INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and im proper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North 2eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA

313/761-4700 800/521-0600

PREVIEW

PROBLEMS OF ADVANCED LEARNING IN THE VISUAL ARTS:

THE ROLE OF REDUCTIVE BIAS IN PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING

OF DOMAIN KNOWLEDGEVolume I

DISSERTATION

Presented in P a r t i a l F u l f i l lm en t of the Requirements fo r

th e Degree Doctor o f Philosophy in the Graduate

School o f The Ohio S t a t e Univers i ty

By

Georgianna Shor t , B .F .A . , M.A.

* * * * *

The Ohio S ta t e Univers i ty

1995

D is s e r t a t io n Committee:

J u d i th Koroscik

Michael Parsons

Arthur Efland

Approved by

( J Adv/sorDepartment o f Art Education

PREVIEW

UMI Number: 9544687

Copyright 1995 by Short, GeorgiannaAll rights reserved.

UMI Microform 9544687 Copyright 1995, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

PREVIEW

Copyright by Georgianna Short

1995

PREVIEW

To my mother Who, but f o r circumstance

Would have walked t h i s path before me.

i 1

PREVIEW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

On t h i s page, I wish t o acknowledge the c o n t r ib u t io n s o f o th e r s who

helped make the w r i t in g of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n p o ss ib le . F i r s t , I would

l ik e t o express deep app rec ia t io n t o my advisor and mentor Ju d i th Korosclk

f o r her i n t e l l e c t , i n s ig h t , support , and encouragement. I a l so wish to

express my g r a t i t u d e to Mike Parsons fo r h i s f a i t h and confidence in my

a b i l i t i e s and f o r providing an oppor tun i ty to work d i r e c t l y with pre­

s e rv ice t each e rs . I am a l s o profoundly g r a te fu l t o Arthur Efland f o r h i s

support and i n t e r e s t in explor ing reduct ive b ias and cog n i t iv e f l e x i b i l i t y

in Art Education.

In a d d i t io n , I want to thank Paul Fel tovich from the Southern

I l l i n o i s School of Medicine f o r cont inuing to share h i s more recent

th ink ing about reduc t ive b ias and fo r shar ing copies of h is most recent

papers. I am a l so indebted to Richard Coulson, a l so from th e Southern

I l l i n o i s School of Medicine, fo r tak ing time from h is busy schedule t o

share h i s views on research methodology and to expla in the many d i sg u is e s

of reduct ive b ias .

I am fo r tu n a te in having exceptional f r i e n d s whose advice and

encouragement were invaluab le . I e s p e c i a l l y wish to thank Carol

Stavropoulos f o r her lo y a l ty , f r i e n d s h ip , and w i l l ingness t o read my

d r a f t s ; to Dixie Durr fo r her a n a l y t i c a l , f o r t h r i g h t approach to problem-

iii

PREVIEW

so lv ing; to Liz Kowalchuk f o r al lowing me to see t h a t th e re i s more to

l i f e than research; and to Jeanne Auseon, who alone knows why.

I a l so wish to thank the Getty Center f o r Education in t h e Arts fo r

i t s i n t e r e s t in the f u tu r e o f teache r educat ion in the a r t s , and fo r t h e i r

support of my work.

F ina l ly , I wish t o thank my remarkable mother and l i t t l e f r i e n d Mary

Beth who have stood f a s t with me throughout t h i s journey.

iv

PREVIEW

VITA

1949................................................................... Born - Denver, Colorado

197 1................................................................... B.F.A., Univers i ty of ColoradoBoulder, Colorado

1972 - 1977....................................................Ju n io r High School Art TeacherFt. Sco t t J r . High Ft. S co t t , Kansas

1974................................................................... M.A., P i t t sb u rg S ta te Univers i tyP i t t sb u rg , Kansas

1979 - 1984................................................... Middle School Art TeacherCherry Creek School D i s t r i c t Englewood, Colorado

1984 - 1995................................................... High School Art TeacherOverland High School Englewood, Colorado

