Abstract Theories Impacting Art Foundations Course

ABSTRACT

THEORIES IMPACTING ART FOUNDATIONS COURSE DESCRIPTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Alyson Pouls, Ph.D. School of Art and Design Northern Illinois University, 2017 Richard Siegesmund, Director

Traditional art foundations models focus on teaching freshman level art students strategies of visual composition through the use of the elements and principles of design. These visual qualities are presented as the fundamental basis for all art compositions. Rooted in the early

20th century modernist concept of formalism, the elements and principles purposely divorce art from narrative, social, or cultural influences, in favor of standardized visual regulations, repeated exercises, and technical skills. However, K-12 art educators, higher education art education faculty, and foundations faculty agree that visual and technical skills must be supported by a conceptual element, central to the artist’s voice, reflecting an ever changing and evolving personal and social discourse in support of democratic practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the impact of Modernist formalism and Postmodern art theory on written foundations curricula in the United States, by gathering course descriptions from 97 public and private colleges, to locate formal, technical, and conceptual language imbedded within art foundations. Based on aesthetic theories suggested by Ranciere, Foucault,

Dewey, and Efland, this study results in practical, applicable suggestions for a transformed art

foundations curriculum that weaves together concept, skill, and visual qualities for a relevant foundations paradigm.

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DEKALB, ILLINOIS

DECEMBER 2017

THEORIES IMPACTING ART FOUNDATIONS COURSE

DESCRIPTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

SCHOOL OF ART AND DESIGN

Doctoral Director: Richard Siegesmund

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could not have completed this dissertation without the help of my brother, Dr. Steven

Pouls, and his wife, Esther Pouls. The transportation help and the endless encouragement has made it possible for me to live this dream of completing my doctorate, and I cannot thank them enough.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the many students I have taught, my loving and patient husband Perry, and my late mother Deena, who always encouraged me to reach for the stars.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..….…… ix

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………...………………………..….…… xii

LIST OF APPENDICES………………...…………………………………………..….…… xiii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION…………………..…………………………….……..……………….. 1

Contemporary Context.……………………………………….…….….……………. 4

Personal Experience………………………………...... ………..….….……………... 12

Problem and Purpose…………………...…………………….……..….……………. 18

Research Questions and Sub-Questions…………………….………………….…….. 20

Significance of the Study.……………………………………………….…….….…... 21

Delimitations.……………………………………….………………….…………….. 21

Limitations………………………………...... ………..……………….……………... 22

Assumptions…………………...…………………….……………...….……………. 22

Definitions………………………………………………..……….….……….…...... 23

Methodology…………………….…………………………………..………….…….. 25

Organization of the Study……………………..……………….…………….…....…. 25

2. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………….……………………… 27

Chapter Page

Introduction.…………………………………….…………….…….….……………. 27

Aesthetics and Democracy………………………………...... ….….……………... 31

History, Purpose, and Evolution of the Stand-alone Art College in the U.S.….……. 38

Formalism and the Bauhaus Legacy…………...…………………….……….. 40

Art Education in Public Schools: Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE).... 44

