives of this study are to: 1. Determine the historical context in which discipline-based art education developed and to gather other information related to the research problem through a review of literature; 2. Design a survey instrument and survey teachers to find a base of information and an interview population; 3. Design an interview instrument interview selected teachers to assess the uses of DBAE and the attitudes of selected teachers trained in the DBAE paradigm to the DBAE as well as the modifications they have made since they began using the approach; 4. Describe, analyze, interpret and evaluate the data to determine how the selected teachers continue to use DBAE or not, what aspects they use, modifications made, reasons why, and the value they put on given aspects of DBAE as well as their recommendations for its future use in teacher training programs; and 5. Draw conclusions regarding the DBAE paradigm and its current use in selected schools based on the supporting data and suggest possible uses of aspects of DBAE in future art teacher training. The preceding list outlines the objectives for the study. The following paragraphs in this section expand the objectives to include rationales to support them. The first objective (1) is to determine the historical context in which disciplinebased art education developed and to gather other information related to the research problem through a review of literature. By placing the study within its historical context the need to address the perceived direction of art education at this time is constructed with some assurance that the previous paradigms lend support to either the maintenance of the current direction or support for change. Second in the objectives (2) is the goal to create a survey instrument and survey qualifying art teachers to find a base of information and an interview population. The preliminary survey is essential to the construction of the research project. The results of

47

this survey can reap information that provides a base from which to structure the interview questions. Additionally, from this survey the group of art teachers who graduated from Florida State University with degrees in art education who currently teach in Florida who can be approached regarding their willingness and ability to participate via the interview process can be found. The third objective (3) is to design a structured interview instrument to assess the uses of DBAE and the attitudes of selected teachers trained in the DBAE paradigm to the DBAE as well as the modifications they have made since they began using the approach and use that instrument to interview the selected teachers. Although it would allow the teachers who are interviewed greater latitude to express themselves and expand on particular answers, it is more advantageous to have the interview protocol structured to the point that the three art teachers are asked the same questions in the same order to facilitate comparisons of responses in the coding of their responses. The objective to conduct interviews of selected teachers is foundational to finding the answer to the research question, What aspects of the discipline-based art education do art teachers trained in DBAE find useful and valuable in teaching art, and what aspects would they recommend retaining in future art teacher training? The teachers are the source of the information necessary to determine the direction of art education as seen in the curricula of the three art teachers interviewed. Following the interviews, the content was (4) described, analyzed, interpreted and evaluated to determine how the selected teachers continued to use DBAE or not to use it, what aspects they use, modifications made, reasons why, and the value they put on given aspects of DBAE as well as their recommendations for its future use in teacher training programs, With the goal (5) to determine current teacher training paradigms in art to set a context for the study, the need to change teacher training or maintain the current direction can be examined. In light of the responses from the interviewees regarding their preparation to teach using the DBAE paradigm, the art teacher education approach at FSU can be supported or redirected to support prospective art teachers in reaching their goal and do so with the assurance that they graduate from the program prepared to teach their art classes and manage them effectively.

48

It is necessary to draw conclusions regarding the DBAE paradigm and its current use in selected schools based on the data supporting and suggest possible uses of aspects of DBAE in future art teacher training based on the outcomes of the interviews. The interview content should allow the research to determine the degree to which the three art teachers continue to use that paradigm as well as their opinions as to the future of DBAE in their curricula. The merits of the DBAE approach need to be examined to determine the reasons for its sustainability and to provide reasons for a change in direction. Measuring the success of DBAE from the points of view of the art teachers who were trained in the approach and who implemented it allows an inspection of the good in it as well as the potential stress points that could prove pivotal in redirecting art teachers foci to manipulate the approach to better serve the needs of the students. In examining the choices art educators are making, it is important to conduct that examination in the context of what preceded the turn of events, note that which is retained, and investigate that which is has been added. A change in direction does not necessarily imply the need to throw out the old, wholesale, in favor of solely the new.

Non-Technical Overview of the Study

This study is organized is such a way as to create the opportunity to survey and interview practitioners who were trained at FSU in the DBAE paradigm. The subjects teach school in Florida and have taught art for at least five years following their graduation from the FSU Art Education Program. Three art teachers selected from teachers who participated in a purposive survey, which also collected foundational information for this study, were interviewed following an open-ended interview protocol as to their current teaching practices. The first order of business in this study was to collect completed questionnaires from a survey of art teachers. They teach art in Florida, graduated from the art education program at the Florida State University, and were trained in the disciplinebased art education approach. They had given permission for the results of their questionnaires to be used through appropriate measures required by The Florida State University Office of Human Subjects. The results of this survey provide demographic

49

foundational material relating to questions about the DBAE approach and its implementation in school art programs. The respondents also provided the population from which three teachers were selected for the interview portion of the study. The responses to the interview questions assisted in determining the degree to which DBAE remains the dominant paradigm in their art classes. Additionally, changes in their art instruction were described in order to determine, as far as these subjects are concerned, what changes have been made to the curricula of the three art teachers since they had been trained in the DBAE approach to art education. From the responses to this concern, the changes were apparent, but so were the reasons for the changes as well as the observed results of implementing the changes. From the analysis of the interviews, conclusions were drawn as to the perceived direction of art education from the perspective of the three participants who were trained in the DBAE paradigm. This study is intended to describe and assess how DBAE-trained art teachers continue to use tenets of that approach and what they think of that. Following from the survey results, three art teachers were interviewed in depth to find out their engagement with DBAE, what they value about it, and how they use the approach in their programs. The teachers were also asked to indicate what aspects of DBAE they would consider retaining in teacher training programs. This was determined through the inquiry method of semi-structured interviews involving art teachers who are currently practicing and who were trained in the DBAE approach to art education in this phenomenologically qualitative study using a survey and interviews as instruments to obtain data. Art teachers who were trained in the DBAE approach at Florida State University were interviewed to determine how these teachers continue to use the DBAE approach, and what elements of that approach should be retained in teacher training programs. Theoretical Foundation This is a phenomenological, qualitative study that makes use of interview protocols as the primary research tool supported by survey research. In following this path, the research allows readers to view the world of the art teachers who were trained in the DBAE approach to art education (Bogden & Biklin, 1982). The assumptions

50

about what is important in making their art programs work, in particular their use of DBAE structure and strategies, can be viewed through their eyes. What is real and true to the teachers can be understood by the readers of this study through the use of this approach. The use of phenomenological research and the qualitative approach, as a methodology, allows the observer to enter the world of the art teacher. Phenomenological Research Phenomenological research bases its findings upon the created meaning that a subject assigns to events (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Jeffers, 1992; Thurber, 2004). Researchers are allowed into the consciousness of the participant to ascertain points of view and convictions regarding the pursuit at hand. In pursuing the line of inquiry that is guided through the phenomenological approach, researchers who gain access to the conceptual world of their subjects are able to increase in understanding the events and the meaning of those events that are studied. That understanding of events and their meanings through the perspectives of the participants constitutes reality from each participants point of view. Qualitative research comes in a variety of approaches, but all share to some degree the goal of gaining increased understanding that comes from finding and studying different points of view (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Thurber, 2004). Thurber (2004) noted, qualitative research methods emerge from a phenomenological approach (p. 489). When researchers are privy to the subjects understanding of what is real, some measure of their attitudes and beliefs can be determined. Understanding the results of phenomenological research can result in theories about possible directions that allow theories to be constructed for future reference and research (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Sullivan, 2004). Understanding the results of phenomenological studies from the added perspective of the researchers does lend additional elements to be considered in the final analysis. Therefore, as interviews are conducted with subject participants it is imperative to do so with the conscious awareness of the possibility that the interviewer can skew the results of the interviews by becoming involved in the process beyond that of merely asking questions and encouraging participants to expand upon their responses.

51

Qualitative Research What follows from the phenomenological foundation is a qualitative approach to research. That is my position in this study. To obtain a more holistic picture of the approach to teaching art used by the art teachers in question in this study, a qualitative approach is useful to investigate the nature of the instruction by accessing information that would provide descriptive information about it (Thurber, 2004). Qualitative research concerns itself with the context of the information, is collected through words or pictures rather than through numbers, is interested in processes in addition to final products, determines the results of the study inductively by putting together a picture of what is discovered as it is discovered, and the major concern is focused on how people create meaning within their spheres of influence. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) define qualitative research as a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible.[The researchers] turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self.[Q]ualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena, in terms of the meanings people bring to them. (p. 4-5) Qualitative research has long afforded scholars the ability to place data within historical and environmental contexts, qualifying experience with descriptions made through observations and interviews (Bogdan & Biklin, 1982; Eisner, 1998; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990; Seidman, 1998). Eisner (1985) stated that the difference between quantitative- and qualitative-funded research is that results from quantitative studies need to be expressed quantitatively in order treat the results statistically. Qualitative research results are described verbally and are placed in a context that invites the researcher into the study. In this phenomenological qualitative study the meaning ascribed to an event or an idea comes from the art teachers rather than from any extrinsic source such as a

52

textbook or journal article (Krathwohl, 1993). It is the teachers point of view that counts as reality. This study operates on the level that a teachers consciousness, or what the teacher is aware of, determines the meaning of the ideas or events to that teacher. In this manner, each participants meaning is different and individualized according to how each teacher perceives his or her world, and that meaning translates to reality for that teacher. With that said, as the sole researcher, I am responsible for data collection, data interpretation, and data analysis, as well as the judgments and evaluations of the information collected (Eisner, 1998; Seidman, 1998). This allows me the possibility to emphasize meaning and knowing through personal experience as the interviewer. As a result, I am also the primary instrument. In this context, it is understood that meaning can be influenced by my participation as the researcher. Qualitative studies, as emphasized in Eisners The Enlightened Eye (1998), are noted for sharing the following qualities. First, qualitative research has a sense of place, or field focus, that allows description of environmental facets such as classrooms, textbooks, students, school locations, or other settings. Second, the researcher is the research instrument. Although they may employ tools such as cameras, voice recorders, or mere notebooks and pencils, it is the researcher that guides the selection of those tools, when, where, and if they are used, and the degree to what those tools records is included in the study. The tools allow a heightened degree of objectivity to enter the study. Third, the study is considered to be interpretive in that researchers are recognized as being accountable for the descriptions and explanations of the meanings they create. It also means that the experiences recorded hold meaning for those involved in the studies and researchers are responsible for reporting the data accurately based on as many different sources as can be mustered in order to provide appropriate context for the data. The fourth characteristic of qualitative researcher is that of the researchers voice. With much of quantitative research seeking sterility in the data and freedom from contamination from external sources, it is important to note that, instead, in qualitative research the person conducting the study is recognized to be influential in the results, that their voice is heard amid the data.

53

Fifth, in qualitative studies is the recognition of the necessity of attending to details. Generalizations can be made regarding the content and the results of the study since they are couched in detail that give them context and recognize their degrees of uniqueness. Unlike the generalizability that characterizes science areas, in a qualitative study, generalizability makes reference to the notion of making situations or experiences accessible to others. Donmoyer (1990) noted that it is not only the content of the qualitative study that is important when considering generalizability, but the subjects experiences as viewed through the researchers eyes also contribute to the study. The third party to the equation is any number of readers of the study who approach it with the goal of acquiring their own insights that could be transferred to yet another setting, or, in essence, be generalized. Bogdan and Biklen (1982) list characteristics that contribute to the understanding that this study about art teachers and the directions taken by their curricula is best approached through a qualitative approach. First, art teacher responses to queries about their daily work, as a source for information, provide understanding acquired a context that grants authenticity to the study. Next, the descriptive nature of qualitative research assumes that nothing is unimportant and, thus, the responses from the teacher interviews must be noted in detail. Beyond the summative outcome of the study, the normative process of the inquiry itself assists in decoding the daily activities or procedures to which the art teachers make reference. In addition, the qualitative researcher builds hypotheses based on the data from the art teacher interviews rather than in the more traditional order of first proposing hypotheses followed by data collected that supports them. Finally, qualitative research is about finding meaning according to the perspectives of the subjects they study; in this study the subjects are the art teachers. Qualitative findings are not valued because they are significant in a statistical approach, but they are of value because they can enhance meaning (Donmoyer, 1990; Bruner, 1996; Sullivan, 2004). Rather than offer an explanation, qualitative research seeks to provide understanding. Understanding the current posture of art education in the classroom of art teachers was thus appropriately reached through

54

phenomenologically qualitative investigation through interviewing practicing art teachers. The Survey. Survey research assists in revealing information from targeted subjects regarding situations to the end that the results may be applied to a larger population (Franken & Wallen, 1990; Yarger & Smith, 1990; Krathwohl, 1993; Thurber, 2004). Researchers ask questions of the subjects, related to a common issue, to find answers. Those conducting the research are interested in answers that share common information. Although survey research asks questions rather than posing hypotheses, when it is used as part of the research design, survey research can lead to the development of hypotheses. There are three characteristics that are common to the survey research method of acquiring information (Frankel & Wallen, 1990; Thurber, 2004). First, to optimize the opportunity to describe aspects or qualities, information is obtained from people who are representative of the population in question. Second, the information is obtained through questioning the participants. Last, the information is gathered from a few members of that population rather than from every member of it. In this study, a preliminary survey was conducted to serve the purpose of creating a population from which the sample would be taken for the interview research. A list of students who graduated from the FSU Department of Art Education between the years 1990 and 2000 was obtained from the FSU alumni association. A second list of art teachers who practice in Florida was obtained from the Florida Department of Education. It was compared with the FSU alumni list to make a new list of those former FSU art education students who taught art in the state of Florida. Questionnaires were sent electronically as well as via traditional mail methods to each person on that list. A total of twenty-eight art teachers received the questionnaires and accompanying release forms that were approved by the FSU Office of Human research. Of the twenty-eight questionnaires that were confirmed as received by the art teachers, eleven were completed and returned for evaluation. Longitudinal and cross-sectional surveys are the two types of surveys most often conducted (Franken & Wallen, 1990; Krathwohl, 1993). Longitudinal surveys, as the name suggests, collect information from the same subjects to research changes over a

55

period of time. Cross-sectional surveys collect samples from a larger population. The information may take some time to collect, but it is taken one time only. This study followed the cross-sectional survey model (Frankel & Wallen, 1990). In addition, the three art teachers were selected from those art teachers who participated in and graduated from the FSU Art Education program with a bachelors and/or a masters degree on a teacher certification track to determine how the DBAE approach has served their goals for teaching art. The three art teachers who were interviewed were selected from the eleven who returned the completed questionnaires. The Interviews. Interviews with three art teachers were conducted as the heart of this study. Interviews have become commonplace in gathering data for qualitative research, and though it is also utilized in quantitative research, interviewing is the most common form of research tool for gaining access into subjects lives through qualitative research (Eisner, 1991; Fontana & Frey, 2000; Seidman, 1998). Interviewing is such a basic mode of inquiry that the method has become the ubiquitous approach used by pollsters, television show hosts, news journalists, and a myriad of other professionals seeking access to peoples lives. The fact that interviewing is widely accepted and commonplace does not lessen the potential that interviewing has in scholarly pursuits. Although much research is done about education, a substantial amount of it is done without regard to the perspectives of the actual players whose experiences comprise what makes up education (Bogden & Biklin, 1982; Eisner, 1991; Seidman, 1998). Documents may be studied that contain much of the data about a school or program, but in order to understand the meaning that is created by those who experience the phenomena, interviewing primary participants provides a much richer and credible source. Teachers are a rich source of data for this study through the instrument of the interview. Understanding teachers experiences with DBAE and seeking the meaning teachers give those experiences was at the root of interviewing in this study. The benefits of interviews in research include the potential for in-depth responses, the possibility of interviewer and subject confirming answers or questions with follow up available to clarify issues, flexibility and adaptability of schedules and meeting times to suit individual needs, and the advantage the researcher has in the

56

ability to interpret nonverbal responses and the feelings they may imply or suggest (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Krathwohl, 1993; Seidman, 1998). On the other hand, interviews can require and investment in time, travel, and money, it may be difficult to analyze the results, the responses might be influenced by the interviewer, the subject may be somewhat inhibited due to the personal nature of interviews as compared with the anonymity of questionnaires, and the process would limit the number of subjects due to the some of these constraints. The use of telephone interviews and the advent of electronic mail and its use to conduct interviews reveal other aspects to consider when structuring interviews. Interviewing is the instrument of choice for the heart of this study, but it is worth noting that there are drawbacks to that choice (Bogdan & Biklin, 1982; Eisner, 1982; Seidman, 1998). Compared with other methods, interviewing is particularly time intensive and can be expensive in terms of monetary investment. Reticence due to shyness on the part of the interviewer must be overcome in order to begin the process. Moral issues, too, exist in that the researcher must realize that the subjects may be used for gains in the study without regard for sacrifices they may be called to make. The decision to do the research should be made with the understanding that the end should justify the means for both the researcher and those studied. Additionally, Eisner (1998) reminds one that the researcher cannot escape the notion that, although the interview questions are the tools of the interviewer, that person conducting the interviews and asking those questions may affect participant responses. The conclusions may tell as much about the interviewer as they do about the participant. When the decision is made to use interviewing as the instrument for research, the researcher assumes responsibility for the potential consequences from those described above and possibly others as well. Practices involving interviews employed by researchers are varied and are organized very rigidly, somewhat loosely, or anywhere in between (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Seidman, 1998). A rigidly structured interview protocol asks all subjects the same questions in the same order with little or no opportunity for expanding upon answers. This approach allows the use of the same questions for all participants and seeks no variation in the manner in which different participants respond to questions. More

57

precise data that can be readily used to explain behaviors is possible with structured interviewing. Nothing is left to chance, and personal differences in responses can be assigned to problems in asking the questions, in the desire of a participant to embellish with or omit details in answering the questions, or in the wording of the questions. Any of the preceding components could prove problematic, but there is much less room for error in structured interviews. The complete opposite is true for an unstructured interview protocol that could even bear strong resemblances to conversations. More depth in data can be reaped from unstructured or open-ended interviewing (Eisner, 1991; Fontana & Frey, 2000; Seidman, 1998). Unstructured interviews allow for extended responses to the questions. More complex behaviors can be understood with greater clarity with unstructured interviewing approaches. There is an increased concern for the participants in studies as well as for an accounting of the influence researchers have on the participants and their responses. Interviewing that is focused and goes into greater depth in both questioning and responses allows participants to construct their experiences within this research topic. The resulting information from using an interview protocol, then, ideally should yield both detailed descriptive information about the curriculum from the three art teachers responses to the questions asked and descriptive information about each teacher (Seidman, 1998). Although some guidance is appropriate in centering the teachers responses in this study, thus avoiding excessive digression away from needed material, the open-ended questioning approach allows teachers to explain and give support to their initial responses to the questions they are asked. Descriptive information about each teacher can be obtained from answering questionnaires. Increased value can be given to answers they write on a preliminary questionnaire to which they have an opportunity to give expanded responses through interviewing the three art teachers in this case. With one interview some conclusions may be inferred, but with three teachers interviewed there is the opportunity for comparisons between the answers to the questions as well as to the manner in which questions were answered. The inquiry method I used to assess the degree to which art teachers trained in the DBAE paradigm continue to employ that approach was the qualitative research tool

58

of phenomenological interviewing, with selected art teachers as the subjects (Bogdan & Biklin, 1982; Eisner, 1991; Fontana & Frey, 2000; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990; Seidman, 1998). Through interviewing art teachers who were trained in the DBAE approach, I ascertained their perceptions using their experiences with their own classes as a measure. Teachers can be a rich source of data for this study through the instrument of the interview. When the goal is gaining an understanding of what is going on, primary sources, such as art teachers are indispensable sources of primary information. Their perceptions of what is happening in the world of art education are best determined through interviewing teachers and giving them the opportunity to develop expanded answers. If the intention of the study is to assess how DBAE is currently used in art classes, the source most likely to be able to provide that data is practitioners of the approach, or art teachers (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990; Eisner, 1991; Seidman, 1998; Fontana & Frey, 2000; Zimmerman, 2004). Interaction with art teachers netted their responses to questions regarding the approaches they currently used to teach art as well as the merits and drawbacks to those approaches. Their responses were given within the context of descriptive contextual information regarding each teaching situation, such as the school setting, the students who were taught art, the preparation of the art teachers both in order to teach art, but also the preparation that was required on a daily basis to perform their duties. Population. The population from which participants are drawn is very important to the success of a study. Much of what is researched is of value if the knowledge gained from studying a particular population can be generalized to apply to the larger, or general, population (Seidman, 1998). That is, if the results of a study about the health of a way of life could be generalized to the entire human population, the study is of significant value to humankind. In order for formal generalization to prevail, the sample must be taken randomly from a population. In this study it was necessary to select a sampling from a specialized group of people. Generalization can still occur, but it is known as naturalistic generalization (Eisner, 1992). The need for a specialized population from which participants were drawn necessitated the understanding that

59

much of the research can be applicable to other art teachers who were trained in the DBAE approach, but is not formally generalizable. Application was made to the Florida State University Human Subjects Institutional Review Board for Research Involving Human Subjects Committee to receive permission that allows a researcher to approach potential subjects for the study. The three qualifying art teachers received Human Subjects Committee permission forms. Those teachers granted the researcher permission to interview them before the process began. In selecting the participants for this study it was necessary to implement parameters that insured optimal comparability. The teachers needed to have been trained in the same approach. They were art teachers who were trained in the DBAE approach through the same process at the same institution. For this study the art teachers were trained at the Florida State University in the Art Education Department, a site chosen by the Getty Foundation for propagation of the DBAE approach (Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1993). Survey Sample. The purpose of selecting a population in this study was that of finding art teachers who met the qualifications to have the necessary experiences to answer the questions knowledgably. To be able to understand their experiences and make comparisons with the answers to identical questions, the participants were drawn from a population that could share comparable experiences (Seidman, 1998). Since the selected art teachers had characteristics in common with one another, that is, they were all educated using the DBAE paradigm at a single institution, naturalistic generalization was possible in this study (Eisner, 1991). The sample in this study was drawn from the population of graduates of The Florida State University Art Education program between the years 1990 and 2000 who were teaching art in Florida. This population was chosen because FSU had been selected as a site for DBAE training and funded by the Getty Center for Education. As a result of this selection, prospective art teachers who were trained at FSU were exposed to a carefully monitored system of instruction required and staffed by the Getty Center that provided the funding. By selecting teachers who had completed the program by the year 2000, the subjects were able to experience teaching art using that approach for a

60

few years prior to the beginning of this study. Twenty-eight art teachers qualified to receive initial questionnaires (Appendix A). Participants were sent questionnaires to complete and return either through electronic means or through traditional mail delivery. Following the distribution of the questionnaire, eleven of those documents were completed and returned by the teachers. From the eleven recipients who completed and returned their questionnaires a purposeful sample for the interviews for this study was drawn (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Seidman, 1998). Interview Sample. In this study purposeful sample was essential to the selection of three teachers of art. This was not done to ensure that the desired results were obtained. Rather, it was necessary to obtain a variety of experience in the three participants in this study so that the results would lend themselves to a greater degree of naturalistic generalization, although in the traditional sense the results of this study were not formally generalizable (Eisner, 1991). Since random sampling was not possible, not even desirable in this study, another kind of sampling was necessary. Purposeful sampling lends itself to a wider variety of sampling, that known as maximum variation sampling. Selecting the participants who represented diversity in the art teacher population allowed the study to reflect a broader perspective and at the same time apply to a greater number of teachers (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Seidman, 1998). From the teachers who responded to the questionnaires, a further purposeful sample of three was taken. The field was narrowed based on two factors. First, the availability of the subjects to participate in the study was the primary logistical hurdle to mount. Second, from the art teachers whose circumstances allowed them to participate, the field was narrowed by the desire to enlist the cooperation of subjects teaching in a variety of school settings (Seidman, 1998; Fontana & Frey, 2000). In addition to satisfying the primary criteria of being trained in and still using DBAE as a teaching and learning strategy, the survey subjects reflected diversity in school setting, student socioeconomic status, the length of tenure in teaching, as well as the ages and genders of the teachers; in short, I sought maximum variation (Seidman, 1998). The diverse settings in which art teachers are employed affect their teaching experiences. Teachers can be found working in urban, suburban, or rural

61

schools. In these schools students come to school each day leaving behind them anywhere from affluent to destitute home situations. Another consideration is the age of art students who meet with a teacher, either elementary or secondary. The age and experience of each teacher can also affect a range of influences. When selecting subjects for the study, attention to the above details was used in creating a diverse group of teachers to study. With attention given to the above considerations, the sampling for this study was purposeful, but it also was designed to reflect the diversity that is found in the population from which the sample was taken. The three teachers who were interviewed also differed in substantial ways. One taught in an elementary school while the other two were middle school teachers. Although none of the three was new to teaching art the teacher who was 63 had substantially more experience that did the other two teachers. One of the middle school teachers had transferred to that campus from a high school, something that separated her further from the other two. The other two art teachers had attained National Board Certification, a process that could give them a different perspective on their experiences in their classrooms. The two board-certified teachers had also earned masters degrees from Florida State University after earning bachelors degrees in art from other institutions. On the other hand the middle school art teacher who had transferred to that school from a high school had graduated with her bachelors degree in art education from FSU. The three art teachers taught vastly different populations. The boardcertified middle school teacher taught in an affluent part of the city. The elementary art teacher worked with a diverse population from established neighborhoods interspersed with subsidized housing projects. The other middle school teacher worked at a school with a low-income population; there is discussion in the school district of closing that school in the near future to accommodate redistribution of students and school zones. In the differences between the teachers described here the needed for maximized variation was satisfied (Seidman, 1998). Procedures and Instruments: Overview The first portion of the study was completed as a questionnaire administered through survey procedures to art teachers who were trained in the DBAE approach who

62

were currently teaching in Florida. The initial group of 28 teachers was comprised of teachers who were trained in the DBAE approach at FSU between 1990 and 2000, were currently teaching in Florida, and whose mailing address at places of employment were available to use. This information came from a search of the FSU Alumni database provided by that organization and a list of art teachers currently employed by the State of Florida provided by the Florida Department of Education. Upon the assembling of participants that met the criteria, a questionnaire was administered through both electronic mail and traditional mail. Every participant received an electronic version of the questionnaire via electronic mail and a hard copy of it through traditional mail (Appendix A). The teachers whose response was slow in coming were sent additional copies of the questionnaire. As a result of a series of contacts that I made with the teachers by electronic mail, traditional mail, telephone conversations, and personal visits designed to encourage them to respond to the questionnaires, eleven of the questionnaires were completed and returned, netting a response rate of 39%. The results from the eleven completed surveys influenced the procedures used in this study. The data from the questionnaires was coded to provide the sample that was taken from the respondents to the questionnaire. Upon completion of the coding of the survey questionnaire portion of the study, the participants for interviews were selected from the teachers who completed and returned the questionnaires who were also able to participate. (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Eisner, 1998; Seidman, 1998). The instruments used for the interview portion of the study were questioning protocols that were completed by the participants in written form via electronic mail. The interviews were transcribed and subsequently rewritten as narratives, describing the interviews. Clarification, if needed from the participants, was conducted through further electronic mailings or through verbal conversations on site or by telephone. The data from the interviews was first coded thematically (Eisner, 1998; Seidman, 1998). The themes were compared for overarching themes. Comparisons were made between the three interviews as to their similarities, differences, and to their notable offerings in terms of the concerns of the goals that grew from the guiding and supporting questions. Based on the results of the comparisons between themes found

63

in the three sets of art teacher interviews, conclusions were reached about the opinions of the teachers. Coding is discussed later, in detail. Recommendations were then made about the need to retain components of DBAE that were determined to be useful, and examination of components of the approach that may be losing momentum and might no longer be needed related to the retention of aspects of DBAE, and ultimately recommendations were made about future directions for teacher education in art education was also examined.

