Download - Profiling Primary School Teachers in Relation to Art Teaching

35Profiling Primary SchoolTeachers in Relation to Art Teaching

Victoria Pavlou

JADE 23.1 ©NSEAD 2004

This paper contributes to the on-going debateabout specialisation and teaching art in primaryschools. Moreover it provides a starting point forfurther research and the design of in-servicetraining that responds to the different needs andattitudes of primary school teachers in relation toteaching art. This is done by investigating severalprofiles of teachers who teach art in primaryschools in Cyprus. It describes five profiles ofteachers, which emerged from analysing datafrom pupils (questionnaire and interview data)and teachers (interview data) and thus brings afresh insight to the learning-teaching situation.

There are two profiles of art specialist teachers,named asartist-teacherand specialist-teacher, andthree profiles of non-art specialist teachers,named as enthusiastic, disappointed, and indiffer-ent non-specialist. The most effective teacher inthe pupils’ eyes is the specialist-teacher, who inte-grates more successfully than the others theirsubject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowl-edge, knowledge of learners and knowledge ofthe environmental conditions.

Abstract


Introduction As art educators, we appreciate art’s uniquecontribution to the overall development of pupils.Learning in art provides a body of knowledgeworth knowing and as such it gives the opportu-nity to individuals to develop a distinct way ofmaking sense of their world, a distinct way ofknowing [1]. However, we very often observe andhear that art is a much-neglected area of theprimary curriculum because of pressure to deliverthe core subjects. Teachers have the primeresponsibility for delivering the curriculum andthis paper focuses on understanding primaryteachers’ expertise of teaching art. It investigatestheir attitudes to art and art teaching in relation totheir subject matter knowledge.

Subject matter knowledge has been the focusof several arguments in primary educationbecause primary teachers are required to teachall the subjects of the curriculum and fears areexpressed that the curriculum often posses unre-alistic demands on them, with educators arguingthat the established roles of generalist classteachers need to be supplemented by those ofthe subject specialists [2]. Past research inEngland and Wales [3] showed that more thanhalf of the primary teachers did not feel compe-tent in teaching art with their existing subjectknowledge and wanted support. Teachersexpressed concerns about their knowledgeabout art, their practical skills, and access to suit-able resources. Weibe [4], in her study in Canada,demonstrates that art specialists are more effec-tive than generalist class teachers in the quality ofart experiences offered to pupils. Pupils taught byart specialists improved more in their painting andcompositional skills, were more able to expressthemselves personally, and learned more artconcepts and vocabulary than pupils taught byclassroom teachers. Still not all teachers and arteducators are convinced that the possession ofsubject knowledge itself guarantees quality [5],as a teacher’s capacity to teach depends on anappropriate blend of subject matter knowledgeand pedagogical knowledge [6].

More recent studies move the argument toanother level by addressing clearly the issue ofsubject matter knowledge for teaching purposes,and thus introducing the issue of subject knowl-edge and pedagogical knowledge ‘working’together [7]. In relation to teacher training,Cochran, DeRuiter, and King [8] propose a modelfor teacher preparation that is based onShulman’s [9] concept of pedagogical contentknowledge, called pedagogical content knowing(PCKg). This model identifies four areas of knowl-edge that teachers need to have a goodunderstanding in order to achieve effective teach-ing: subject matter knowledge, pedagogicalknowledge, knowledge of learners, and knowl-edge of the environmental contexts. This modelillustrates that the act of teaching does not involvewhat many beginning teachers think, a simpletransmission of subject matter knowledge topupils, but there is a need for the transmission ofsubject knowledge and for reflecting on how togo about this transmission; that is, how teachersrelate what they know about what they teach(subject matter knowledge) to what they knowabout teaching (pedagogical knowledge), andhow their subject matter knowledge is part of theprocess of pedagogical reasoning [10]. This trans-formation occurs as teachers critically reflect onand interpret their subject knowledge, find differ-ent ways to represent information, adaptmaterials according to pupils’ prior knowledge,abilities, gender and preconceptions and finallytailor the material to individuals [11].