1989................................................................... Graduate Teaching A ss i s ta n tDepartment o f Art Education The Ohio S ta t e Univers i ty Columbus, Ohio

1991 - 1 9 9 2 . . . . ...........................................D irec to r , The Saturday Art WorkshopDepartment of Art Education The Ohio S ta te Univers i ty Columbus, Ohio

1995 - p r e s e n t .............................................V i s i t in g A ss i s ta n t ProfessorDepartment of Art Education The Ohio S ta te Univers i ty Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

Short, G. (1995). Understanding domain knowledge fo r teaching: Higher-order th ink ing in p r e - s e rv ic e a r t teache r s p e c i a l i s t s . Studies in Art Education, 56(3), 154-169.

v

PREVIEW

Short, G. (1994). Writing and applying fo r research gran ts . Graduate P erspectives in Art Education, 7(1), 33.

Short, G. (1994). Pre liminary examination of reduct ive tendencies in a r t understandings and lesson-p lanning of p re - s e rv ic e teac h e r s . Marilyn Zurmeuhlen’s Working Papers in Art Education, 1993, 12, 24-32.

Short, G. (1993). P re -se rv ice t e a c h e r s ’ knowledge of v isua l a r t : Thereduct ive b ias . A rts Education P o licy Review, 94(5), 11-15.

Koroscik, J . S . , Short, G . , S tavropoulos, C., & F or t in , S. (1992). Frameworks f o r understanding a r t : The funct ion o f comparative a r tcon tex ts and verbal cues. Studies in Art Education, 35(3), 154—164.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Fie ld: Art Education

vi

PREVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1

DEDICATION......................................................................................................................... 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. 111

VITA...................................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... x i i i

LIST OF PLATES................................................................................................................. xiv

CHAPTER

I. BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM............................................................................ 1

I n t ro d u c t io n ........................................................................................... 1Pre-Serv ice Teachers’ Understanding and

Teacher P r e p a r a t i o n * 3 Pre-Serv ice Teachers’ Understanding of

Visual A r t ....................... 4Impl ica t ions fo r Learning.................................................. 8

Statement of th e Problem................................................................. 9

I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................................... 12

Learners and the Acquis i t ion of Knowledge............................ 12Advanced Learners ................................................................... 12Knowledge Gaps and Advanced Learners .......................... 14Reductive Bias .......................................................................... 17Reductive Bias and P r io r Knowledge................................. 19Reductive Bias in Learning............................................ 21Reductive Bias and Visual A r t ........................................ 24Reductive Bias in Teaching........................................... 25Habitual P ra c t ic e of Reductive B ias ............................ 28

Learners and th e Problem of Misunderstanding...................... 28Reductive Bias and Misconceptions ................................. 29The Maintenance o f Less Adequate Understandings.. 30

Learners and the Applicat ion of Knowledge............................ 30Condition-Action Rules ......................................................... 31T ra n s fe r ....................................................................................... 32

The Role of A t t i tu d e s in Transfe r and Learning.................. 34

vi i

PREVIEW

Learners and Cognitive F l e x i b i l i t y ............................................ 37Education in th e A r t s ........................................................... 38

Wei 1-S t ru c tu re d Information andMisconceptions About the A r t s ........................ 39

Learning in I l l - S t r u c t u r e d Domains:Cognit ive F l e x i b i l i t y ......................................... 40

Nurturing Cognitive F l e x i b i l i t y in th e A r t s 41Importance o f Cognitive F l e x i b i l i t y

in the Visual A r t s ................................................ 41Curriculum to Counteract Reductive B ias ................................. 42

Use of a Semi-Lat t ice Curriculum in Visual A r t . . . 42Teachers as Learners ............................................................. 43

Purpose of the S tudy.......................................................................... 43

I I I . METHODOLOGY........................................................................... 45

In t ro d u c t io n ........................................................................................... 45Design of the Study............................................................................ 47