Literature Review as a Tool From the literature review it was ascertained that there indeed have been shifts in direction in education in general, and in art education more specifically. Most have been influenced or directed by global or national events such as the Great Depression, the end of World War II, the launching of Sputnik, or of men landing on the moon (Callahan, 1963; Efland, 1990a; Gardner, 1991; Rippa, 1992; Clark, 1997; Day, 1997a; Day, 1997b; Stankiewicz; 2000; Spring, 2004). When the education community determined to direct its efforts toward a discipline-focused content area study of subjects, and art education became involved through a discipline-based approach to art education, the shift in direction brought renewed effort and focus to the training of art educators (Day, 1997a). Since the approach was introduced and implemented, the field has been progressing toward the next paradigm shift. The literature review provided prefigured foci, or specific targets for this study (Eisner, 1998). As opposed to emergent foci that are yet to be discovered as the study progresses, prefigured foci were laid open within the framework of the literature review prior to the onset of the study. In the presentation of history, whether American history, education history, or that of art education, it has been noted that there are changes in direction. This notion is compared to the pendulum as it reaches the apex before swinging again in the opposite direction. As art education is described in the literature review within the context of the history of this country and its education system, that description lends itself to a theme that can be applied to the current position of art education in the first decade of the twentieth century. It is at a pivotal point in its history as it looks to DBAE and the other possible directions to take.

64

From the prefigured foci of the literature review, came the background or contexts in which to study this moment through the eyes of teachers who are at the apex of the swinging pendulum of art education. The foci from the literature review became themes for the coding of information collected from teachers who were part of the movement that was examined in terms of the future uses for DBAE in the art classroom. Emergent foci, or themes that assist in determining answers to the questions that are guiding the study, were discovered within themes that enabled the coding (Eisner, 1998). To obtain a description of discipline-based art education as it was implemented, weighed as to its effectiveness, and either retained discarded in part, by art educators trained in the approach, it was useful to survey DBAE-trained teachers, and to interview three art educators as to the impact the approach has had on their programs and what portions of the approach they intended to retain. The research strategy for this study was to use the survey instrument as a preliminary screening device followed by interviews as a phenomenological, qualitative study. In this manner it was structured to obtain results that reflected the state of the approaches in art education that are in use in the classrooms of the three teachers interviewed through their own perceptions. The foundation for these interviews lies with survey research, which also served as the instrument used to select interviewees. Through recording and retelling the stories of the art educators selected for interviews, the facets of the DBAE approach that they currently use, the new directions being taken, and the reasons art teachers are making those choices were described from their perspectives. Survey Instrument The initial instrument was a questionnaire that sought demographic, descriptive, and evaluative information (see Appendix A) (Seidman, 1998). Copies of the questionnaire were sent to twenty-eight art teachers in Florida who had been trained in the DBAE approach to art education through the Art Education Department at the university. This was done through electronic mail and traditional mail with that population receiving the document in both forms.

65

Eleven art teachers who received the questionnaires completed the answers in written form on a hard copy of the document and mailed the completed forms to me through traditional mail using envelopes included in the initial mailing. It was from the responses to this document that participants were selected to form the purposeful sample for the interview portion of the study (Eisner, 1998). Interview Instrument A semi-structured interview schedule, or outline of questions, served to purposefully guide the interview process (Bogden & Biklen, 1982; Fraenkel, & Wallen, 1990; Seidman, 1998). Although the data emerged as the interview evolved, a guide or outline, known as the interview schedule, was advantageous and assisted in maintaining the desired direction and consistency of interviews between participants. Open-ended questions allowed the subjects greater breadth in expressing their opinions, giving examples, or offering insights that would have been limited with a more rigid format. With this tactic it was more probable to obtain a truer account of how the participant perceived the issues. With a more structured list of questions I was more likely to get responses from different subjects that lent themselves to comparison than with an open-ended questioning strategy. In this study, the interview schedule began with an opportunity for the subject to clarify and expand upon items from the original survey questionnaire (Appendix A). The descriptive demographic information provided by the participant on that questionnaire was objective and did not require value judgments. The demographic questions ask the participants to share information about themselves and who they are at that time. Beginning the interview in this way allowed the art teacher to become comfortable with the process prior to the second portion of the interview (Seidman, 1998). Questions about the year they began teaching, for example, or about the school population percentages are impersonal and do not demand personally stressful answers. The teachers then were asked two kinds of open-ended questions, allowing them to expand upon initial responses and to give examples (Seidman, 1998). Questions that were categorized as descriptive compose the second part of the interview (Interview Schedule Part Two) (Seidman, 1998). The descriptive questions took the

66

participants through opportunities to describe the art programs they have designed. The art curriculum was described as to the qualities that place it occupied in the DBAE domain or in other paradigms. They described what they do as art teachers. Finally, the questions in part three of the interview asked the participants to evaluate their art programs (Interview Schedule Part Three) (Seidman, 1998). These questions required the art teachers to examine the DBAE aspects of their programs and portions of the program that were not DBAE-related as to their effectiveness and expected longevity. This section of questioning provided the opportunity to express what their programs mean to them, how they value them, how they evaluate their programs, and what they would change in the future to enhance the programs. The interview process in this study called for identical questions to be asked of every subject (Eisner, 1998; Seidman, 1998). All participants were given the same questions to answer in the same order, but the resemblance to structured interviews ended at this point. The questions that asked of each of the participants were identical, but they served to direct the interview. Framing the interviews in this manner enables possible disclosures of particular value perceived by the art teachers as they reconstruct the meaning of their experiences in teaching art through the DBAE approach or others to the degree that they are employed, phenomenologically. Following the selection of the participants, they each received identical interview questions by way of electronic mail. With access to electronic means of communication, interviews were conducted with the advantage to the interviewer of receiving the responses in text form. The participant had the advantage of answering the interview questions at his or her leisure with the opportunity to read through each one prior to returning it to the interviewer. As a result of these benefits, the interviews, review of interview contents, confirmation of contents, questions from the teachers or from the interviewer, and any other follow up took place electronically through email communication. Coding the Data Analyzing the responses of participants in a study was accomplished through a system of organizing the information in related categories, or coding it. Coding the data

67

in this study was a process of organizing related responses from the participants for the purpose of studying patterns to obtain meaning from the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Eisner, 1998; Seidman, 1998). The first phase of the study to be coded was the set of responses to the initial questionnaire that was sent to the twenty-eight graduates of the FSU Art Education program between 1990 and 2000 who teach art in Florida. Beginning with the assignment of ID numbers to the participants who returned the questionnaires, the coding was organized by the numbers of the questions asked on the document. For example, page one noted the eleven responses to the first question, page two noting responses to question number two, and so forth. With the responses organized by question number and by participant ID number, comparisons of the responses were made. Conclusions were drawn from the similarities and differences, possibly leading more detailed coding within those categories in the varied responses to any particular question (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990; Eisner, 1998). Foundational information about those respondents and their DBAE training was available from the completed questionnaires and the coding of those documents (Seidman, 1998). It was this descriptive, demographic information that assisted in the selection of a purposeful sampling of three art teachers for the purpose of the interview portion of the study. From the coding of the information, similarities and differences became evident. The teachers were similar in the qualities that allowed them to receive the questionnaires. In order to have their responses ring true to an art teacher population, it was beneficial to qualify further selection criteria as those characteristics that make the three teachers different. In so doing their responses to identical questions would differ and ring true for more art teachers who are interested in their responses. The second phase of the study to be coded was the interview phase. The three art teachers who were selected as the purposeful sampling to participate in the study through the interview process were interviewed through electronic means, by email with telephone and personal contact for follow up and clarification. Following the interviews, the responses were transcribed into descriptive passages. The transcriptions of these contacts combined with any notations made during or after the interviews comprised the

68

data for the second phase of the study. The coding approach used in analyzing the questionnaire responses was implemented in studying the interview responses (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Seidman, 1998). In both the questionnaire responses and those from the interviews, systematic coding began to reveal a story. That story described the situation in which DBAE finds itself in the three classrooms lead by the three teachers interviewed. The story was told through the use of thematic categorization (Seidman, 1998). Some categories related to the roles art education has assumed historically in education, as well as in theories and practices of DBAE, and others related to art educators who designed the approach, have arisen from the review of literature to become foci for examination (prefigured foci) (Eisner, 1991). Additional categories arose from the research itself in the responses of practitioners of the DBAE approach (emergent foci). In the case of interviews, transcription of the interviews produced documents that were studied for themes (Seidman, 1998). Similar themes were found due to the fact that the three teachers were asked the same questions. The similarities naturally availed themselves to categorizations, but did not exclude the exceptions that were also found. As the three transcripts were compared thematically, categories suggested themselves (Bogdan & Biklin, 1982; Denzin, & Lincoln, 2003). One beginning point noted by Bogdan and Biklen (1982) was to code transcriptions initially according to each question answered. The questions asked in the interview sessions suggested more categories under which to code related data. Coding categories were viewed in much the same manner as families, in that they were related in a variety of ways. When the content of the three interview responses for each question was compared, similarities and differences were noted and coded accordingly. A description of the material occurred through the organization of the material received from the interview transcriptions (Seidman, 1998). With respect to this study, categories that proved useful were codes that related to the setting, particularly those in which the teachers work on a daily basis. Primarily, though, categories emerged that were drawn from the main guiding question, the five supporting questions, and the eleven objectives of this study.

69

Reporting the Data Data assessment is the organization and measure of the usefulness of the material gathered through the interview process (Eisner, 1991). This was accomplished through describing, interpreting, and evaluating the interview transcriptions. A detailed analysis was possible following the interviews, transcriptions of those interviews, and the categorizing and coding the data. Initially the data were organized as a narrative in which broad comparisons could be made. Following the introductory narrative, the data were reported according to the categories in which it was coded. In order for the following conclusions to be of further value beyond this study, it was determined that corroboration of the responses was essential. Another term for this step is triangulation. Relying on multiple sources of evidence, much like a courtroom trials defense or prosecution team might present in order to make the case for the defendant in question, allows the conclusions of this study to acquire a sense of validity (Eisner, 1991; Seidman, 1998; Janesik, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 2003). Frequently corroboration can result from the discovery of supporting evidence found in different sources such as interviews, observations, or published research that is studied. Eisner notes that it is important to use multiple types of data to provide support for the conclusions that are drawn in a study (p. 111). Triangulation is useful in qualitative research serves to clarify meaning by identifying different ways the phenomenon is being seen (Stake, 2003, p. 148). It is one more way of assuring that conclusions are supported. In this study the content of each interview provided substantial evidence to support the conclusions that were drawn. The interviews need not stand alone, however. Following the transcription of the interviews, copies of the interview content were delivered to each participant for approval. The art teachers read through the responses as they appear in the study, requested changes that they determined as necessary for clarity and accuracy, and returned their copies to me. I made the changes as noted by each teacher. This constituted a member check, and as such contributed to the credibility of the responses (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Seidman, 1998)

70

Additional support for the reliability of the interview content was corroborated by the responses from the survey participants. Although the interview participants were also recipients of the survey questionnaires, comparing their responses to those of the balance of the survey participants provided corroboration to support the interview responses (Eisner, 1991). Survey questions differed significantly from interview questions, but in the questions the two procedures held in common, the responses of the survey participants supported those of the interview participants. A third approach to validity was the use of the three-part interview structure (Seidman, 1998). In allowing a number of weeks for the participants to respond to the questions at length in the three-part interview (demographic, descriptive, and evaluative), there was opportunity for the participants to note inconsistencies in their responses and make necessary changes. The same was true for the researcher as the three sections of the interviews were compared for inconsistencies for each participant. From the finalized interview documents, I then drew conclusions that, based on the methodology for this study, were substantiated through the interviews and the changes made by the teacher review process. Conclusions were then drawn based upon the responses of the teachers that were interviewed that related directly to the research questions, supporting questions, and objectives of this study.

Summary
The primary purpose for this study was to determine what DBAE-trained art teachers continue to find of value in that approach as they teach art, what they would recommend retaining for future teacher training. Since the DBAE paradigm dominated the art education landscape for two decades at the end of the twentieth century, the study of its qualities was deemed worthy of pursuit in the context of its influence, its continued prevalence or lack of it, and its place as other paradigms are being examined and adopted in some art classes. I wish to couch these concerns within the construct imposed by the questions rising from the literature review and within the context of the answers to questions that related to individual teaching situations that were administered to the participants in the study.

71

The study was a phenomenologically based qualitative research project that was approached through surveying a group of DBAE-trained art teachers who graduated from Florida State University, and interviewing three art teachers who have been trained in the DBAE approach to art education. In these partially structured interviews the art teachers answered open-ended questions. The interviews were structured. Each participant was asked identical questions in the same order. Given that the questions are open-ended allowing for wide latitude in the breadth and depth of answers, the format for the interviews was considered partially structured. From the responses to the interviews I expected to be able to draw conclusions as to the status of the DBAE approach within the programs of the three teachers interviewed. Since the study follows the phenomenologically qualitative model, the understanding of what occurs in the three art programs is true based on the perceptions of the teachers who were interviewed and who implement their own art programs. While some of the questions asked elicited answers that can be confirmed as factual, the questions relating to their art programs encourage broad responses, allowing the answers to be according to the perceptions of those art teachers. The conclusions are not generalizable in the traditional research use of that term, but they may be representational of art teachers who have had similar training and teach art in similar circumstances with access to contemporary ideas of growing trends in art education. The study may prove valuable to those who continue to address DBAE in theoretical and practical ways. The notion that needs are filled and that change is inevitable may be found to be true according to the teachers who have practiced the DBAE paradigm in their curricula, to those who waited for the direction to change, and to those who mark change as art teacher preparation programs that are expected to be on the cusp of change.

72

CHAPTER FOUR STUDY RESULTS

This study was conducted in two parts. First, the preliminary survey was constructed and administered to obtain information from the largest number of art teachers who had been trained in the DBAE approach through the Art Education Department at the Florida State University. It also provided the art teachers pool from which three were selected for the interview portion of the study. Second, the interviews that followed were conducted with the purpose of answering the guiding question and the supporting questions for this study. Beginning this section of the study it is important to revisit those questions.

Guiding Question
What aspects of discipline-based art education do art teachers trained in the DBAE approach find useful and valuable in teaching art, and what aspects would they recommend retaining in future art teacher training?

Supporting Questions
Through an extensive literature review of significant literature of teacher preparation, the following supporting questions emerged that helped to frame the conceptual foundations of this study. 1. What have practitioners of the DBAE approach retained and used consistently? 2. What non-DBAE components have been added to teachers DBAE-framed programs? Why? 3. What has been discarded from the DBAE approach? What could be changed to merit their retention in art instruction? 4. What aspects of DBAE do practicing DBAE-trained art teachers recommend be retained in future art teacher training?

73

Survey
The survey segment of this study was conducted as a preliminary step. It accomplished two things. Through the use of the survey initial demographic information was obtained about art teachers in Florida who were trained to use the DBAE approach at Florida State University. Additionally, three participants were selected from the survey participants to be involved with the interview portion that was to follow. The art teachers who were invited to complete a questionnaire were found through a search of the records of the Florida State University Alumni Association. From those records a list of students who received degrees in Art Education was compiled. The list was shortened to include only the students who graduated between 1990 and 2000. Those years were selected to accommodate a decade during the years that DBAE was taught in the Art Education Department at FSU. The group was then narrowed to the students who also currently taught art in Florida. That information was available through the records of the Florida Department of Education. From the above sources a list of 28 art teachers who received DBAE training from the FSU between the years 1990 and 2000 who taught art in schools in Florida was compiled. Those teachers were given the opportunity to participate in the survey portion of the study. Eleven teachers responded and were willing and able to complete the survey portion of the study. Survey Participants Each of the eleven participants who completed the survey questionnaire is described in the following paragraphs. For the purposes of anonymity a letter of the alphabet is employed to identify each teacher. In the descriptions of the participating teachers, some schools are denoted as Title I schools. It is important to understand that Title 1 provides federal support for schools with a high number of students from low-income families. Title 1 status is based on the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (Title I, Part A: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged). This categorization is telling regarding the population of the school, the budgetary concerns facing such schools, and the concerns facing teachers who work at Title I schools.

74

Teacher A Teacher A is a female who was 41 years old at the time the survey was conducted. She earned her MS from FSU in Art Education in 1992. She taught art at a high school that is a small magnet school of 315 students. The school earned a B grade for the school year prior to the administration of the survey, based on Floridas grading system for the schools in that state. Although the school is a public school, students must apply to be accepted to attend there since the campus is very small. Students from across the school district attend this high school. Attention is given to individual needs of each student. She taught full time at this school until 2006-2007 during which time she took a leave of absence. She planned to return to that school at the end of that time. Although the high school is small by comparison with other schools in that district, there are between 18 and 22 students in each art class. As a result there are large art classes occupying a small art room in which ceramics, painting, printmaking, and photography are taught. Teacher A also volunteered on several school committees. Teacher A felt that the most important thing that she taught was an understanding about why humans create art and what it means to us. Due to the nontraditional structure of the approach to education espoused at the school where she worked, students work more independently than at other schools. As a result of the independent nature of the structure of the time at the school, Teacher A indicated that the DBAE approach was more useful in a traditional setting where students were working on the same assignments at the same time. Teacher B Teacher B is a female who was 42 at the time of the survey. She earned a BA from FSU in Art Education in 1995. She taught full-time at a pre-K through 8th grade facility that opened in 2000 during the time that the survey was administered. The school earned an A grade for the year prior to the survey. The school is located in a semi-rural area of the county. It recently added a 9th grade class and now serves 910 students, with approximately 35 that are bused from a neighboring county. It has both elementary and middle school Title I status. Grades 6-9 include 560

75

students with elementary serving 350 students. A synopsis of the school would reflect a low socio-economic population with few minorities and a high percentage of ESE (Exceptional Student Education) students. Teacher B teaches the elementary art classes at the school. She had between 25-30 students in each art class. The idea that art is more than just pretty pictures was one of the most important ideas that Teacher B felt was important to teach. The other important thing to teach, to her, was that art relates to so many other aspects of life. She indicated that she felt that she had been prepared well to teach art using the DBAE approach, and that she continues to teach using that approach. Teacher C Teacher C is a female who was 29 at the time of the survey. She earned her M.S. degree from FSU in art education in 1997. She taught art full-time at an elementary school in a rural community about 20 miles from the Tallahassee. The school is old, but maintained well, and clean. Prior to becoming the art room, that room had been a regular classroom. The school is a Title I school and serves pre-K though 5th grade, and houses the elementary EH (Emotionally Handicapped) population for the district. The enrollment for 2005-2006 was 545 students. The art class size was between 20 and 25 students. In addition to her art responsibilities, Teacher C also taught reading at the school in the morning, had bus duty, served on committees, was the technology specialist, and was the chairperson for the special areas classes. Of particular importance to Teacher C was the opportunity for students to have hands-on activities with cross-curricular links supported by art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. She found that the DBAE approach supported her teaching as long as she attended conferences and other opportunities for teacher in-service to stay current with art education methods and ideas. Teacher D Teacher D is a male who was 44 at the time of the survey administration. He earned his B.A. in Art Education from FSU in 1990. His time as an art teacher was

76

divided between two elementary schools at the time that he completed the survey questionnaire. School #1 serves a suburban population and earned the No Child Left BehindBlue Ribbon School designation that indicates that appropriate gains were made in student achievement for the year prior to the administration of this survey. This school had earned all As prior to the time the survey was administered. Teacher D had classes that ranged from 22 to 30 students. School #2 also serves a suburban population. Teacher D noted that both schools are old, and that School #2 celebrated its 50th birthday in 2006. Both schools have populations below 700 and are Title I schools. Teacher D served as the special area representative and as a member of the School Discipline Committee. Teacher D was impressed with the importance of using art to help students appreciate and like themselves and to appreciate other people though art. He found that when he used the DBAE approach, his students became bored and wanted to proceed to make art as soon as they could rather than spend the time with discussion or writing that were found with art criticism, aesthetics, and art history. Teacher E Teacher E is a female who was 48 at the time of the survey. She earned her M.S. in Art Education from FSU in 1993. Teacher E also achieved National Board Certification. She taught full-time at a large middle school that houses over 1,300 students. It is located in an affluent area of the county and has earned an A grade on the Florida school grade scale, recently earning the highest standardized test scores in Florida, and it has earned the Blue Ribbon School award. Her classes ranged from 11 students to 38, but there were usually between 25-28 students in each art class. The school was about ten years old, and Teacher E felt like she had the best art room in the county. She noted that she had lots of window and bulletin board space, an excellent studio, a separate kiln room with appropriate venting, good storage space, and a separate office for the teacher. She had the responsibility for the annual middle school art show and the Tallahassee Winterfest art show, and served on the schools SITE committee.

77

Teacher E felt strongly that in her classes the most important art subjects were fibers, ceramics, and drawing. She was also impressed that the concepts of craftsmanship, attention to detail, and the understanding that it is important to persist until one achieves the highest quality possible was essential for students to learn. The DBAE approach was helpful to her in providing a context for art production activities. She noted that it worked well for her middle school students as long as the time spent doing contextual activities did not dominate the time spent for art production. Teacher F Teacher F is a male and was 56 years old when the survey was administered. He earned his M.S. in Art Education from FSU in 1990. He taught art full-time at an elementary school in a rural county in Florida. His school originally opened its doors in the late nineteenth century, and Teacher F indicated that it shows its age and is not maintained very well. The school is a Title I school, earned a C grade on the Florida school grade scale, and serves as the district ESOL site. The population of the school is below 700. Teacher F had art classes that range from 27-32 in size; he noted that the year the school earned an A grade, the art classes averaged 18 students. The art room is small but functional. Teacher F expressed concern with the consequences of the state-mandated standardized testing and promotion requirements. To him, it seems those impacted art in a negative way by placing too much emphasis on test results. Teacher F also worked with the music classes and their programs by creating sets for their productions. He also produced banners, posters, programs, and flyers as needed for the school. The most important thing that Teacher F felt that his students should learn related to the interrelationship of many things. He thought that DBAE overlapped into science, technology, and history, among other things, to the degree that students could understand that they did not work in isolation. The subjects work best when the students understand that each of the subjects related to the others. Teacher F also commented on the thrill he felt teaching art prior to the institution of state-mandated testing of students and its use for the promotion or retention of students. Since its

78

implementation he had lost some time that had been given to art, now used for remediation in math, reading, and writing. Teacher G Teacher G is a 47-year-old female art teacher who earned her B.A. in Art Education in 1980, but earned her M.S. in Instructional Systems in 1994. Teacher G also achieved National Board Certification. She taught art full-time at an elementary school in a semi-affluent suburban area. It is the district ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) site, is an A school, and earned the highest standardized test elementary school scores in the district. The school is 40 years old, houses a population that is under 700 students, and is growing to the point that portable classrooms are also used. With that in mind, Teacher G was happy that she had an art room. She served on the school advisory council (SAC), mentored beginning art teachers, was a liaison with the Mary Brogan Art Museum education program, and coordinated a Meet-the-Artists Day and a Caldecott Carnival at her school. She also assisted with the Florida Institute for Art Education teacher inservice training during some summers. Teacher G wrote that the most important thing that she taught was an appreciation for and an understanding of art in its many forms and from so many cultures. She mentioned that she felt more prepared to teach those ideas once she had been given greater understanding herself, had used it through with a DBAE perspective, and had the opportunity to use DBAE as a tool. Teacher H Teacher H is a female who was 48 years old at the time the survey was conducted. She earned her B.S. in Art Education from FSU in 1994. She taught full-time at an inner city middle school that qualifies as a Title I school. Her art classes were between 20 and 30 students per class. The school is maintained, but she noted a cockroach problem even after the addition of the new art room. The art room is large, lighted, with good storage space, an office for the teacher, a kiln room, and several windows. The school hosts a magnet program, known as

79

Quantum, which is designed to assist students achieve more through individual, flexible, and hands-on educational experiences designed to enhance growth. In the context of her art classes, Teacher H expressed the feeling that it was very important to understand the elements and principles of art and to be able to identify and use them in creating works of art. This was accomplished through her use of the DBAE approach that she uses exclusively. Teacher I Teacher I is a female who was 61 years old when the survey was conducted. She received her MS in Art Education from FSU in 1991. Teacher I also achieved National Board Certification. She teaches elementary art full-time at an inner city math and science magnet school with a highly diverse population. The school has numerous programs to serve the needs of exceptional students. The school provides services for students with learning disabilities, severe emotional/behavioral disorders, speech/language impairments, and other health impairments. Her class sizes range from 25 to 30 students. The art room was large and well equipped, has a kiln room, ample storage space, and several windows. Teacher I also assisted with outside supervision before school begins each morning, and she serves on the technology committee. As with the other survey participants, Teacher I was asked what she considered to be the most important thing that she taught. She wrote that of the DBAE components, she felt that art production carried the most value. While the other parts of DBAE include reading, writing, and discussion, she said that production was the most important since it was unique in that it involved creating something where the other three did not do that. Teacher J Teacher J is a female teacher and was 57 years old when the survey was conducted. She earned her B.S., M.S., and a Specialist degree from FSU. The Specialist degree was awarded in 1996. Teacher J also achieved National Board Certification.

