Take-Home Diagnostic Exam
Part One: How the Article Provided Fits Within a Larger Body of Literature
Adding to a body of research which investigates the process of becoming an art educator, authors Buffington, Williams, Ogier, and Rouatt (2016) offer their study “Telling Our Tales: Becoming Art Educators”. Buffington et al. (2016) reinforce narrative inquiry as a valuable qualitative approach to conducting art education research, and they are supported in this perspective by several art education researchers who also use narrative inquiry to explore the unique paths art teachers take on their journeys (Bain, Newton, Kuster, & Milbrandt, 2010; Kowalchuck, 1999; Kraehe, 2015; Kuster, Bain, & Young, 2015).
The theoretical framework for this study is rooted in Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) philosophical concept of the rhizome and follows in the tradition of using a rhizomatic lens for mapping multiplicities, especially when visualizing and analyzing the complex nature of human development. However, by interpreting and presenting their findings using roughly chronological life stages as a framework for the construction of identity, the authors betray a tendency within art education research to cling to a tidy, though useless (Wilson & Wilson, 1981), theory of developmental stages even when purporting to research from a rhizomatic, sociocultural perspective of development.
Additionally, these authors perpetuate the practice of publishing research conducted on and by members of a graduate research methods class, in this case, an art education professor and four graduate students.
Narrative Inquiry in Art Education Research
The belief that narrative inquiry is a process which “sparks growth by learning through the experiences of the self and others” (Buffington et al., 2016) is widely held among art education researchers. Gathering personal narrative as data is a common practice in the field, and several studies are similar to Buffington et al.’s (2016) in their methodology. Studies conducted by Bain, Newton, Kuster, and Milbrandt (2010) and Kuster, Bain, and Young (2015) use narrative inquiry, interviews, and discussions to analyze the post-graduation experiences of art educators. One of these studies follows eleven teachers during their first year in the classroom (Bain et al., 2010) and the other follows up with five of these art educators during their fifth year of teaching (Kuster et al., 2015). These studies focus on the participants’ approaches to curriculum development rather than how they became art educators, however, they are valuable for envisioning what a continuation of the Buffington et al. (2016) study might have offered. Because the Buffington et al. (2016) article is introspective and reflective in nature, it possibly offers deeper, more meaningful understandings to the participants than to the field of art education. However, this is not a limitation of narrative inquiry as Bain et al. (2010) and Kuster et al. (2015) demonstrate how narrative inquiry research is capable of offering the field of art education concrete, generalizable findings.
Kraehe (2015) demonstrates the importance of narrative inquiry to critical race theory and critical pedagogy by exploring the power of developing counter-narratives, specifically how these stories help to reveal the relationship between race and art teacher identity. Echoing Milner (2008), Kraehe (2015) urges that “teacher education policy and practice need to become attentive and responsive to emergent counter-narratives” (p. 209) which may inform teacher education policies in more specific ways than the hubs of common connections which emerged from Buffington et al.’s (2016) narrative inquiry research.
The Rhizomatic Lens vs. Developmental Stages
The theoretical framework employed by Buffington et al. (2016) comes directly from Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) philosophical concept of rhizomatic development and relies on their definitions and descriptions of “rhizomes” (p. 7), “assemblages” (p. 4), and “multiplicities” (p. 8). Though rhizomes are resistant to chronological and hierarchical organization (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987), Buffington et al. (2016) present their findings by localizing their data around “hubs” (p. 332), places where their personal narratives overlapped and connected. These researchers gathered data rhizomatically yet, paradoxically, interpreted their data and presented their findings by constructing artificial boundaries of chronological life stages, mentors, and a catch-all umbrella of identity. This approach echoes a continuing struggle within the field of art education, a lingering resistance to the rejection developmental stages of artistic development, and a reluctance to practically and thoroughly embracing a fluid, sociocultural theory of the construction of identity.