The Multiple-Case Rep l ica t ion Design.......................... 47The Multiple-Case Repl ica t ion Design

and Case Study Research..................................... 47The Nature o f Case Study Research.................... 48Differences Between Multiple-Case

Rep l ica t ion Design and ExperimentalResearch...................................................................... 49

P a r t i c i p a n t s and Location o f Research ........................ 50M a te r i a l s ..................................................................................... 51

Researcher-Selected Work o f A r t ........................ 51Artworks of Choice.................................................... 52

Procedures ................................................................................... 53In te rv iew s ...................................................................... 53Unit Out l ine and Lesson P la n s ............................ 56Auto-b iographies ........................................................ 56Univers i ty T r a n s c r i p t s ........................................... 57J o u r n a l s .......................................................................... 57

Analys is o f Data................................................................................... 57Coding of Data.......................................................................... 57Pat tern-Matching ...................................................................... 59

IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION - PART ONE......................................................... 61

In t ro d u c t io n ........................................................................................... 61Reductive Bias and Pre-Service Teachers .................... 62Purpose of the Study............................................................. 63Findings of the Study........................................................... 63

P a t te rn of Reductive Bias in Understanding. 63 P a t te rn of Reductive Bias in Lesson-P lans . . 64

Presen ta t io n of F ind ings .................................................... 64S e lec t ion of Representa t ive Case S t u d i e s . . . 64Presen ta t io n of Case Study Data........................ 64Format.............................................................................. 65

viii

PREVIEW

Most Reductive Cases: Case Study One..................................... 65In t ro d u c t io n to A l i c e ........................................................... 66Interview I : Olympia (1863)............................................ 67

Conversation One......................................................... 67Conversation Two......................................................... 67Lesson Plan Incorpora t ing Olympia.................... 69Olympia In terview and Reductive B ias 70E va lua t ion ...................................................................... 71

Interview I I : P r io r to Saturday Art Workshop. . . . 72S e lec t io n of Exemplar.............................................. 72Proposed Lesson P lan .................................... 72D i s c u s s i o n .................................................................... 74Inte rv iew I I and Reductive B ias ........................ 76E va lua t ion ...................................................................... 77

In terv iew I I I : Subsequent t o SaturdayArt Workshop.......................................................................... 78

S e le c t io n o f Exemplar . . .......................................... 80Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 80Discuss ion ...................................................................... 81In te rv iew I I I and Reductive B ias ...................... 83Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 83

Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop.. . . 84Lesson Plan and Reductive B ias .......................... 85Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 86

A l i c e ’s Understanding o f Works o f Art andLesson-Planning.................................................................... 87

A l i c e ’s Understanding of Works o f A r t 87A l i c e ’ s Lesson-Planning A b i l i t y ........................ 88Addit ional O bserva t ions ......................................... 88

Most Reductive Cases: Case Study Two..................................... 89In t ro d u c t io n t o Rachael ....................................................... 89In te rv iew I: O lym pia ......................................................... 90

Conversation One......................................................... 90Conversation Two......................................................... 91Lesson Plan Incorpora t ing Olympia.................... 91Olympia In terview and Reductive B ias ............. 92E va lua t ion ...................................................................... 93

Inte rv iew I I : P r io r t o Saturday Art Workshop 95S e lec t io n of Exemplar.............................................. 95Proposed Lesson Plan .............................................. 95D i s c u s s i o n .................................................................... 97In te rv iew I I and Reductive B ias ........................ 99E va lua t ion ...................................................................... 100

Inte rv iew I I I : Subsequent t o SaturdayArt Workshop.......................................................................... 102

S e le c t io n of Exemplar.............................................. 102Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 102Discuss ion ...................................................................... 111Interview I I I and Reductive B ias ...................... 112Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 113

Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 114Background Informat ion on Exemplars............... 117

ix

PREVIEW

Lesson Plan and Reductive B ias .......................... 119Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 120

Rachael’s Understanding of Works of Art andLesson-Planning.................................................................... 121