80

She taught at a rural elementary school. It is a Title I school and serves a student body that is under 700 students. This school has earned an A grade according to the Florida school grading system. It is a new school. Teacher J also served as the chair of the school advisory council (SAC), and she was the arts coordinator for her Florida County. She taught students from pre-K to fifth grade, and her art classes averaged between 18 and 24 students. Teacher J indicated that the most important things that she teaches are art, geography, math, and social history. She teaches art and includes the other components that she values using the DBAE approach. Teacher K Teacher K is a female, and was 32 years old when the survey was conducted. She earned her BA in Art Education from FSU in 1995. She taught art at an elementary school in a rapidly growing area of central Florida. The elementary school was built in 1988. With the growth at the school to over 1,600 students, it was expanded in 1999 to include a Primary Learning Center that houses pre-kindergarten through second grades. Third through fifth grades are still located at the original part of campus, now called the Intermediate Learning Center. The school now houses 1,350 students. The school consistently earns As according to the Florida school grading system. Teacher K taught elementary students in grades three, four, or five. She infuses music, dance, and drama into her DBAE-funded art program. She had an ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) class that was between 17 and 20 students, but her regular art classes had about 25 students per class. She indicated that the school is good, but the art room needs to be larger. In addition to teaching art, Teacher K supervised students before and after school. She was also responsible for theatrical performances that are part of the intermediate grade students experience at the school. When asked to include what she considered to be the most important things that she taught, she emphasized that everything that she teaches is very important. Art touches everything else that she teaches in her current setting, and it connects the

81

other subjects that in turn relate to art. The DBAE approach was a useful tool in accomplishing that style of curriculum. Survey Responses Demographic Responses The responses to the Demographic section of the survey is reported using graphs, tables and charts as well as text since these responses lend themselves to tabulations and graphic comparisons. Question 1. Age 41 years old 42 29 44 48 56 47 48 61 57 32 Teacher A B C D E F G H I J K

The ages of the eleven teachers who responded to the survey questionnaire range in age from 29 to 61 years of age. The average age of the respondents was 49.5 years old.
AGES OF 11 TEACHERS 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 AGES OF 11 TEACHERS

Fig. 1 Ages of teachers

82

Sex: Male: Female:

Teacher Teacher

D F A B C E G H I J K

Two of the teachers are male, and nine are female. Questions 2. & 3. Institution(s) at which you earned your degree(s): (The degrees noted are those that equipped the teachers to use the DBAE approach. Thus, all degrees that applied to this response were earned at FSU.) BS/BA Teacher B D G H K MS Teacher A C E F I Specialist Teacher J

83

Type of Degree 9% 36%

BS/BA Masters

55%

Specialist

Fig. 2 Academic degrees/certification earned by survey participants Fifty five percent of the respondents earned a masters degree, thirty six percent a bachelors degree, and nine percent a specialist degree. Question 4. Year of graduation in Art Education: 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Teacher D F I A E H G B K J C

Two teachers earned degrees in 1990, two in 1994, and two in 1995. One teacher earned a degree in 1991, one earned a degree in 1992, one in 1993, and one in 1997. As a result of earning degrees during this time, all participated in DBAE training through the Department of Art Education at FSU between the years 1990-1997, and by so doing qualified for this study.

84

Question 5: School at which you teach: High School Middle School Elementary School Teacher Teacher Teacher J E H A B C D F G I K

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL

Fig. 3 School levels at which survey participants taught art One teacher taught art at a high school, two taught at middle schools, and eight teachers taught at elementary schools. Question 6: School Districts in which you teach: Teacher A B Leon Bay

85

C D E F G H I J K
School Districts

Gadsden Leon Leon Gadsden Leon Leon Leon Wakulla Orange

9%

9%

9% 18%

55%

Bay Gadsden Leon Orange Wakulla

Fig. 4 School districts in which survey participants taught art Fifty five percent of the teachers who responded to the survey taught in Leon County. The remaining forty five percent taught in four other counties with two of those teachers working in Gadsden County. Question 7: Demographics: (Check all that apply regarding your school.) Teacher Title 1 school B C D F H J

86

Population below 700

A C D E F J

District ESOL site

C F G

District deaf site

20% 0%

0
Title 1 school 40% Population below 700 District ESOL site

40%

District Deaf site

Fig. 5 Special demographic groups at schools where survey participants taught art Forty percent of the teachers work at Title I schools, or schools at which at least 40% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Forty percent of the teachers teach at schools where the population is below 700. Two of the teachers teach at schools that are designated as the district site for students who speak other languages (ESOL). None of the participants work at schools that are district sites for deaf students. Question 8: Include the letter grade earned by your school during the 20032004 school year. School Grade: A Teacher B E G I J

87

K School Grade: B School Grade: C A D C F H

School Letter Grade
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 A B #REF! C

Fig. 6 Letter grades awarded by the State of Florida to schools at which survey participants taught art Two of the schools earned letter grade B based on the Florida school grade system that rates schools according to student improvement on standardized test scores. Three of the teachers schools earned Cs, and six of the schools earned A grades. Question 9: I am (check all that apply): Art Teacher Administrator Classroom Teachers Other All participants are art teachers 0 0 0

All of the survey respondents were art teachers. Question 10: I teach the following grades (Please check all that apply): School Pre-K Teachers C J

88

K-5, 6

B C D F G I J K

6-8 High School Higher Ed.

E H A --

8 6 4 2 0 3 Pre-K K-5,6 7 2 8-Jun 1 High School

0 Higher Ed

Fig. 7 Grade levels taught by participants of the survey One teacher taught at a high school. Among those who responded, two art teachers taught art at middle school. Four of the art teachers taught at elementary schools with populations that served kindergarten through fifth grade students. Three of the teachers taught at schools that included pre-kindergarten classes and kindergarten through fifth grade classes. Descriptive Responses The following responses relate to the eleven teachers experiences during the working day. Each teacher wrote short answers to describe the school day in the art

89

room. Since the short responses do not lend themselves to graphic representation, the responses are given in text only. Question 1: What courses do you teach now? Teachers A B C D E F G Courses Art 2D, Art 3D, AP Studio Art, Photography K-5 Elementary Art K-5 Elementary Art including ESE students Reading K-5 Elementary Art General Art 6th, 7th, & 8th grades, Advanced Art 8th grade I teach science, history, music, math, and astronomy through art. I conduct the beginning teacher elementary art program with another experienced art teacher. Each summer I conduct a weeklong course offered to all teachers (K-12) on integrating art into other disciplines. H I J K I teach Art Appreciation and Reading. I teach K-5 Visual Arts I teach Art. I teach art, music, dance, drama, but mostly I teach art and music.

Question 2: What other courses have you taught? A B C D E F G AP Art History Art camps and Girls Scouts None High school advanced 2D and 3D art in a magnet program Comp. Ed. Math, for 6th and 8th grade students, Journalism/yearbook Reading Art summer camps at a local museum and out of state

90

H I J K

High school beginning 2D and 3D, advanced 3D, Humanities 1 and 2 None Graphics Photography 1 & 2, Portfolio, AP Drawing/Painting 1 & 2, Fibers /fabrics

Question 3: What is the Art budget at your school? A B C D E F G H I J K $ 800.00 +/1,000.00 +/The budget is open; it is based on need. I am given $2.00 per student for the year. There is no art budget. I do my own fundraising. $ 500.00 - $ 700.00 The budget is adequate. It has always been unknown with my former administrator. I have not been given a budget. $1,500.00 $2,500.00 or more $ 150.00

Question 4: How is the budget determined? A B C D E F G H The budget is a set amount multiplied by the number of courses taught. I do not know how the budget is determined. It is based on need. The principal determines the budget. NA It is determined by a school committee. Administrative discretion Any budget is determined by what I order.

91

I J K

The principal determines the art budget. It is determined by what I need. The same amount is given to every teacher regardless of the subject.

Question 5: What other sources of financial support do you have? A B C D E F Art fees are collected from the students. The fee is voluntary. We are allowed to do two fundraisers each year. PTO sometimes gives money to the Art program. There are no other sources for financial support here. The students pay a voluntary $10.00 art fee. I also do a magazine drive fundraiser once each year that produced $1,075.00 in 2004. Currently, there are no other sources of financial support, but in the past I solicited funds from a local bank. Students have also sold artwork in a gallery. G H I J K I have received some grant monies and some funding from our PTO. I have no other sources of financial support. I receive $200.00 from the PTO, and SAC (School Advisory Council) gives me $200.00. I use grants, SAC money, and money from fundraisers. I have received up $500.00 from the PTO.

Question 6: What are your class sizes? A B 18-22 I average between 25 and 30 children. The ESE (Exception Student Education) students are mainstreamed in the Special Area classes such as Art. C D K-3 classes have around 20 students, and grades 3-5 have around 25 students. My classes range from 22 students to 30 students.

92

E F

My class sizes range between 11 and 38 students, but the art classes usually have between 25-28 students per class. When we were an A graded school, the classes were around 18 students, but since that time the classes average between 27 32 students.

My kindergarten and 1st grade classes range from 20 to 23 students. The 2nd through 5th grade classes number from 23 to 25 students.

H I J K

My classes have between 20 and 30 students. My classes average 25 students. I have EH (Emotionally Handicapped) mainstreamed with the other students. The art classes have between 18 and 24 students in them. My ESOL classes are the smallest about 17 to 20. The other classes average 25 students.

Question 7: Comment about your facility. A B School The high school is a small magnet school that focuses on somewhat individualized learning in a supportive community. I work at a fairly new school. I have been here two years. I am so lucky to work in such nice surroundings, both the campus and the staff. I love my job and the children I teach. C D E F G The school is old, but we have what we need. The school is old, but it has been maintained well. The school shows its hard use by 1,350 students, but it is an excellent school. My school is a very old school. It shows its age and is not maintained, although some improvements have been made. The school is older and in need of a good cleaning. It is bursting with portable classrooms to accommodate the students we have here.

93

H I J K

The school is old and has roaches. The school hosts a diverse population. We are a good team. I have a great school administration. The school is just overcrowded. Art Room The art room is a heavily used multi-use space. We accommodate ceramics, painting, printmaking, photography, etc. in one 25 x 40 room.

B C D E

The art room is new as is the rest of the school. The Art room was a regular classroom before it became an art room, but it is okay. More storage space wouldnt hurt. The art room has large tables, some clear space, the kiln is in the Art room, and there is an office in the room. I have an excellent art studio with lots of windows and bulletin board space, a large supply closet, separate office space for the teacher, and a separate kiln room with an overhead vent hood,

F G

The art room is small and crowded, but it is still functional. The art roomI have one! It has two sinks, a kiln, great lighting from the windows, four donated computers, and there are large working tables. There is never enough storage space.

H I J K

I have good facilities in the art room. It is a large, light room with good storage, an office, a kiln room, and lots of windows. The art room is large and well equipped, has a separate kiln room, lots of storage, and nice windows. I love my art room! The art room is new, and it is excellent. I cant complain, but the art room could be much larger!

Question 8: What are your other responsibilities?

94

A B

I volunteer to serve on several school committees based on interest. I serve on an activities committee that meets maybe once every two months. I also serve on the BCAT (Bay County Art Teachers) that meets monthly.

C D E

I have bus duty, cadres, and serve on some committees. I am also the technology specialist and the Special Area grade chairperson. I am the discipline representative, and I am the Special Area representative. I am a member of the SITE committee, coordinate the art for the Tallahassee Winter Carnival, the Courthouse exhibit, and the middle school art show. My responsibilities outside of class have diminished in recent years giving me more time to focus on my art program.

I have occasional monitoring duty in the music class. I also create backdrops/scenery for programs, banners, posters, and various other things for events.

I serve on the SAC (School Advisory Council), I mentor beginning art teachers, liaison with the Brogan museum, coordinate Meet the Artists Day and the Caldecott Carnival (a make and take workshop based on Caldecott books. This all seems to just be the tip of the iceberg; there is so much more that I do within school and beyond!

H I J K

NA I have morning playground supervision for six weeks of the year, and I serve on the technology committee. I chair the SAC (School Advisory Council). I have morning and afternoon duty, and I am responsible for theatrical performances for Intermediate Learning Center grades 35.

95

Question 9: Teacher Training Were you taught the DBAE method of instruction? (All 11 Art teachers indicated that they had received DBAE training.) Were you adequately prepared to teach art? (All 11 Art teachers indicated that they were adequately prepared to teach art using the DBAE approach.) Which of the following Art Education courses did you find to be the most useful? Courses Foundations in Art Education Art in the Elementary School Teaching Art Criticism and Aesthetics Teaching Art History Computer Graphics History of Art Education Teachers B, C, D, F, I, J, K B, C, D, J, I, K B, C, D, E, H. I, J, K A, B, C, D, E, H, I, J, K A, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, K C, D, F A, B, C, D, H Art Therapy and Special Populations all prepared her to teach art. Evaluative Responses The following responses relate to the eleven teachers experiences during their tenure at FSU as Art Education students and as interns in schools under the direction of both cooperating and supervising teachers. Each teacher wrote short answers to describe the school day in the art room. Again in this section as in the previous section, the short responses do not lend themselves to graphic representation, and as a result the responses are given in text only. Question 1: Do you use the DBAE method of teaching art? C, D, F, H *Teacher G wrote that she couldnt remember some specific courses, but said that they

Teaching Studio Content and Methods in Art

96

A B C D E F G H I J K A B C

I used it more consistently at other schools Yes Yes. I use it part of the time. I use it somewhat. Yes, I use it occasionally. I use it sometimes, when it is applicable. Yes Yes Yes Yes How well does it work? It worked very well in a more traditionally structured environment. Our school is very focused on our assessments being FCATrelated. This style of teaching makes that easy to do. It works fine, but I attend conferences, workshops, and other professional development activities because things are always changing.

It doesnt work so well. The students want to move on to art production rather than spend time talking about art or writing about it.

Using DBAE provides a context for the production work. DBAE works well as long as there is not too much art history, criticism, or aesthetics because the kids get antsy to create art themselves.

Sometimes it works well. It does take several classes and it becomes hard to maintain an interest from the students over several weeks.

G H

It works well enough for the amount of time I see my students; it grabs a wide variety of learners. It gives students some background and something to connect their projects to.

97

I use my version if DBAE, and it works quite well. To full implement DBAE in elementary school you need to work with the classroom teachers. My school used to have many classroom teachers that had been trained at the DBAE Summer Institutes, but they have moved on, and our school has become a science and math magnet school.

J K

The focus is on with the components adjacent. DBAE works very well and is important for integration of all the arts and subject areas!

Question 2: If you do not use the DBAE method, what is your preferred approach, and why? A The students at this high school tend to work in an independent mode. This does not lend itself to group discussions in the form of DBAE. *The other teachers indicated that they continued to use the DBAE approach and do not employ any other art education approaches. Question 3: What do you think are the most important things you teach? A B C D E It is important to know why humans create art and what that means to us. I teach that art is more than pretty pictures, and how it relates to other aspects of life. They are the hands-on activities with cross-curricular links, art history, criticism, and aesthetics. I think it is important to help students appreciate themselves, others, and art. In art the most important things I teach are the subjects of ceramics, fibers, and drawing, along with the concepts of craftsmanship, attention to detail, and learning to rework something until it gets better.

98

F G H I

The inter-relationship of things is very important to teach. It is important to teach an appreciation for art in many forms and from many places. I need the students to understand the elements and principles of art and be able to identify and use them in their artwork. I think art production is the most important since it is the part of art that is most different from the other aspects. Art criticism, art history, and aesthetics support art production.

J K

Art, geography, math, and social history are the most important things I teach. Theyre all important!

Question 4: Were they addressed in your teacher training? Response Yes Teacher A, C, F, G (yes, but even more with DBAE training later while teaching), H, I (Being an artist and media/production technique were part of my training.), J, k No D, E (They were covered in my fine arts training.), No response B Question 5: What were the strengths of your teacher training? A B It reignited my passion for art. By exploring aesthetic inquiry, I really began to understand why art has been my lifelong interest. The strengths were researching art, designing lesson plans, being exposed to different studio media, our observations and the internship. C D E The strength of the training was learning about art curriculum content. Learning subject area knowledge was very helpful. My classes had a narrow focus and went in depth; I also had very qualified instructors.

99

F G

The internship was helpful, and the FSU program in general was good, a little idealistic, but good. The Art Ed. program provided small intimate classes that allowed everyone to participate and provided professors who cared what you were doing and took an active role in your training. Barbara Roberts, Ginny Brouch and Bonnie Bernau were my mentors. Without the expertise, experience, and confidence these three women gave me I would not be the kind of teacher I am today. Trite, but its true. One of my best memories of my beginning teacher/internship experiences was the regular meeting with my professor and the other interns. These meetings provided insights and common ground for me.

At one school, the teacher kept really good records and was on top of planning ahead. At the other school, the teacher had high expectations and excellent ideas.

What was very helpful was learning about curriculum development, research in DBAE, and an emphasis on good writing. Personal artistic growth was also emphasized.

J K

Practice. I had knowledgeable professors.

Question 6: What were the weaknesses of your teacher training? A B C D E There was inconsistency and vagueness with regards to required course work and changing standards. I remember our computer room was disappointing (one color). I think the weakness was in not learning enough about classroom management and discipline. It would have been good to have some help in knowing about dayto-day organization and record keeping. The Art Education department did not meld or work well with the Fine Arts department. We (Art Ed.) were the ugly stepchildren.

100

F G H I

There was no one there to tell us of the down sides of teaching. I think that would have helped. I was greatly intimidated by my supervising professor; she was a powerhouse to me, and I was a lowly beginning teacher. No weaknesses both of my cooperating teachers were good. There was a lack of hands on experiences with real students. Since I was getting an MS and was already teaching, that was not a problem for me, personally.

J K

NA I didnt get enough of a diversified student population with my student teaching internship.

Question 7: Rate your teacher training on a scale of 1-5, one being the best. Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Teachers B, D, E, F (I was thrilled taking the Art Ed. Program at FSU. I really enjoyed it.), H, I, K C None G A, J

Summary of the Survey Findings Demographic Findings The teachers average age was 49.5 years, 18% were male, and 82% were female. Five teachers taught having earned bachelors degrees, while five other teachers had also earned masters degrees, and one had earned a specialist degree, all having accomplished this feat during the years between 1990 and 1997. One art teacher taught high school, two taught at middle schools, and eight taught at elementary schools. While six of the teachers taught in Leon County, where FSU is located, one

101

taught as far away as Orlando to the south and one taught in Panama City to the west. The remaining teachers taught in Gadsden or Wakulla Counties, both of which are adjacent to Leon County. The schools where the participants teach serve between 314 and 1,350 students, and all include diverse populations, with three schools that are ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) sites for their districts. Six teachers are employed by Title I schools. One teacher included remarks indicating that the EH (emotionally handicapped), students were mainstreamed for special areas classes such as art, music, or PE, while another teacher added that students in ESE (exceptional student education), or gifted programs are routinely taken out of art, music, or PE to have regularly-scheduled classes addressing the individual needs of those students such as reading. The resulting mix of the students expected by these art teachers is different each time those classes participate in art. Letter grades are awarded to schools in Florida each year based on improvement made in reading, math, science by students at the schools as determined by the state mandated standardized test that is administered annually. The schools are rewarded financially based on the letter grade that is earned. The funds are used according to the decision made by those who work at each school. Six teachers work at schools that received A grades, two teachers worked at B grade schools, and three worked at C grade schools. Descriptive Findings of Survey Participants This segment of the survey was directed towards the activities of each teacher. Although all of the teachers taught art, at times they had been asked to teach other courses related to art, such as photography, or subjects not directly related to art, such as reading. The funding for art classes varied substantially. One art teacher received at least $2,500, while others had no art budget and relied on PTO donations, grants, or fundraising events to provide supplies for the art program. Funding for the art programs was determined on the administrative level or the responsibility for that decision was delegated to committees at the schools. Financial support beyond any allocation from

102

the school budget came from the Parent-Teacher Organization, the collection of a fee from art students, fundraisers through the art students, solicited donations from local businesses, or from grants. The number of students that the teachers met with during a class period also varied greatly. The secondary school that also had the lowest enrollment, served classes that ranged from 11 students to 38 students. Elementary school art class enrollment ranged from 18 to 30 students per class. Students with special needs were most often mainstreamed with the other art students, but students for whom English was not their first language were taught as a separate art class at one elementary school. The participants students received art instruction in a variety of physical settings. Some buildings were old, some new, some were crowded, and a few were in neighborhoods where the number of children was dwindling to the point that the school was under populated. Most of the teachers responded positively to their experiences in their schools regardless of the settings with comments praising their students, administrators, and co-workers. Some art teachers met in rooms that were regular classrooms prior to their designation as an art room, rooms that are small, new art rooms in new schools, and new art rooms that were added to older schools, and old art rooms in old schools. One teacher was just happy to report that she did have an art room rather than finding that she was one of those known in the profession as cart teachers who provide art instruction and travel from room to room to do so with instructional materials and student supplies traveling on the cart. Most would have enjoyed larger rooms and more storage space. The teachers responded that all had multiple assignments at their schools beyond providing art instruction, such as morning or afternoon student supervision, serving on committees, or providing sets for school drama or music productions. Some art teachers also served on county, or school district level, committees, and others worked with art organizations in the community, such as museums or galleries. Other art teachers reported that they also worked as mentors with new art teachers.

103

The eleven art teachers reported that they had been trained in the disciplinebased art education approach, and that they felt that they had been prepared to do so. When given a list of the courses to rate for effectiveness that had been required for completion of the degree in Art Education at FSU, the art teachers indicated that four courses had the greatest impact on their ability to be successful art teachers: Foundations in Art Education, Teaching Art Criticism and Aesthetics, Teaching Art History, and Computer Graphics. The first three listed prepared the teachers to implement DBAE in their schools, and the last course brought them up to date on computer graphics software and their uses in art classes as that field became more commonly used as a classroom art medium. Evaluative Findings The final portion of the survey referred to the perceived effectiveness of the preparation the teachers had received in the DBAE approach at Florida State University. The majority of the teachers responded that they did use DBAE, but some qualified that response with the degree to which they used the approach. Some teachers who used DBAE along with other methods mentioned that the students responses to art history, art criticism, and aesthetics were deterrents. They said students preferred the studio portion of DBAE, and the teachers were sensitive to that preference. The high school teacher indicated that it was more difficult to use the approach there since the students worked independently on art production much of the time and rarely met to do other activities such as art history or art criticism together; she felt that classes that participated in activities together would have an advantage when in a DBAE setting. One elementary teacher commented that the approach was much easier to use consistently when the classroom teachers had participated in the FSU- and Getty-sponsored Florida Institutes for Art Education offered during the summer that trained them to integrate art into the other subjects they taught. Another teacher noted the value of DBAE in integrating art into other subjects that the art teacher chose to add to the curriculum. Some elementary teachers mentioned that the approach was good, but that it was difficult to work through a thematic unit with students when they are in art

104

for short periods of time and sometimes only once a week. Attendance at conferences or workshops was mentioned as key to continued growth and improvement in the practice of the approach the teachers had learned at FSU. The art teachers reported a variety of ideas that they considered to be of primary importance that they taught. Some of these included ideas about what art means to humans, the value that art has in the ease with which it lends itself to cross-curricular instruction, using art to help students value themselves and other cultures, the way art helps students understand that everything is interrelated, the study of the art elements and principles, and the importance of art production as it is supported by the other three tenets of DBAE. Concepts of craftsmanship, attention to detail, and learning to rework something until it gets better were important to a middle school teacher. An elementary art teacher shared the idea that nothing was unimportant; everything she taught was important. Eight of the teachers expressed the opinion that the things that were most important that they teach were addressed in their art education program at FSU, two of the teachers felt that what they valued most had been addressed in their studio training as undergraduates, and one art teacher did not respond to that question. Survey participants expressed concerns about teacher training they received regarding the lack of preparation for the real experience of teaching in a classroom full of students. They expressed frustration with lack of training in classroom management and recordkeeping, and felt that they were not prepared for that. Some noted the lack of preparation for or presentations regarding the negative aspects of teaching. The teachers and their school settings were diverse. The classrooms, budgets, and extra duties varied greatly. The teachers found common ground, though, in the implementation and use of DBAE with their students. They used it to greater or lesser degrees, but it appeared to be valued as a tool to cross other curricula, to teach the students to value one another as they learned about other cultures, and assist the teachers in designing instruction. Their concerns were primarily regarding the lack of opportunity to know about the realities of teaching prior to having that experience. With a few of the teachers there was some concern about the merits of DBAE in terms of the practicality of teaching using that approach. They indicated that it was of value, but the actual implementation of and maintenance of teaching the approach was occasionally

105

daunting. Those teachers who implemented the DBAE approach as fully as they could appear to find greater satisfaction from using it and they continue to use it.

Interviews
The eleven survey participants that were described through the responses they included in their questionnaires provided the group from which three of the teachers were selected who were to be interviewed regarding their experiences teaching art using the DBAE approach. Although only three teachers would be interviewed, the eleven survey participants were all invited to participate. In this way, teachers who could not make arrangements to participate did not need to feel coerced to be involved in a study that could infringe on time they needed to devote to preparation for their classes. Since each teachers situation was different, this was the most advantageous means of involving teachers who felt that they could make the commitment to participate. As a result of constraints that made interview participation difficult or impossible for some of the survey participants, seven of the teachers from the survey either failed to respond to the invitation to participate in the interviews, or they communicated their inability to participate. One teacher indicated that she could participate, but was on a leave of absence at the time of the interview process. It was important that the interview participants were involved in teaching art at the time of the interview process as was indicated in the qualifications for the participants that they were graduates of the FSU Art Education Program, had been trained in the DBAE approach to art education, and were teaching art in Florida at the time the study was conducted. The three survey participants who became part of the interview process were teachers E, H, and I. Their selection was based on the qualifications listed previously and in their availability and willingness to participate. The interview participants were questioned about the value of the approach with the goal of determining a sense for their feelings regarding retaining or discarding portions of DBAE. The goal of the interviews was to gain a sense from the three art teachers of the utility of the DBAE approach in their experience during a time in which the direction of art education appeared to be changing and moving away from that

106

approach. The study began with the understanding that DBAE had endured for at least two decades, and had much to offer to maintain that longevity. Rather than assume that everything from DBAE should be eliminated in favor of starting anew in directions currently under consideration for some and adopted by others, it was thought to be prudent to examine what was working from that approach as determined by the three teachers who were interviewed. Interview Participants Teacher E Teacher E is a female who was 48 at the time of the survey. She earned her M.S. in Art Education from FSU in 1993. Teacher E also achieved National Board Certification. She taught full-time at a large middle school that houses over 1,300 students. It is located in an affluent area of the county and has earned an A grade on the Florida school grade scale, recently earning the highest standardized test scores in Florida, and it has earned the Blue Ribbon School award. Her classes ranged from 11 students to 38, but there were usually between 25-28 students in each art class. The school was about ten years old, and Teacher E felt like she had the best art room in the county. She noted that she had lots of window and bulletin board space, an excellent studio, a separate kiln room with appropriate venting, good storage space, and a separate office for the teacher. She had the responsibility for the annual middle school art show and the Tallahassee Winterfest art show, and served on the schools SITE committee. Teacher E felt strongly that in her classes the most important art subjects were fibers, ceramics, and drawing. She was also impressed that the concepts of craftsmanship, attention to detail, and the understanding that it is important to persist until one achieves the highest quality possible was essential for students to learn. The DBAE approach was helpful to her in providing a context for art production activities. She noted that it worked well for her middle school students as long as the time spent doing contextual activities did not dominate the time spent for art production.