A novel way to offer a fresh insight to theunderstanding of teachers’ expertise of teaching(PCKg) is by examining not only what teachersthemselves state about their teaching but alsowhat pupils say about their teachers. It issuggested that teachers working from a strongsubject matter knowledge basis will probably bemore able to respond to pupils’ needs [12] andthus be more able to promote strong positive atti-tudes towards art among their pupils. However,these arguments are based on evidence regard-ing the effectiveness of teaching based on

36Victoria Pavlou


teachers’ point of view and not on pupils’accounts; it is this gap the present paperaddresses. More specifically the following ques-tions are dealt with: What are teachers’ attitudestowards art and art teaching? Are these influ-enced by their subject matter knowledge? Doteachers’ specialisation and attitudes make adifference to pupils’ attitudes? What are theteachers’ types of knowledge (pedagogical orsubject matter) that make a difference to pupils’attitudes? Which profile of teacher is the mosteffective in the pupils’ eyes?

The teachers’ profiles described in this paperemerged during the process of answering theabove questions.

Method The study was conducted in Cyprus during Mayand June of 2000. Sixteen teachers participatedin this study. There were two male and fourteenfemale teachers between the ages of 27 and 39.Teachers had different levels of art specialisation:a) five of them were art specialists, that is, primaryschool teachers who pursued their special inter-est in art by obtaining further qualificationsabroad, such as MA in art and design educationor BA in fine arts, b) four were primary schoolteachers who had chosen an extra module for artduring their last year of their teacher-trainingcourse, and who were named – at the initial stageof the study – as semi-specialists, and c) sevenwere primary school teachers with no specialisa-tion in art teaching.

With the purpose of gaining insight into teach-ers’ attitudes towards art and towards artteaching semi-structured interviews were carriedout. The interview schedule consisted of open-ended questions covering two broad areas. Onthe one hand the interviews aimed to elicit teach-ers’ attitudes towards art, and more specifically,teachers’ perceptions of ‘what is art’, the way thatteachers felt personally in dealing with art interms of both enjoyment and confidence (in thepast as pupils and students, and in the present),and teachers’ views about the importance and

usefulness of art in society and in school. On theother hand the interviews focused on teachers’attitudes towards art teaching practice; their opin-ions about the aims of art lessons, their beliefsabout how pupils learn/improve in art, their viewson the role of the art curriculum, their views aboutthe importance of studying artworks/artists/artmovements, and how they dealt with existingproblems. Teachers were also asked to giveaccounts/examples of their art lessons, and in fewoccasions there were observations of art lessons.

Teachers were interviewed individually withinterviews running from 45 to 90 minutes. Theinterviews were audio taped and transcribed. Thetranscripts were returned to teachers for verifica-tion and clarification. The analysis of the data wasfounded on an inductive approach, which isbased on a constant comparative method of dataanalysis proposed by Maykut and Morehouse[13]. A follow-up interview was arranged with sixteachers, whose classes were chosen for pupilinterviews.

ResultsThe presentation of teachers’ profiles is part of abigger study [14] that aimed: a) to assess sixthgrade pupils’ attitudes to art experienced inschool and b) to investigate the role of their teach-ers’ level of art specialisation. In an effort to betterunderstand the relationship between teachers’subject matter knowledge and attitudes andpupils’ attitudes, the profiles emerged. That is,taking into consideration what pupils ‘said’ on anattitude questionnaire and during interviewsabout their teachers’ ability to promote strongpositive attitudes among them, new ways ofcategorising teachers emerged. 420 pupils – asixth grade class each taught by the 16 teachers– completed a Likert-type attitude questionnaire,which was constructed for the purpose of thisstudy. Four pupils (two boys and two girls withmixed abilities) from six classes were interviewedin groups and individually. The degree – accord-ing to the attitude questionnaire – to whichteachers were able to promote high positive atti-

37Victoria Pavlou


tudes among their pupils, prompted a re-organi-sation of the initial three categories of teachersthat took into consideration only teachers’ level ofspecialisation to three ‘new’ categories that tookinto consideration teachers’ level of specialisationand teachers’ attitudes [15] (see phase 1 and 2 atfigure 1).

In addition pupils’ interviews indicated that artspecialists could be divided into two sub-cate-gories: those who were artists and those whowere not. Pupils’ comments indicated that non-artists were probably more able to respond totheir learning preferences and there was also asense that pupils taught by them enjoyed artmore. This was also confirmed by the attitudequestionnaire [16]. A second important variablefor grouping teachers was teachers’ responsesduring interviews. Teachers’ attitudes to art andart teaching, as expressed in the interviews,enabled the researcher to develop the categoriesfurther and elaborate them into profiles by identi-fying the issues that distinguish the artists fromthe non-artists art specialists. It is fair to noticethat these issues might have gone unnoticed ifpupils’ views were not considered. Moreover,

teachers’ interviews indicated that within theUNS category of teachers, there were two sub-categories because teachers’ negative attitudestowards art teaching was the result of two differ-ent viewpoints: one of frustration because oftheir inability to overcome contextual problems,and one of indifference towards the art subject ingeneral. Thus pupils’ stated attitudes and teach-ers’ attitudes let to the elaboration of the fiveprofiles (see phase 3 of figure 1).

