Abstract Creativity, Policy, and Practice: a Three-State
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT CREATIVITY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE: A THREE-STATE EXPLORATION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEFINITIONS OF CREATIVITY IN STATE ART EDUCATION POLICIES AND THEIR APPLICATION BY MIDDLE-LEVEL ART EDUCATORS Christopher Grodoski, Ph.D. School of Art and Design Northern Illinois University, 2016 Richard Siegesmund, Director More than ever, creativity is a necessary outcome for education. A global and networked society requires U.S. citizens to innovate within a variety of complex economic, political, and social realities. The necessity of creativity highlights a crucial role for art education in contemporary education. However, there is a lack of clarity about what constitutes creativity. In particular, there is a lack of knowledge about how research, policy, and the life contexts of art educators relate to the operationalization of creativity in practice. This study addresses an area of neglect by exploring relationships among categories of creativity in research, federal and state art education policies, and the operationalization of creativity by middle-level art educators. Relationships among life contexts of middle-level art educators and their operationalization of creativity were also explored. Three state cases – Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota – each with dissimilar levels of art education policies, provided the policy context for this study. This research identified five problem-based categorizations of creativity with a range of communicability. While the life experiences, education level, and work contexts of middle-level art educators were found to have an inconsequential relationship with the ways middle-level art educators operationalize creativity, findings indicated that instructional time most closely related to the use of more socially relevant and communicable categories of creativity in instruction. Findings also suggest that degree program quality, not the type of institution, and the climate of the school context in which they teach more closely relate to how middle-level art educators operationalize creativity. This study demonstrates how informal policy activities can be more influential in promoting research-based definitions of creativity than formal policies, which promote a more rhetorical version of creativity. Finally, this study included the development of a survey instrument for identifying categories of creativity, along with a framework for policy research in art education with applications for policy studies and strategic advocacy. Keywords Creativity, Policy, Middle-level Education NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DEKALB, ILLINOIS DECEMBER 2016 CREATIVITY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE: A THREE-STATE EXPLORATION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEFINITIONS OF CREATIVITY IN STATE ART EDUCATION POLICIES AND THEIR APPLICATION BY MIDDLE-LEVEL ART EDUCATORS BY CHRISTOPHER GRODOSKI ©2016 Christopher Grodoski A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SCHOOL OF ART AND DESIGN Dissertation Director: Richard Siegesmund ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the art educators that invited me into my PhD studies, Dr. Boughton, Dr. Freedman, and Dr. Smith-Shank; each were uniquely inspiring for my first steps in this process. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Freedman in guiding this project during its inception and execution. I also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Siegesmund. His dedicated guidance, remarkable thoughtfulness, and sincere care have provided both challenge and confidence through the last steps of this project. I am additionally grateful to my committee members Dr. Keith Millis, Dr. Kryssi Staikidis, and Dr. David Walker. I am also in debt to Gail Jacky, whose guidance helped manifest a multi-faceted project into organized communication. I am grateful for other individuals that indirectly contributed to my work and thinking during this process. Significantly, I acknowledge the many indirect but influential contributions of NAEA Research Commission members, the resultant learning provided a wealth of insights that manifest throughout this project. I also gratefully acknowledge my many mentors and teachers whose dedication to learning has paved a way for mine. Yet, most significantly, I gratefully acknowledge Laura, my great love and partner. This project would not be possible with her support, which includes not only the sacrifices to provide space and time for my work, but also her deep, embodied commitment and belief in living a purposive and creative life. DEDICATION This dissertation is twice dedicated. First, this work is dedicated to the field of art education. It was in the art classroom where I found a home; it was in art practice that I developed questions and knowledge that animate much my life. Even still, my work as an art educator has provided me personal growth, new learning, and life-enriching relationships. The design of this research is intended to be a foothold for the field of art education. It is intended to ensure its long future in American education, so that students can continue to benefit from the unique learning opportunity it provides. Additionally, this endeavor is dedicated to my family. It is my parents, my grandparents, and my aunts and uncles, and my precious wife, who have shaped me throughout my life. Collectively, they have embodied, instilled, and encouraged a belief that life is, above all, an opportunity for personal growth, for sacrifice, for love, and for learning. The depth of gratitude is immeasurable. Endeavoring for a terminal degree is intended to manifest the beliefs and encouragements provided to me; it is a thank you. At the same time, the completion of this project is also a means continue a tradition of encouragement and path-paving. As such, this work is dedicated to my dear sons, Milo Jack and Felix Jerome, in that this milestone pave the way for your own endeavors in a rich and creative life of growth, of sacrifice, love, and of learning. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………xii LIST OF FIGURES……………….…………………………………………………………….xiii LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………xv Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 Context of the Study ................................................................................................................... 1 Benefits and Challenges of Creativity in Education ................................................................... 2 Creativity Confusion ............................................................................................................... 6 Research Context of Creativity ................................................................................................... 6 Creativity’s Challenge ............................................................................................................. 6 Problem of Language and Creativity ....................................................................................... 7 Creativity as the Result of Problem Solving ........................................................................... 8 Domain-Neutral and Domain-Specific Definitions of Creativity ........................................... 9 Context of Creativity in Education Policy ................................................................................ 10 Creativity and Democratic Schooling ................................................................................... 11 Education Policy Realities ..................................................................................................... 12 Policy Networks .................................................................................................................... 13 Context of Middle-level Art Education .................................................................................... 15 v Chapter ..................................................................................................................................... Page Life Contexts of Middle-level Art Educators ........................................................................ 18 Review of Contexts ................................................................................................................... 19 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 20 Clarified Creativity Research ................................................................................................ 21 Articulated Art Education and Creativity Policies ................................................................ 22 Significance for Middle-level Art Education ........................................................................ 24 Synthesized Significance ....................................................................................................... 24 Review of Creativity’s Significance ...................................................................................... 26 Research Questions and Subquestions ...................................................................................... 26 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................................. 27 Categories of Higher Education Institutions ......................................................................... 27 General Definitions ..............................................................................................................