107

Teacher H Teacher H is a female who was 48 years old at the time the survey was conducted. She earned her B.S. in Art Education from FSU in 1994. She taught full-time at an inner city middle school that qualifies as a Title I school. Her art classes were between 20 and 30 students per class. The school is maintained, but she noted a cockroach problem even after the addition of the new art room. The art room is large, lighted, with good storage space, an office for the teacher, a kiln room, and several windows. The school hosts a magnet program, known as Quantum, which is designed to assist students achieve more through individual, flexible, and hands-on educational experiences designed to enhance growth. In the context of her art classes, Teacher H expressed the feeling that it was very important to understand the elements and principles of art and to be able to identify and use them in creating works of art. This was accomplished through her use of the DBAE approach that she uses exclusively. Teacher I Teacher I is a female who was 61 years old when the survey was conducted. She received her MS in Art Education from FSU in 1991. Teacher I also achieved National Board Certification. She teaches elementary art full-time at an inner city math and science magnet school with a highly diverse population. The school has numerous programs to serve the needs of exceptional students. The school provides services for students with learning disabilities, severe emotional/behavioral disorders, speech/language impairments, and other health impairments. Her class sizes range from 25 to 30 students. The art room was large and well equipped, has a kiln room, ample storage space, and several windows. Teacher I also assisted with outside supervision before school begins each morning, and she serves on the technology committee. As with the other survey participants, Teacher I was asked what she considered to be the most important thing that she taught. She wrote that of the DBAE components, she felt that art production carried the most value. While the other parts of DBAE include reading, writing, and discussion, she said that production was the most

108

important since it was unique in that it involved creating something where the other three did not do that. Interview Responses Demographic Responses The first section of the interview questions is demographic in nature. The answers to these questions provided little that was not stated in the survey by the three teachers interviewed, but the three teachers interview responses are included for comparison with each other. Question 1: Names used in this study

Teacher E, as in the Survey section Teacher H, as in the Survey section Teacher I, as in the Survey section Question 2: Ages of participants

Teacher E: 50 Teacher H: 50 Teacher I: Question 3: 63 Sex:

Teacher E: Female Teacher H: Female Teacher I: Question 4: Female Degree(s) earned:

Teacher E: I have a BFA in Jewelry & Ceramics, an MS in Art Education, and a Certificate of Museum Studies. Teacher H: I received an AA from Tallahassee Community College and a BS in Art Education from Florida State University.

109

Teacher I:

I have a BS (Bachelor of Science) in art education and a MS

(Master of Science) in art education. Question 5: Institutions at which you earned your degrees and years in

which they were awarded: Teacher E: I received my BFA from Radford University in 1980. I received my Masters in 1991 and my Museum Certification in 2000, both from Florida State University. Teacher H: I earned a BS from Florida State University in 1994. Teacher I: I earned a BS from the State University of New York New Paltz in 1961 and a MS from Florida State University in 1991. Question 6: Year(s) degrees were awarded: 1980 1991 1994 1961 1991 MS Teacher H: BS Teacher I: BS MS

Teacher E: BFA

Museum Certificate 2000

Question 7: School at which you teach: Teacher E: I teach at E School. Teacher H: I teach at H School. Teacher I: I teach at I School.

Question 8: School District: Teacher E: Leon County School District Teacher H: Leon County School District Teacher I: Question 9: Leon County School District Is your school a:

110

Title 1 school: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I Population below 1000: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I District ESOL site: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I District deaf site: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No

Other significant designations for your school: E School has a Blue Ribbon School designation. I School is a math and science magnet school that serves students who are Emotionally Handicapped (EH), Severely Emotionally Handicapped (SEH) and students with severe behavior disorders. In recent years these 4 classes (2 primary and 2 intermediate) have been designated VE (Varying Exceptionalities) and have included students with autism and other disorders. These students attend art class (and other special area classes) with a regular class. They are accompanied by at least one aide. When individual students have achieved mainstream status they attend with that class and no aide or assistant. H School houses a Quantum Program, a hands-on, project-oriented approach to curriculum. Question 10: Teacher E Include the letter grade earned by your school 2005-2006: A grade

111

Teacher H Teacher I Question 11: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I Question 12: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I Question 13:

C grade A grade I teach the following grades grades 6-8 grades K-5 grades K-5 What is the art budget? No school-allocated art budget No school-allocated art budget $1,500 for supplies How is the art budget determined?

Teacher E: I am sure if I had a pressing need I would only have to ask my principal at E School, and he would find the funds to help me. I have yet to take this route. Teacher H: We have had a different principal at H Middle School and a different bookkeeper the last three years. Only the past year was a budget even mentioned. Before that time all supplies needed were ordered with little question. The art budget, supposedly, is determined by department. All teachers in the department are to share the budget. I have not been informed what my budget is this year, but have received all supplies that have been ordered. Teacher I: The basic art budget that comes from school funds is determined by the principal (with possible input from the bookkeeper). I order $500.00 in start up supplies in the spring for the next school year. Then in October or November, I use the other $1,000.00. This amount has remained the same for at least the last 15 years and we have had 4 different principals during that time (same bookkeeper). I have never been asked if it is an adequate amount or what I need. Years ago when the school had over 700 students I had the same

112

amount and at one point our population dipped to 400 students and the amount remained the same. Because I am aware of the amounts other elementary art teachers are given in the county (our elementary art group used to do a formal survey and I Elementary has one of the better budgets for art) I have never attempted to question the amount or the method used for determining it. When the principal compliments me on certain student artworks on display in the hall or Media Center, I sometimes mention that we are able to offer the students a wide range of experiences (printmaking, ceramics etc.) because of his support and the good budget. I have also never questioned this amount because when there has been a need for a large expenditure (new kiln) or an extra I have never been turned down. When a teacher stays at one site for a number of years as I have, it is possible to build collections of visuals, resources and technology gradually over time. Question 14: What other sources of financial support do you have?

Teacher E: Since I receive no other funds other than the $100 that comes from the PTO I have to reply that the budget is determined by how many students decide to bring in their art fee and how many decide to participate in the fundraiser. I include a note on interims indicating whether the art fee has been paid, and that helps to remind parents to write a check. I also have reminder slips that are printed on hot pink paper that I give to students the second half of the semester as a way to hopefully bring in those last few dollars. The fundraiser is magazine sales. The companies we have worked with have done a good job of having incentives that entice the kids to participate (fun prizes, candy, cool techno toys). Each year it is the younger students who really step up to the plate and raise the most money. The older students do little to nothing to bring in fundraiser dollars. We are considering doing a second fundraiser this year and are trying the selling of discount cards. I am not sure how well two fundraisers in one year might work. Teacher H: I was not told what my budget is this year. I was asked to collect a $5.00 fee from my art students. Out of my approximately 100 art students, 15

113

have paid the art fee thus far this year. Teacher Lead Monies is approximately $235.00. I received $75.00 from student fee money. Teacher I: I get $200.00 reimbursement money from the PTO (Parent Teacher Organization), and $100.00 to $200.00 from SAC (School Advisory Council) for books or materials that are directly tied to the SIP (School Improvement Plan). The PTO amount has remained steady for the last several years I simply turn in receipts. The SAC money is given out yearly by request from a teacher or a grade level team. Each year I request money for books, CDs, or videos that connect art to reading, science, math or writing. I have always been awarded the amount I request. This current school year I received a check from the State of Florida for $235.00 to cover extra supplies. In past years this has been less, usually around $90.00. In addition to these standard yearly sources for financial support I have written grants and been awarded grant money. The grant that made the most impact on my program was a Technology Grant that I received from the Leon County Schools Foundation for $2000.00. I purchased a presentation projector and digital camera for the classroom. Question 15: What are your class sizes?

Teacher E: My smallest class is 26 students; my largest is 31. Teacher H: I have three art classes with 25-27 students and one art class with about 15 students. I have a reading class with 20 students. Teacher I: Kindergarten has 20, First grade - Two first grades have 31, the other two have 25 and 26. Three second grades have 24 and 1 has 26. The third grades range from 18 to 23. Two fourth grades have 20 students; one has 18 and one has 24. The fifth grade numbers are 17, 19, 20 and 23. In many cases the numbers do not reflect the size of the actual classes. That is because we have to combine one or more classes to fit them into the special area schedule. The ESE units are added to one fifth, one fourth and two of the first grade classes. An aid and/or behavior specialist accompanies these extra students. The administration refers to this as mainstreaming. However, it does not fit any definition of proper mainstreaming that I have heard of. For students who are

114

experiencing severe emotional or behavioral problems the appropriate least restrictive environment is often not in a large regular education classroom. When I have questioned the practice I have been told that this is the way the ESE teacher gets her planning time. So the placement of ESE students is not based on what is best for the student (regular ed. or ESE), but rather on a babysitting situation to meet the contract requirement for teacher planning time. In addition to adding the mainstream ESE classes on top of regular ed. classes, at two grade levels (2nd/1st) we have five classrooms, but only four special area teachers available in the schedule. At those two grade levels we divide the fifth class and put an extra 5 or 6 students with each of the other four classes. This hits first grade the hardest2 of the first grades have both extra regular ed. students and an ESE class coming to special area with them. This situation can only be changed by hiring another special area teacher. We have been told that because of the class size amendment this is not going to happen. (In elementary school class size only counts in the regular grade level classrooms). Question 16: School? Teacher E: My school is 16 years old and for the last few years is beginning to show its heavy use. We are overcrowded (500 students beyond capacity) and that adds tremendously to the wear and tear. The school was built with the middle school concept in mind with 8 different buildings: we have a wing for each grade level, the office building, the media center and guidance building, allied arts wing, cafeteria, and gym/band/chorus wing. In spite of its age this is a really beautiful campus. We have a wonderful fishpond in front of the office with a lovely tree lined sidewalk that goes by it. We have a very large courtyard in the back of campus that allows plenty of room for the students to congregate before school starts. It also held the overflow during lunch before our cafeteria was expanded this past year. Now it is much quieter outside my classroom during lunch, something I really enjoy. We have two Risographs and one Xerox machine in the media center available to the faculty. We have TVs in each Comment about your facility:

115

classroom as well as wall phones to connect with the front office or an outside line. Teacher H: The school was built in 1969, which makes it thirty-seven years old. The superintendent announced to the faculty last year that the plan is to close the school either this year or next. Because of this, needed repairs are often ignored. There are gross signs of roof leaks in my classroom. However, my art room is in a new addition to the school and is probably less than fifteen years old. We do have rats and roaches. Teacher I: The main building at I School was built in 1968. It was built with an open pod (space for 4 classrooms without walls) for each grade level. At I School the open pod system never worked and in recent years walls have been built for each classroom. In the original building the art room was a small room behind the stage and lunchroom. There were no closets or storage space, no windows and the kiln was in the room right next to the sink. The best part of the design of I School is the fact that there are many inside common hallways that are wonderful for displaying student art. Faculty, administration, students and parents tell me how much they appreciate the students work and how it creates a colorful and happy atmosphere for our school. I think the older design of our school is much preferable to the newer schools with outside passageways and brick walls. In addition to the many hallways there are frames with student work in the main office and in the principal and assistant principals offices. Our lunchroom has a wrap-around mural (Science theme- space travel) that was created by I School students in conjunction with FSU art education students and Professor Tom Anderson. Art Room? Teacher E: I do believe I have the best art classroom in town. I have nine large tables that seat 4 students each and two even larger tables for demonstrations. Three sinks make it easy for all the students to be cleaning up at the same time. I have more than ample storage space, a large, fully equipped kiln room, 2 walls of windows bringing in lots of natural light, expansive bulletin boards, and a patio

116

with French doors that allow fresh air flow during nice weather. I feel extremely lucky to have an office with a phone and more cabinetry to hold my curricular materials. When I opened the school I was given a budget of $15,000 to outfit it. That money went for tables and chairs, as well as the art equipment. As a result I have a heavy-duty slab roller, small electric kiln as well as a large ceramic kiln, spray booth, compressor, printing press, and mat cutter. Much of this is not typical for a middle school lab. Teacher H: The art room is newer. It is part of a new wing that was built about ten years ago. It still has roaches. Teacher I: In 1989 I School was renovated and several large additions were created. A new art room was built in a wing with a music room and computer lab. The art room is spacious with two large (floor to ceiling) windows, a kiln room, an office (shared with the music teacher) and 2 large storage rooms. I think it is one of the best-designed art labs in the county. There are 3 sinks, plenty of cabinets, counter space and lots of room for movement and walking between and/or around tables. When the room first opened the principal (without consulting me) ordered five large (hexagon shaped) tables that could fold up and roll away like the larger lunchroom tables. They were quite expensive but he thought they would work well and help the custodians with cleaning. These tables were not ideal for an elementary art room. The wheels were fun to kick and spin, the mechanisms underneath could be rattled and jiggled to produce loud noises, but most disturbing they would shake and bounce if one student was vigorously erasing or simply trying to get a rise out of other students. About 4 years ago I asked the principal to replace the original tables with smaller, plain, rectangular tables and they work much better. If I had one thing that I would change about this room it would be to have a boys and girls restroom situated between the art and music room. The closest rest room is outside across a patio and with current school safety issues I am not comfortable sending students outside alone. Question 17: What are your other responsibilities?

117

Teacher E: I am on the SITE Council, which meets once month to discuss school-wide business. I do 30 minutes of morning duty and 5-10 minutes of afternoon duty for half of the school year. Teacher H: I am the school TEC representative. This position helps teachers with a variety of professional development issues; accumulating continuing education points, reimbursement for travel to conferences and workshops, assisting teachers in completing necessary forms to attend workshops, conferences, etc. Also, this year I have been in charge of organizing Professional Learning Communities which consists of small book study groups. For that, I have a budget of approximately $4,000.00. I also teach Reading to twenty seventh-graders who are on a FCAT level three level in reading. Teacher I: Throughout the year I have 6 weeks of morning playground and/or hall duty for 30 minutes. The first and last weeks of school all teachers are on duty and the other 4 weeks rotates so every one has the same amount of duty. The music teacher and I share afternoon bus duty one week on and one week off. Bus duty can last from 10 to 25 minutes depending upon how the buses are running. Each year our team (art, PE, music, guidance and media) rotates various assignments and responsibilities. This year I am sharing the team PTO Rep. (evening meetings) responsibility with the music teacher. I also serve on the math/technology committee and the discipline committee. Although I think there is a need, these two committees almost never meet. As I said, we change from year to year so some years I might be on SITE, SAC or other committees. Question 18: What other courses have you taught besides art?

Teacher E: I taught 2 Compensatory math classes at another middle school, a 6th grade class and an 8th grade class. I was the yearbook sponsor for 7 years, which included teaching a Journalism class for one semester each of those years. Teacher H: I have taught high school Humanities, Art History, and Reading. Teacher I: I am only certified to teach art, and I have never been asked to teach anything other than art.

118

Descriptive Responses The descriptive responses include comments from each art teacher that describe their art programs. The teachers included the implementation of discipline-based art education into the programs as well as their perceptions of DBAE. In the Descriptive Response section, a brief summary of the three responses for each question follows the reported responses (*). These summaries are included to sum and compare the three answers without drawing conclusions from them at this point in the study. Question 1: Please define or describe the DBAE approach to art education.

Teacher E: Discipline Based Art Education involves students in not only art production but also practicing art criticism, learning about art history, and discussing and learning about aesthetic issues in art. Teacher H: My definition of DBAE would be an art program that combines history, criticism, aesthetics and project production in one curriculum. Teacher I: I would define DBAE as the study of art in which the content is taken from the four art disciplines of art history (using images, timelines and information on artists and cultures in a historical context), art criticism (forming judgments about works of art based on discussion and writing), art production (creative, hands-on experience with art materials) and aesthetics (learning about the nature and value of art). The content is taught in a written, sequentially organized curriculum with appropriate assessment. Several years ago we wrote units called CHATs (Comprehensive Holistic Assessment Task). A typical unit would focus on a work of art that expressed a universal theme. Students were guided to interpret and discover meaning through a series of lessons or events where they would talk about art, write about art and make art. Most of these units made connections to other works of art and/or other areas of the curriculum. My first experiences with DBAE involved team teaching with the Classroom teachers and this worked very well. At that time classroom teachers were using a process called Whole Language and this integrated approach to teaching several

119

subjects was highly compatible to what was being accomplished in the DBAE approach. Summary: approach. Question 2: Were you taught in the DBAE method of instruction in art? Two of the participants indicate brief, concise definitions for DBAE, while the third participant explains further implementation strategies of the

Teacher E: I was taught the DBAE method through summer institutes offered by the Florida Institute of Art Education. Teacher H: Yes, when I attended classes at Florida State University the method of art education being taught was a DBAE approach. Teacher I: In college my undergraduate art classes were all studio based with almost no instruction from the professors. It was apparent early on that students from large city schools (New York City and Long Island) were much better prepared and many were more talented. At the college level the hands-off or let them create approach was far less successful for me and for many others. Not only did professors not provide instruction on skills and techniques, but the only place we saw and related to important art was in the art history classestotally separated from our studio work. My graduate work at FSU was a totally different experience. The DBAE philosophy was present in almost every course I took. As I took what I learned at FSU to my classroom I found that the DBAE method of instruction made sense in so many ways. Students who were not naturally gifted in studio skills were getting excited about the artists and their styles. They enjoy discussing art, expressing opinions and yes learning art history! At FSU the professors not only taught about DBAE and had us do research, but they also modeled lessons so we experienced this method as a student, as well as a teacher. Summary: All participants indicated that they received instruction in the DBAE approach while they were involved in FSU Art Education classes or through the FSU-sponsored Florida Institute of Art Education.

120

Question 3:

Describe a typical DBAE-based lesson you have taught.

Teacher E: My mask unit starts out with an exploration of masks from around the world and throughout history that involves an art criticism session and matching game where the students study and conduct an art criticism of 27 paper mask samples (purchased through museums). After we explore the mask through the criticism questions, the students work in pairs to match written descriptions to each of the masks. We then read each description out loud and check the back of the mask to see if it is matched correctly. We then brainstorm all the reasons that people have worn masks through time. The students then begin to design their own mask, which they create with paper-mache. Aesthetic discussion is initiated by bringing in samples of ethnic masks and talking about how the meaning of a mask changes when it ceases to be an object connected with ceremony and becomes something to hang on the wall as decoration. Teacher H: An example of a typical DBAE art lesson I have taught is Creating Comics. I would use images by Roy Lichtenstein. I would talk about the Pop Art movement and Roy Lichtensteins techniques and styles used. I would include vocabulary such as benday dots, bold outlining, primary colors, and popular culture. I would have students use this information to create a comic that was more relevant to their actual situation; social issues, etc. After creating the project either by drawing or creating it on the computer, I would have them critique either their own artwork or another students. Teacher I: Under a broad theme of looking at the world in different ways, I introduced my fourth and fifth grade students to a New Orleans artist James Michalopoulos, a playful, contemporary Impressionist painter. I dont know if he is well known throughout the country, but he has a Web site, a gallery in NYC, and is quite popular in New Orleans. He is most famous for architectural portraits, colorful and stylized interpretations of New Orleans buildings. I used a large poster reproduction of one of his works to introduce the artist with an art criticism activity. I took the class to his web site and we looked at and discussed several more of his paintings. I also made a power point of several of Vincent Van Goghs paintings of buildings. We used this to compare and contrast their

121

styles. For art history, we read the biography of Michalopoulos from his web site and read about Vincent Van Gogh from the Getting to Know the Artist series. We also talked about the style both artists used in their work. Students were asked to choose a building in Tallahassee/Leon County that they would sketch and paint in a creative way. I expected students to choose important places like the state capital and some did. However, there was a wonderful variety of buildings that students considered very important like their homes, churches, Skate World and even the Dollar Store or Wal-Mart. Ive done a version of this unit two times now and both times the students have thoroughly enjoyed painting a local building/ scene in this colorful creative way. I have made colorful displays of student work entitled Paint the Town Wild. After an exhibit at the public library a student told me about showing his painting to his mother. She had asked him why he didnt use the right colors for the building he painted. He showed her the explanation and visuals that went with the display and told her how artists looked at the world in different ways and explained the reasons for some of his color choices. Summary: One art teacher reported using the DBAE approach with a mask unit, a multicultural experience for the students. The other two art teachers used the approach with art units based on western artists and their works. Question 4: What led to your using elements of the DBAE approach?

Teacher E: I wanted to be current with my teaching methods first and foremost. But I also realized the benefits in teaching a class that is not just production. DBAE infused curriculum is richer, broader, and has the potential to connect with more students as well as subjects. Teacher H: Learning this method at FSU probably led to my using it in my teaching career. However, I think it is a very good method. It is holistic I think you could say. It pulls information from different areas as well as encourages higher level thinking skills (critiques). Teacher I: I had excellent training both at FSU that was supplemented by a two-week workshop at the Civic Center with a team of teachers from my school.

122

After the workshop we were to return to I School and implement the DBAE unit we had developed. We were also asked to provide training for other teachers at our school. For several years DBAE was very much in use at I School. We had many teachers who went through the training and I would work with various teachers and grade levels to write and implement DBAE units where some of the study was done in the classroom and some in the art lab. This wonderful cooperative venture has pretty much fallen by the wayside with the current importance placed on testing. Classroom teachers are under pressure to prepare students for the FCAT and if they have any time for hands-on or creative work, it is devoted to science and technology (since we have become a magnet program in those areas). The DBAE approach lends itself to cross-curricular work and team teaching, but it also works very well for units within the art room. I have always developed and taught some in-depth DBAE units for each grade level. Summary: Two of the participants indicated that their training at FSU led to their need to implement a DBAE approach in their art classes. The third art teacher mentioned the perceived benefits from the use of the DBAE approach as a basis for its use. Question 5: What have you discarded from the DBAE approach?

Teacher E: I do not do formal art criticism except when I take my students to museums. Aesthetic questions are raised and discussed in informal ways (teachable moments) rather than as a formal activity. Teacher H: I havent discarded anything about DBAE. I still cover history, aesthetics, criticism and production. Teacher I: When I was first trained I spent a lot of time with criticism, history and aesthetics. I dont know if I ever spent the recommended 25% of time on each area but a lot of time was devoted to each one. I have not discarded any of the four major disciplines, but I have reduced the time I spend on criticism, history and aesthetics. I spend more time on studio activities. Currently, students get so little in the way of hands-on experiences in the classroom and they spend so much time preparing (drilling) for tests. They come to the art room

123

for one 50-minute period per week and I think they need that time for actively creating their own work. For example, I usually use at least one example of adult artwork to introduce the studio work for a class. But, I dont always have an indepth critique that covers sensory qualities, technical qualities, compositional features, expressive qualities or subject matter. I dont always have students look into the life of the artist, the culture, or the conditions surrounding the creation of the artwork. I dont always address aesthetic concerns about the nature or value of the art. And many times, I dont make the connections to other areas of the curriculum. I might make mention of some points that cover these areas, but I dont devote an entire lesson to them. For example, I might mention some of the science connections when working with clay (evaporation, the way matter can change from liquid to solid etc.), but it would be in passing. Summary: One teacher noted that criticism, history and aesthetics have been minimized and that art production has become the dominant component of the DBAE approach. Another teacher uses criticism and aesthetics only in certain circumstances, leaving art history and art production as the components that drive the program. The third teacher has maintained the DBAE approach without discarding any of the components. Question 6: Why are these no longer in use in your classroom?

Teacher E: The questioning technique in art criticism just doesnt lend itself to my program as it is now in my classroom. Again, when we go to museums it is most appropriate. Teacher H: I havent discarded anything. I still cover history, aesthetics, criticism and production (Question 5 answer) . Teacher I: Entire lessons devoted to history, criticism and aesthetics are seldom used in my classroom because of a lack of time and the reduced opportunities for team teaching with regular classroom teachers. Criticism, history and aesthetics are not totally absent from my classroom, but they are given much less time than studio work. I would devote more time to these areas if students had art more frequently. One 50-minute class per week is a very

124

small amount of time, and if there is a holiday or a school program it is often less than that. For each grade level (every year) I create at least one, sometimes two, major units that include a substantial amount of time for history and criticism and some time for aesthetics. The rest of the projects are not so in-depth and are mainly studio production. I might show an appropriate example or two and have a short discussion but I devote more time to teaching techniques and having the children experiment and develop their skills and create their own work. Summary: One art teacher stated that none of the DBAE approach had been discarded, eliminating that teacher and program from further discussion regarding current changes and new directions. The second teacher continued to use all of the DBAE components, too, but emphasizes art production due to the lack of frequency and length of time spent in the art room by the students that was understood to be necessary to develop the art criticism, aesthetics, or art history portions of the DBAE approach in lessons. The last teacher indicated that art criticism is useful when students view artwork at a museum, but it is not used in the art classroom at the school. Question 7: paradigm? Teacher E: I am not sure what you mean here. What could be considered outside of production, history, talking about art? Teacher H: I think everything I teach falls in the paradigm. Nothing in my program is outside of DBAE. Teacher I: I have introduced aspects of popular visual culture into many of my lessons. Things like books, movies, music, television, web sites and video games play an important part in the daily lives of most children. The popular culture images can provide a strong connection to art and enhance art learning. Helping students understand and analyze images from the visual culture is an important part of their education. Interestingly, I have found that students have encountered many important, historical art images in the popular culture (The Scream, Mona Lisa, etc.). These previous experiences provide a limited prior What do you teach in art that falls outside of the DBAE

125

knowledge, but more importantly they offer a great entry point for learning about art in the DBAE way. I guess my emphasis on production does not fit the DBAE paradigm. Although I provide more hands-on, studio experiences without the indepth history, criticism and aesthetics, I do not exclusively emphasize creative self-expression the way I was taught many years ago. I was provided with a variety of art materials through my K-12 school years, but I was not taught skills and techniques and I was never shown examples of adult art. I do provide adult examples of art and attempt to expose children to art from the present to the worlds past cultures and eras. I do instruct students in the area of skills and techniques and provide them time to experiment, problem-solve and develop their abilities. Because of the cut back in time for the 3 non-production aspects of DBAE, I dont always make those strong connections to universal themes or essential questions as I would in a DBAE unit. I think they are an important component of teaching kids to find meaning in art, so I do present open-ended questions that help students think about big questions. I dont know if Ive answered this question correctly. I really cant think of anything that Ive added that falls outside the DBAE paradigm except popular visual culture; and quite often that is connected to historical art. I have restructured my priorities to devote more time to studio activities and less to writing, reading, discussion etc. Summary: One teacher has started to explore visual culture. Another teacher was unsure about what could be construed as outside of DBAE, and the third teacher is sure that everything in the program at that school falls within the DBAE paradigm. Question 8: When were these added to your program?