ProfilesTeacher and pupil data indicated that teachers’expertise in teaching was influenced by at leastfive elements: their attitudes towards art, theirsubject knowledge, their pedagogical knowl-edge, their knowledge of learners, andknowledge of environmental context. The PCKgmodel [17] is used to illustrate each teacherprofile by showing which component has moreweight in each case (see figure 2). More detailedinformation about the characteristics of eachprofile is given below. The reason for presentinghow each profile may be placed within the PCKgmodel is to offer an overview of what will follow

38Victoria Pavlou


and to use this figure as a reference throughoutthe presentation of the profiles.

AT is used for the artist-teacher and it is posi-tioned within the component of subject matterknowledge. ST represents the specialist-teacherand it is located close to the centre of the fourcomponents. ENS is for the enthusiastic non-specialist who could fit within the knowledge of thepupils and/or within the knowledge of pedagogy.DNSrepresents the disappointed non-specialistandis positioned within the environment contextknowledge. Lastly INS is used for the indifferentnon-specialistand it is placed outside of the cycles.

Artist-teacher (AT)ATs were confident in their abilities in art andappeared to work from a strong subject knowl-edge base. They were knowledgeable of artists,art movements and different techniques of work-ing with different materials and thus theyappeared to have the knowledge to advancepupils’ work. They enjoyed teaching art and beingengaged personally in making art and visitingexhibitions. They were very pleased to havesucceeded in exhibiting their work and thus tohave ‘entered’ the ‘world’ of artists.

Before going for studies abroad, I thought that Iwould never make abstract art. I liked realistic art. […]But my views changed radically. I wanted to changethem! I’m very pleased with my studies […] I partici-pated in three group exhibitions … it was great! I amnow working on my first individual exhibition! (Artist-teacher)

However, at the time of interviewing, theywere not well-recognised professional exhibitingartists and they were probably at the beginning oftheir search to find their own ‘style’.

AT’s talked about their work with a great dealof enthusiasm. They had specific aims in mind,which were based on the principles of the artcurriculum (art production, responding to art [18],art criticism and art history). For them it wasimportant to teach pupils to see art both fromwithin (as a productive activity) and from without(as an aesthetic activity), as makers and as view-ers. They also engaged pupils in discussionsabout the very nature of art in an effort to helpthem realise that there were several ways ofdefining art and that art was not just a depictionof reality. They acknowledged that most sixthgraders asked for realism and started to doubttheir abilities in art making. Thus, they believedthat responding to art had a crucial role to play in

Opposite:

Figure 1The devopment ofthe profiles from theintial categories ofteachers based onteachers’ subjectmatter knowledgeand attitudes to art

Above:

Figure 2 Teachers’ profilesand PCKg

39Victoria Pavlou


helping pupils broaden their views of what artwas. To this end, they introduced abstract art totheir pupils and they aimed at taking them to exhi-bitions. It is these activities that ATs believedcontributed to the artistic development of theirpupils. These teachers acknowledged problemsthat made their work difficult (such as time, spaceand resources), but they had a positive attitudeand believed that they could find solutions tothem. Teachers from this group seemed to workfrom different aesthetic positions [19]: pragmaticand formalism. Overall, AT’s teaching expertisewas highly influenced by their strong subjectmatter knowledge and thus this profile is placedwithin the ‘range’ of the subject knowledgecomponent of PCKg (see figure 2).

Pupils taught by an artist-teacher appeared toacknowledge that the instructions they receivedfrom their teacher, which were based on specificsubject matter knowledge, were important. Theyalso acknowledged, when comparing theircurrent art lessons with those received duringprevious years, that not having these instructionswould mean that there would be no learningopportunities and thus the lessons would be lessexciting. However, they noted that they wouldprefer to have more choices and some less struc-tured lessons than those experiencing at present.In addition, pupils indicated that they did notalways share their teacher’s interests. It appearsthat things that the teacher perceived as interest-ing and exciting for the pupils (e.g., exhibitions)were not actually so exciting for them.