Rachael’s Understanding of Works of A r t . . . . 121Rachael’s Lesson-Planning A b i l i t y .................... 121Additional Observat ions .......................................... 122

Moderately Reductive Cases: Case Study Three .................... 122In tro d u c t io n to Kathy........................................................... 123Interview I : Olympia........................................................... 123

Conversation One......................................................... 123Conversation Two......................................................... 125Lesson Plan Incorpora t ing Olympia.................... 125Olympia In terview and Reductive B ias 126Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 127

Interview I I : P r io r t o Saturday Art Workshop 128Se lec t io n of Exemplar.............................................. 128Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 130Discuss ion ...................................................................... 131Interv iew I I and Reductive B ias ........................ 134Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 135

Interview I I I : Subsequent t o SaturdayArt Workshop.......................................................................... 135

S e lec t io n o f Exemplar.............................................. 135Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 137Discuss ion ...................................................................... 138Inte rv iew I I I and Reductive B ias ...................... 141Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 144

Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 144Background Information on Exemplars............... 150Lesson Plan and Reductive B ias .......................... 153Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 155

Kathy’s Understanding of Works o f Art andLesson-Planning................................................................... 156

Kathy’s Understanding of Works o f A r t 157Kathy’s Lesson-Planning A b i l i t y ........................ 157Addit ional Observat ions ......................................... 158

Moderately Reductive Cases: Case Study Four...................... 159In tro d u c t io n to Nancy........................................................... 159Interview I : Olympia........................................................... 160

Conversation One......................................................... 160Conversation Two......................................................... 161Lesson Plan Incorpora t ing Olympia.................... 161Olympia In te rview and Reductive B ias 162Evalua t ion ...................................................................... 163

Inte rview I I : P r io r t o Saturday Art Workshop 163S e lec t io n of Exemplar.............................................. 163Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 164Discuss ion ...................................................................... 165Interview I I and Reductive B ias ........................ 166Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 167

x

PREVIEW

In terview I I I : Subsequent t o SaturdayArt Workshop.......................................................................... 168

S e lec t io n of Exemplar.............................................. 168Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 168Discuss ion ..................................................................... 170Interv iew I I I and Reductive B ias ...................... 171E va lua t ion ..................................................................... 172

Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop.. . . 173Background Information on Exemplars............... 178Lesson Plan and Reductive B ias .......................... 178Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 180

Nancy’s Understanding of Works o f Art andLesson-Planning................................................................... 181

Nancy’s Understanding of Works of A r t 181Nancy’s Lesson-Planning A b i l i t y ........................ 182Addit ional Observat ions ......................................... 183

Least Reductive Cases: Case Study F ive ................................. 184In t ro d u c t io n to Barbara...................................................... 185Interview I : Olympia........................................................... 185

Conversation One........................................................ 185Conversation Two........................................................ 188Lesson Plan Incorpora t ing Olympia.................... 189Olympia In te rview and Reductive B ias 189Eva lua t ion ...................................................................... 192

Interview I I : P r io r t o Saturday Art Workshop 192S e lec t io n o f Exemplar.............................................. 192Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 194D iscuss ion ...................................................................... 195Interview I I and Reductive B ias ........................ 197E va lua t ion ...................................................................... 197

Interview I I I : Subsequent t o SaturdayArt Workshop.......................................................................... 198

Se lec t io n of Exemplar.............................................. 198Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 201Discuss ion ...................................................................... 201Interview I I I and Reductive B ias ...................... 203E va lua t ion ................................................................ 204

Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 205Background Information on Exemplars............... 209Lesson Plan and Reductive B ias .......................... 213E va lua t ion ..................................................................... 215

Barbara’s Understanding of Works of Art andLesson-Planning................................................................... 215

Barbara’s Understanding of Works of A r t . . . . 216Barbara’s Lesson-Planning A b i l i t y .................... 217Additional Observa t ions ......................................... 219

Least Reductive Cases: Case Study S i x . . ............................... 219In t roduc t ion to Mary............................................................. 220Interview I : Olympia........................................................... 220