The idea that theories of developmental stages “obscure more than they reveal” (Wilson & Wilson, 1981, p. 5) is not new, nor is it unique. Gardner (2002) proposes that the developmental stages fall short because they do not take into account multiple types of intelligence while Feldman (1987) argues that the stages are incomprehensive and have not incorporated significant findings in the field of developmental psychology. However, a strained relationship between art educators working in the classroom and “ivory tower researchers and theoreticians” (Feldman, 1987, p. 247) is perpetuated because contemporary theories of development which researchers find interesting do not always shed light on pedagogical practices (Wilson & Wilson, 1981, p. 5), or, if they do, require drastic changes in the classroom environment. When researchers are unable to make change palatable, art educators are reluctant to give up their established philosophies in exchange for new theories. Because of this, even researchers who operate from a sociocultural perspective of development such as Buffington et al. (2016) continue to lump data rich with nuances, complexities, and multiplicities into bland developmental stages which offer few executable insights.
Springgay (2009) embraces the uncertain, rhizomatic nature of “learning and knowing as a mode of relationality across difference” (p. 90) in order to experience and encourage the “giving over of the self, the affective openness to the other, and the indeterminableness of becoming” (p. 90). In contrast to the hubs organizing Buffington et al.’s (2016) findings, Springgay (2009) is more interested with relational connections which are made because of and in spite of differences and multiplicities, relationships committed to “perspectives of relationality, generosity, and corporeality” (p. 90). In doing so, Springgay’s (2009) approach to narrative inquiry research and pedagogical practices injects an element of risk into the development of Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) rhizomatic root structure, emphasizing that while the possibilities for connection always exist, growth and development stems from the unconditional offering of oneself.
Research Conducted on and by Graduate Students
The article put forth by Buffington et al. (2016) is one of many studies conducted on and by pre-service art educators (Kowalchuk, 1999). Bain et al. (2010), Kowalchuk (1999), and Zimmerman (1994) note that this kind of research is prolific, and understandably so. It is advantageous and convenient for professors and graduate students to use a research methods class as an opportunity to conduct and publish a study of their practices. However, Zimmerman (1994) calls for a commitment to additional research on emerging art educators, research that follows these new teachers into their classrooms and adheres to “a carefully constructed agenda rather than through indosyncratic studies that are not generalizable to other contexts” (p. 86). I suspect that due to the pressure academics feel to publish and help their students publish, and as long at the first few years of teaching are as difficult as they are, there will always be a greater number of studies conducted on graduate students in art education than on novice art teachers.
Part Two: Three Important Scholarly Issues in the Field of Art Education
The Sociocultural Theory of Artistic Development
The sociocultural theory of artistic development has been a critical issue in the field of art education for nearly a century, yet it remains so because remnants of the developmental stages of artistic development continue to lurk in our classrooms and curricula. By acknowledging that artistic development is a fluid, multi-faceted process steeped in the immediate needs and desires of the art-maker (Louis, 2005; Hamblen, 1984), art educators may adopt more compassionate, responsive approaches as they contribute to the artistic development of their students. Wolf (1988) suggests this may be accomplished by “studying complex, long-term learning” (p. 154), and Thompson (2005) encourages teachers and researchers “to construct knowledge directly based upon their own experiences with children” (p. 22) rather than rely on concrete developmental stages. Louis (2005) guides art educators away from a view of development that emphasizes “when children acquire certain information and skills and invites a consideration of the changes in the way children make use of information and skills they already possess” (p. 342).
The best way to understand artistic development is to study children as individual artists with unique goals for their art-making (Louis, 2005). Wolf’s (1988) case study of a single student reveals a rich, nuanced, and extremely complex process of artistic development that no standardized chart of stages or phases could have predicted. Pearson (2001) commands art educators to pay no attention to these imaginary stages but rather to the ways in which children use drawing (p. 362), particularly as a social practice. Though familiarity with artistic behavior which is typical of certain ages may comfort novice art educators, they should by no means treat these typical behaviors as “normal, desirable, or stable” (Thompson, 2005, p. 19). As the Reggio Emilia approach suggests, the most plausible contemporary method for understanding the artistic development of young people is to practice a “pedagogy of listening” (Thompson, 2005, p. 22).