Specialist-teacher (ST)ST’s were teachers who enjoyed art as pupils,enjoyed teaching art and who wanted to teach artbetter and thus pursued further qualifications(MA in art and design education).

I went for further studies because I personally enjoyart and I wanted to see how I could transmit this feel-ing; whether I could somehow pass it on to children.(Specialist-teacher)

They felt confident in doing their work well, butthey also expressed their uneasiness on certainmatters. This uneasiness was not perceived as aproblem but rather as strength because itseemed to make them aware of their limitations,to be self-reflective and to aim to improve further.They noticed that when planning art activitiesthey took into consideration pupils’ current knowl-edge and skills and aimed at filling ‘gaps’ –according to the curriculum – from previousyears. At the same time they worried aboutpupils’ attitudes to art, about pupils’ resistant todiscussions (e.g. about responding to art) andabout their influence on them. More specifically,they were concerned about the art education thatpupils were receiving during previous years,which they believed that contributed to the ‘low’status of art in the eyes of pupils; art being viewedas merely fun or just a practical activity, an activitythat is not of great value in pupils’ lives. Thesewere a few of the attitudes that ST’s aimed tochange. ST’s valued their role a lot in shaping theirpupils’ attitudes and wished that they had moretime and fewer pupils in order to maximise theeffects of their teaching and be able to influencethem not only with their teaching, but with theirattitudes, too.

ST’s believed that art production and respond-ing to art should be important elements of each artlesson. They exhibited well-planned lessons, withstimulus, multiple aims, steps to achieve themand time for pupils to reflect on their work. Whenresponding to questions, which indirectly askedfor their views on how pupils’ develop in art, ST’semphasised the role of teachers. More specifi-cally, they referred to teachers’ art instructionsbeing based on two elements: knowledge of thedifficulties that pupils face, and designing activi-ties that gradually become more demanding.These would lead to a more positive attitude to art.ST’s appeared to have a mixture of a pragmaticand an expressive position [20] towards art teaching.

Specialist–teachers exhibited a substantialknowledge of art, which appeared not as strong asartist-teachers’ subject knowledge. However, it

40Victoria Pavlou


seemed to be well integrated with their pedagogi-cal knowledge (e.g., they worried about andreflected on their influence on pupils) and with theirpupils’ knowledge (e.g., they took into considera-tion pupils’ knowledge, skills and attitudes to artand plan their art activities accordingly). Thus, thisprofile is placed in the middle of the four compo-nent of PCKg (see figure 2).

Pupils, taught by one of these specialist-teach-ers, made only positive comments about theirinteractions with their teacher. They appeared tohave a friendly relationship with their teacher,which was based on the teacher’s ‘ability’ tolisten to them; she did not try to impose anythingon them, but instead offered them choices. Thespecialist-teacher appeared to know how to moti-vate pupils and how to respond to their needs forchoices with tactful guidance. She was able tomaintain high levels of enjoyment for all the pupilsin her class, and this can attributed mostly to herknowledge of pedagogy and understanding ofthe learners.

Enthusiastic non-specialist (ENS)ENS teachers appeared to thoroughly enjoy artwhen they were pupils and to enjoy art teaching.One of them commented: ‘I believe in art and Iwant children to do art […] art is not just a subject,it’s free expression’. Despite the fact that theseteachers were not specialised in art teaching,they seemed to be very sensitive towards art andwell self-motivated in that they took the time tostudy on their own. They were also willing toimprove and at times they participated in shortcourses/seminars on art teaching. They approachedart as a serious subject that dealt not only withemotions and feelings, but also with knowledgeand intellect. When teaching art they includedactivities about making art, and also seemed ableto initiate art activities that at times includedstudying art as well. ENS teachers did not sharethe strong views expressed by AT’s and ST’sabout giving attention to the history of art and tothe works of artists. They mentioned that occa-sionally they had short discussions about

artworks and artists but not extensive ones.Reasons for not offering systematically activitiesabout responding to art, included lack of repro-ductions, time and their own insufficientknowledge. When they referred to insufficientknowledge that meant not knowing many artistsand not knowing how to teach pupils aboutartworks. So, art production was their main aim.They also noted that they aimed at motivatingpupils and keep them engaged with art produc-tion by offering a variety of materials. Theiremphasis was on self-expression and art makingrather than responding to art.

