changing concepts in teaching art

National Art Education Association

Changing Concepts in Teaching ArtAuthor(s): Ronald NeperudSource: Art Education, Vol. 20, No. 6 (Jun., 1967), pp. 15-20Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191055 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:12:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191055?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Changing Concepts

in Teaching Art RONALD NEPERUD

OUR CONCEPTS OF TEACHING, now as ever, are tre- mendously vital to the realization of art education goals. Objectives, if they are in any sense to be realized, must finally be reflected in operational terms in every classroom-your classroom. It is the content and conditions of the classroom procedures which determine the state of learning. In what might now be called a transitional period, characterized by the re-examination of goals and procedures and considerable research activity, we look at concepts of teaching.

Teaching implies the inducement of behavioral changes along some dimensions which the learner may generalize to new and changing situations. If we consider teaching in the sense that it includes the entire learning environment, then several groups of variables need to be examined in establishing optimum learning conditions. These include: characteristics of the learner, the teacher, and the learners as a group; teacher-student and student- student interaction; the physical environment; societal and cultural influences; and the nature of the learning task itself. Guided by an examination of some of these variables, what may research contribute to concepts of teaching?

Early studies characterized by the work of Lark- Horowitz,1 Lowenfeld,2 Schaefer-Simmern,4 and others have outlined the developmental nature of children's visual expressions. These normal expectancy sequences have been reflected in methods designed to encourage self-expression, self-identification, growth and development, and the unfolding of artistic activity. In many instances teaching was characterized by minimal environmental structure with a maximum of lattitude for the operation of developmental as opposed to situational factors. What the process of art could do for the child and education through art were major concerns.

In addition to focusing upon the process in art, analyses of children's representations have revealed sequential developments in the use of visual elements which are indicative of the structural dynamics of their work. From

15



Clark's5 analysis of perspective problems (in 1902) to Lewis'6 recent description of children's spatial concepts, we can predict and anticipate the direction of children's use of spatial relations. This means that while most first grade children could be expected to organize space utilizing a baseline concept, most sixth grade children could not be expected to normally represent cubic space in a fully developed perspective drawing. Other studies can and have provided us with more than a rudimentary knowledge of children's use and knowledge of space, color, form, and texture. Children's utilization of particu- lar visual concepts provides guides to the content and motivation essential to encouraging progressive development of the visual tools of communication at both aesthetic and symbolic levels. In effect, we are able to anticipate, and thus to provide for, children's graphic and plastic development in a sequential curriculum deter- mined, at least partially, by our knowledge of children's visual concepts.

More recently, Barron,7 Guilford,8 Torrance,9 Taylor,10 and other psychologists have added new dimensions to our understanding of the creative process. Many art educators, having long recognized the importance of the artistic process, were quick to adopt the new language of originality, sensitivity to problems, fluency, and problem sensitivity. Personality attributes of the recognized artist were analyzed in an attempt to recognize the creative person or to predict creative tendencies. Instruction designed to promote divergent, as opposed to convergent, responses followed. The transfer value of creativity experienced in the visual arts process was, and still is, con- sidered one of art education's strongest assets as part of the elementary and secondary curriculum.

The increasing importance of several lines of inquiry have pointed toward instruction in depth rather than toward instruction aimed at producing diverse responses. Rhoda Kellogg,11 in describing the scribbling development of nursery and kindergarten-age children, has stressed the development of pictorial form through progressive elaboration of their scribbles. Parts, at first simple, are added together and elaborated upon to achieve more complex forms. Arnheim has also supported this notion in noting that "pictorial form grows organi- cally according to definite rules of its own from the simplest to more complex patterns."12 If art is involved with the creation, elaboration, and refinement of form, then it would seem to imply that in a portion of the art program the instructor should utilize recurrent themes and similar content rather than focusing upon projects differing vastly in content and media. A study by Beittell3 contrasting a "breadth versus depth" approach to the instruction of ninth graders indicated the latter to be most effective in developing spontaneity and aesthetic quality in students' paintings. Beittel concluded that: "Where a drive for depth and involvement is made possible through sustained work in a limited area of creativity, it is possible to hold and perhaps develop a posi- tive, aesthetic, self-determining orientation." Perhaps we need to encourage children to react to, to evaluate, and

16

to elaborate upon their visual imagery and representations, especially in the upper grades, rather than being primarily concerned with responses differing vastly in ideational content.

Jean Piaget's work in the development of children's conception of space has supported the idea that the child's visual symbols are intimately related to his con- ceptual growth.14 He also notes the importance of a child's physical manipulation of things as aids in concept formation during the early sensory-motor period. If a child's visual symbols are intimately related to his con- ceptual growth, then we can change his work by instruction aimed at changing his conceptions. Piaget has suggested that the engagement in perceptual activities will encourage development of a concept of space; thus, motor activity may serve to strengthen one's development of a concept of space. If the handling and manipulation of objects is important to concept formation, then we need to base our instruction on that which is concrete to the child rather than abstract. Presumably the instructor could profitably employ these approaches in a perceptual type instruction.