In many ways, the sociocultural theory of artistic development is critical to the field of art education because it resonates with the humane reverberations of a person-first approach. This theory places the student at the center of learning rather than forcing the student to conform to a prescribed model of development. Pearson (2001), confirms Dissanayake’s (1974) and Mithen’s (2001) point of view that art-making is a social practice carried out by human beings, and they should be treated as individual humans, not merely as points of data.
Question-Based Curriculum
Whether informed by a critical pedagogical approach, the backward design model for curriculum development, or the postmodern tendency to value process over product, there is a contemporary trend in art education advocating for the creation of curriculum which consists of more questions than answers. When developing curriculum for the art classroom, Wiggins (1989), Gude (2004), and Bolin (1996) agree that art instructors must ask themselves and their students probing questions to obtain rich solutions and discoveries. Wiggins (1989) argues that curriculum is intended to “awaken, not ‘stock’ or ‘train’ the mind” (p. 46) and that questions are the most essential building blocks of curriculum. A proponent of the Socratic method, Wiggins (1989) encourages art educators to allow themselves and their students “freedom to go where questions lead” (p. 46). Gude (2004) uses questions as a tool for identifying subject matter that students will find engaging. This method leads Gude (2004) to challenge the role of the elements and principles of art, especially when conducting weekend workshops, for “a curriculum based on the bland and formal 7+7 would not engender in teen artists the commitment to get out of bed on chilly Saturday mornings” (p.8). Instead, Gude (2004) offers the art teacher “principles of possibility” (p. 6), a list of postmodern art making practices that are “hybrids of the visual and the conceptual” (p. 8). In the same spirit, Bolin (1996) illustrates the value of questions as a teaching and learning tool, yet addresses a common concern art educators have about a question-based curriculum: Won’t questions just lead to more questions? In response, Bolin (1996) compares significant questions that lead to more questions to the heads of the Hydra which grow back in multiples when they are decapitated. This empowers the question-asker by framing them as a Hercules and explaining that “such persistent battling shows we are engaged with something worthy of our most earnest struggle” (Bolin, 1996, p. 10).
This belief in the power of questions permeates our field and necessitates a willingness for art educators to listen actively and responsively. Bolin (1996) does not encourage the art educator to ask questions with correct answers in mind but rather to engage in the “long and arduous struggle” (p. 10) of listening and asking more questions. Gude (2007) proposes “asking students to reveal ‘the real you’” (p. 8), a question that requires vulnerability for both the student and the instructor, yet one that is essential for the development of the student. Wiggins (1989) lists knowing “how to listen to someone who knows something one does not know” (p. 48) as an intellectual virtue that is essential to model and instill in students.
A curriculum steeped in questions is more relevant and authentic than one built around memorizing and recalling factual content (Gude, 2004, p. 8). Gude’s (2004) Principles of Possibility “[are] structured, not according to principles of form, media, or disciplines, but from the students’ point of view, imagining what important ideas about the uses and making of art we want students to remember as significant” (Gude, 2007, p. 7). Gude (2004) wants “to give students a sense of participating in the unfolding of contemporary culture” (p. 8). This standard demonstrates the shared view among these authors that the student is just as, or more, capable than the instructor of determining what material has relevance and to use that discernment to produce authentic work.
Why is a question-based art curriculum a critical issue in our field? In part, it is because is it a solution for the current model of assessment which is not working, as voiced by Gude’s (2007) assertion that “today's students, over-constricted by an education system that often focuses on knowing the one right answer, need guidance in reclaiming their capacities for conceptual, imaginative play” (p. 8). Additionally, a question-based art curriculum deepens the understanding that students exhibit in response to big questions, and “the ultimate test is the student’s ability to say ‘This is important’ when the teacher is silent on the matter” (p. 58).
The Relationship Between Art and Play
Scholars researching play as a constructivist component of art making maintain that playfully interacting with their environment is a pleasurable way for students to gain understandings that enrich their creative process (Graham, 1994). Educators subscribing to this philosophy aim to create environments rich with learning potential (Adams, 2005). Educational approaches that deeply value play and strive to create rich learning environments include Froebel’s kindergarten (Strauch-Nelson, 2012) and the Reggio Emilia approach to education (Swann, 2008). Though these approaches typically target children below the age of five, scholars agree that play is an important part of human development throughout our lives (Sutton-Smith, 1997). As such, play is valued as an origin of the art-making process (Coler, 1974), and art students would benefit from its inclusion in the art classroom (Swann, 2008).