ENS teachers seemed to be operating from anexpressionist position. They believed that art’smost important role lied in the fact that during artlessons pupils had opportunities to expressideas, opinions and judgment. Pupils werepraised for the uniqueness of their work becauseteachers believed that it should not be a prede-termined standard response. They defined art asa personal form of expressing feelings. Teachersclassified within this profile had various viewsabout how pupils improved in art, includingemphasis to autonomous learning, motivatingpupils, the role of praise, the role of specific artinstructions and the use of a variety of materials.

ENS teachers paid equal attention to theirpupils and to their teaching practice and can becharacterised as having a pupil-centredapproach. Thus, this profile of teachers can beplaced within the two components of PCKgnamed as knowledge of pedagogy and knowl-edge of pupils, see figure 2.

Pupils’ interview data indicated that their ENSteacher gave special attention to them and thather art class could be described as warm, demo-cratic and learner-centred. The pupils noted thattheir teacher was very friendly with them and thatshe paid lot of attention to their work. Pupilstrusted her advice and enjoyed the choices thatthey had. Pupils were free to make choicesregarding the theme and the way they wanted towork but at the same time their teacher held theultimate responsibility for art activities and the

41Victoria Pavlou


outcome of their work. The feedback given to thepupils focused on motivating them and encour-aging them to put more effort. Pupils alsobelieved in the role of effort in achieving goodresults rather in the role of talent. Despite theirabilities, the pupils interviewed felt satisfied withtheir work and noted that they enjoyed art. Theycommented on a feeling of total involvementwhen making art, a feeling of holistic sensation.

Disappointed non-specialist (DNS)What distinguishes DNS teachers from the restof the teachers was their frustration with theCypriot school reality regarding art. They talkedvery emotionally and the interviews with themappeared to have a cathartic role because theywere able to express all the feelings of disap-pointment that they had. They enjoyed art aspupils and appeared to be teachers who lovedart. They were upset because they felt art was notgiven the appropriate attention by the teachersand the Ministry. They noted that art wasneglected and it was not given the space andresources needed, nor was it valued by the major-ity of teachers. They believed that most teachersdid not have a ‘serious attitude’ towards art andthat they just gave paper and pastels to pupils todraw. As a result pupils were bored and by thesixth grade did not want to make art, a feelingthat, as teachers, could not easily overturn.

They were disappointed because they were notin a position to offer ‘high quality’ lessons, as theyput it, either because they did not have the knowl-edge (specific subject matter knowledge) or/andthe means (space, materials) or/and the time (theywere overwhelmed by other responsibilities).

When art is one of the nine subjects that you do inyour class, then … this thing is ‘killing’ you … youhave so many things to do, to prepare [….], you don’thave enough time to devote to art. I believe that anart teacher would probably have better results thana class teacher, because she would be devoted inart, only art, yes! This is very important! (Disappointednon-specialist)

They aimed to offer art activities that wentbeyond art production to responding to art, butwere unable to do so because of the problemsmentioned above. Even when they includedthese in their plans, they were disappointed bythe results. DNS teachers acknowledged sixthgraders’ need for realism, but responded to thisneed very differently: either they believed that itwas a stage that pupils had to go through and feltunable to boost pupils’ confidence and encour-age them to try, or they had discussions withpupils to convinced them that realism was notalways important because of their beliefs that arthad to do with ideas and not with the depiction ofreality. On both occasions, they thought theywere not successful.

In general, DNS teachers did not appear to bestrong self-motivated, as ENS teachers were, andthus claimed that they could not overcome theproblems that they were facing. Not being able tosee a feasible way of improving the present situ-ation made them feel frustrated and it wasunclear whether the pupils picked up this frustra-tion. These teachers’ practice was highlyinfluenced by the environmental context andtherefore this profile may be best representedwithin the component of environmental contextknowledge of PCKg (see figure 2).

Pupils taught by a DNS teacher did not havemuch to say about their teacher’s role in support-ing them. In general terms they noted that theirteacher was helpful, but when prompted to giveexamples, they were not able to find any and theyeven noted that they were not very satisfied withhis support in response to their specific prob-lems. The teacher was not able to give specificsolutions for their difficulties. In addition, theyperceived art activities to be hard and thereforethey had to choose for themselves easier activi-ties. This freedom for choice did not appear toboost their low confidence in their abilities.

Indifferent non-specialist (INS)None of the teachers included in this profile feltvery confident when dealing with art when they

42Victoria Pavlou


were pupils themselves nor did they enjoy art much.This attitude seemed to stay unchanged throughtheir initial training as teachers. These teachersbelieved that art did not play a significant role in pupils’lives and they were very clear about why this washappening. Without making excuses they said thatthat they were responsible for this situation becausethey did not have the knowledge to teach art.