Conversation One........................................................ 221Conversation Two........................................................ 224Lesson Plan Incorpora t ing Olympia..................... 225

xi

PREVIEW

Olympia Interview and Reductive B ias ............. 227Evalua t ion ...................................................................... 228

Interview I I : P r io r t o Saturday Art Workshop 228Selec t ion of Exemplar.............................................. 228Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 230Discuss ion ...................................................................... 231Interview I I and Reductive B ias ........................ 233Evalua t ion ..................................................................... 233

Interv iew I I I : Subsequent to SaturdayArt Workshop.......................................................................... 233

S e lec t ion of Exemplar.............................................. 233Proposed Lesson P lan ................................................ 234Discuss ion ..................................................................... 235Interview I I I and Reductive B ias ...................... 236Evalua t ion ..................................................................... 237

Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 237Background Information on Exemplars............... 242Lesson Plan and Reductive B ias .......................... 246Evalua t ion ..................................................................... 249

Mary’s Understanding of Works of Art andLesson-Planning................................................................... 249

Mary’s Understanding o f Works o f A r t 249Mary’s Lesson-Planning A b i l i t y .......................... 250Additional Observat ions .......................................... 251

xi i

PREVIEW

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES PAGE

1. Depth of understanding model fo r v isua l a r t ........................................ 16

2. Reproductions o f fe red to p a r t i c ip a n t s in In terview I Iand t h e i r sou rce .................................................................................................. 52

3. Reproductions o f fe red to p a r t i c ip a n t s in Interv iew I I I ................ 53

xiii

PREVIEW

LIST OF PLATES

PLATES PAGE

I. Marino MariniMan On Horse (1909)Oil on paper (measurements unavai lable)Kunsthalle , Hamburg............................................................................ 7

I I . Edouard ManetOlympia (1863)Oil on canvas, 130.5 cm x 190 cmMusee D’Orsay, P a r i s .......................................................................... 68

I I I . Romare BeardenBack Home From Up The Country (1969)Montage-paint ing, 50" x 39.75"Cordier and Ekstrom Gallery , New York....................................... 73

IV. Jean DubuffetLeader In A Parade Uniform (1945)Mixed media (Huile sur T o i l e ) , 92cm x 65 cmCol lec t ion Mr. and Mrs. Morton Neumann, Chicago.................. 79

V. A r t i s t ( s ) unknownAmenhotep I I And His Governess (XVIII Dynasty)Fresco (measurements unavai lab le)Necropolis of Thebes, Egypt........................................................... 96

VI. Pablo PicassoG irl Before A Mirror (1932)Oil on canvas, 162.3 cm x 130.2 cmMuseum of Modern Art, New York.................................................... 103

VII. Jacob LawrenceThe Brooklyn Stoop (1967)Casein on paper , 21” x 16"Co l lec t ion of Gwendolyn and Jacob Lawrence............................ 104

VIII . Katsushika HokusiThe Great Wave (Tokugawa Per iod, 1823-1829)Woodblock p r i n t , 14 3/4" wideMuseum of Fine A r ts , Boston........................................................... 105

xiv

PREVIEW

106

107

108

115

116

129

136

145

146

T l i n g i t PeopleChilkat Blanket (c. 1925)Wild g o a t ’s wood and cedar bark in b r ig h t co lo rs

(measurements unava i lab le )Southwest Museum, Los Angeles ....................................................

John M il l a i s Ophelia (1852)Medium not desc r ibed , 30" x 44"Tate Gal le ry , London.......................................................................

A r t i s t ( s ) unknownEmpress Theodora And Attendants (Byzantine, 547 A.D.) Apsidal Panel Mosaic, ( s i z e unava i lab le )Church of San V i t a l e , Ravenna, I t a l y .....................................

T i t i a n (Tiziano V ece l l i )Man With A Glove (c. 1519)Oil on canvas, 39" x 35"Louvre, P a r i s .......................................................................................