Over forty years ago, Efland (1976) wrote an analysis of the “school art style” (p. 37), a term for the sort of work produced in the highly institutionalized and repressive school environment where art class is often considered “‘time off for good behavior’ or “therapy’” (p. 40). The kind of artworks produced by this style are typically mindless crafts containing only a shallow whiff of relevance to the students’ lives (Gude, 2004). Evidently there is still a great dissonance between what we expect of art students in the school classroom and what we expect of professional artists in the real world (Gude, 2007).
Szekely (1994) proposes that the problem of the school art style may be solved by inviting students to make meaningful, personal contributions to the art-making process. As prompts for these contributions, Szekely offers a list of art homework assignments (Szekely, 2002), suggestions for getting students to discover and bring their own non-traditional art-making materials to class (Szekely, 1994), and how preliminary play in the art classroom may engage and prepare students to make contributions (Szekely, 1983).
Part Three: Main Research Interest
I grew up in Havana, Florida, a small town sixteen miles northwest of Tallahassee, where the delicate hospitality of Emily Post and the brutal injustices of Jim Crow mingled into a gothic amalgamation of Southern culture deeply embedded in my heart and mind. My desire to expose the complexities and the multiplicities of Southern culture has manifested in a research project which I am currently conducting, but I hope that this study will lead to another project in the same vein. I am currently involved in an oral history+arts-based research project investigating porch culture in Quincy, Florida. In this study I am conducting semi-structured, narrative interviews with residents of Quincy, Florida on their porches according to Ritchie’s (2015) practical guide to oral histories. I am also collecting memories and stories about their porches, their culture, and their community and documenting this process using arts-based research methodologies (Leavy, 2015). I offer this research as a counter-narrative to Porchfest, an annual celebration of porch culture which only focuses on the history and heritage of Quincy’s white population. I hope this research produces a polyphonic portrait of porch culture in and around Quincy, Florida which will help the town reflect more inclusively on its diverse community. More information on this project may be found at quincyporches.wordpress.com.
Though this particular research project is currently underway, I hope to build upon this study in the future. One possibility is that this research may serve as pilot study which can be transposed to other areas of Gadsden County, Florida. Alternatively, I may discover a more specific opportunity to used arts-based research methods to practice art education for social justice within Gadsden County while conducting this research.
To develop this research interest, I need to deepen my understanding of arts-based research. I plan to do so by taking Dr. Scott-Shield’s class on Arts-Based Research Methods in the Spring of 2018 and practicing these methods in my current research project. I also need to practice my interviewing techniques and procedures for doing oral history research. I hope to accomplish this during the porch research pilot study I am currently conducting in the Cultural Politics and Public Pedagogies class under the supervision of Dr. Fendler.
If I continue to research in Gadsden County, I will also need to learn more about its history and culture and begin developing relationships with community leaders. I may also benefit from a more thorough understanding of critical race theory and community-based art education. Additionally, learning how to publish and disseminate my research will be a vital part of accomplishing the goals of this project.
Sources inspiring this research interest include the following:
Adams, J., & Owens, A. (2016). Creativity and democracy in education: Practices and politics of learning through the arts. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Certeau, M. D. (2008). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press.
Desai, D. (2001). Working with people to make art: Oral history, artistic practice, and art education. Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 21, 72-90.
Donlon, J. H. (2001). Swinging in place: Porch life in southern culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Goffman, E. (2008). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
Hobbs, T. B. (2015). Lynched Twice: Arthur C. Williams, Gadsden County, 1941. University Press of Florida. doi:10.5744/florida/9780813061047.003.0002
Lawton, P. H. (2010). Hand-in hand, building community on common ground. Art Education, 63(6), 6-12.
Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. London: Guilford Press.