I feel insecure. That is, I feel that a sixth grade class hasmany things to do. The children have to do manythings. When you are not feeling satisfied with yourknowledge, when you feel this ‘gap/emptiness’,then it’s unfair to the children. […] I didn’t want toteach art […] I wish somebody else took over.(Indifferent non-specialist)

So, INS teachers appeared to believe that artinvolved a body of knowledge, but knowledgethat they did not have and therefore could nottransmit. None of them had specific aims in mindand they did not use the art curriculum (theywould like more detailed help). Their art lessonswere theme-centred; they thought of a themeand suggested it to the pupils. There was noextensive discussion, no responding to artworks,and no form of evaluation. Despite this inappro-priate way of dealing with art, they noted that artwas useful to pupils as a pleasant respite from theother subjects. They noted that things could beimproved if teachers who were more interestedin art took responsibility for teaching art. They alladmitted that they sometimes used the time allo-cated for art in their own class for another subject.When asked to define art, they referred to it asmaking things and expressing one’s emotionsand imagination. They also referred to the notionof talent and beauty. Sixth graders in their classeshad opportunities to produce art but with minimalinstructions and discussion and therefore teach-ers could not say whether pupils had actuallyimproved in art. Their lack of confidence in artmaking and lack of enjoyment of art did notenable them to provide meaningful art activitiesto pupils.

It was not possible to locate this profile ofteachers within the PCKg model because thismodel does not refer directly to teachers’ attitudestowards art. Therefore the INS profile is placedoutside the cycles that form the four componentsof PCKg model to indicate teachers’ limited knowl-edge of the four types of knowledge thatcompose the expertise of teaching (see figure 2).

Pupils taught by an INS teacher did not haveany comments about their teacher’s support andinteractions. The lack of comments was by itselfsignificant. They appeared to have low expecta-tions of their teacher’s help; they perceived herrole to be to provide them with paper, pastels anda theme. Pupils perceived art to be mainly draw-ing and this view was fostered by the limited artexperience of the teacher. In addition, it seemed– according to pupils’ remarks – that there was adiscipline problem because no real learningopportunities were offered and pupils noted thatit was not so easy to relax during art lessons dueto the noise.

Discussion In this paper it is shown that pupils’ views ‘over-turned’ the assumption that the stronger thesubject matter knowledge, the more able teach-ers were in promoting positive attitudes amongpupils. This is a surprising but interesting result. Ifpupils’ views were not taken into account, onewould assume that artist-teachers were the bestteachers to teach art to sixth graders. Whatmakes a real difference to pupils’ attitudestowards art is a successful integration of differenttypes of knowledge [21], which include peda-gogical knowledge and subject knowledge. Thisintegration is best evident in specialist-teachers.

A very important issue that needs to bestressed is that, at times, it is hard to distinguishbetween pedagogical knowledge and subjectknowledge. This is because it appears that teach-ers’ subject matter knowledge is related to theirteaching approaches (pedagogy). Teachers’ levelof art specialisation appears to reflect certainconcepts of teaching and these tend to be in

43Victoria Pavlou


better agreement with certain approaches toteaching. More specifically art specialists appearto believe that one of art education’s central rolesis the aesthetic development of their pupils; theircomments during interviews reflected a concernwith the disciplines of art learning [22] which putmore emphasis on systematic enquiry (theyreferred to the need for pupils to critically view artworks, to learn about Art History, to visit exhibi-tions, to record their observations, etc.). Artspecialists (bothartist-teachersand specialist-teach-ers)possess strong subject knowledge and thustend to adopt a more content-centered approachto teaching which appears to have two dimen-sions: teacher-directed and pupil-initiated [23](see figure 3).

Figure 3 summarizes the three profiles ofteachers, who had the most positive impact onpupils, in terms of their teaching approaches anddimensions. Artist-teachers – who have verystrong subject knowledge – tend to adopt a morecontent-centered/teacher directed approach,whereas specialist-teachers – who have lessstrong subject knowledge – tend to adopt a morecontent-centered/pupil-initiated approach.