Overview……………………....……………………………….…………….. 49

Advanced Placement (AP) Portfolio Assessment…………………….……………... 50

Art Foundations Now: Curriculum…………………..……………...….……………. 53

Professional Organizations: Foundations Now……………………………….…...... 55

Curriculum for Democracy…………………….……………………………….…….. 57

Summary………………..……………………..……………….…………….…....…. 60

3. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………..……… 61

Introduction……………………………..…………………………………….……... 61

Research Questions and Sub-Questions…………………….………………….…….. 61

Research Design...…………………………………..……………...………………... 62

Data Collection……….……………………………………….…….….……………. 63

Documents………...………………………………...... ………..….….……………... 64

Operationalized Definitions………………….....…………….……..….……………. 65

Sampling Strategy: Purposive…………………...………….………………….…….. 67

Sample Group 1 Criteria…………..…………………………….…….….…... 68

Sample 1 Search Protocol..………………….………………….…………….. 69

Chapter Page

Sample Group 2 Criteria…………..…………………………….…….….…... 73

Sample 2 Search Protocol..………………….………………….…………….. 74

Data Collection…………………………………….……..……….….……….…...... 77

Data Collection Processes: College Art Foundations Course Descriptions….. 80

Phase 2: Web Research/Document Analysis……………………...……....…. 81

Data Analysis………....……………………………………….…….….……………. 82

Quantitative Data…...………………………………...... ….….……………... 82

Chi-Square Tests………………………...……………………..……………. 84

Content Analysis Validity……………..…………………….……………….. 87

Unitizing…………………..…………………………………….…….….…... 87

Summary…....……………………………………….………………….…………….. 88

4. FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………..…..……….. 89

Summary of Collected Data…………………….…..……………………...………... 89

Research Questions.……………………………………..……………...………….... 90

Content Analysis Coding…………………….……………………...…………..…… 90

Curriculum Types…………………………………………………….……………… 91

Findings: Sub-Question (a)…………………………………..………...…………….. 93

State Colleges………………………………………….…………………...... 93

Private Colleges……….………………………………………………..……. 95

Findings: Sub-Question (b)………………...………………..………...…………….. 97

Findings: Sub-Question (c)…………………………………..………...…………….. 99

vii

Chapter Page

Results for “Type” and “Region”: Formal (FF)…………...………………… 99

Results for “Type” and “Region”: Technical (TT)…………...……………… 101

Results for “Type” and “Region”: Conceptual (CC)…………....…………… 101

Sub-Question (c) Findings: Interaction Effects………………………..…………….. 102

Results for “Type” and “Region” with Interaction: Formal (FF)………….… 102

Results for “Type” and “Region” with Interaction: Technical (TT)………… 103

Chi-square test for curriculum type (F/T/C/FT/FC/TC/FTC) by “Region”…………. 103

Midwest Region……………….……………………………………….…….. 104

Northeast Region………………………………………………..….……...... 104

South Region…………………………………………….…………....……... 104

West Region………………………………………….…………...……….… 105

Visual Model……………………………………………….…………………..……. 105

Summary……………………………………………………………...….………..…. 107

Conclusion…………………………………………………………....…………….... 107

5. INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS…………………………..……………….…….. 109

Limitations….…………………………..……………….…..…………………..…… 109

Organization of the Chapter.……………..…………..…………………...…….....… 110

Interpretation of the Findings.………………………...……………………..………. 110

Similar Results between State and Private Colleges……………………...…. 111

Regional Differences in Conceptual Language………………………..….… 115

Cause of Regional Differences……………………..……………………….. 115

viii

Chapter Page

Curriculum Models….…………………………..……………………..………..…… 121

A Rancièrian Theoretical Curriculum Model………………..……………… 122

A Foucaultian Theoretical Curriculum Model………………..……..……… 126

A Deweyan Theoretical Curriculum Model………………………………… 129

Towards a Democratic Post-Modern Curriculum Model…………………… 132

Building a Spiral Curriculum…………….…………………………...……….……. 133

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...… 137

Suggestions for Future Research……………………………...………..…………… 139

EPILOGUE……………………………………………………………………....…….……. 142

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..…….……. 146

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………...…….……. 154

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Definitions of Categories…………………………………………..………………… 66

2. Example Index of College and University Collected Information……………...…… 80

3. Sample of Sorted Data……………………………...………………...……………… 83

4. Variables Used for Comparisons and Format of Results…………………….……… 85

5. Codes for Curriculum Types……………………………...……………….………… 92

6. Public Colleges Results……………………………...…………………………….… 94

7. Private Nonprofit Art Colleges Results…………………………....………………… 96

8. Public and Private Colleges Combined Results……………………………...……… 98

A1. Sample Group 1: Public Colleges and Universities With Largest Population per State Offering Visual Art-Related Bachelor Degrees With NASAD or Regional Accreditation………………………………………………………………...…...……… 155

B1. Sample Group 2 : Chart of Private Nonprofit Schools With Bachelor’s-Level Art Programs by State With NASAD or Regional Accreditation…………………………… 160

C1. Raw Data Counts: Public Schools……………………………...…………………… 165

D1. Raw Data Counts: Private Schools……………………………...………...………… 173

E1. Region 1-Northeast: PUBLIC COLLEGES: 9 STATES/9 COLLEGES…..……… 183

E2. Region 1-Northeast: PRIVATE COLLEGES: 9 STATES/9 COLLEGES…...…… 184

E3. Region 2-Midwest: PUBLIC COLLEGES-12 STATES/12 COLLEGES…….…… 185

E4. Region 2-Midwest: PRIVATE COLLEGES-12 STATES/12 COLLEGES………… 186

Table Page

E5. Region 3-South: PUBLIC COLLEGES- 17 STATES/ 17 COLLEGES….....……… 187

E6. Region 3-South: PRIVATE COLLEGES- 17 STATES/ 16 COLLEGES…..……… 188

E7. Region 4-West: PUBLIC COLLEGES-13 STATES/13 COLLEGES……....……… 189

E8. Region 4-West: PRIVATE COLLEGES-13 STATES/9 COLLEGES….…..……… 190

F1. Presence of Formal (FF) Curriculum…………………………………….…..……… 192

F2. Type 3 Analysis of Effects for FF Probability…………………………...…..……… 192

F3. Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for FF……………………..…..……… 193