In recent years the knowledge of perceptual differences, attendant personality characteristics, and representational development contributed by those investigating the perceptual realm has been most influential in shap- ing many art educators' concepts of instruction. Witkin15 and Linton16 established the relationship of visual and postural space orientation to an individual's approach to life and education. This has suggested that individuals' differing abilities and approaches to handling visual information may be influenced by instruction. Attneave's17 description of perception as "an information-handling process" enabling an individual to cope with excessive visual information through the unitary classification of homogeneous material, an averaging mechanism, and temporal continuation has led to several investigations in art education. His conclusions that visual information is concentrated along contours, especially at points of direc- tional change, has been examined by Salome18 in an attempt to determine its implications for perceptual training in art education. Salome concluded that perceptual training, including the use of visual cues along contour lines, did increase the amount of visual information of fifth grade children included in their drawings.

June K. McFee19 has been instrumental in interpreting the art educational implications of perception developments; in her perception-delineation theory she postu- lates that the child's readiness to respond to things visu- ally and his ability to express himself artistically differs in terms of his past experience and psychological environment. This work has sparked several studies. Kens- ler,20 in a study of perceptual training and perspective drawing, found no significant relationship between the two; he indicated that students' differing perceptual abilities may be a critical variable in the teaching of art which needs further investigation. In a related study, Silverman21 concluded that the development of spatial visualization ability did not necessarily accrue as a by-



product of either two- or three-dimensional art activities at the college level. Vint22 also noted that specific design training and reinforcement failed to alter the way a learner performed in subsequent art activity.

It begins to appear that, although perceptual responses may be affected by some very specific instruction or sug- gestions, the result of teaching is what has been taught. A study by Hardiman and Johnson23 confirms the assump- tion that the art process and product are indicative of the type of stimuli used as basic motivation, which is not too surprising a conclusion.

Examination of other conditions surrounding the learning task have indicated that, in a single-stimulus situation, teacher-student cooperation was most effective among several motivations when measured in terms of general drawing development;24 however, results of another study measured in terms of specific visual elements indicated a greater degree of structure and content in the form of lecture-demonstration of visual information over a period

17



of time to be more effective than cooperative or laissez faire presentations.25 An exploratory study by Frankston26 has dealt with the effects and interrelationships of content and the method of teaching it as measured by the art products of adolescents. He hypothesized that two different methods of teaching existed-one spontaneous and the other divergent. He found no changes under either a prescribed or a self-developed art program.

Cultural and societal implications of the learning environment are only now beginning to be explored in earnest. Silverman and Lanier27 have suggested a pre- vocational art course for the economically deprived adolescent. McFee28 in the NSSE Yearbook speaks of objectives for a program of art education for underprivileged minorities: identifying the strongest values of the children and finding ways to make art contribute to their attain- ment. "The disadvantaged, the drop-out, socioeconomic and ethnic groups have also been added to our concerns

18



in art education. The relationship of art programs to societal pressures will presumably be expanded by studies now in progress.

Unfortunately, another factor in the learning environment-the instructor's characteristics-have been rela- tively ignored by art educators until recently. In a study of the relationship of teaching approaches and personalities of art teachers at the elementary to college levels to art media usage, Phillips29 found that experienced teachers preferred an approach to art instruction which related to their own personality and choice of art media. Experienced teachers with diversified interests in art media and broad personality characteristics expressed a preference for and satisfaction with more than one level of teaching. This has something to say about the choice of instructors if we value multi-dimensional and changing art programs.

The important area of pupil-teacher interchange during the art session has been touched upon in several studies. The effectiveness of cooperatively developed learning situations as well as the lecture-demonstration have been indicated dependent upon what outcome one chooses to value. Barkan30 has recorded motivational and evalua- tive dialogue in art lessions in the elementary grades. More recently, Clements31 has explored the questions asked by art student teachers. From this he structured ten categories of questions ranging from "Past Experience" to "Product Judgment" which may aid the teacher in determining an effective combination consonant with his teaching methods and problems. Bruner's comments emphasize the dynamics of the pupil-teacher interchange:

"A curriculum cannot be evaluated without regard to the teacher who is teaching it and the student who is learning it. The idea of "teacherproof" or "studentproof" material is not only wrong but mischievous. Teachers can make or break materials by their attitude toward them and their pedagogical procedures-often more implicitly than explicitly exercised."32

It becomes obvious that much of the research bearing upon the learning environment raises more questions than are definitely answered. We cannot answer conclu- sively the questions of breadth versus depth with respect to content, nor the analytic to synthetic or synthetic to analytic approaches to design instruction. However, the research has suggested several changing concepts of teaching:

(1) We need to consider all environmental information at our disposal which bears upon the learning situation and then tailor our approaches accordingly. Instead of a simple stimulus response teaching in all instances and at all levels, we must be cognizant of our students' values and state of prior learning. While we may lack control over some factors, such as societal and cultural values, we can alter our teaching strategy by couching our instruction in terms and toward objectives consonant with the reality of children and adolescents, whether in Forest Park, Silverton, Chicago, or Watts.