Ritchie, D. A. (2015). Doing oral history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
White, H. J. (2006). Effects of desegregation on Gadsden County, Florida Public Schools 1968-1972 (Master's thesis, Florida State University). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5186&context=etd
References
Adams, J. (2005). Room 13 and the Contemporary Practice of Artist-Learners. Studies in Art Education, 47(1), 23-33. Retrieved April 16, 2014.
Bain, C., Newton, C., Kuster, D., & Milbrandt, M. (2010). How do novice art teachers define and implement meaningful curriculum? Studies in Art Education, 51(3), 233-247.
Bolin, P. (1996). We are what we ask. Art Education, 49(5).
Buffington, M. L., Williams, A. E., Ogier, E., & Rouatt, L. (2016). Telling our tales: Becoming art educators. Studies in Art Education, 57(4), 329-340. doi:10.1080/00393541.2016.1204524
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury.
Dissanayake, E. (1974). A hypothesis of the evolution of art from play. Leonardo, 7(3), 211-217.
Efland, A. (1976). The school art style: A functional analysis. Studies in Art Education, 17(2), 37-44. doi:10.2307/1319979
Feldman, D. H. (1987). Developmental psychology and art education: Two fields at the crossroads. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 243-259.
Gardner, H. (2002). On the three faces of intelligence. Daedalus, 131(1), 139-142.
Graham, G. (1994). Art, pleasure, and play. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 28(2), 217-232. doi:10.1007/BF01079567
Gude, O. (2004). Postmodern Principles: In Search of a 21st Century Art Education. Art Education, 57(1), 6-14. Retrieved April 16, 2014.
Gude, O. (2007). Principles of possibility: Considerations for a 21st-century art & culture curriculum. Art Education,60(1), 6-17.
Hamblen, K. A. (1984). Artistic perception as a function of learned expectations. Art Education, 37(3), 20. doi:10.2307/3192761
Kowalchuk, E. A. (1999). Perceptions of practice: What art student teachers say they learn and need to know. Studies in Art Education, 41(1), 71. doi:10.2307/1320251
Kraehe, A. (2015). Sounds of silence: Race and emergent counter-narratives of art teacher identity. Studies in Art Education, 56(3), 199-213.
Kuster, D., Bain, C., & Young, J. (2015). Take five: Fifth-year art teachers' maturing understanding of curriculum. Studies in Art Education, 56(4), 369-381.
Louis, L. L. (2005). What children have in mind: A study of early representational development in paint. Studies in Art Education, 46(4), 339-355.
Milner, H. R. (2008). Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 332-346. doi:10.1177/0022487108321884
Mithen, S. (2001). The evolution of imagination: An archaeological perspective. SubStance, 30(1/2), 28-54.
Pearson, P. (2001). Towards a theory of children's drawing as social practice. Studies in Art Education, 42(4), 348-365.
Springgay, S. (2009). Cookies for peace and a pedagogy of corporeal generosity. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 31(1), 74-93. doi:10.1080/10714410802629268
Strauch-Nelson, W. (2012). Transplanting Froebel into the present. International Journal of Education Through Art,8(1), 59-72. doi:10.1386/eta.8.1.59_1
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Swann, A. C. (2008). Children, objects, and relations: Constructivist foundations in the Reggio Emilia approach. Studies in Art Education, 50(1), 36-50.
Szekely, G. (1983). Preliminary play in the art class. Art Education, 36(6), 18-24.
Szekely, G. (1994). Shopping for art materials and ideas. Art Education, 47(3, Bare Bones Art), 9-17. Retrieved April 18, 2014.
Szekely, G. (2002). Art homework. Art Education, 55(3, Back to the Future: [Re][De]Fining Art Education), 47-53.
Thompson, C. M. (2005). Under construction: Images of the child in art teacher education. Art Education, 58(2), 18-23.
Wiggins, G. (1989). The futility of trying to teach everything of importance. Educational
Leadership, 47(3), 44-48, 57-59.
Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1981). The use and uselessness of developmental stages. Art Education, 34(5), 4-5.
Wolf, D. (1988). Artistic learning: What and where is it? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(1), 143-155.
Zimmerman, E. (1994). Current research and practice about pre-service visual art specialist teacher education. Studies in Art Education, 35(2), 79. doi:10.2307/1320822