Pablo PicassoDetai l from Guernica (1937)Oil on canvas, 11’ 5.5" x 25’ 5.25"Museo del Prado, Madrid

Sergei E isen s te inS t i l l from B a tt le sh ip Protemkin (1925)35 mm f i lmRuss ia ....................................................................................................

Romare BeardenMiss Bertha And Mr. Seth (1965)Collage on board, 25.5" x 18.5"P r iv a te c o l l e c t i o n , New J e r s e y ..................................................

Jackson Pollock Lavender Mist (1950)O i l , enamel, and aluminum p a in t /canvas , 7 ’4" x 9 ’ 11" Col lec t ion Alfonso Ossor io , East Hampton, NY....................

Ju-Ran ( a c t . c. 960-980 A.D.)Buddhist Monastery In Stream And Mountains,

Hanging s c r o l l , Northern Sung Dynasty Ink on s i l k , he igh t 73"Cleveland Museum of A r t .................................................................

Fan Kuan ( a c t . c. 990-1030 A.D.)Travelers Amid Mountains And Streams, Hanging S c ro l l ,

Northern Sung Dynasty Ink on s i l k , he igh t 81.25"National Palace , T a ib e i .................................................................

xv

PREVIEW

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

Xia Gui (c . 1180-1230 A.D.)Clear And D is tan t Views Of Streams And Hi l l s ,

Handscrol l , Southern Sung Dynasty Ink on s i l k , 18.25" x 34’National Palace , T a ib e i ...................................................................

Xu Ben (d. 1403 A.D.)Streams And Mountains, Hanging S c r o l l , Ming Dynasty Ink on paper, height 26.75"Mr. and Mrs. A. Dean Perry C o l l e c t io n .......................................

Oiu Ying ( a c t . c. 1522-1560 A.D.)A Harp P layer In A Pavilion , Hanging s c r o l l ,

Ming Dynasty Ink on paper , height 54"Nelson Gal le ry-Atk ins Museum, Kansas City ............................

Henri MatisseIcarus (1947), P la te VIII from Jazz, published P a r i s ,

E. Ter iade , e d i t io n of 270 copies Pochoir, 16 5 /8 ” x 25 5/8"Museum of Modern Art , New Y o r k ....................................................

William Henry Johnson Going To Church (1940-1941)Oil on bur lap , 38 1/8" x 44 1/8"National Museum of American A r t ....................................................

Georges SeuratSunday Afternoon On The Island Of The Grande J a t te

(1884-1886)Oil on Canvas, 81" x 120 3/8"The Art I n s t i t u t e of Chicago...........................................................

Edvard Munch The Voice (1893)Oil on canvas, 35 3/5" x 46 2/3"Munch Museum, Oslo ................................................................................

Andrew Wyeth C h r is t in a ’s World (1948)Tempera, 32.25" x 47.75"Museum o f Modern Art, New York......................................................

Vincent Van GoghThe Sower With S e t t in g Sun (1888)Oil on canvas, 25.25" x 31.75"Ri jksmuseum Krol le r-M ul ler , O t t e r io , The Nether lands-----

PREVIEW

XXVII. Caspar David F r ied r ichC lo is te r Graveyards In The Snow (1810)Medium not descr ibed , approx. 47" x 70"P ain t ing destroyed during World War I I ..................................... 208

XXVIII. Ivan Albr igh tInto The World There Came A Soul Called Ida (1929-1930)Oil on canvas, 55" x 46"The Art I n s t i t u t e of Chicago........................................................... 227

XXIX. Edgar DegasDance Foyer At The Opera (1872)Medium not descr ibed , 12.5" x 18"Louvre, P a r i s ........................................................................................... 238

XXX. George BellowsStag At Sharkey’s (1907)Oil on canvas, 36.25" x 48.25"Cleveland Museum of A r t ..................................................................... 239

XXXI. Leroy NeimanWi l l i e S ta rg e l l (1980)Medium not desc r ibed , measurements unavai lab leLocation not s t a t e d ............................................................................ 240

xvi i

PREVIEW

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM

Introduc t ion

Few paren ts would send t h e i r ch i ld ren to schools where teachers lack

understanding of the s u b je c ts they teach . I f t eachers lack sub jec t mat ter

understanding themselves, they are u n l ike ly to f o s t e r i t in s tuden ts .

