atc dissertation

7/28/2019 ATC Dissertation

1/220

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 theDepartment of Art Education

in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:Spring Semester, 2007


2/220

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

Tom AndersonProfessor Directing Dissertation

Stanford OlsenOutside Committee Member

Pat VilleneuveCommittee Member

Melanie DavenportCommittee 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 namedcommittee members.


3/220

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.


4/220

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 andgraphics expertise and willingness to share it

Tom Anderson for his guidance in writing and his

unflagging encouragement to stay the course under

exceptional circumstances


5/220

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ................................................................................................ viii

Abstract ...................................................................................................... ix

1 INTRODUCTION 1

Problem Statement 4Guiding Question 4Supporting Questions 5Objectives of Study 5Personal Motivation 6Rationale for Study 6Justification of Study 7Scope and Limitations of Study 8Overview of Procedure and Methodology 8

Definition of Terms 9Summary 11

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12

Part I: A Brief History 14Approaching the 21

stCentury 14

Behaviorism 14Progressivism 15Reconstructionism 15Social Efficiency 16

Between World Wars 16Education 16

Progressivism vs. Behaviorism 16Teacher Education 18

Normal Schools 18Standardized Teacher Training 18

Art Education 18Child-Centered Art 18Levels of Art Education 19

World War II to the Demand for Excellence 20Education 21

Progressivism Under Attack 21Education Reform 22Child-Centered Schools 23Excellence in Education 23

Teacher Education 24Art Education/Art Teacher Training 24Child-Centered Art Education 24Content-Based Art Education 26

Summary of History 29Part II: A Paradigm Shift 31

Discipline-Based Art Education 31Why Discipline-Based Art Education? 31

Art as a Subject of Study 32Art as a Discipline 32

DBAE Articulated 33


6/220

Justification for DBAE 33DBAE Content & Strategies 34DBAE Curricula 35

Art For Every Student 36DBAE Assessment 37

DBAE at Florida State University 37Graduate Degree Programs 38

The F.I.A.E. 39Diverging Paths 39

Choices in Art Education 40Critics of DBAE 40Comprehensive Art Education 42Visual Culture Art Education 43

Summary of Review of Literature 43

3 METHODOLOGY 46

Problem Statement 46Guiding Questions 46Supporting Questions 46

Objectives 47Non-technical Overview of the Study 49

Theoretical Foundation 50Phenomenological Research 51Qualitative Research 52

The Survey 55The Interviews 56Population 59Survey Sample 60Interview Sample 61

Procedures and Instruments: Overview 62Literature Review as a Tool 64Survey Instrument 65Interview instrument 66Coding the Data 67Reporting the Data 70

Summary 71

4 STUDY RESULTS 73

Guiding Question 73Supporting Questions 73Survey 74

Survey Participants 74Teacher A 75Teacher B 75Teacher C 76Teacher D 76Teacher E 77Teacher F 78Teacher G 79Teacher H 79Teacher I 80Teacher J 80Teacher K 81


7/220

Survey Responses 82Demographic Responses 82Descriptive Responses 89Evaluative Responses 96

Summary of the Survey Findings 101Demographic Findings 101Descriptive Findings 102

Evaluative Findings 104Interviews 105

Interview Participants 107Teacher E 107Teacher H 108Teacher I 108

Interview Responses 109Demographic Responses 109Descriptive Responses 119Evaluative Responses 127

Summary 137

5 CONCLUSIONS 138

Guiding Question of the Study 138Supporting Questions 138

Summaries of Responses to Supporting Questions 139Supporting Question 1 140Supporting Question 2 140Supporting Question 3 141Supporting Question 4 143

Emergent Foci 145Age and Experience 146Early Training 147Continued Education 147

Administrative Support 148Summary of the Findings Presented Thematically 150Conclusion 152Implications For Theory and Practice in Art Education 154Future Research 156

APPENDICES ................................................................................................

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

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 198

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................. 211


8/220

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Teachers Ages............................................................................................. 82

2. Teachers Academic Degrees/Certificates...................................................... 84

3. Teachers School Levels............................................................................... 85

4. Teachers School Districts ............................................................................. 86

5. Special School Designations......................................................................... 87

6. School Letter Grades.................................................................................... 88

7. Teacher Grade Level Assignments ............................................................... 89


9/220

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 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 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 as

new notions of what should be included in art curricula emerge.


10/220

1

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 discipline-

based 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


11/220

2

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


12/220

3

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.


13/220

4

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 isArt 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?


14/220

5

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. 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?

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. Design a survey instrument and survey teachers to find a base of information and

an interview population;

3. 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


15/220

6

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


16/220

7

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.


17/220

8

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


18/220

9

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.


19/220

10

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).


20/220

11

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 DBAE-

based 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.


21/220

12

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 priorto 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.


22/220

13

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.


23/220

14

Part One: A Brief History

Approaching the Twentieth Century

As the twentieth century opened it was apparent that the societal goals of thenineteenth 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.


24/220

15

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 qualitiesof 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


25/220

16

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;


26/220

17

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.


27/220

18

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


28/220

19

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 free-

expression. 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


29/220

20

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


30/220

21

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


31/220

22

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


32/220

23

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.


33/220

24

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


34/220

25

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


35/220

26

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 ofA

Nation at Riskthat, 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


36/220

27

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 self-

expression, 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


37/220

28

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 Artby

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 community-

based 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


38/220

29

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


39/220

30

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 child-

centered 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


40/220

31

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 asA 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 discipline-

based 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


41/220

32

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 o

atc dissertation

Documents