(2) While approaching instruction by accounting for all environmental factors, we must teach for specifics if we

are to surpass an approach designed to do all, but noth- ing very well, a contradiction of the very nature of art. If perceptual acuity is the primary goal, then use contour cues or whatever other approach will best develop awareness of shape, color, or form. If the production of diverse ideas and images is the goal, then we may need to approach the problem in a different manner. This may mean that, depending upon our goals, the choice structure may vary in the learning situations which we create. Learnings concomitant to the primary goal may be an added bonus but should not be expected.

(3) Recognition must be given to the dimensions of perceptual differences as they affect differences in learning. Since learners respond to their own perceptions, not those of the instructor, we must strive to relate to their perceptions, to understand the world from their view, and then to create the environment in which they learn through changing perceptions. "Seeing" then becomes a primary goal of our concept of teaching, along with those of the appreciative and the expressive. Through multi- sensory approaches we provide the students with rich experience-the ammunition, or the fodder, if you will- for greater and more sensitive differentiation in his visual inquiry and representation.

(4) The instructor does have a definite role to play in the teaching process, but this is a changing role. The conditions which he establishes may range from lecture- demonstration of specific information in perceptual-type instruction to structuring the environment so that students may discover certain facts, as a kindergarten child dis- covers orange or green. The environment we create is important. We do more than observe maturation effects. Art is, at least partially, a learned response.

(5) We can and must provide children with the tools with which to handle visual information and solve quali- tative problems. Students can develop at least an understanding of a "vocabulary" of visual elements and their organization. We thus provide the means, an integrative factor, in a multidimensional curriculum-expressive, dis- criminative, and appreciative. This visual vocabulary can provide a basis for selection of art activities, in keeping with students' ideas and motivation, and yet encourage program continuity. If individuals so perceive their world in terms of their concepts, we need to give them the tools, the means of greater perceptual acuity, which presumably the visual elements and structural principles may do to encourage an orderly elaboration of form.

(6) The range of differences represented in the span from kindergarten through the sixth grade is as great as any to be found in an individual's development, from the early formative attempts to the critical awareness of the sixth grader. The needs and problems represented in this span differ considerably from the formation of pictorial equivalents in new media at the kindergarten and primary level to the increasingly critical attitudes of the preadolescent. Yet how often do we find a suggested general instructional approach suggesting that "the child will create at his own level of development." This he may well do, but is the instruction sufficient to encourage

19



continued development, enrichment, and elaboration of art forms? Again, I believe that we must teach for that which we expect to obtain; a generalized approach will not both encourage the establishment of pictorial forms in new media for the kindergarten child and provide the sixth grader with the tools necessary to sustain his interest and satisfy an increasing critical attitude. We must be more sensitive to the differences represented in the child's development, as well as the similarities, if we are to approach anything resembling instructional theories in art education.

(7) Finally, we must consider and build our concepts of teaching upon the contributions of the past as well as of the present. It becomes obvious that the newness of changing concepts of teaching implies a progressively expanding structure rather than a purely unique creation divorced from the contributions of the past. The individual is still at the center of the teaching process. Teach- ing remains a dynamic and warm interchange between and among humans.

Ronald Neperud is associate professor and chairman of the division of Creative Arts in the Department of Art at Eastern Washington State College, Cheney, Washington. This article is a modification of a paper delivered at the Fifth General Session of the NAEA Pacific Regional Con- ference, Asilomar, California, April 6, 1966.

20

REFERENCES 1. Betty Lark-Horovitz. "On Learning Abilities of Children

as Recorded in a Drawing Experience, II. Aesthetic and Representational Qualities," Journal of Experimental Edu- cation, IX. June 1941. pp. 346-360.

2. Viktor Lowenfeld. Creative and Mental Growth, 2nd ed. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1952.

3. Thomas Munro, Betty Lark-Horovitz, and Edward M. Barnhart. "Children's Art Abilities: Studies at the Cleve- land Museum of Art," Journal of Experimental Education, XI. December 1942. pp. 97-184.

4. Henry Schaefer-Simmern. The Unfolding of Artistic Ac- tivity. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1948.