Teacher E: Not being sure about what could be outside of the DBAE paradigm, I dont think I have added anything else to the art program. Teacher H: I have not added anything to the art program that is not DBAE. Teacher I: I added an emphasis on popular culture gradually over the last few years. I read about this approach and took some workshops at art conferences. As with most ideas, I couldnt see a compelling reason to completely change

126

everything I was doing, but I could find ways to address visual culture within the framework of my version of the DBAE approach. I did see merit in some of what I read so I began to include the popular visual culture as a part of some of my lessons. Summary: One teacher understood the question to refer to the addition of new components and indicated that visual culture was added to the curriculum since it was discovered that the students relate well to studying images that are frequently part of their lives. Another reason that it was added was that it also related well with the art history component of DBAE in that art program. The second art teacher wasnt sure how to respond, and the last teacher retained DBAE as the sole foundation of that program and did not respond to the question due to the fact that no other art education approaches had been added to her art program. Evaluative Responses When the three art teachers answered questions that required that they assign a value to the answer, or weighed future effects of current actions, the results became evaluative responses. As with the previous section, in the evaluative response section, a brief summary of the three responses for each question follows the reported responses. These summaries are included to sum and compare the three answers without drawing conclusions from them at this point in the study. Question 1: How much of your art curriculum do feel follows the DBAE approach? Teacher E: Approximately one third of my units employ DBAE in some fashion. Teacher H: My entire art curriculum follows the DBAE approach. Teacher I: Each grade level is taught one or two major units that follow the DBAE approach. A DBAE unit could extend over 5 to 10 class periods. So a long unit would take up an entire 9-week grading period. There are 4 nine-week grading periods in the school year; therefore a third, fourth or fifth grade class

127

would have one-quarter to one-half of the curriculum devoted to the DBAE approach. I do not think I ever devote more than one half of the curriculum to long, DBAE structured units. The primary grades (K, 1 and 2) are also exposed to at least one (probably 2 for first and second23e grade) long unit(s). I would not have a unit extend for 9 or 10 class periods at the primary level, so the time devoted strictly to DBAE would be about one fourth of the curriculum. Summary: One teacher bases the entire art program on the tenets of DBAE. The other two vary between one fourth and one half of their programs relying on the DBAE approach. Question 2: What were the most useful aspects of the DBAE approach in your classroom? Teacher E: Art History. Teacher H: I like the way you pull a lot of rich information into the project. It gives the students a better understanding of what they are making. It gives the reason for why they are making it and why other people or cultures made it too. Teacher I: Broad art centered themes (DBAE units) help students understand, appreciate and respond to art, in addition to creating their own art. Students are taught ways to discover meaning in works of art. Through a variety of methods cross-curricular connections are often made. These aspects of study are very useful in reaching students who are not very successful in their personal art making. Sometimes students have a lack of coordination or fine motor skills. Sometimes I get students who lack prior instruction in art. Whatever the reason, when students do not like their art or feel unsuccessful in art production, it is wonderful to see them excited about discussing and learning about art images and ideas. Exposing students to art images and letting them grapple with ideas from the art world also helps them create art that has meaning. Summary: Broad universal themes used with the DBAE approach help students understand, appreciate, and respond to art, according to one art teacher. That teacher also indicated that exposing students to art images and letting them grapple with ideas from the art world also helps them create art that

128

has meaning. Art history was the component that was most useful of the DBAE approach. The third art teacher expressed the idea that art production becomes richer with the addition of background information about it that comes from the other three DBAE components. Question 3: Why are these facets of DBAE of value to you as an art teacher? Teacher E: I think kids like to find out where or how something originated. Giving them the historical background on a technique or artist helps to give that subject some soul. Teacher H: I am constantly learning myself, doing research to prepare and bring a rich array of information to my students. Teacher I: As an art teacher I know that most of my students wont pursue a career in the art world. However, I hope to build a lifelong appreciation of the arts and a set of skills to assist them in finding meaning in visual images. The study of criticism, history and aesthetics assists in this process. I would hope one of my students would not become an adult who says, Any kid could do that. or I dont know if its art, I only know what I like. Learning art history, and learning to discover meaning and value through criticism and aesthetics prepares students to think in a systematic manner and to view the world in different ways. Reading about, writing about and discussing culturally valued art images broadens students understanding of art, connects to other areas of the curriculum and enhances students ability to create and express art that has meaning. As an art teacher, it is helpful to have students who value art (both their own and others). It sets up a positive atmosphere for learning about and creating art. Summary: The facets of DBAE add richness to art that art production, alone, lacks, according to one teacher. Another added that the background information from the DBAE components helps students connect with what they are creating, giving works of art soul. A third teacher concluded that the study of criticism, history and aesthetics assists in helping students see the world from new perspectives.

129

Question 4: What might be of value in those aspects of DBAE that you no longer use if they were changed to meet your classroom needs? Teacher E: Art Criticism - Students need to learn how to express themselves verbally. They have a hard time with this when they are in a classroom discussion. Art Criticism helps them find ways to express their thoughts, gives them a way to exercise their current vocabulary, learn and apply new vocabulary. Teacher H: I still use DBAE [only]. Teacher I: I still value all aspects of the DBAE process, as I understand it. What would have to be changed would be the amount of time a student spends in the art classroom. If I could teach students art on a daily basis the way reading and writing is taught, I would always use in-depth DBAE units. Another change that would meet my classroom needs would be to have the team teaching process back in effect. As I mentioned earlier, before the huge emphasis on tests and school grades, I worked on units with classroom teachers. Some (if not all) of the discussion, writing and history took place in the classroom. Students saw art as an integral part of their education when it was approached in this way. Summary: The use of portions of DBAE in other classroom settings helped reinforce the concept learned in art, an integrated use of DBAE at one school, prior to the discontinuation of this policy, noted one teacher. Benefits from art criticism, currently used in art museum experiences in another teachers school, included improved writing and vocabulary. The use of all aspects of DBAE has been maintained at the third school. Question 5: Why were they added to your program? Teacher E: I added DBAE to my art program because I saw the value in teaching more than just art production to my students. I went through several trainings (the first in 1990, before entering the master's program) offered by the Florida Institute for Art Education that was started and directed by Jesse Lovanno-Kerr and Nancy Roucher.

130

Teacher H: I began teaching when I graduated from FSU, and I was trained in DBAE at FSU. I started using DBAE with my first teaching position following graduation; I did not add it to an existing program. Teacher I: I actually added facets of DBAE instruction when I first began teaching in 1965. Of course, I had never heard of DBAE then but I quickly realized that I needed to do more for my students than provide motivation and art materials. I started out in a junior high situation where the students had little if any art instruction in elementary school. Their art skills were low and their interest and enthusiasm was commensurate with their skill level. On my own, I discovered that if I told them stories about artists and showed them pictures from art history books (no prints back then); I had a better chance of grabbing their interest. Broad universal themes and/or Essential Questions were added to my program when I was working on the development and pilot testing of units called CHATs. This happened when I was in graduate school in the late 80s and early 90s. A focal work of art was chosen that expressed some universal theme. This practice was added to provide the umbrella for a unit that could make many cross-curricular connections. Before I learned to design and implement the CHAT model, I used criticism, history or aesthetic activities along with production on a fairly regular basis. The difference was that the CHAT was much more involved, in-depth and time-consuming. Summary: One teacher added DBAE to the curriculum with the realization that more was necessary to be able to provide a complete art experience beyond art materials and motivation, two common elements of creative self-expressionism. Following the graduation from the art education program and the acquisition of a job teaching art, Teacher H began teaching using DBAE from the beginning of her career as an art teacher and continues to use that approach. She did not add it to an existing program. Question 6: What is their value to the art program? Teacher E: Using a DBAE approach allows me to offer a broader view to my students of how art has an impact on our lives. It allows for greater

131

interdisciplinary connections, especially through the addition of art history and aesthetics. Teacher H: my students. Teacher I: The study of an artwork based on a universal theme would guide students to discover meaning by talking about art, writing about art and making art. This type of study enhanced learning in many areas and increased knowledge and understanding of visual arts. Summary: The use of DBAE components was found by one teacher to enhance learning in many areas. The teacher who used the approach from the beginning of her tenure as an art teacher indicated that she learned a great deal in preparation to teach DBAE lessons. The third teacher shared the concept that the inclusion of DBAE provides a broader perspective on the affect that art has in life since the approach adapts so well to interdisciplinary connections. Question 7: How do DBAE aspects and non-DBAE aspects of your program work together? Teacher E: Non-DBAE approaches are used in addition to or to underscore teaching art production, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. Teacher H: I am not really familiar with the non-DBAE aspects. I assume you mean that you do a project with no background information and no reflection or research. I think with out this supporting material you have a weak project. Teacher I: The introduction of popular visual culture into the art curriculum has enhanced student interest in art and has many times provided a link or prior knowledge about historically important art. Students who have made a connection to art through their visual culture are more likely to value and remember their experiences. Using popular culture images for compare/contrast discussions has fit very well into some DBAE activities. Summary: One art teacher uses nothing but DBAE and has nothing with which to compare it beyond an art course based on production only. She felt that eliminating any part of DBAE would weaken a strong art program. I learn myself as I do research to prepare and bring information to

132

Another teacher mentioned that the addition of visual culture art education (VCAE) has enhanced the ability students have to retain new knowledge about that approach or art used in the DBAE approach through connecting art knowledge with familiar images of ones visual culture. Question 8: What art education approaches do you believe are gaining momentum at this time? Teacher E: The only thing I can think of is not a new idea, but it seems to be the buzzword right now, and that is Enduring Ideas, the big themes of the world that can help be a framework for exploring and creating artwork. It has been a couple of years since I have gone to a state or national conference, and my NAEA membership has expired and I dont get their journal so I am out of the loop. Teacher H: I dont know. I feel like I am out of the loop. Teacher I: I have read a lot about the study of visual culture and I see it as the subject for workshops at conferences, so I think that it is pretty well established as a trend. I have also read about the child-centered approach which sounds a lot like the creative- expression type of teaching (or non-teaching) that I experienced as a young student. The comprehensive art education approach has been around for even longer, and I liked the fact that it seemed less rigid or prescriptive and more inclusive of a variety of instructional approaches. Multicultural theories have been around since the 70s so that can hardly be called a new approach. But it was lacking in early DBAE units and it has not lost its importance in the planning of art curriculum. I may not be as up to date as I should be. Ill be on the look out at the state and national conference this year to see what the new trends are. Summary: Of the three art teachers, two believed there were other approaches available besides DBAE. One of the two teachers indicated support for a movement in which art is explored in the context of enduring global ideas. The other art teacher had mentioned earlier in the interview the visual culture

133

approach that had been used with good results, and here included some earlier movements that are being currently being revisited in limited ways. Question 9: How do you see this occurring? Teacher E: How is Enduring Idea gaining momentum? through the new textbooks that are being written/revised now by Marilyn Stewart. I just went to a workshop by her and this seems to be a prominent aspect of the Davis publication books. Although I am not employing this approach in my program yet, given more time to study and plan, I see that it could be an excellent way to tie together the work produced during a semester by my advanced art students. Their portfolios at the end of the semester would be a more cohesive body of work as a result. Teacher H: (See answer #8 in this section: I dont know. I feel like I am out of the loop.) Teacher I: I do not get to visit in other art rooms, but I meet regularly with the county elementary art teachers. From our sharing and presentations I can say that I see some teachers who are incorporating visual culture into their curriculum. Most elementary art programs in this county appear to follow the comprehensive approach to art education that employs some facets of DBAE. I am aware of other trends through reading and attending conferences. Summary: The two responding teachers indicated that new ideas are shared through meeting with other art teachers and through presentations provided by textbook publishers. The third teacher (H) did not respond to this question since she does not see changes occurring and expressed the opinion in the previous answer that she feels out of the loop, or uninformed about new practices. Question 10: Teacher E: How do they relate to DBAE in your mind? The theme framework of Enduring Ideas would allow artworks

done by student within a class or done over time by one individual to relate to each other. It would also provide a topic that can be applied to all four of the components of DBAE (production, history, criticism, aesthetics). That theme

134

would drive the selection of historical artworks to investigate through criticism and historical study, topics for aesthetic discussion, and ideas for art production. Teacher H: (See answer #8 in this section: I dont know. I feel like I am out of the loop.) Teacher I: I think the comprehensive art education approach is broad and inclusive and allows for facets of DBAE and other methods to be combined. Ive already written how I have seen the connections that can be made with the visual culture through DBAE. Multicultural approaches blended well with DBAE methods. Summary: One art teacher indicated that any new approaches in art education dovetail nicely with DBAE by using DBAE strategies with VCAE images, expanding DBAE to become content-based art education, and using multicultural art images via the DBAE approach. Another teacher felt that DBAE could be combined with the Enduring Ideas curriculum that would provide interdisciplinary support for the DBAE tenets of production, history, criticism, and aesthetics. The third teacher, again, did not respond to this question that asked about new approaches in art education relating to DBAE due to the fact that she uses the DBAE approach exclusively. Question 11: What aspects of DBAE do you expect to retain in your

curriculum in the future? Teacher E: To some extent, all aspects of DBAE will continue to be a part of my curriculum. Teacher H: I plan to continue to retain all of the DBAE aspects in my curriculum. Teacher I: Unless there is a change in my schedule (more time with students) I plan to devote up to1/4 of the allotted art time to broad units that include art history, art criticism and aesthetics. The remainder of the time I will concentrate on art production. Summary: All three teachers plan continued use of the four guiding tenets of DBAE: art criticism, art production, art history, and aesthetics. Two of the

135

teachers have increased the degree to which they use other approaches, but they retain the DBAE model in implementing them. Question 12: Teacher E: Art Production - People want to make stuff with their hands! There is a sense of pride that comes from creating something that has beauty in your or others eyes. Art History - As noted above, learning the origins of something helps to bring it alive and give it more meaning. Art Criticism Invaluable tool in a museum setting when we are all standing around looking at an unfamiliar piece of art. Aesthetics When the opportunity arises to really discuss an aesthetic issue it is wonderful to see students risk voicing their opinion, and to think on a different (higher) level. If I pick the right topic and start with the right questions, I cant shut them up. Thats when I know success in this area. Teacher H: I feel that these will be retained because it provides for a better education; a richer, deeper, understanding of how and why and more thought and understanding put into projects. Teacher I: As I have written in above paragraphs I have had great success with DBAE methods and I limit their use only because time in art class is scarce and access to team teaching situations is just about non-existent. Summary: The art teachers feel that the four major components of DBAE will be retained in their curricula because the teachers see in the DBAE the tools that expand the art program to allow students to learn about the world of art. By extension, these students are perceived by their teachers as developing complementary skills such as taking risks that encourage growth, opening their minds to seeking and acquiring deeper and broader understanding, and discovering that engagement in that kind of learning is rewarding. Why do you feel that these will be retained?

136

Summary
The survey and interview responses presented in this chapter reflect the considered opinions of the art teachers who responded to the survey and/or interview questions. At this point in the study the teachers responses are delineated as evidence. Analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of the preceding responses are appropriately presented in the concluding chapter of this study.

137

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS

Guiding Question of the Study

The guiding question of this study was, What aspects of discipline-based art education do art teachers trained in DBAE find useful and valuable in teaching art, and what aspects would they recommend retaining in future art teacher training? I addressed aspects of this, first, through answering the supporting questions, by addressing the responses of the art teachers who were interviewed, and in the answers given by the eleven survey participants. Then, I drew conclusions and suggested implications of the study.

Supporting Questions
The following supporting questions emerged from the literature review and helped frame the conceptual foundations of this study. The responses from the teachers surveyed and interviewed comprise the answers to the supporting questions of this study. 1. 2. 3. 4. What have practitioners trained in the DBAE approach retained and used consistently? Why is this so? What non-DBAE components have been added to teachers DBAE-framed programs? Why? What components have been discarded, from the DBAE approach, and why were they discarded. What aspects of DBAE do practicing DBAE-trained art teachers recommend be retained in future art teacher training?

138

Summaries of Responses to Supporting Questions Supporting Question 1 What have practitioners trained in the DBAE approach retained and used consistently? Why is this so? Survey Responses. Some survey participants told of using the approach exactly as they were trained to use it while others made use of portions of DBAE to support their art programs. One noted that she did not use the approach due to the inappropriateness of the approach in the freewheeling high school setting at which she works, and two elementary teachers wrote that they were frustrated by the lack of student interest in the DBAE components that required discussion, reading, or writing. One middle school teacher shared that opinion, but found that, used in smaller amounts, those DBAE components that were viewed as less kid-friendly were helpful in introducing new art production units. The other seven participants made use of all four parts of DBAE; the majority of the art programs reported use art history, art criticism, and aesthetics to support art production. They found that those three gave the art production projects context by providing a time, culture, and place for the art objects that were studied or created in class. Interview Responses. The art teachers who were interviewed responded that they continue to use the four tenets of DBAE: art history, art criticism, aesthetics, and art production. They have found over time that their curricula have developed in directions that emphasize DBAE components to varying degrees. The middle school art teacher, here known as Teacher E, uses art production and art history extensively in that program. Art criticism and aesthetics were not eliminated, but the teacher decided that art criticism worked best when the art classes visited museums; in that context art criticism was a valuable tool in the examination of museum pieces. Aesthetic questions and discussions evolved in informal situations during this teachers classes. The teacher that was designated as Teacher H indicated that the DBAE approach funded the entire art curriculum at that school. Another teacher, named Teacher I for the purposes of this study, found that the time spent on art criticism, art history, and aesthetics has been reduced, and that more time is spent on art production.

139

Summary of Responses Relating to Supporting Question 1. The majority of the art teachers who were surveyed continued to use the four DBAE components in their classrooms, but to varying degrees. Survey participants reported a variety of levels of what could be termed as DBAE utility. The four tenets of DBAE, art production, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics, continue to be used in the classrooms of the three interviewed art teachers. One teacher expressed the belief that the art curriculum at that school was entirely funded by DBAE, and the other teachers use the four components by tailoring them to their curriculum needs. Their continued use of DBAE was funded by the value they placed upon the use of art criticism with art images, aesthetics with the students own art, and art history to give the art production assignments contextual background. Supporting Question 2 What non-DBAE components have been added to teachers DBAE-framed programs? Why? Survey Responses. One survey participant shared an enduring ideas concept that she had discovered at a workshop and had implemented in her art program. The other teachers who were surveyed maintained curricula that were funded by DBAE to the exclusion of other paradigms that were appearing in art education literature and research. Interview Responses. Initially, Teacher E was unsure about art approaches that might fall outside the DBAE paradigm, but later mentioned the concept of Enduring Ideas, the big themes of the world that can help be a framework for exploring and creating artwork. Teacher E became aware of the notion of enduring ideas through textbooks that were being written and/or revised by Marilyn Stewart and Eldon Katter. Through attending a workshop by Stewart, Teacher E determined that there was merit in using this thematic approach within the DBAE paradigm. Teacher H had not found a need to introduce new approaches, but continued to use DBAE throughout the art curriculum at that school. Teacher I introduced Visual Culture Art Education (VCAE) elements into many art lessons at that school. She explained this choice: Things like books, movies,

140

music, television, web sites and video games play an important part in the daily lives of most children. The popular culture images can provide a strong connection to art and enhance art learning. Helping students understand and analyze images from the visual culture is an important part of their education. VCAE was used as a content source while DBAE continued to serve as the template for designing or formatting the planned unit in Teacher Is classes. The exposure to VCAE came to Teacher I from reading about it in the last few years. Teacher I also participated in professional organization conferences at which there were opportunities to learn how to implement the approach. There were also presentations about the ideas that funded VCAE. Teacher I commented, As with most ideas, I couldnt see a compelling reason to completely change everything I was doing, but I could find ways to address visual culture within the framework of my version of the DBAE approach. I did see merit in some of what I read so I began to include the popular visual culture as a part of some of my lessons. Summary of Responses Relating to Supporting Question 2. The majority of survey participants had not ventured into other art education approaches, although two have picked up aspects of VCAE. Two of the three interview participants had tried new art education approaches. The teacher whose program was DBAE funded felt that no other art education approaches had been added due to the fact that the DBAE approach was deemed as complete and other approaches were unnecessary. Another teacher had added aspects of Visual Culture Art Education in that images from the students daily lives were examined and used within the DBAE format. The third teacher followed DBAE, minimizing aesthetics in the classroom and using art criticism predominately in museum experiences, but had explored the use of an enduring ideas thematic curriculum within the DBAE format. The changes that had been made were as a result of new information about recent changes or new ideas in art education that had come to the attention of the two teachers who tried the new tactics. Supporting Question 3 What components have been discarded, from the DBAE approach, and why were they discarded?

141

Survey Responses. One survey participant has discarded DBAE altogether. She was the high school teacher who felt that the approach was not appropriate in her small, individualized classes. Ten of the eleven survey participants indicated that nothing needed to be discarded from the DBAE approach to art education. Most of the participants found that art production dominated the art curriculum while the other DBAE facets played supporting roles. Interview Responses. Teacher E hadnt discarded any of the DBAE approach, but had determined means of using parts of the approach, such as aesthetics and art criticism, in circumstances that were less formal or outside of the classroom, as in museums. Using art criticism in a museum setting allowed students to connect the action with works of art, thinking critically about them, and writing about them, too. Teacher H had not discarded anything from the paradigm and, thus, retained art production, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. Teacher I decided that all aspects of DBAE were valuable and should not be discarded but recommended that the amount of time available for students to attend art class be extended. From Teacher Is perspective, in order to lead students through units and lessons based on the DBAE paradigm longer periods of time were necessary. Summary of Responses Relating to Supporting Question 3. Survey participants retained the DBAE components although art production dominated the majority of the teachers art curricula: many indicated that art production had a tendency to dominate over art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. This reflects a misunderstanding about DBAE. The four components do not need to have equal time; it is appropriate to spend more time on art production if that is the teachers inclination (Anderson, 2006). The teachers interviewed felt that they had not discarded anything from the DBAE approach, although they had manipulated it to meet the needs of their classes. They use art production extensively but vary the degree to which they use art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. Those appear to be the components that were used to a lesser degree when time or student attention became concerns. When students were taken from the art classes for other activities, they lost valuable art experience; DBAE does require significant time for the approach to be effective. DBAE components were also noted as

142

valuable tools for students who were prone to avoid art production or who needed help in writing or expressing themselves verbally in art or in their other classes. Supporting Question 4 What aspects of DBAE do practicing DBAE-trained art teachers recommend be retained in future art teacher training? Survey Participants. The teachers who were surveyed responded that they needed more opportunity to understand the aspects of teaching art that made it difficult such as classroom management and discipline. The training that was most important to be retained fell into the areas of curriculum design and ongoing research into DBAErelated subject matter that could fund curriculum design. Most of the teachers indicated that all of the DBAE approach should be retained. Interview Participants. Although the art teachers who were interviewed recommend retaining the entire DBAE approach, it was with some suggestions for modifications. First, on the elementary level, according to Teacher I, it was easier to include the written or discussion portions if the class period allotted for art was longer and the students were able to attend art regularly without having to be taken out for other classes, such as reading. She noted that it is common practice in elementary schools to use special area classes, such as art, to address individual student needs, such as trouble with reading. It would be more practical to prepare art teachers to expect situations like this and be able to work with schools and their needs for individuals or small groups of students who need to leave art periodically. Second, Teacher I expressed concern with the focus on standardized testing that many schools in Florida experience. With that emphasis, teachers who had been DBAE-trained so that they could integrate art into their classes, and the art teacher could tie her lessons to the lessons of the classroom teachers. She said, [One] change that would meet my classroom needs would be to have the team teaching process back in effect. As I mentioned earlier, before the huge emphasis on tests and school grades, I worked on units with classroom teachers. Some (if not all) of the discussion, writing and history took place in the classroom. Students saw art as an integral part of their education when it was approached in this way.

143

Teacher E indicated a particular interest in retaining the art criticism component in particular in teacher training, noting that until students have sufficient opportunity to express themselves verbally, they hesitate to do so, creating a kind of vicious circle. Art criticism encourages students to express their thoughts, gives them a way to express their current vocabulary, [and] learn and apply new vocabulary, noted Teacher E. Teacher H indicated that the continued use of the DBAE paradigm at her school merited the retention of all four of the tenets of that approach in art teacher training. Teacher I recommended that DBAE be used to integrate art into other subjects so that students viewed art as an integral part of their education. This had been done in past years, but with the advent of standardized testing to support the curtailment of social promotion, classroom teachers began to refocus their attention exclusively on the particular subjects that were tested in the statewide mandated testing program. The recommendation was made by Teacher I for classroom teachers to be trained to work hand-in-hand with the art teachers in an effort to encourage an attitude that fostered a complete education using all of the components of DBAE. Summary of Responses Relating to Supporting Question 4. Most survey participants indicated that they felt that all four of the DBAE components needed to be retained, and that the four parts of DBAE were important to included in training new art teachers. Additionally, they wanted more opportunity to see the more challenging aspects of teaching art as part of their teacher training. They were most impressed with the opportunities they had in the FSU Art Education program to do art education research and construct curricula based on that research. The recommendation from the three interviewed art teachers was that the entire scope of DBAE be retained. Emphasis was placed on training future art teachers to emphasize the reading and writing aspects of DBAE and the opportunity children would have to transfer what they learned in art to other educational activities. The reading and writing activities associated with DBAE serve to enhance critical thinking that would, in turn, serve to prepare students better for the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Academic Test) experience. To do this, the interview participants recommended that opportunities to work with classroom teachers as well as art teachers in their teacher training be

144

optimized with the hope that working with classroom teachers would emphasize the important role that they can play in interdisciplinary use of DBAE in schools.

Emergent Foci
As a result of the coding process, additional foci began to emerge from the art teachers responses that do not fall into the categories provided by the four supporting questions. These foci emerged as the consequence of a careful review of both survey responses and the interviews. They fall into four general categories: ages and experience of the participants, the early training in DBAE that the participants received, their opportunities to acquire education and continued in-service training, and the degree of site administrative support. First, the youth or lack of it that characterized participants influenced their willingness to become involved in the study. In tandem with age as a contributing factor to the teachers responses was the amount of teaching experience they had. Second, it should be noted that, with the exception of Teacher A, the teachers who were DBAE trained at FSU and emerged from the program to use the approach continue to use it. Although some have incorporated some other approaches, such as Visual Culture Art Education, they use the new approach in the DBAE format. Third, whether through additional college degrees, teacher in-service opportunities, or training acquired through attendance at conferences, teachers who indicated an interest in trying art education approaches outside of the current paradigm had received additional training beyond a bachelors degree. Finally, attitudes were also apparently influenced by the degree of support teachers experienced from the site administrators at their schools. These foci are noteworthy because they point to circumstances that appear to enhance or support the willingness or desire of teachers to venture beyond their current state in curriculum development. Since these observations, or emergent foci, did not logically or naturally fall into categories provided by the four supporting questions, it is appropriate to discuss them separately and following the discussion that came from the supporting questions. Each one is examined in the following paragraphs.