However, i n t e r e s t in t e a c h e r s ’ sub jec t m at ter knowledge i s almost non­

e x i s t e n t . The problem has become so severe in recent years , some

researchers have re fe r r ed to i t as the "missing paradigm problem."

Shulman (1986) de f ines the missing paradigm as a "blind spot with respect

t o content t h a t now c h a ra c te r iz e s most research on teaching" (p. 8) .

Ins tead o f focuss ing on su b jec t mat te r , the preponderance of

research has concentra ted on o the r i s sues such as "how teach e rs manage

t h e i r classrooms, organize a c t i v i t i e s , a l l o c a t e time and tu rn s , s t r u c t u r e

assignments , a sc r ibe p ra i se and blame. . . .and plan lessons" (Shulman, 1986,

p. 8) . The m ajor i ty of such s tu d ie s focus on how these teache r behaviors

impact s tudent lea rn ing .

Ind iv idua ls ou ts ide th e realm of teaching research are concerned

t h a t t each e rs do not know or understand enough about the content they

teach . Reports such as Nation a t Risk: The Imperative for Educational

Reform (1983), suggest t h a t dec l in e in the q u a l i ty of what American

s tuden ts know may be the r e s u l t , in p a r t , of t e a c h e r s ’ d e f i c i e n t knowledge

1

PREVIEW

2and understanding of t h e i r content a rea . The repor t ques t ions how much

sub jec t mat ter knowledge and understanding teachers can have when most

come from the "bottom q u a r te r of graduating high school and col lege

s tuden ts" (p. 22). Concern i s a l so expressed t h a t those who do choose to

become teachers a re subjec ted to teache r p repara t ion c u r r i c u l a which " i s

weighted heavi ly with courses in ‘educat ional methods’ a t the expense of

courses in s u b je c ts to be taught" (p. 22).

To remedy t h i s s i t u a t i o n , Nation a t Risk, to ge the r with A Nation

Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (1986), and Tomorrow’s Teachers:

A Report o f the Holmes Group (1986) suggest higher educational s tandards

fo r f u tu re t e a ch e r s . These s tandards would requ ire t each e rs to

"demonstrate competence in an academic d i s c ip l in e " including an in-depth

understanding of su b je c t m at ter knowledge (NCEE, 1983, p. 30; Carnegie

Report, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986).

As resea rchers began to study how tea c h e r s th ink about t h e i r work,

i t was found t h a t teach e r su b jec t mat ter knowledge la rge ly determines what

i s taught t o s tu d e n t s , including how courses are s t ru c tu r e d , how textbooks

are s e le c te d , and how in s t r u c t io n i s conducted (Shulman & Grossman, 1987;

Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; McDiarmid, Ball , & Anderson, 1989).

Furthermore, what t each e rs know and understand about content determines

t h e i r a b i l i t y to i s o l a t e key ideas f o r s tuden ts and f ind a l t e r n a t i v e

exp lana t ions t o accommodate classroom d i v e r s i t y (Doyle, 1989; McDiarmid,

Ba l l , & Anderson, 1989). To accomplish these t a sk s , t eachers must not

only possess a knowledge of f a c t s and concepts , they must a l so understand

how knowledge i s organized within a domain and how ideas may be v a l ida ted

(Barnes, 1989, p. 17). Considerable evidence suggests many prospect ive

PREVIEW

3t e ach e rs do not possess th ese understandings (McDiarmid, Ba l l , & Anderson,

1989).