Enthusiastic non-specialists teachers – who donot have strong subject knowledge – appear toadopt a pupil-centered approach. To sum-up, itappears that the stronger the level of subjectmatter knowledge is, the greater the possibilityfor teachers to adopt a content-centeredapproach and the greater the possibility that thisapproach will be teacher-directed. Specialist-teachers are the teachers who tend to adopt amore balanced approach: the content-centered/pupil-initiated approach and pupils have pointedout that these teachers are the most successful

ones in their eyes. These teachers had the neces-sary subject matter knowledge and were able torespond to pupils’ learning preferences, withimplications for their pedagogy. It seems thatspecialist-teachers believed that it was importantor necessary to adopt the Deweyan pragmatictenet to start where their pupils are; that is to seethem as individuals with different past experi-ences, perceived abilities, intentions, andtherefore, with different perceptions and atti-tudes. On the other hand artist-teachers’ personalrelation with art seemed to ‘block’ their ability tocome closer to pupils and understand theirneeds. It appears that artist-teachers’ involve-ment with art was not always translated intoeffective teaching for the pupils. The question is:do artist-teachersstart where their pupils are, or aretheir personal relations with art the dominantelement in their teaching? Is their relationshipwith art more important to them than their rela-tionship with the pupils? Furthermore, do (some)artist-teachersbelieve that they know what is bestfor their pupils? If so, how do they know? Is itappropriate to use the criteria of the art world indeciding what is best for sixth grade pupils?

Behind these questions lurks what McFee [24]describes as ‘the art versus the education of arteducation dichotomy’. As McFee [25] puts it ‘onthe one hand are those who are concerned withthe artof art education and have little concern forhow it is going to be taught and to whom’, and onthe other hand are those who are primarilyconcerned with the education in art education andwith ‘ways to teach pupils with many differentaptitudes for creating and responding to varyingkinds of art’. In the context of this dichotomy, thisstudy’s findings support that a combination of

44Victoria Pavlou


both will have the more positive outcomes forpupils. Standing at either ‘extreme’ of thisdichotomy, e.g. the artist-teachers versus theenthusiastic non-specialist teachers, appears tohave positive effects on pupils. Enthusiastic non-specialists have the benefit of being more awareof and attuned to pupils’ needs, interests andbeing able to motivate them successfully butartist-teachers are far better prepared to movepupils beyond art production and personal pref-erences into more sophisticated and complexlevels of aesthetic understanding and judgment.This paper suggests that the best teachers toachieve both are specialist-teachers, who not onlyknow where to start but also how to facilitategrowth in art by engaging pupils both in artproduction and other aesthetic activities (art talk,criticism, history of art, etc), by using a content-centered/pupil-initiated approach.

This paper sets the ground for examining andunderstanding teaching practice. Further researchwill be necessary to elaborate these profilesfurther and clarify issues that contribute tosuccessful learning and teaching. This will set thegrounds for developing programmes (in-servicecourses) that would target each teacher’s needsand thus help teachers to offer more meaningfulart experiences to their pupils, as it is unlikely thatart teaching in the near future will be undertakenby art specialists. Primary teachers will continue tobe responsible for art in primary schools and there-fore it is important to understand their needs andattitudes, and respond to them.

References1. Prentice, R. (1999) Art: Visual Thinking, inPrentice R and Riley J [Eds] The curriculum for 7-11 year olds. London: Paul Chapman publishingLtd, pp.146-164.

2. Alexander, R, Rose, J. and Woodhead, C.(1992) Curriculum organisation and classroompractice in primary schools: a discussion paper.London: Department of Education and Science.

3. For more information about the issue ofprimary teachers’ art subject knowledge see: a)Wragg, E.C, Bennett, N. and Carve, C. (1989)‘Primary teachers and the National Curriculum,’Research Papers in Education, Vol. 4, No. 3,pp.17-46, b) Bennett, N. Wragg, E.C, Carr, C. andCarter, D. (1992) ‘A Longitudinal study of primaryteachers’ perceived competence in, andconcerns about, National Curriculum implemen-tation,’ Research Papers in Education, Vol. 7, No.1, pp.57-78, and c) Clement, R. (1994) ‘The readi-ness of primary schools to teach the nationalcurriculum in art and design’, Journal of Art andDesign, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.9-19.

4. Weibe, W (1992) ‘Student’s Experiences inArt under different staffing arrangements’ inJohnson, A [ed] Art Education: Elementary,Reston, VA: NAEA, pp.97-104.

5. Holt, D (1997) ‘Hidden strengths: the case forthe generalist teacher of art’, in Holt D [ed],Primary Arts Education: contemporary issues,London: Falmer Press, pp. 84-95.