145

Age and Experience From the demographic information gleaned in the survey and reinforced in the demographic portions of the interviews, it can be concluded that those who were willing to allot time and energy to supporting this study by participating in the interviews were teachers with more experience than those who participated in the survey only. At the time the survey was administered the participants ages ranged from 29 years to 61 years. The average age was 47.6. The age of two of the interview participants, Teacher E and H, was 50 and the third interview participant, Teacher I, was 63, eighteen months after the administration of the survey. Their average age was 54 years. No one of the three teachers who was interviewed could be considered a younger teacher. In referring to the professional art teacher experience of the participating art teachers, those who responded to the invitation to participate in the survey experience averaged 10.4 years of teaching experience following the university degree they earned at Florida State University. That degree could have been bachelors or masters since the study focuses on those trained in the DBAE approach at that university regardless of the degree earned up to and including the masters degree. Those who also elected to participate in the interview process, Teachers E, H, and I, averaged 14.3 years experience beyond the degree earned at FSU, almost four more years than the survey average. It may be suggested from the survey and interview information that the age, maturity, and experience as an art teacher may have predisposed the three who participated in the interviews to participate in this study. More mature teachers may be more inclined to go the extra mile to participate in professional development. The older, more experienced art teachers also indicated greater involvement with in-service. They appeared to have a grasp of the big pictures or paradigms and the way new ideas could be merged into current or previous curricula or paradigms, possibly more so than the average survey respondent. This allowed them flexibility in curriculum design and possibly gave them the curiosity and professional scope to participate. In conclusion, then, the older the teachers and the more experience they had teaching art, the more willing they were to participate in this study, particularly in the

146

interview process. Two of the three art teachers who were interviewed had also earned masters degrees and had attained national board certification, leading to the conclusion that further education and training led to increased willingness to participate in the study. Early Training Influence Although the previous section closes with the notion that more experienced teachers possibly accept more new ideas in education than less experienced teachers, it should also be noted that of the eleven teachers in this study who were DBAE-trained at FSU during the height of the DBAE paradigm, only one, Teacher A, left that approach for something different. That teacher no longer uses the DBAE paradigm due to the unique learning structure at the high school at which she teaches art. While more mature teachers are more comfortable with adding new dimensions to their DBAEfunded curricula, the DBAE approach still continued to dominate their art curricula. This definitely has implications for teacher education, which will be discussed later. It can be concluded from the survey and interview responses that the teachers in this study taught school using the approach in which they were trained with slight variations with the exception of Teacher A, who found DBAE was not the appropriate approach to use at the unique high school where she teaches art. With respect to teacher education, this means that without profound intervention with an opposing approach, teachers will continue to teach and promote the approach with which they were initially trained and in whom the approach eventually became ingrained. Continuing Education Four of the eleven original participants had earned bachelors degrees, six of them had earned masters degrees, and one had earned a specialist (sixth year) degree. Of the three interview participants, two, Teachers E and I, had earned masters degrees. They indicated that further teacher in-service training or participation in teacher training opportunities at state or national art education conferences was part of their need to stay abreast of current movements in art education. They indicated in their interview responses that they had begun to infuse their DBAE programs with elements

147

of other paradigms or thematic approaches. They are also National Board Certified teachers. It is noteworthy that greater and continued exposure to education and to the exchange of ideas and practices may indicate a greater ability and inclination to venture into new areas in art instruction at the same time that the merits of previous approaches are retained. It may also be that further education presumes a greater willingness to participate in research such as this. It is significant that the teacher who has had no contact with other art education approaches, Teacher H, was immersed in her job to the point that she did not have time to learn new theories. Her approach in her art classes worked, and the result was that she maintained the direction she acquired with DBAE training at FSU. As a result, Teacher H did not make an active choice to be regularly involved in in-service opportunities that could keep her abreast of current trends and possible new directions in art education. This could come from lack of opportunity on a district, state, or national level. It could result from a lack of discretionary time necessary to pursue research on the forefront of art education. Responsibilities at school could also contribute to that lack of discretionary time. In response to these findings, it can be said that the more opportunities teachers have to be exposed to new ideas and the opportunities to implement those ideas, the greater their chances are to make changes in their curricula, allowing them to evolve rather than to remain firmly entrenched in the approaches they learned just prior to beginning their full-time teaching experiences. Administrative Support Administrative support as evidenced in financial support and campus maintenance appears to be a factor in the freedom to explore new ventures in the art room. When interviewed about the financial support given by school administrators to the art program, and the quality of the classrooms and campuses at which they teach, the three art teachers indicated that they worked within vastly different circumstances. The disparity between the three sites was not a reflection of socioeconomic conditions in all cases. Although one school, School E, has ample funds with which to provide for

148

its students and serves a higher-income population, the other two do not have this luxury. Teacher H works at the school that serves the lowest socioeconomic population, and she was not given a particular amount for the art budget. School I provides the most substantial budget for the art program at that site, although it serves a lower-income socioeconomic population. The other consideration that involves school administration is the quality of the classroom and school campus. Teacher H pointed out that although the art room had been added to the existing building ten years previously, cockroaches were in her room consistently. That is a maintenance concern at that school site. Elementary Teacher I shared that concerns regarding the tables in the art room and the impact they had on student attention with the resulting action from the administration of replacing the old tables with tables that were more conducive to productive class work. Teacher E felt that the art room at that particular school might just be the best art room in the school district. The working environments described by the teachers fell into three categories. The physical facilities played a role in the workdays of the three teachers who were interviewed. Schools E and I operate so that the art teachers know what financial support they can expect each year, but Teacher H is left to her own devices to raise funds for the art program. Teacher H also serves the most economically deprived population, but Teacher I also works in a school that serves government subsidized housing, one measure of the socioeconomic standing of a schools population. Teachers E and I, two of the teachers who were interviewed, work in the most optimal conditions, and they were the two teachers who have researched and/or incorporated new art education paradigms. In summary, the art teachers who reported that they worked in educational environments where they felt supported were more likely to feel empowered to arrange time and make the effort to maintain a professional level of expertise due to opportunities for professional growth. The teachers who had earned advanced degrees, had acquired national board certification, and had experienced other professional development opportunities expressed a positive attitude about their workplace and their workloads. The administrative support created an environment in

149

which the art teachers felt that they could make changes without feeling overworked to the point that they were too discouraged to attempt to make significant changes.

Summary of the Findings Presented Thematically

This study sought to determine the continued utility of discipline-based art education in the professional lives of teachers who were grounded in the approach and who use it in their art classes. Conclusions regarding that issue as well as supporting concerns about what the teachers continue to use from the DBAE paradigm, what they have discarded from it, and what non-DBAE approaches they have tried and found to support their art programs were also examined. The following conclusions have been drawn regarding these issues. Of the art teachers who participated in the survey, 91% indicated that they continue to find value in using the DBAE approach in their classes. The exception, Survey Teacher A, taught at a small, high school where she found it difficult to employ DBAE in that setting where students were encouraged to work independently at the time of the survey. She stated that she had used it [DBAE] consistently at other schools. The other ten teachers who participated in the survey found it helpful to make adjustments with the approach so that it worked effectively with the populations they taught. For example, Survey Teachers D, E, and F expressed concern about the time in class necessary for leading classes through some lessons that included art criticism, aesthetics, or art history, and the apparent lack of interest the students displayed in contrast with their enthusiasm for art production. They added more time to art production and minimized the time used for the other components of DBAE. The recommendation by Interview Teacher E was to shorten the time spent on the three non-studio DBAE components or use them in selected activities only, such as using art criticism on museum field trips. Without exception, each of the three teachers who were interviewed felt that discipline-based art education should be retained in its entirety. Interview Teacher H felt that DBAE served the students needs best, and she continued to use that approach exclusively, stating that, [DBAE] is holistic. I think you could say. It provides for a better education; a richer, deeper, understanding of how and why and

150

more thought and understanding put into projects. It pulls information from different areas as well as encourages higher level thinking skills from the critiques. The investigation and use of other art education paradigms was given short shrift by the art teachers, although a few had ventured into areas outside of DBAE. Only four art teachers, Teachers B, E, G, and I, of the eleven who were surveyed, or 36%, indicated that they made a habit of attending in-service training opportunities. Teachers E and I, or 18% of the survey participants, were the only teachers who indicated that they had researched and/or tried new art education approaches, and they did so within the DBAE structure. Teacher E has researched and received in-service training in an Enduring Ideas thematic approach and has begun to infuse her DBAE art education approach with the method using ideas that had endured over centuries as umbrella themes under which the DBAE paradigm worked. Teacher I had made use of visual culture art education as she led students through an architecture unit funded by local architecture and the paintings of buildings by a New Orleans artist James Michalopoulos. Due to the fact that the DBAE model was working for the art teachers who were surveyed and for those who were interviewed, their recommendation was that it should continue to be used in its entirety. Beyond the notion that DBAE provided a wellrounded art program through the four components, the art teachers pointed to some of the effects of using the approach as justification for its perpetuation. The teachers observed that students who were unsure of themselves in art production were able to maximize their art experiences through the other DBAE components. The added benefit to students that was gained from writing about and discussing art was important to the teachers. Teachers E and H noted that their students were able to write and converse better about a variety of subjects. The art teachers considered that to be a benefit that came from the use of the art criticism, art history, and aesthetics components of DBAE. The recommendation from the three interviewed art teachers was that the entire scope of DBAE be retained.

151

Conclusion
What aspects of the discipline-based art education do art teachers trained in DBAE find useful and valuable in teaching art, and what aspects would they recommend retaining in future art teacher training? The conclusion, or answer, to the question lies with the attitudes of the art teachers to the discarding or retaining of the DBAE approach in the midst of the exploration of emerging ideas in art education. Based on the responses to the survey, all four components of DBAE are alive and well in the lives of the eleven art teachers who participated in the survey. They also drove the curricula of the three art teachers who were interviewed for this study. Given the answers to the supporting questions, the conclusions from the emergent foci, and the conclusions drawn from the interview responses, it is apparent that DBAE is the primary teaching and learning structure in the art programs of teachers who were trained in the approach at Florida State University during the time that DBAE was the driving force in that program from 1987 to 2003. However, art teachers who participated in the survey expressed concern that DBAE was frustrating to some of their students when compared with an approach that favored primarily art production. This perception may have arisen from a misconception that the four tenets of DBAE were to be taught allowing equal time for each of the four. When Survey Teachers B, C, E, G, H, I, J, and K taught DBAE with the understanding that art production, art criticism, art history, and aesthetics were all necessary to teach students about the world of art without regard to the percentage of time given to each of the disciplines, the teachers noted that their students learned more about art than through an exclusively studio-based orientation. Although art criticism, art history, and aesthetics did not enjoy the popular support given by students to art production, their value became apparent to teachers who persisted in providing a complete, or comprehensive, art program for their students according to the results of this study. The teachers commented on students growth beyond the subject of art as they read, wrote, and talked about art as integral to the art program. Survey teachers B, E, G, I, and K commented on the advantages in students communication abilities, whether read, spoken, or written, that the DBAE approach provided. Although their students do not choose to spend more time on art criticism, art

152

history, or aesthetics, those are the elements of DBAE that have been noted as lending assistance to raising reading and writing standardized test scores. All of the art teachers who were interviewed indicated that DBAE was a useful paradigm and that they would continue to use the four components in their art programs. The eight survey participants, B, C, E, G, H, I, J, and K, said that they recommended the use of DBAE in its entirety in art programs. The three remaining art teachers who were surveyed used DBAE in varying degrees, and their responses reflected those degrees of enthusiasm for the approach. With that in mind, it is safe to conclude that the interview participants and eight of the eleven survey participants recommended that the approach be retained in future teacher training in art education. Through the administration of a preliminary survey and an interview process, it was determined that 91% of the teachers included in this study in the survey and/or the interviews indicated that they continue to find value in using the DBAE approach in their classes. The variable in this equation appears to be the degree to which they use the four recognized components of DBAE: art production, art criticism, art history, and aesthetics. Some teachers funded the entire art program with the discipline-based art education approach, one teacher noted that she had begun including a thematic element that guides the topics in the art program, and one teacher had ventured into areas of visual culture art education that was inserted into the four-component DBAE model. It seems that the teachers taught art as if they felt that DBAE offered a template or format with which to teach either DBAE alone or in which to insert new approaches. What is significant to this study is the concept that, although new avenues of art education have found audiences and support, DBAE remains in command of a dedicated following. With the understanding that all three art teachers in this study were trained in the use of discipline-based art education in the Art Education Department at the Florida State University, one of the sites designated for the transmission and dissemination of the approach, that they practiced DBAE over the years, it is noteworthy that those art teachers continued to fund the bulk of their art program curricula based on the DBAE approach. In conclusion, the study results suggest that DBAE tenets continue to be of value to art teachers who were trained in that approach. Art criticism, art history, and

153

aesthetics in particular lend themselves to classroom activities enhance reading, writing, and discussion abilities. This may be due to transfer of understanding of these activities learned in art to other subject and testing activities. While the FSU teacher training program in art education produced accomplished art teachers in the DBAE approach, the approach was so firmly entrenched that when new approaches began to gain momentum, the DBAE-trained teachers maintained the DBAE stance. By so doing, the participants in this study who have incorporated new approaches in their art programs are in the minority. While preparing prospective teachers in the current paradigm, it may also be of assistance to the future teachers to instill in them a need to stay abreast of trends and movements in the field.

Implications For Theory and Practice in Art Education

Based on the findings in this study, there are a number of implications for theory and practice in art education. First, art teachers in this study who have been primarily trained in DBAE, those who teach children ranging from kindergarten through high school, overwhelmingly support the continued use of the DBAE approach to direct their art programs. Second, this may suggest that the art teachers in this study are very dependent on their early training and continue to use that paradigm in spite of new models of teaching and learning. This may be because of the lack of time and resources to continue their professional development every bit as much as their loyalty to DBAE. That remains to be determined in future research. It also implies that art educators who engage in teacher training should be conscious of the potential immensity of their influence and understand that multiple paradigms need to be presented so future teachers have choices. In this context this study suggests that DBAE, or at least aspects of DBAE, should continue to be considered in art teacher training programs. Third, although it is understood that art production will continue to be the foundation of art education, it is important to respond to teachers observations that the other three components of DBAE that involve reading, writing, and discussion should continue to receive support in teacher training efforts. Such language-based approaches to art are intrinsically valuable, not only for art-based purposes, but for the

154

development of language-based cognition. Because of high-stakes testing, the contributions that art education makes to general education are clearly beneficial to keeping art in the schools. Art teachers need to be trained in those three DBAE components with the two-part end of assisting students in their pursuit of knowledge of the world of art and in their need to improve in reading, writing, and discussions that lead to increased improvements in critical thinking. Reading, writing, and discussion that lead to improved critical thinking have also been noted by participants in this study to improve these skills for students in class and in testing situations. According to the teachers in the survey and the teachers interviewed, administrative and financial support is sometimes strong and sometimes not. A substantial group of participants in the survey as well as interview Teachers E and H indicated levels of frustration stemming from overwhelming burdens that stem from factors inherent in test-based schools. In this context DBAE may provide an academic approach to art education that administrators value and may find worthy of their support. That support can lead to less stress for the art teacher who uses the writing and discussion inherent in DBAE as a tool to contribute to improved test scores for the students. With a nod to the notion that nothing is as constant as change, future art teachers need to receive training that prepares them to do two things. Primarily, art teachers who emerge from university art education programs need to be fully trained and enabled to teach art paradigms that are supported by research and assist K-12 students to enter the adult world with a complete education enhanced by an understanding of the world of art. This is encumbant in the DBAE paradigm as noted in the literature and in practice. Secondarily, the new art teachers need to understand the need to delve into the depth and breadth of art education in order to teach with confidence and understanding, and they need to feel a professional desire and commitment to stay abreast of movements within the art disciplines in order to avoid professional stagnation. This need is apparent from the low number of teachers who make the time and have the energy and resources to continue exploring new paradigms.

155

The teachers that were interviewed for this study confirmed that in their classrooms DBAE is a viable approach to art education. The most common practice appears to be the use of the DBAE approach as a framing tool into which teachers have inserted a variety of art, artists, cultures, and history. As a frame or model for a variety of art education philosophies, DBAE is a vital tool for these art educators. When instruction in art education in higher education is considered, the role of discipline based art education would be appropriately included on a continuing basis as a structural tool for organizing and planning a comprehensive art education program regardless of the art topic at hand.

Future Research
From the results of this study it can be concluded that there are several veins of research that need future attention. The art teachers who work in Florida who were trained in the DBAE approach at FSU represent a small slice of the greater population who went through similar training at other institutions of higher education. Studies that approach other DBAE-trained art teachers for comparison with the results from those trained at FSU would be helpful in determining the longevity of that approach and in gaining a sense of where those art teachers are taking their classes at this time, twenty years following the broad infusion of the DBAE approach throughout the western world. Another population that bears consideration is the group of DBAE-trained graduates of universities who now work in museum education programs. Taking the research in a similar direction to find out what these teachers do within the art museum setting would assist in determining if the direction these art majors maintain supports DBAE, if they changed their approaches some time ago, or if they have been affected by other influences in museum or art education. When prospective art teachers begin their internships in school settings they work under the direction of experienced supervising art teachers. Comparing the directions in curriculum design that are taken by supervising DBAE-trained art teachers with DBAE-trained art teachers who do not have experiences with prospective teachers who come from university art and art education programs with recent ideas of what is important that are inherent in an intern-supervising teacher relationship.

156

Studies that compare what has happened in recent years in other western countries where DBAE was supported with what has happened in American art programs would provide perspective on the degree to which DBAE infiltrated other western art education programs, its longevity, and the directions they are investigating in art education at the time of such a study. The preceding directions for further research in the area of DBAE-trained art teachers and their access to and sensitivity to changes in art education can provide ample short-range and long-range research opportunity. Any of the above directions could provide means of determining where research is influencing practice and where practice supports new research in art education.

157

APPENDIX A Preliminary Survey Questionnaire January 2005

Part I: WHO ARE YOU? (Demographic Questions) 1. Age: Sex: 2. Institution(s) at which you earned your degree(s): 3. Degree(s) earned: 4. Year of graduation: 5. School at which you teach: 6. School Districts in which you teach: 7. Demographics: (Check all that apply regarding your school.) Title 1 school Population below 700 District ESOL site District deaf site 8. Include the letter grade earned by your school 2003-2004 A B C 9. I am (check all that apply): Art Teacher Administrator Classroom Teacher Other 10. I teach the following grades (Please check all that apply): Pre-K K-5, 6 6-8 158

High School Higher Ed. PART II: WHAT DO YOU DO? (Descriptive) 1. What courses do you teach now? Visual Art K-5 Science, history, music, math, and astronomy through art K-5 Elementary Art; 5 classes/day including ESE students General Art grades 6-8 Advanced Art grade 8 Art 2D Art 3D AP Studio Art Photography Art Appreciation Art, music, dance, drama - mostly art and music Reading 2. What other courses have you taught? I teach the beginning teacher elementary art program with another experienced teacher; I conduct a one-week course offered to all K-12 teachers in the district on integrating art into other disciplines; art summer camps at local museums and out-of-state A reading class High school 2D & 3D at a magnet program AP Art History Graphics Humanities Comp. Ed. Math Journalism/Yearbook Photography

159

Portfolio Drawing Painting Fibers & fabrics Art Camps Girl Scouts 3. What is the art budget? $00.00 (zero) Adequate; it has always been unknown with the previous administrator Based on needs $150 $500-$700 $2.00 per child $800.00 for school year $1,000 +/$1,900 ($1,500 school, $200 PTO, $200 SAC) $2,500 or more 4. How is the art budget determined? Every teacher is given the same amount, regardless of supply needs It is determined by what I order. It is determined by what I need. The principal determines it. Determined by administration Determined by a school committee Need I am not sure Set amount multiplied by the number of courses taught 5. What other sources of financial support do you have?

160

None None, though in the past I have solicited funds from a local bank, and students sold works in a gallery Some help from PTO PTO, SAC PTA up to $500 Grants, PTO funding Grants, SAC, fundraisers Art Fee (voluntary) Fundraiser one per year magazine sales, $1,075 in 2004 Two fundraisers per year 6. What are your class sizes? 11-38, average is 25-28 20 (K-3rd grade), 25 (4th-5th grade) 20-23 (K-1st grade). 23-25 (2nd-5th grade) 18-22 18-24 18-32 17-25 (ESOL is 17) 20-30 22-30 25-30 ESE and EH kids are mainstreamed with Special Areas (Art, Music, PE) 7. Comment about your facility School: It is a small magnet school that focuses on somewhat learning in a supportive community [environment]. individualized

161

I work at a fairly new school. Ive been here two years. I am so lucky to work in such nice surroundings with both the campus and staff. I love my job and the children I teach. Its fine. Its old, but its clean, and we have what we need. It is old, but well-maintained It is showing its hard use by 1,350 students, 11 portable classrooms, but an excellent school, though. It is a very old school. It shows its age and is not very well maintained. Some improvements have been made. Older school in need of a good cleaning, has several portable classrooms Good facilities; large, well-lit room; good storage, office, kiln room, lots of windows Serves a diverse population We are a good team. Good school and administration; its just very crowded Art room: It is a heavily used multipurpose space. We accommodate ceramics, painting, printmaking, photography, etc. in one 25 x 40 room. The art room was a regular classroom, so some extra storage space wouldnt hurt. There are large tables, some clear space, the kiln is in the Art room, and there is a teacher office in the room. Excellent studio; lots of windows and bulletin boards; separate kiln room with overhead hood; large supply closet; separate office for the teacher. Small, crowded but functional I have one! It has a kiln, two sinks, four donated computers, large worktables, and great lighting from the windows, but there is never enough storage space Large, well equipped kiln room; lots of storage; nice windows; I love my room.

162

Cant complain but could be much larger New excellent 8. What are your other responsibilities? I volunteer to serve on several school communities based on interest. I am on an activities committee that meets about every other month, and I serve on the (Bay) county art teachers staff for monthly meetings. Bus duty, cadres, committees, tech person, peer teacher, Special Area grade chair. Occasional monitoring duty, create backdrops/scenery/banners for music class programs and other events I serve on the discipline committee, and I am the Special Areas representative. SITE council member, Winter Festival coordinator, Courthouse exhibit coordinator, middle school annual exhibit coordinator School Advisory Council (SAC), mentor beginning art teachers in district, Brogan Museum art liaison, coordinate Meet the Artist days, coordinate the Caldecott Carnival: a make and take workshop based on the Caldecott books Morning playground supervision for six weeks, serve on technology committee SAC chair Morning and afternoon duty, responsible for producing theatrical performances for grades 3-5 9. Comments: My outside-the-classroom responsibilities have dwindled greatly in the last few years, giving me more time to focus on my program. The bureaucracy gets more absurd every year; the children get more out of touch with the world. PART III: WHAT WAS YOUR TRAINING?

163

1. Were you taught in the DBAE method of instruction in art? Yes No xxxxxxxxxx! x, it was new when I graduated

2. Which of the following course offerings did you take? (Put a check and rank them according to their usefulness on a 1-5 scale, 1 being most useful.) 5, 5, 5, 1 1, 2, 5, 1 1, 4, 2, 3, 2, 5, 1 5, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1 3, 5, 5, 3, 5, 1 2, 4, 4, 1 3, 2, 1, 4, 1 2, 4, 4, 1 All were useful I think they were all 1s! 3. Did FSU prepare you adequately to teach art? Yes No xxxxxxxx! 0 Foundations is Art Education Art in the Elementary School Teaching Art Criticism & Aesthetics Teaching Art History Computer Graphics History of Art Education Teaching Studio Content & Methods in Art Art Therapy and Special Populations

Please comment: I felt well supported and prepared. I was very much prepared to teach art! I felt confident in teaching art. Interning slapped me with reality. Hard to answer I received my initial Art Education training at Radford University in Virginia. I received my initial DBAE training at Summer DBAE Institutes for Art Education with Jessie Lovanno-Kerr and Nancy Rocher. My Masters experience at FSU certainly underscored my previous experiences but was not integrated into them.

164

I dont think higher ed. can adequately prepare one for the rigors and complexities of juggling a teaching load. Maybe longer internships or longer observations with participation and located in one school would help gain necessary experience. My degree from FSU was excellent preparation for teaching art. My BS degree was focused more on being an artist. PART IV: SATISFACTION WITH TEACHER PREPARATION 1. Do you use the DBAE method of teaching art? I used it more consistently in other schools. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, partly Some Yes, occasionally Sometimes, when applicable 2. How well does it work and why? It worked very well in traditionally structured environments. Our school is very focused on our assessments being FCAT-related. This style of teaching makes that easy to do. It works fine, but I attend conferences, workshops, and other professional development activities because things are always changing. Not so well; the students want to move on. It provides a context for the production work. It works well if not too heavy in art history, art criticism, and aesthetics (Kids get antsy to make stuff.) Sometimes it works well. It takes several classes, and it becomes hard to maintain interest over several weeks

165

It works well enough for the time I get to see my students; it grabs a wider variety of learners. It gives the students some background to connect their projects to I use my version, and it works quite well. To fully implement DBAE in elementary school you need to be able to work with the classroom teachers. My school used to have many DBAE-trained classroom teachers, but they have moved, and we have become a science magnet school. The focus is on art with components. It works well because it is important for the integration of all of the arts and other subject areas. 3. If you do not use the DBAE method, what is your preferred approach to teaching art and why? SAIL students tend to work in a more independent mode. 4. What do you think is (are) the most important thing(s) you teach? Why humans create art and what it means to us That art [approach] is more than pretty pictures. It relates to other aspects of life. Hands on activities with cross-curricular links and art history, criticism, and aesthetics Help students appreciate and like themselves and others and art. Subjects: ceramics, fibers, drawing; Concepts: craftsmanship, attention to detail, re-do until it gets better The interrelationship of things An appreciation for art in many forms and from many cultures Understanding the elements and principles of art, identifying them in a work of art

166

I think art production is the most important part of the art program because it is the part that is most different from their other class work. It should be supported by art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. Art, math, geography, social history Theyre all important! 5. Were they addressed in your teacher training? Yes No xxxxxxxx xx (They were addressed in my fine art training.)

Comment: DBAE overlaps into science/technology/history, etc. I learned it, but I learned even more with DBAE teacher training after I began teaching full time. Being an artist and media and production techniques were part of my training. 6. What were the strengths of your training? My training reignited my passion for art. By aesthetic inquiry I really began to understand why art has been my lifelong interest. As a result of my observations and internships, I can research about art, design lesson plans, explore different studio art media Art curriculum content Content area knowledge Classes had a narrow focus and went in depth; well-qualified instructors The internship; the FSU program in general was good, a little idealistic, but pretty good. The small, intimate collage classes allowed everyone to participate. Professors who cared what you were doing, and took an active role in your training. Without the expertise, experience, and confidence three mentors gave me I would not be the kind of art teacher I am today. One of my best memories of my internship/beginning teacher days was the

167

regular meeting with my professor and the other art ed. interns. These regular meetings provided insight and common ground for me. Provided me with a good example of good record-keeping, planning, having high expectations for the students, and generating good ideas Development of curriculum, research in DBAE and an emphasis in good writing, and personal artistic growth were strengths in the training. Practice. Knowledgeable professors 7. What were the weaknesses of your teacher training? Inconsistency and vagueness with regard to required course work and changing standards made I remember out computer room was disappointing no color. I needed more help with classroom management and discipline. Day-to-day organization, record keeping, notes The Art Education Department did not meld with the Fine Arts Department: Art Ed. was the ugly stepchild There was no one there to tell us the down sides of teaching. I think that would have helped. I felt greatly intimidated by my supervising professor: she was a powerhouse to me, and I was just a lowly beginning teacher. Lack of hands-on experiences with real students: since I was earning my MS and already teaching, it was not a problem for me, but it could have been a problem for others. Not getting enough of a diversified population in student teaching/internship 8. Over all, rate your teacher training on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the best. 1 2 3 x 0 xxxxxxx

168

4 5

x xx

Comments? I try my best every day. The more you do the better you get, and youll always find something to refine and rethink. Nothings perfect for different school settings, but I have received several accolades for my art teaching. I was thrilled taking the FSU Art Education program. I really enjoyed it. My FSU degree really prepared me to develop an excellent art program. I compare this to my BS degree, which did not.