5. Arthur B. Clark. "The Child's Attitude Toward Perspective Problems," Studies in Education, II. June 1902. pp. 283-294.

6. Hilda Lewis. "Developmental Stages in Children's Repre- sentation of Spatial Relations in Drawings," Studies in Art Education, //III. No. 2. Spring 1962. pp. 69-76.

7. Frank Barron. "The Psychology of Imagination," Scien- tific American, 199. 1958. September 1958. pp. 150-166.

8. J. P. Guilford. "Creative Abilities in the Arts," Psycho- logical Review, LXIV. 1957. pp. 110-118.

9. E. P. Torrance. Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1962.

10. C. W. Taylor. "Identifying the Creative Individual." In Torrance, E. P. (Ed) Creativity: Second Minnesota Con- ference on Gifted Children. Minneapolis: Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota. 1960. pp. 3-21.

11. Rhoda Kellogg. The Esthetic Eye of the Preschool Child. A mimeographed paper for the International Child Art Center in San Francisco. March 1966.

12. Rudolph Arnheim. Art and Visual Perception. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1954. First paperback

edition 1965. p. 165. 13. Kenneth Beittel and Edward L. Mattil. "The Effect of a

'Depth' vs. a 'Breadth' Method of Art Instruction at the Ninth Grade Level," Studies in Art Education, ///. Fall 1961. pp. 75-87.

14. Jean Piaget and Barbel Inhelder. The Child's Conception of Space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1963.

15. H. A. Witkin, H. B. Lewis, M. Hertzman, K. Machover, P. Brentall Meissner, S. Wapner. Personality Through Perception: An Experimental and Clinical Study. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1954. ch. 2-8.

16. Harriet B. Linton. "Dependence on External Influence: Correlates in Perception, Attitudes, and Judgment." Journal of Abnormal and Social Phychology, LI. No. 3. 1955. pp. 502-507.

17. Fred Attneave. "Some Informational Aspects of Visual Perception," Psychological Review, LXI. (1954). p. 183.

18. R. A. Salome. "The Effects of Perceptual Training Upon the Two-Dimensional Drawings of Children," Studies in Art Education, V/I. No. 1. Autumn 1965. p. 18.

19. June K. McFee. Preparation for Art. California: Wads- worth Publishing Company. 1964.

20. Gordon Kensler. "The Effects of Perceptual Training and Modes of Perceiving Upon Individual Differences in Ability to Learn Perspective Drawing," Studies in Art Education VII. No. 1. Autumn 1965. p. 34.

21. R. Silverman. "Comparing the Effects of Two- Versus Three-Dimensional Art Activity Upon Spatial Visualiza- tion, Aesthetic Judgment and Art Interest." (An unpublished E.D. dissertation.) Stanford University. 1962.

22. Virginia Hollister Vint. "The Effect of Prior Convergent or Divergent Art Training on Subsequent Art Activity." (An unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.) Stanford Univer- sity. 1965.

23. George W. Hardiman and James J. Johnson, Jr. "Analysis of Motivational Stimulus Structure: An Exploratory Study," Studies in Art Education, VII. No. 2. Spring 1966. p. 14.

24. Lawrence McVitty, "An Experimental Study of Various Methods in Art Motivations at the Fifth Grade Level," Research in Art Education. Seventh Yearbook of the National Art Education Association. Kutztown, Pa.: State Teachers College. 1956. pp. 74-83.

25. Ronald W. Neperud. "An Experimental Study of Visual Elements, Selected Art Instruction Methods, and Drawing Development at the Fifth-grade Level," Studies in Art Education, VII. No. 2. Spring 1966. pp. 3-13.

26. Leon Frankston. "Effects of Two Programs and Two Methods of Teaching Upon the Quality of Art Products of Adolescents," Studies in Art Education, VII. No. 2. Spring 1966. pp. 23-32.

27. Ronald Silverman and Vincent Lanier. "Art for the Adolescent," Art Education. Sixty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 1965. pp. 115-152.

28. June K. McFee. "Art for the Economically and Socially Deprived," Art Education. Sixty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 1965. pp. 153-174.

29. Stanley Phillips and Kent Smith. "Differences in Art Media Usage, Motivational Attitudes and Personalities of Art Teachers at Four Levels in Teaching." (An unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.) Pennsylvania State. 1963.

30. Manuel Barkan. Through Art to Creativity: Art in the Elementary School Program. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1960.

31. Robert D. Clements. "Art Student-Teacher Questioning." Studies in Art Education, VI. No. 1. Autumn 1964. pp. 14-19.

32. Jerome Bruner. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Massa- chusetts: Harvard University Press. 1966. p. 166.



changing concepts in teaching art

Documents