Pre-Serv ice Teachers* Understanding and Teacher P repara t ion

Often fu tu re t e a c h e r s not only lack knowledge of con ten t , but they

are unfam il ia r with the s u b s ta n t iv e and s y n ta c t i c s t r u c t u r e s of t h e i r

d i s c i p l i n e . S p e c i f i c a l ly , persons p reparing fo r th e teaching pro fess ion

o f ten lack bas ic content knowledge about the major f a c t s and concepts

within t h e i r f i e l d and how th e two are r e l a t e d (Grossman, 1990). Many

prospec t ive t each e rs cannot de f ine the paradigms t h a t determine the

o rgan iza t ion o f knowledge and guide Inquiry w ith in t h e i r chosen f i e l d

(Schwab, 1964, 1978; Grossman, 1990). Research suggests these te ac h e r s

are unfam il ia r with d i s c i p l i n e syntax which determines the canons of

evidence and s tandards of proof (Schwab, 1964; Grossman, 1990, p. 6). Yet

the problem o f what p r e - s e rv i c e teac h e r s understand about a p a r t i c u l a r

d i s c i p l i n e i s r a r e ly a f a c t o r in t e ac h e r p repara t ion (McDiarmid, Ba l l , &

Anderson, 1989).

Many teacher educa to rs see no need t o examine prospec t ive t e a c h e r s ’

sub jec t m at ter knowledge. They o f te n assume t h a t a l l majors w ith in a

s p e c i f i c f i e l d possess comparable p r io r exper ience, and t h a t those majors

who su cce ss fu l ly complete u n iv e r s i ty coursework a l so understand the

content of the courses they have taken (Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989,

p. 24). Recently however, such views have been c a l l ed in to ques t ion .

S tudies in d ic a te s tu d e n ts from i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher learn ing of ten

manage to s u c c e ss fu l ly complete course work without having a t t a in e d a

c l e a r understanding of course m ater ia l (Nickerson, 1985; Perkins &

Simmons, 1988). In a d d i t io n , course con ten t and course requirements o f ten

PREVIEW

vary, not only w ith in a s in g l e academic major from the same u n iv e r s i ty ,

but from i n s t i t u t i o n t o i n s t i t u t i o n . The r e s u l t i s not a homogeneous

understanding of knowledge with in s p e c i f i c f i e l d s of s tudy, but widely

d iverse understandings which r e f l e c t d i s s i m i l a r backgrounds. "These

backgrounds may d i f f e r both q u a n t i t a t i v e l y , in the number of u n i t s

t eachers have taken in a s u b je c t , and q u a l i t a t i v e l y , in the r e l a t i v e

coherence of t h e i r su b je c t m at ter coursework" (Grossman, Wilson, &

Shulman, 1989, p. 24). For these reasons , an examination o f what

p rospec t ive teac h e r s know and understand about the con ten t they w il l soon

teach i s needed.

Pre-Serv ice Teachers ’ Understanding o f Visual Art

The broad d i v e r s i t y of p rospec t ive t e a c h e r s ’ su b jec t mat ter

knowledge and understanding may be c l e a r l y demonstrated 1n th e v isua l

a r t s . Here, background knowledge and exper ience can vary from emphasis in

s tu d io t o focus in a r t h i s t o r y , i n d u s t r i a l des ign, commercial a r t , or

landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e . These s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s r a re ly o f f e r or requ ire

courses in a e s t h e t i c s o r a r t c r i t i c i s m . Art h i s to r y s tuden ts are seldom

required to take s tu d io courses , and s tud io majors o f ten d iscount the

relevance of a r t h i s to r y . Each of th ese s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s i s narrowly

def ined , and each d i r e c t s s tuden t th ink ing in p a r t i c u l a r ways.

Consequently, p rospec t ive t e a c h e r s tend to d i f f e r in t h e way they view

works o f a r t and in t h e i r understanding of the domain genera l ly .

An example of how background exper iences inf luence what p r e - s e rv ice

tea ch e r s consider important about works o f a r t may be seen in two excerp ts

from interviews conducted with two p re - s e rv ic e teach e r s . The f i r s t

s tu d en t , "Ann," i s a c o l leg e sen io r majoring in a r t education while the

PREVIEW