169

APPENDIX B Interview Schedule

Question 1: Names used in this study

Teacher E, as in the Survey section Teacher H, as in the Survey section Teacher I, as in the Survey section Question 2: Ages of participants

Teacher E: 50 Teacher H: 50 Teacher I: Question 3: 63 Sex:

Teacher E: Female Teacher H: Female Teacher I: Question 4: Female Degree(s) earned:

Teacher E: I have a BFA in Jewelry & Ceramics, an MS in Art Education, and a Certificate of Museum Studies. Teacher H: I received an AA from Tallahassee Community College and a BS in Art Education from Florida State University. Teacher I: I have a BS (Bachelor of Science) in art education and a MS (Master of Science) in art education. Question 5: Institutions at which you earned your degrees and years in

which they were awarded:

170

Teacher E: I received my BFA from Radford University in 1980. I received my Masters in 1991 and my Museum Certification in 2000, both from Florida State University. Teacher H: I earned a BS from Florida State University in 1994. Teacher I: I earned a BS from the State University of New York New Paltz in 1961 and a MS from Florida State University in 1991. Question 6: Year(s) degrees were awarded: 1980 1991 1994 1961 1991 MS Teacher H: BS Teacher I: BS MS

Teacher E: BFA

Museum Certificate 2000

Question 7: School at which you teach: Teacher E: I teach at E School. Teacher H: I teach at H School. Teacher I: I teach at I School.

Question 8: School District: Teacher E: Leon County School District Teacher H: Leon County School District Teacher I: Question 9: Title 1 school: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I Population below 1000: No Yes No Leon County School District Is your school a:

171

Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I District ESOL site: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I District deaf site: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I

No No Yes No No No No No No

Other significant designations for your school: E School has a Blue Ribbon School designation. I School is a math and science magnet school that serves students who are Emotionally Handicapped (EH), Severely Emotionally Handicapped (SEH) and students with severe behavior disorders. In recent years these 4 classes (2 primary and 2 intermediate) have been designated VE (Varying Exceptionalities) and have included students with autism and other disorders. These students attend art class (and other special area classes) with a regular class. They are accompanied by at least one aide. When individual students have achieved mainstream status they attend with that class and no aide or assistant. H School houses a Quantum Program, a hands-on, project-oriented approach to curriculum. Question 10: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I Question 11: Teacher E Include the letter grade earned by your school 2005-2006: A grade C grade A grade I teach the following grades grades 6-8

172

Teacher H Teacher I Question 12: Teacher E Teacher H Teacher I Question 13:

grades K-5 grades K-5 What is the art budget? No school-allocated art budget No school-allocated art budget $1,500 for supplies How is the art budget determined?

Teacher E: I am sure if I had a pressing need I would only have to ask my principal at E School, and he would find the funds to help me. I have yet to take this route. Teacher H: We have had a different principal at H Middle School and a different bookkeeper the last three years. Only the past year was a budget even mentioned. Before that time all supplies needed were ordered with little question. The art budget, supposedly, is determined by department. All teachers in the department are to share the budget. I have not been informed what my budget is this year, but have received all supplies that have been ordered. Teacher I: The basic art budget that comes from school funds is determined by the principal (with possible input from the bookkeeper). I order $500.00 in start up supplies in the spring for the next school year. Then in October or November, I use the other $1,000.00. This amount has remained the same for at least the last 15 years and we have had 4 different principals during that time (same bookkeeper). I have never been asked if it is an adequate amount or what I need. Years ago when the school had over 700 students I had the same amount and at one point our population dipped to 400 students and the amount remained the same. Because I am aware of the amounts other elementary art teachers are given in the county (our elementary art group used to do a formal survey and I Elementary has one of the better budgets for art) I have never attempted to question the amount or the method used for determining it. When

173

the principal compliments me on certain student artworks on display in the hall or Media Center, I sometimes mention that we are able to offer the students a wide range of experiences (printmaking, ceramics etc.) because of his support and the good budget. I have also never questioned this amount because when there has been a need for a large expenditure (new kiln) or an extra I have never been turned down. When a teacher stays at one site for a number of years as I have, it is possible to build collections of visuals, resources and technology gradually over time. Question 14: What other sources of financial support do you have?

Teacher E: Since I receive no other funds other than the $100 that comes from the PTO I have to reply that the budget is determined by how many students decide to bring in their art fee and how many decide to participate in the fundraiser. I include a note on interims indicating whether the art fee has been paid, and that helps to remind parents to write a check. I also have reminder slips that are printed on hot pink paper that I give to students the second half of the semester as a way to hopefully bring in those last few dollars. The fundraiser is magazine sales. The companies we have worked with have done a good job of having incentives that entice the kids to participate (fun prizes, candy, cool techno toys). Each year it is the younger students who really step up to the plate and raise the most money. The older students do little to nothing to bring in fundraiser dollars. We are considering doing a second fundraiser this year and are trying the selling of discount cards. I am not sure how well two fundraisers in one year will do. Teacher H: I was not told what my budget is this year. I was asked to collect a $5.00 fee from my art students. Out of my approximately 100 art students, 15 have paid the art fee thus far this year. Teacher Lead Monies is approximately $235.00. I received $75.00 from student fee money. Teacher I: I get $200.00 reimbursement money from the PTO (Parent Teacher Organization), and $100.00 to $200.00 from SAC (School Advisory Council) for books or materials that are directly tied to the SIP (School Improvement Plan).

174

The PTO amount has remained steady for the last several years I simply turn in receipts. The SAC money is given out yearly by request from a teacher or a grade level team. Each year I request money for books, CDs, or videos that connect art to reading, science, math or writing. I have always been awarded the amount I request. This current school year I received a check from the State of Florida for $235.00 to cover extra supplies. In past years this has been less, usually around $90.00. In addition to these standard yearly sources for financial support I have written grants and been awarded grant money. The grant that made the most impact on my program was a Technology Grant that I received from the Leon County Schools Foundation for $2000.00. I purchased a presentation projector and digital camera for the classroom. Question 15: What are your class sizes?

Teacher E: My smallest class is 26 students; my largest is 31. Teacher H: I have three art classes with 25-27 students and one art class with about 15 students. I have a reading class with 20 students. Teacher I: Kindergarten has 20, First grade - Two first grades have 31, the other two have 25 and 26. Three second grades have 24 and 1 has 26. The third grades range from 18 to 23. Two fourth grades have 20 students; one has 18 and one has 24. The fifth grade numbers are 17, 19, 20 and 23. In many cases the numbers do not reflect the size of the actual classes. That is because we have to combine one or more classes to fit them into the special area schedule. The ESE units are added to one fifth, one fourth and two of the first grade classes. An aid and/or behavior specialist accompanies these extra students. The administration refers to this as mainstreaming. However, it does not fit any definition of proper mainstreaming that I have heard of. For students who are experiencing severe emotional or behavioral problems the appropriate least restrictive environment is often not in a large regular education classroom. When I have questioned the practice I have been told that this is the way the ESE teacher gets her planning time. So the placement of ESE students is not based on what is best for the student (regular ed. or ESE), but rather on a babysitting

175

situation to meet the contract requirement for teacher planning time. In addition to adding the mainstream ESE classes on top of regular ed. classes, at two grade levels (2nd/1st) we have five classrooms, but only four special area teachers available in the schedule. At those two grade levels we divide the fifth class and put an extra 5 or 6 students with each of the other four classes. This hits first grade the hardest2 of the first grades have both extra regular ed. students and an ESE class coming to special area with them. This situation can only be changed by hiring another special area teacher. We have been told that because of the class size amendment this is not going to happen. (In elementary school class size only counts in the regular grade level classrooms). Question 16: School? Teacher E: My school is 16 years old and for the last few years is beginning to show its heavy use. We are overcrowded (500 students beyond capacity) and that adds tremendously to the wear and tear. The school was built with the middle school concept in mind with 8 different buildings: we have a wing for each grade level, the office building, the media center and guidance building, allied arts wing, cafeteria, and gym/band/chorus wing. In spite of its age this is a really beautiful campus. We have a wonderful fishpond in front of the office with a lovely tree lined sidewalk that goes by it. We have a very large courtyard in the back of campus that allows plenty of room for the students to congregate before school starts. It also held the overflow during lunch before our cafeteria was expanded this past year. Now it is much quieter outside my classroom during lunch, something I really enjoy. We have two Risographs and one Xerox machine in the media center available to the faculty. We have TVs in each classroom as well as wall phones to connect with the front office or an outside line. Teacher H: The school was built in 1969, which makes it thirty-seven years old. The superintendent announced to the faculty last year that the plan is to close the school either this year or next. Because of this, needed repairs are Comment about your facility:

176

often ignored. There are gross signs of roof leaks in my classroom. However, my art room is in a new addition to the school and is probably less than fifteen years old. We do have rats and roaches. Teacher I: The main building at I School was built in 1968. It was built with an open pod (space for 4 classrooms without walls) for each grade level. At I School the open pod system never worked and in recent years walls have been built for each classroom. In the original building the art room was a small room behind the stage and lunchroom. There were no closets or storage space, no windows and the kiln was in the room right next to the sink. The best part of the design of I School is the fact that there are many inside common hallways that are wonderful for displaying student art. Faculty, administration, students and parents tell me how much they appreciate the students work and how it creates a colorful and happy atmosphere for our school. I think the older design of our school is much preferable to the newer schools with outside passageways and brick walls. In addition to the many hallways there are frames with student work in the main office and in the principal and assistant principals offices. Our lunchroom has a wrap-around mural (Science theme- space travel) that was created by I School students in conjunction with FSU art education students and Professor Tom Anderson. Art Room? Teacher E: I do believe I have the best art classroom in town. I have nine large tables that seat 4 students each and two even larger tables for demonstrations. Three sinks make it easy for all the students to be cleaning up at the same time. I have more than ample storage space, a large, fully equipped kiln room, 2 walls of windows bringing in lots of natural light, expansive bulletin boards, and a patio with French doors that allow fresh air flow during nice weather. I feel extremely lucky to have an office with a phone and more cabinetry to hold my curricular materials. When I opened the school I was given a budget of $15,000 to outfit it. That money went for tables and chairs, as well as the art equipment. As a result I have a heavy-duty slab roller, small electric kiln as well as a large ceramic kiln,

177

spray booth, compressor, printing press, and mat cutter. Much of this is not typical for a middle school lab. Teacher H: The art room is newer. It is part of a new wing that was built about ten years ago. It still has roaches. Teacher I: In 1989 I School was renovated and several large additions were created. A new art room was built in a wing with a music room and computer lab. The art room is spacious with two large (floor to ceiling) windows, a kiln room, an office (shared with the music teacher) and 2 large storage rooms. I think it is one of the best-designed art labs in the county. There are 3 sinks, plenty of cabinets, counter space and lots of room for movement and walking between and/or around tables. When the room first opened the principal (without consulting me) ordered five large (hexagon shaped) tables that could fold up and roll away like the larger lunchroom tables. They were quite expensive but he thought they would work well and help the custodians with cleaning. These tables were not ideal for an elementary art room. The wheels were fun to kick and spin, the mechanisms underneath could be rattled and jiggled to produce loud noises, but most disturbing they would shake and bounce if one student was vigorously erasing or simply trying to get a rise out of other students. About 4 years ago I asked the principal to replace the original tables with smaller, plain, rectangular tables and they work much better. If I had one thing that I would change about this room it would be to have a boys and girls restroom situated between the art and music room. The closest rest room is outside across a patio and with current school safety issues I am not comfortable sending students outside alone. Question 17: What are your other responsibilities?

Teacher E: I am on the SITE Council, which meets once month to discuss school-wide business. I do 30 minutes of morning duty and 5-10 minutes of afternoon duty for half of the school year. Teacher H: I am the school TEC representative. This position helps teachers with a variety of professional development issues; accumulating continuing

178

education points, reimbursement for travel to conferences and workshops, assisting teachers in completing necessary forms to attend workshops, conferences, etc. Also, this year I have been in charge of organizing Professional Learning Communities which consists of small book study groups. For that, I have a budget of approximately $4,000.00. I also teach Reading to twenty seventh-graders who are on a FCAT level three level in reading. Teacher I: Throughout the year I have 6 weeks of morning playground and/or hall duty for 30 minutes. The first and last weeks of school all teachers are on duty and the other 4 weeks rotates so every one has the same amount of duty. The music teacher and I share afternoon bus duty one week on and one week off. Bus duty can last from 10 to 25 minutes depending upon how the buses are running. Each year our team (art, PE, music, guidance and media) rotates various assignments and responsibilities. This year I am sharing the team PTO Rep. (evening meetings) responsibility with the music teacher. I also serve on the math/technology committee and the discipline committee. Although I think there is a need, these two committees almost never meet. As I said, we change from year to year so some years I might be on SITE, SAC or other committees. Question 18: What other courses have you taught besides art?

Teacher E: I taught 2 Compensatory math classes at another middle school, a 6th grade class and an 8th grade class. I was the yearbook sponsor for 7 years, which included teaching a Journalism class for one semester each of those years. Teacher H: I have taught high school Humanities, Art History, and Reading. Teacher I: I am only certified to teach art, and I have never been asked to teach anything other than art.

Descriptive Responses Question 1: Please define or describe the DBAE approach to art education.

179

Teacher E: Discipline Based Art Education involves students in not only art production but also practicing art criticism, learning about art history, and discussing and learning about aesthetic issues in art. Teacher H: My definition of DBAE would be an art program that combines history, criticism, aesthetics and project production in one curriculum. Teacher I: I would define DBAE as the study of art in which the content is taken from the four art disciplines of art history (using images, timelines and information on artists and cultures in a historical context), art criticism (forming judgments about works of art based on discussion and writing), art production (creative, hands-on experience with art materials) and aesthetics (learning about the nature and value of art). The content is taught in a written, sequentially organized curriculum with appropriate assessment. Several years ago we wrote units called CHATs (Comprehensive Holistic Assessment Task). A typical unit would focus on a work of art that expressed a universal theme. Students were guided to interpret and discover meaning through a series of lessons or events where they would talk about art, write about art and make art. Most of these units made connections to other works of art and/or other areas of the curriculum. My first experiences with DBAE involved team teaching with the Classroom teachers and this worked very well. At that time classroom teachers were using a process called Whole Language and this integrated approach to teaching several subjects was highly compatible to what was being accomplished in the DBAE approach. Question 2: Were you taught in the DBAE method of instruction in art?

Teacher E: I was taught the DBAE method through summer institutes offered by the Florida Institute of Art Education. Teacher H: Yes, when I attended classes at Florida State University the method of art education being taught was a DBAE approach. Teacher I: In college my undergraduate art classes were all studio based with almost no instruction from the professors. It was apparent early on that students from large city schools (New York City and Long Island) were much better

180

prepared and many were more talented. At the college level the hands-off or let them create approach was far less successful for me and for many others. Not only did professors not provide instruction on skills and techniques, but the only place we saw and related to important art was in the art history classestotally separated from our studio work. My graduate work at FSU was a totally different experience. The DBAE philosophy was present in almost every course I took. As I took what I learned at FSU to my classroom I found that the DBAE method of instruction made sense in so many ways. Students who were not naturally gifted in studio skills were getting excited about the artists and their styles. They enjoy discussing art, expressing opinions and yes learning art history! At FSU the professors not only taught about DBAE and had us do research, but they also modeled lessons so we experienced this method as a student, as well as a teacher. Question 3: Describe a typical DBAE-based lesson you have taught.

Teacher E: My mask unit starts out with an exploration of masks from around the world and throughout history that involves an art criticism session and matching game where the students study and conduct an art criticism of 27 paper mask samples (purchased through museums). After we explore the mask through the criticism questions, the students work in pairs to match written descriptions to each of the masks. We then read each description out loud and check the back of the mask to see if it is matched correctly. We then brainstorm all the reasons that people have worn masks through time. The students then begin to design their own mask, which they create with paper-mache. Aesthetic discussion is initiated by bringing in samples of ethnic masks and talking about how the meaning of a mask changes when it ceases to be an object connected with ceremony and becomes something to hang on the wall as decoration. Teacher H: An example of a typical DBAE art lesson I have taught is Creating Comics. I would use images by Roy Lichtenstein. I would talk about the Pop Art movement and Roy Lichtensteins techniques and styles used. I would include vocabulary such as benday dots, bold outlining, primary colors, and popular

181

culture. I would have students use this information to create a comic that was more relevant to their actual situation; social issues, etc. After creating the project either by drawing or creating it on the computer, I would have them critique either their own artwork or another students. Teacher I: Under a broad theme of looking at the world in different ways, I introduced my fourth and fifth grade students to a New Orleans artist James Michalopoulos, a playful, contemporary Impressionist painter. I dont know if he is well known throughout the country, but he has a Web site, a gallery in NYC, and is quite popular in New Orleans. He is most famous for architectural portraits, colorful and stylized interpretations of New Orleans buildings. I used a large poster reproduction of one of his works to introduce the artist with an art criticism activity. I took the class to his web site and we looked at and discussed several more of his paintings. I also made a power point of several of Vincent Van Goghs paintings of buildings. We used this to compare and contrast their styles. For art history, we read the biography of Michalopoulos from his web site and read about Vincent Van Gogh from the Getting to Know the Artist series. We also talked about the style both artists used in their work. Students were asked to choose a building in Tallahassee/Leon County that they would sketch and paint in a creative way. I expected students to choose important places like the state capital and some did. However, there was a wonderful variety of buildings that students considered very important like their homes, churches, Skate World and even the Dollar Store or Wal-Mart. Ive done a version of this unit two times now and both times the students have thoroughly enjoyed painting a local building/ scene in this colorful creative way. I have made colorful displays of student work entitled Paint the Town Wild. After an exhibit at the public library a student told me about showing his painting to his mother. She had asked him why he didnt use the right colors for the building he painted. He showed her the explanation and visuals that went with the display and told her how artists looked at the world in different ways and explained the reasons for some of his color choices.

182

Question 4:

What led to your using elements of the DBAE approach?

Teacher E: I wanted to be current with my teaching methods first and foremost. But I also realized the benefits in teaching a class that is not just production. DBAE infused curriculum is richer, broader, and has the potential to connect with more students as well as subjects. Teacher H: Learning this method at FSU probably led to my using it in my teaching career. However, I think it is a very good method. It is holistic I think you could say. It pulls information from different areas as well as encourages higher level thinking skills (critiques). Teacher I: I had excellent training both at FSU that was supplemented by a two-week workshop at the Civic Center with a team of teachers from my school. After the workshop we were to return to I School and implement the DBAE unit we had developed. We were also asked to provide training for other teachers at our school. For several years DBAE was very much in use at I School. We had many teachers who went through the training and I would work with various teachers and grade levels to write and implement DBAE units where some of the study was done in the classroom and some in the art lab. This wonderful cooperative venture has pretty much fallen by the wayside with the current importance placed on testing. Classroom teachers are under pressure to prepare students for the FCAT and if they have any time for hands-on or creative work, it is devoted to science and technology (since we have become a magnet program in those areas). The DBAE approach lends itself to cross-curricular work and team teaching, but it also works very well for units within the art room. I have always developed and taught some in-depth DBAE units for each grade level. Question 5: What have you discarded from the DBAE approach?

Teacher E: I do not do formal art criticism except when I take my students to museums. Aesthetic questions are raised and discussed in informal ways (teachable moments) rather than as a formal activity. Teacher H: I havent discarded anything about DBAE. I still cover history, aesthetics, criticism and production.

183

Teacher I:

When I was first trained I spent a lot of time with criticism, history

and aesthetics. I dont know if I ever spent the recommended 25% of time on each area but a lot of time was devoted to each one. I have not discarded any of the four major disciplines, but I have reduced the time I spend on criticism, history and aesthetics. I spend more time on studio activities. Currently, students get so little in the way of hands-on experiences in the classroom and they spend so much time preparing (drilling) for tests. They come to the art room for one 50-minute period per week and I think they need that time for actively creating their own work. For example, I usually use at least one example of adult artwork to introduce the studio work for a class. But, I dont always have an indepth critique that covers sensory qualities, technical qualities, compositional features, expressive qualities or subject matter. I dont always have students look into the life of the artist, the culture, or the conditions surrounding the creation of the artwork. I dont always address aesthetic concerns about the nature or value of the art. And many times, I dont make the connections to other areas of the curriculum. I might make mention of some points that cover these areas, but I dont devote an entire lesson to them. For example, I might mention some of the science connections when working with clay (evaporation, the way matter can change from liquid to solid etc.), but it would be in passing. Question 6: Why are these no longer in use in your classroom?

Teacher E: The questioning technique in art criticism just doesnt lend itself to my program as it is now in my classroom. Again, when we go to museums it is most appropriate. Teacher H: I havent discarded anything. I still cover history, aesthetics, criticism and production (Question 5 answer) . Teacher I: Entire lessons devoted to history, criticism and aesthetics are seldom used in my classroom because of a lack of time and the reduced opportunities for team teaching with regular classroom teachers. Criticism, history and aesthetics are not totally absent from my classroom, but they are given much less time than studio work. I would devote more time to these areas

184

if students had art more frequently. One 50-minute class per week is a very small amount of time, and if there is a holiday or a school program it is often less than that. For each grade level (every year) I create at least one, sometimes two, major units that include a substantial amount of time for history and criticism and some time for aesthetics. The rest of the projects are not so in-depth and are mainly studio production. I might show an appropriate example or two and have a short discussion but I devote more time to teaching techniques and having the children experiment and develop their skills and create their own work. Question 7: paradigm? Teacher E: I am not sure what you mean here. What could be considered outside of production, history, talking about art? Teacher H: I think everything I teach falls in the paradigm. Nothing in my program is outside of DBAE. Teacher I: I have introduced aspects of popular visual culture into many of my lessons. Things like books, movies, music, television, web sites and video games play an important part in the daily lives of most children. The popular culture images can provide a strong connection to art and enhance art learning. Helping students understand and analyze images from the visual culture is an important part of their education. Interestingly, I have found that students have encountered many important, historical art images in the popular culture (The Scream, Mona Lisa, etc.). These previous experiences provide a limited prior knowledge, but more importantly they offer a great entry point for learning about art in the DBAE way. I guess my emphasis on production does not fit the DBAE paradigm. Although I provide more hands-on, studio experiences without the indepth history, criticism and aesthetics, I do not exclusively emphasize creative self-expression the way I was taught many years ago. I was provided with a variety of art materials through my K-12 school years, but I was not taught skills and techniques and I was never shown examples of adult art. I do provide adult examples of art and attempt to expose children to art from the present to the What do you teach in art that falls outside of the DBAE

185

worlds past cultures and eras. I do instruct students in the area of skills and techniques and provide them time to experiment, problem-solve and develop their abilities. Because of the cut back in time for the 3 non-production aspects of DBAE, I dont always make those strong connections to universal themes or essential questions as I would in a DBAE unit. I think they are an important component of teaching kids to find meaning in art, so I do present open-ended questions that help students think about big questions. I dont know if Ive answered this question correctly. I really cant think of anything that Ive added that falls outside the DBAE paradigm except popular visual culture; and quite often that is connected to historical art. I have restructured my priorities to devote more time to studio activities and less to writing, reading, discussion etc. Question 8: When were these added to your program?

Teacher E: Not being sure about what could be outside of the DBAE paradigm, I dont think I have added anything else to the art program. Teacher H: I have not added anything to the art program that is not DBAE. Teacher I: I added an emphasis on popular culture gradually over the last few years. I read about this approach and took some workshops at art conferences. As with most ideas, I couldnt see a compelling reason to completely change everything I was doing, but I could find ways to address visual culture within the framework of my version of the DBAE approach. I did see merit in some of what I read so I began to include the popular visual culture as a part of some of my lessons.

Evaluative Questions Question 1: How much of your art curriculum do feel follows the DBAE approach? Teacher E: Approximately one third of my units employ DBAE in some fashion. Teacher H: My entire art curriculum follows the DBAE approach.

186

Teacher I:

Each grade level is taught one or two major units that follow the

DBAE approach. A DBAE unit could extend over 5 to 10 class periods. So a long unit would take up an entire 9-week grading period. There are 4 nine-week grading periods in the school year; therefore a third, fourth or fifth grade class would have one-quarter to one-half of the curriculum devoted to the DBAE approach. I do not think I ever devote more than one half of the curriculum to long, DBAE structured units. The primary grades (K, 1 and 2) are also exposed to at least one (probably 2 for first and second23e grade) long unit(s). I would not have a unit extend for 9 or 10 class periods at the primary level, so the time devoted strictly to DBAE would be about one fourth of the curriculum. Question 2: What were the most useful aspects of the DBAE approach in your classroom? Teacher E: Art History. Teacher H: I like the way you pull a lot of rich information into the project. It gives the students a better understanding of what they are making. It gives the reason for why they are making it and why other people or cultures made it too. Teacher I: Broad art centered themes (DBAE units) help students understand, appreciate and respond to art, in addition to creating their own art. Students are taught ways to discover meaning in works of art. Through a variety of methods cross-curricular connections are often made. These aspects of study are very useful in reaching students who are not very successful in their personal art making. Sometimes students have a lack of coordination or fine motor skills. Sometimes I get students who lack prior instruction in art. Whatever the reason, when students do not like their art or feel unsuccessful in art production, it is wonderful to see them excited about discussing and learning about art images and ideas. Exposing students to art images and letting them grapple with ideas from the art world also helps them create art that has meaning. Question 3: Why are these facets of DBAE of value to you as an art teacher?