6. Shulman, L (1986) ‘Those who understand:knowledge growth in teaching,’ EducationalResearcher, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.4-14.

7. There are at least three recent studies thatdeal with the role of subject knowledge forteaching purposes. These are: a) Green, L. andMitchell, R (1998) ‘The effectiveness of an initialteacher training partnership in preparingstudents to teach art in the primary school,’Journal of Art and Design Education, Vol. 17, No 3,pp. 245-254, b) Sekules, V, Tickle, L and

Opposite:

Figure 3Profiles, approchesand dimensions forteaching Art

45Victoria Pavlou


Xanthoudaki, M (1999) ‘Seeking art expertise:experiences of primary school teachers,’ Journalof In-service Education, Vo. 25, No. 3, pp. 571-581, and c) Prentice, R (2002) ‘The training ofprimary school teachers,’ Journal of Art andDesign Education, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 72-81.

8. Cochran, K, DeRuiter, J and King, R (1993)‘Pedagogical content knowing: an integrativemodel for teacher preparation,, Journal ofTeacher Education, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 263-272.

9. Shulman, L. op.cit.

10. Shulman, L. op.cit.

11. Cochran K., DeRuiter, J. and King, R., op.cit.

12. Prentice, R. op.cit.

13. Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (1994)Beginning Qualitative Research, A philosophicand Practical Guide. London, Philadelphia: TheFalmer Press.

14. Pavlou, V (2003) Sixth grade pupils’ attitudes toart and the influence of their teachers’ art specialisa-tion. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Institute ofEducation, University of London.

15. An ANOVA test of the pupils’ scores on theattitude questionnaire, based on the initial clas-sification of teachers, indicated that AS teachers(see figure 1 for the abbreviations used to char-acterise teachers) were the most successfulones in promoting strong positive attitudesamong their pupils in terms of enjoyment, confi-dence, usefulness support needed and learningpreferences, followed by the NS teachers andlast by the SS teachers (figure 1, phase 1). AnANOVA test of the subsequent classification ofteachers and thus of pupils, indicate that the ASteachers were still the most successful onesfollowed by the ENS and last by the UNS teach-ers (figure 1, phase 2). For details on the resultsof the ANOVA tests, see Pavlou, V. op.cit. p. 95and p.102.

16. For details on the results of the t tests, seePavlou, V. op.cit. p. 98.


18. The term ‘responding to art’ is borrowed byChapman, L (1978) Approaches in Art Education.United States of America: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, Inc.

19. Efland, A (1979) ‘Conceptions of teaching inart education,’ Art Education, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.21-33.

According to Efland there are four majoraesthetic positions that influence our thoughtsabout art including how it could or should betaught and these are based on whether we giveemphasis on the artistic process, or the qualitiesof an art product, or the subject of a work, or theeffects it has upon its perceivers, or the artistitself. These aesthetic positions are the follow-ing: the mimetic (here art theories that supportthat art is an imitation of nature are included),the pragmatic (art theories whose majorpremise is that works of art can be knownthrough the effects they have upon their audi-ence are included), the expressive (the majorconcept of art theories included in this positionis that art is the expression of the artist’semotions) and the objective (art theories whosemajor position is that the work of art is a selfcontained entity that can speak for itself areincluded in this aesthetic position). There are anumber of independent developments withineach orientation that have a strong affinity withthat position. For example formalism is a latterday version of the objective position.

20. Efland, A. op.cit.


22. Greer, D (1987) ‘A structure of disciplineconcepts for DBAE,’ Studies in Art Education, Vol.28, No. 4, pp. 227-233.

46Victoria Pavlou


23. Lam, B (2000) ‘Secondary school art teach-ers’ concepts of teaching in Hong Kong, Journalof Art and Design Education,’ Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.208-216. Lam describes the relation betweensecondary art teachers’ concepts of teachingand their approaches to teaching. The terms‘teacher-directed’ and ‘student-initiated’ areborrowed from Lam, who uses them as synony-mous of the terms ‘teacher-centered’ and‘student-centered’. With these Lam describesthe two dimensions of the content-centeredapproach.

24. McFee, J (1991) ‘Art education progress: a field of dichotomies or a network of mutualsupport,’ Studies in Art Education, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 70-82.

25. Ibid, p. 72

47Victoria Pavlou

Download - Profiling Primary School Teachers in Relation to Art Teaching

Top Related