187

Teacher E: I think kids like to find out where or how something originated. Giving them the historical background on a technique or artist helps to give that subject some soul. Teacher H: I am constantly learning myself, doing research to prepare and bring a rich array of information to my students. Teacher I: As an art teacher I know that most of my students will not pursue a career in the art world. However, I hope to build a lifelong appreciation of the arts and a set of skills to assist them in finding meaning in visual images. The study of criticism, history and aesthetics assists in this process. I would hope one of my students would not become an adult who says, Any kid could do that. or I dont know if its art, I only know what I like. Learning art history, and learning to discover meaning and value through criticism and aesthetics prepares students to think in a systematic manner and to view the world in different ways. Reading about, writing about and discussing culturally valued art images broadens students understanding of art, connects to other areas of the curriculum and enhances students ability to create and express art that has meaning. As an art teacher, it is helpful to have students who value art (both their own and others). It sets up a positive atmosphere for learning about and creating art. Question 4: What might be of value in those aspects of DBAE that you no longer use if they were changed to meet your classroom needs? Teacher E: Art Criticism - Students need to learn how to express themselves verbally. They have a hard time with this when they are in a classroom discussion. Art Criticism helps them find ways to express their thoughts, gives them a way to exercise their current vocabulary, learn and apply new vocabulary. Teacher H: I still use DBAE [only]. Teacher I: I still value all aspects of the DBAE process, as I understand it. What would have to be changed would be the amount of time a student spends in the art classroom. If I could teach students art on a daily basis the way reading and writing is taught, I would always use in-depth DBAE units. Another

188

change that would meet my classroom needs would be to have the team teaching process back in effect. As I mentioned earlier, before the huge emphasis on tests and school grades, I worked on units with classroom teachers. Some (if not all) of the discussion, writing and history took place in the classroom. Students saw art as an integral part of their education when it was approached in this way. Question 5: Why were they added to your program? Teacher E: I added DBAE to my art program because I saw the value in teaching more than just art production to my students. I went through several trainings (the first in 1990, before entering the master's program) offered by the Florida Institute for Art Education that was started and directed by Jesse Lovanno-Kerr and Nancy Roucher. Teacher H: I began teaching when I graduated from FSU, and I was trained in DBAE at FSU. I started using DBAE with my first teaching position following graduation; I did not add it to an existing program. Teacher I: I actually added facets of DBAE instruction when I first began teaching in 1965. Of course, I had never heard of DBAE then but I quickly realized that I needed to do more for my students than provide motivation and art materials. I started out in a junior high situation where the students had little if any art instruction in elementary school. Their art skills were low and their interest and enthusiasm was commensurate with their skill level. On my own, I discovered that if I told them stories about artists and showed them pictures from art history books (no prints back then); I had a better chance of grabbing their interest. Broad universal themes and/or Essential Questions were added to my program when I was working on the development and pilot testing of units called CHATs. This happened when I was in graduate school in the late 80s and early 90s. A focal work of art was chosen that expressed some universal theme. This practice was added to provide the umbrella for a unit that could make many cross-curricular connections. Before I learned to design and implement the CHAT model, I used criticism, history or aesthetic activities along with production

189

on a fairly regular basis. The difference was that the CHAT was much more involved, in-depth and time-consuming. Question 6: What is their value to the art program? Teacher E: Using a DBAE approach allows me to offer a broader view to my students of how art has an impact on our lives. It allows for greater interdisciplinary connections, especially through the addition of art history and aesthetics. Teacher H: I learn myself as I do research to prepare and bring information to my students. Teacher I: The study of an artwork based on a universal theme would guide students to discover meaning by talking about art, writing about art and making art. This type of study enhanced learning in many areas and increased knowledge and understanding of visual arts. Question 7: How do DBAE aspects and non-DBAE aspects of your program work together? Teacher E: Non-DBAE approaches are used in addition to or to underscore teaching art production, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. Teacher H: I am not really familiar with the non-DBAE aspects. I assume you mean that you do a project with no background information and no reflection or research. I think with out this supporting material you have a weak project. Teacher I: The introduction of popular visual culture into the art curriculum has enhanced student interest in art and has many times provided a link or prior knowledge about historically important art. Students who have made a connection to art through their visual culture are more likely to value and remember their experiences. Using popular culture images for compare/contrast discussions has fit very well into some DBAE activities. Question 8: What art education approaches do you believe are gaining momentum at this time?

190

Teacher E: The only thing I can think of is not a new idea, but it seems to be the buzzword right now, and that is Enduring Ideas, the big themes of the world that can help be a framework for exploring and creating artwork. It has been a couple of years since I have gone to a state or national conference, and my NAEA membership has expired and I dont get their journal so I am out of the loop. Teacher H: I dont know. I feel like I am out of the loop. Teacher I: I have read a lot about the study of visual culture and I see it as the subject for workshops at conferences, so I think that it is pretty well established as a trend. I have also read about the child-centered approach which sounds a lot like the creative- expression type of teaching (or non-teaching) that I experienced as a young student. The comprehensive art education approach has been around for even longer, and I liked the fact that it seemed less rigid or prescriptive and more inclusive of a variety of instructional approaches. Multicultural theories have been around since the 70s so that can hardly be called a new approach. But it was lacking in early DBAE units and it has not lost its importance in the planning of art curriculum. I may not be as up to date as I should be. Ill be on the look out at the state and national conference this year to see what the new trends are. Question 9: How do you see this occurring? Teacher E: How is Enduring Idea gaining momentum? through the new textbooks that are being written/revised now by Marilyn Stewart. I just went to a workshop by her and this seems to be a prominent aspect of the Davis publication books. Although I am not employing this approach in my program yet, given more time to study and plan, I see that it could be an excellent way to tie together the work produced during a semester by my advanced art students. Their portfolios at the end of the semester would be a more cohesive body of work as a result. Teacher H: (See answer #8 in this section: I dont know. I feel like I am out of the loop.)

191

Teacher I:

I do not get to visit in other art rooms, but I meet regularly with the

county elementary art teachers. From our sharing and presentations I can say that I see some teachers who are incorporating visual culture into their curriculum. Most elementary art programs in this county appear to follow the comprehensive approach to art education that employs some facets of DBAE. I am aware of other trends through reading and attending conferences. Question 10: Teacher E: How do they relate to DBAE in your mind? The theme framework of Enduring Ideas would allow artworks

done by student within a class or done over time by one individual to relate to each other. It would also provide a topic that can be applied to all four of the components of DBAE (production, history, criticism, aesthetics). That theme would drive the selection of historical artworks to investigate through criticism and historical study, topics for aesthetic discussion, and ideas for art production. Teacher H: (See answer #8 in this section: I dont know. I feel like I am out of the loop.) Teacher I: I think the comprehensive art education approach is broad and inclusive and allows for facets of DBAE and other methods to be combined. Ive already written how I have seen the connections that can be made with the visual culture through DBAE. Multicultural approaches blended well with DBAE methods. Question 11: What aspects of DBAE do you expect to retain in your

curriculum in the future? Teacher E: To some extent, all aspects of DBAE will continue to be a part of my curriculum. Teacher H: I plan to continue to retain all of the DBAE aspects in my curriculum. Teacher I: Unless there is a change in my schedule (more time with students) I plan to devote up to1/4 of the allotted art time to broad units that include art

192

history, art criticism and aesthetics. The remainder of the time I will concentrate on art production. Question 12: Teacher E: Art Production - People want to make stuff with their hands! There is a sense of pride that comes from creating something that has beauty in your or others eyes. Art History - As noted above, learning the origins of something helps to bring it alive and give it more meaning. Art Criticism Invaluable tool in a museum setting when we are all standing around looking at an unfamiliar piece of art. Aesthetics When the opportunity arises to really discuss an aesthetic issue it is wonderful to see students risk voicing their opinion, and to think on a different (higher) level. If I pick the right topic and start with the right questions, I cant shut them up. Thats when I know success in this area. Teacher H: I feel that these will be retained because it provides for a better education; a richer, deeper, understanding of how and why and more thought and understanding put into projects. Teacher I: As I have written in above paragraphs I have had great success with DBAE methods and I limit their use only because time in art class is scarce and access to team teaching situations is just about non-existent. Why do you feel that these will be retained?

193

APPENDIX C HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL MEMORANDUM #1

194

APPENDIX D INFORMED CONSENT FORM #1

195

APPENDIX E HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL MEMORANDUM #2

196

APPENDIX F INFORMED CONSENT FORM #2

197

REFERENCES
Amburgy, P. M. (1990). Culture for the masses: art education and progressive reforms, 1880-1917. In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewics (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 102-114). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Amburgy, P. M. Fads, frills, and basic subjects: Special studies and social conflict in Chicago in 1893. Studies in Art Education. 43(2), 109-123. Anderson, T. (1985). Toward a socially defined studio curriculum. Art Education, 38(5), 16-18. Anderson, T. (1991). The content of art criticism. Art Education, 44(1), 17-24. Anderson, T. (2000). Real lives: Art teachers and the cultures of schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Anderson, T. (personal communication, April 10, 2006). Anderson, T. & Milbrandt, M. K. (2005). Art for life: Authentic instruction in art. New York: McGraw-Hill. Andreessen, M., Barry, J. & van Hoesel, F. (2003). Cold War: Postwar Estrangement. In Soviet archives exhibit. [On-line]. URL = < http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/ coldwar.html/>. Artsedge. (1999). Standards. The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. URL = http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/teach/standards.cfm. Bagley, W. C., Learned, William S. et al. (1965). Purpose of a normal school. In M. L. Borrowman (Ed.), Teacher education in America: A documentary history (pp.184-207). New York: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted from The professional preparation of teachers for American public schools: A study based upon an examination of tax-supported normal schools in the state of Missouri, Bulletin No. 14, pp.70-82, by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1920, NY: The Foundation) Barkan, M. (1955). A foundation for art education. New York: Ronald Press. Barkan, M. (1966). Curriculum problems in art education. In Beittel, K. R. & Mattil, E. L. (Eds.), A seminar in art education for research and curriculum development, (pp. 240-258). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Barkan, M., Chapman, L., & Kern, E. (1970). Guidelines: Curriculum development for aesthetic education. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL.

198

Bird, A. (Spring 2005). "Thomas Kuhn", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/thomas-kuhn/>. Bernier, N. R. & Williams, J. E. (1973). Beyond beliefs: Ideological foundations of American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentiss Hall. Bigge, M. L. & Shermis, S. S. (1992). Learning theories for teachers (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Brickman, W. W. (2000). Teacher training. In Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. [On Line] Available: http://encarta.msn.com. Brown, R. G. (1991). Schools of thought: How the politics of literacy shape thinking in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burton, D. (1996). The 1996 survey of U. S. K-12 NAEA visual arts teacher. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Burton, J., Lederman, A., & London, P. (Eds.). (1988). Beyond DBAE: The case for multiple visions of art education. New York: University Council for Art Education. Bybee, R. W. (April 1998). The Sputnik Era: Why is this educational reform different from all other reforms? Forum on Education Newsletter. Washington, D.C: Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education National Research Council. Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carroll, K. L. (1997). Researching paradigms in art education. In S. D. LaPierre & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Research methods and methodology for art education (pp. 171-192). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

199

Chalmers, F. G. (1987). Beyond current conceptions of discipline-based art education. Art Education, 40(5), 58-61. Chapman, L. H. (1987). Discover art. Worchester, MA: Davis Publishing Company. Charles, C.M. & Mertler, C.A. (2002). Introduction to educational research (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Clark, G. (1984a). Getting back on track. Art Education, 37(3), 4, 46. Clark, G. (1984b). The years after. Art Education, 37(4), 4. Clark, G. (1997). Critics, criticism, and the evolution of discipline-based art education. Visual Arts Research, 23(2), 12-18. Clark, G. & Zimmerman, E. (1978). A walk in the right direction: A model for visual arts education. Studies in Art Education, 19(2), 34-49. Clark, G., Day, M., & Greer, W. D. (1987). Discipline-based art education: Becoming students of art. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 129-196. Clifford, G. J. & Guthrie, J. W. (1990). Ed school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clowse, B. B. (1981). Brainpower for the Cold War: the Sputnik Crisis and National Defense Education Act of 1958. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Congdon, K. G. (2005). What have I learned from Other art educators. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 138-149. Crawford, D. (1987). Aesthetics in discipline-based art education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 227-239. Cremin, L. A. (1957). The republic and the school. New York: Teachers College Press. Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1867-1957. New York: Knopf. Cremin, L. A. (1977). Traditions of American education. New York: Basic Books. Cremin, L. A. (1964). Transformation of the school. New York: Vintage Books. Day, M. (personal communication, March 30, 1991).

200

Day, M. (1997a). Preparing teachers of art for 2000 and beyond. In M. Day (Ed.), Preparing teachers of art (pp. 3-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Day, M. (1997b). Influences of discipline-based art education within art education. Visual Arts Research, 23(2), 19-24. Degge, R. (1987). A descriptive study of community art educators with implications for teacher preparation and cultural policy. Studies in Art Education, 28, (3), 164175. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.), (pp. 1-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dewey, J. & Dewey, E. (1915/1953). Schools of tomorrow. New York: Dutton. Dewey, J. [1902] 1965. The relation of theory to practice in education. In M. L. Borrowman (Ed.), Teacher education in America: A documentary history (pp.140-171). New York: Teachers College Press. (Reprinted from The relation of theory to practice in the education of teachers, National Society for the Scientific Study of Education, Third Yearbook, Part I, pp. 9-30, 1904, Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company. DiBlasio, M. K. (1997). Certification and licensure requirements for art education: Comparison of state systems. In M. Day (Ed.), Preparing teachers of art (pp. 73100). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Dillman, D.A. & Salant, P. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dobbs, S. M. (1992). Discipline-based art education. In The DBAE handbook: An overview of discipline-based art education. Santa Monica, CA: The J. Paul Getty Trust. Dobbs, S. M. (2004). In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 409-413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Doerr, S. L. (1984). If you want to get stroked, talk to your mother: Art education as the discipline it deserves to be. In Art Education, 37(1), 31-34. Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 175-200). New York City: Teachers College Press.

201

Dorn, C. M. (1984). The arts as academic education. Art Education, 37(4), 16-19. Dorn, C. M. (2005). Visual culture: The death of art in education. Art Education, 58(6), 47-51. Duke, L. L. (1983). The Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Art Education, 36(5), 4-8. Duke, L. L. (1987). The Getty Center for Education in the Arts and discipline-based art education. Art Education, 41(2), 7-12. Duncum, P. (2001). Visual culture: Developments, definitions, and directions for art education. Studies in Art Education, 42(2), 101-112. Duncum, P. (2002). Clarifying visual culture art education. Art Education, 55(3), 6-11. Efland, A. D. (1983). Art education during the great depression. Art Education,36 (6), 38-42. Efland, A. (1987). Curriculum antecedents of discipline-based art education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 57-94. Efland, A. D. (1988). How art became a discipline: Looking at our recent history. Studies in art education, 29 (3), 262-274. Efland, A. D. (1990a). A history of art education. New York: Teachers College Press. Efland, A. D. (1990b). Art education in the twentieth century: a history of ideas. In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewics (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 117-138). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Efland, A.D. (2004). Emerging visions of art education. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 691-700). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Efland, A.D. (2005). Visual culture: The problems confronting visual culture. Art Education. 58(6). 35-40. Eisner, E. W. (1965a). Graduate study and the preparation of scholars in art education. In W. R. Hastie (Ed.), Art education: The sixty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 274-298). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eisner, E. (1965b). Toward a new era in art education. Studies in Art Education, 6(2), 54-62.

202

Eisner, E. W. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan. Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs, 2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Eisner, E. W. (1988). Discipline-based art education: Its criticisms and its critics. Art Education, 41(6), 7-13. Eisner, E.W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan. Eisner, E. W. (2001). Should we create new aims for art education? Art Education, 54(5), 6-10. Elsbree, W. S. (1939). The American teacher: Evolution of a profession in a democracy. New York: American book. Erickson, M. (1979). An historical explanation of the schism between research and practice in art education. Studies in Art Education, 20(2), 5-13. Erickson, M. (2004). Interaction of teachers and curriculum. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 467-486). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Feinstein, H. (1989). Redesigning preservice programs to implement DBAE: Institutional realities. Art Education, 42(2), 6-9. Feldman, E. B. (1996). Philosophy of art education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Florida Department of Education. (1996). Sunshine state standards in visual arts. URL = http://www.firn.edu/doe/menu/sss.htm. Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research, (2nd ed.), (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Freedman, K. & Stuhr, P. (2004). Curriculum change for the 21st century: Visual culture in art education. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 815-828). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

203

Galbraith, L. & Spomer, M. J. (1986). Does art history go to school? Art Education, 39(5), 10-13. Galbraith, L. (1997). What are teachers taught? An analysis of curriculum components for art teacher preparation programs. In M. Day (Ed.), Preparing teachers of art (pp. 45-72). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Garber, S. (2003). Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age [On-line]. URL = <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sputnik/>. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: BasicBooks. General Bulletin: 1997-1999 Graduate Studies. (1997). Tallahassee, FL: The Florida State University Office of the Registrar. Getty Center for Education in the Arts. (1985). Beyond creating: The place for art in Americas schools. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Center for Education in the Arts. (1988). The Preservice challenge: disciplinebased art education and recent reports on higher education. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust.

Getty Center for Education in the Arts. (1993). Improving visual arts education: Final Report on the Los Angeles Getty Institute for educators on the visual arts (1982-1989). Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust. Gray, J. U. (1987). A seventy-five percent solution for the success of DBAE. Art Education, 40(5), 54-57. Greer, D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 212-218. Greer, D. & Rush, J. (1985). A grand experiment: The Getty institutes for educators on the visual arts. Art Education, 37(1), 24, 33-35. Hagaman, S. (1988). Philosophical aesthetics in the art class: A look toward implementation. Art Education, 41(3), 18-22. Hamblen, K. A. (1985). Developing aesthetic literacy through contested concepts. Art Education, 38(5), 19-22. Hamblen, K. A. (1987). An examination of discipline-based art education issues. Studies in Art Education, 28(2), 68-78. Hamblen, K. A. (1988). What does DBAE teach? Art Education, 41(2), 23-24,33-35. Hamblen, K. A. & Galenes, C. (1991). Instructional options for aesthetics: Exploring 204

the possibilities. Art Education, 44(6), 12-24. Harper, Charles A. (1970). A century of public teacher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Publishers. Hausman, J. J. (1987). Another view of discipline-based art education. Art Education, 40(1), 56-60. Hausman, J. J. (1988). Back to the future: Reflections on present-day emphases in curriculum and evaluation. Art Education, 41(2), 37-41. Heise, D. (2004). Is visual culture becoming our canon of art? Art Education, 57(5), 41-46. Helberg, R. (1985). A national curriculum? Art Education, 39(1), 9-11. Historytimeline.com (2004, February 21). [On-line] URL= <http://historytimeline.com/Norm/normindex.htm/>. Hoffa, H. E. (1984). The roots of art education in the United States. Art Education, 37(1), 24-26. Hope, S. (2004). Art education in a world of cross-purposes. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 409-413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hubbard, G., & Rouse, M. (1981). Art: Meaning, method, and media. Chicago: Benefic Press. Hurwitz, A. (1990). Chronicle: A report to NAEA president Amelia Sanchez, June 10, 2020. Art Education, 43(1), 12-19. Janesik, V. J. (2003). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.), (pp. 46-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Jeffers, C. (1993). Research as art and art as research: A living relationship. Art Education, 46(5), 12-17. Jeffers, C. (1993). A survey of instructors of arts methods courses for preservice elementary teachers. Studies in Art Education, 29 (2), 72-80. King, A. & Brownell, J. (1966). The curriculum and the disciplines of knowledge. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

205

Kleinbauer, W. E. (1987). Art history in discipline-based art education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 205-215. Korzenik, D. (1990). A developmental history of art Education. In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewics (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 201-212). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social research: An integrated approach. New York: Longman Publishing Group. Kuhn, Thomas, S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Second edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lanier, V. (1977). The five faces of art education. Studies in art education, 18(3), 7-21. Lanier, V. (1987). A*R*T*, a friendly alternative to DBAE. Art Education, 40(5), 46-52. Lankford, E. L. (1990). Preparation and risk in teaching aesthetics. Art Education, 43(5), 51-56. The Library of Congress. (2002, September 26). Immigration to the United States, 1851-1900. In Rise of industrial America, 1876-1900. [On-line] URL = <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/features/timeline/riseind/immgnts/immgr nts.html/>. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. London, P. (1998). Lowenfeld verbatim. Art Education, 51(3), 56-60. Lovano-Kerr, J. & Roucher, N. (1995). Florida Institute for Art Education Participant Notebook. Tallahassee, FL: The Florida State University. Lowenfeld, V. (1950). Creative and mental growth: Revised edition. New York: Macmillan. Lowenfeld, V. (1958). Current research on creativity. NEA Journal, 47, 538-540. MacDonald, S. (1970). The history and philosophy of art education. New York: American Elseviuer Publishing Company. Magrath, C. P. & Egbert, R. L. (1987). Strengthening Teacher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McFee, J. K. (1961). Preparation for Art. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press. McFee, J. K. (1965). Art for the economically and socially deprived. In W. R. Hastie

206

(Ed.), Art education: The sixty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 153-174). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McMillan, J. H. (1992). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. Michael, J. A. (1991). Art education: Nurture or nature where is the pendulum now? Art Education, 44(4), 16-23. Miller, P. K. (1983). Art teacher training must change. Art Education, 36 (5), 36-37. Mims, S. K. & Lankford, E. L. (1994). The new art education and what weve learned from superwoman. Art Education, 47(3). 57-61. Mittler, G. A. (1986). Toward a more complete introduction to art in the high school. Art Education, 39(6), 10-13. Muth, H. (1988). A commentary on DBAE. Art Education, 41(2) National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. (2006). Nation Board Certified Teachers of Leon County Members, NBCT's of Leon County, Inc. [Online], URL = http://sharepoint.leon.k12.fl.us/nbct/Lists/National%20Board%20Certified%20Tea chers%20of%20Leon%20County/AllItems.aspx The new lexicon Websters dictionary of the English language. (1988). New York: Lexicon Publications, Inc. Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the visual arts. New York: Doubleday. Parks, M. E. (1989). Art education in a post-modern age. Art Education, 42(2), 10-13. Parsons, M. (2004). Art and integrated curriculum. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 775-794). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Piel, G. (1986). The social process of science. Science. 231, 201. Price, M. (1987). Forward. The journal of aesthetic education, 21(2), p. v. Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. New York: Simon and Schuster. Ravitch. D. (2004). A Brief History of Teacher Professionalism. White House

207

Conference on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers. [On-line] URL = http://www.ed. gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/preparingteachersconference/ravitch.html/. Rhoades, J. (1985). Initial findings on the origin of the International Society for Education Through Art. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.), History of Art Education: Proceedings from the Penn State Conference (pp. 334-337). Reston, VA: NAEA. Rippa, S. A. (1992). Education in a free society: An American history. New York: Longman. Risatti, H. (1987). Art criticism in discipline-based art education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21 (2), 217-225. Rogers, E. T., & Brogdon, R. E. (1990). A survey of NAEA curriculum standards in art teacher preparation programs. Studies in Art Education, 31 (2), 168-173. Saunders, R. J. (1983). Presidential statements in art education. Art Education, 36 (3), 36-39. Saunders, R. J. (1990). Elizabeth P. Peabody's quest for art in moral education. In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewicz (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Schubert, T. E. (1986). Art education: Five rationales. Art Education, 39(1). 41-43. Schultz, P., Chambliss, C., & Decuir, J. (2004). Multimethods research. In K. de Marais & S. Lapan (Eds.) Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 267-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed,). New York: Teachers College Press. Sellers, C. & May, H. (1963). A synopsis of American history. Chicago: Rand McNalley & Company. Sevigny, M. J. (1987). Discipline-based art education and teacher education. The journal of aesthetic education, 21(2), 95-126. Siegesmund, R. (1998). Why do we teach art today? Conceptions of art education and their justification. Studies in art education, 19 (3), 197-214. Silverman, R. H. (1988). The egalitarianism of discipline-based art education. Art Education, 41(2), 13-18. Sizer, T. (1964). The age of academies. New York: Teachers College Press.

208

Smith, P. (1996). The history of American art education: Learning about art in Americas schools. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Smith, R. A. (1981). Art, the human career, and aesthetic education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 15(3), 9-25. Smith, R. A. (1987a). The changing image of art education: Theoretical antecedents of discipline-based art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 3-34. Smith, R. A. (1987b). Introduction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), ix. Smith, R. A. (1987c). Excellence in art education. Art Education, 40(1), 8-15. (2003). John Dewey (1859-1952). Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies. [On-line]. Available: http://educate.si.edu/spotlight/school.html. Spratt, F. (1987). Art production in discipline-based art education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 197-204. Spring, J. H. (2004). American education (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Stankiewicz, M. A. (1984). "The Eye" Is a Nobler Organ": Ruskin and American art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education. 18(2), 51-64. Stankiewicz, M. A. (1992). From the aesthetic movement to the arts and crafts movement. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research. 33(3), 165-173. Stokrocki, M. (2004). Context for teaching art. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 439-466). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Stout, C. J. (1990). Emphasis on expressive outcomes in teaching art education. Art Education, 43(5), 57-65. Sullivan, G. (2004). Studio art as research practice. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 795-814). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Tavin, K. & Hausman, J. (2004). Art education and visual culture in the age of globalization: all is one. Art Education, 57(5), 47-52. Thurber, F. (2004). Teacher education as a field of study in art education: A comprehensive overview of methodology and methods used in research about art teacher education. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research

209

and policy in art education (pp. 487-522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (2006). Title I, Part A: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. [Online], URL = http://www.myfloridaeducation.com/doe/title1/parta.htm Topping, R. J. (1990). Art education: A crisis in priorities. Art Education, 43(1), 20-24. Unsworth, J. M. (1992). Re-thinking Lowenfeld. Art Education, 45(1), 62-68. Wesley, E. (1957). NEA: The first hundred years. New York: Harper and Brothers. White, J. H. (2004). 20th-century art education: A historical perspective. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 409-413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Whitford, W. G. (1937). An introduction to art education. NY: D. Appleton-Century Company. Wilson, B. (1997). The quiet evolution: Changing the face of arts education. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Education Institute for the Arts. Wright, J. (1990). The artist, the art teacher, and misplaced faith: Creativity and art education. Art Education, 43(5), 50-57. Yarger, S. J., & Smith, P. L. (1990). Issues in research on teacher education. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.25-41). New York: McMillan. Zeller, T. (1984). A nation at risk: Mandate for change in arts education. Art Education, 37(4), 6-9. Zimmerman, E. (1984). What art teachers are not teaching, art students are not learning. Art Education, 37(4), 12-15. Zimmerman, E. (1997). Whence come we? What are we? Whither go we? In M. Day (Ed.), Preparing teachers of art (pp. 27-44). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Zimmerman, E. (2004). Introduction to teaching and teacher education. In M. D. Day & E. W. Eisner (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 409-413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

210

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
PERSONAL Ann Tippetts Christiansen was born July 19, 1950, to Frank and Janet Tippetts in Provo, Utah. She is the oldest of eight children. Ann and William Albert Christiansen were married January 27, 1972 in Salt Lake City, Utah. They are the parents of four children: Nathan, Shawn, Brandon, and Alissa. Ann has lived in Tallahassee, Florida since 1983. EDUCATION 1972 B.A., Art, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Major: Art Education Supporting Areas: Painting, Fiber Arts Minor: English M.S., Art Education The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida Thesis: CREATION MYTHS AND CREATIVITY IN CULTURE: A FOUNDATONAL EXAMINATION FOR ART EDUCATION Tom Anderson, thesis adviser Ph.D., Art Education The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Foci: Art Education, teacher preparation, and movements in American art education. Dissertation: WHAT DBAE-EDUCATED ART TEACHERS VALUE

1992

2006

AND WANT TO RETAIN FROM DISCIPLINE-BASED ART EDUCATION, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE TEACHER TRAINING IN ART
Tom Anderson, major professor ART EDUCATION TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1995-2006 Art Instructor, Elizabeth Cobb Middle School, Tallahassee, FL 1994 Adjunct Art Education Instructor, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 1993-1994 Art Instructor, FSU Developmental Research School, Tallahassee (as a graduate student fellowship assignment) 1992-1993 Art Instructor, Amos Godby High School, Tallahassee, FL 1984-1997 Instructor, Fairview Middle School, Tallahassee, FL 1982-1983 Adjunct Art Education Instructor, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 1978-1983 Art Instructor, American Fork Jr. High School, American Fork, UT 1977-1978 Art Instructor, Orem High School, Orem, UT 1972-1976 Art Instructor, Dixon Jr. High School, Provo, UT

211