F4. Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for FF………………...…..……… 193

F5. Type 3 Analysis of Effects for TT Probability…………………………...…..……… 194

F6. Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for TT…………………….…..……… 194

F7. Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for TT………………..…..……… 195

F8. Type 3 Analysis of Effects for CC Probability…………………………..…..……… 195

F9. Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for CC………………………...…..……… 196

F10. Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for CC…………………..……… 196

F11. Type 3 Analysis of Effects for FF…………………………………………..……… 197

F12. Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for FF With Parameter Intercept…… 197

F13. Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for FF Regional Comparison...… 198

F14. Type 3 Analysis of Effects: Wald Chi-Square Probability Modeled is TT=1…...… 198

F15. Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for TT With Parameter Intercept…… 199

F16. Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for TT Regional Comparison..… 200

F17. Type 3 Analysis of Effects: Conceptual Probability modeled is CC=1...…..……… 200

Table Page

F18. Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for CC With Parameter Intercept...… 201

F19. Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for CC Regional Comparison..… 202

F20. Midwest region, p-values……………………………………………….…..……… 203

F21. Northeast region, p-values…………………………………………………..……… 204

F22. South region, p-values…………………………………………………..…..……… 205

F23. West region, p-values…………………………………………………...…..……… 206

G1. Northeast Region………………………………………………………...…..……… 208

G2. Midwest Region…..…………………………………………………………………. 209

G3. Southern Region……………………………………………………………..……… 210

G4. Western Region………………………………………………………….…..……… 211

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Data collection procedural model………………………...……………………………… 79

2. Model of foundations curriculum for 97 colleges…………………………………..…… 106

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. SAMPLE GROUP 1: PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WITH LARGEST POPULATION PER STATE OFFERING VISUAL ART-RELATED BACHELOR DEGREES WITH NASAD OR REGIONAL ACCREDITATION..……. 155

B. SAMPLE GROUP 2: CHART OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT SCHOOLS WITH BACHELOR’S-LEVEL ART PROGRAMS BY STATE WITH NASAD OR REGIONAL ACCREDITATION……………………………….……………………… 160

C. RAW DATA COUNTS: PUBLIC SCHOOLS.………………………………………… 165

D. RAW DATA COUNTS: PRIVATE SCHOOLS.…………….………………………… 173

E. RAW COUNTS OF REGIONS WITH PERCENTAGES……………...………………. 181

F. DATA TABLES…………………………………….…………………………….…….. 191

G. UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL VOTING RESULTS BY REGION.……………. 207

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In the visual arts, art foundations represents a common practice in higher education of baseline requirements for bachelor’s degrees. Delivered in the first year of college instruction for art, design, and art education majors, these introductory courses are meant to train students to use and master fundamental visual and technical skills when creating and critiquing artwork.

These ideas are generally rooted in the concept of formalism, a “twentieth-century theory of art that privileges considerations of compositional elements and principles above all else: Subject matter, narrative, symbolism, cultural, political and religious references are deemed distracting, irrelevant, and to be ignored” (Barrett, 2011, p. 236). Thus, from a formalist perspective, visual qualities of art are universal, discoverable, and applicable to all visual art, regardless of culture and time-period. Therefore, they offer great appeal as a series of entry level courses to the discipline of visual art.

Formalism was heavily influenced by well-known early 20th century art critics Clive

Bell and Roger Fry. Bell (1913) and Fry (1909) contended that viewers’ aesthetic experiences occur only when their minds are unencumbered by reality, where, unhinged by the drudgery of daily life, the mind may freely open to an emotional sensibility, which fosters aesthetic experiences. The life of the artist and the viewer, the story of the work, the cultural connectivity, or the visual narrative is irrelevant and is, in fact, distracting from the artwork

2 itself. Only through arranging the visual qualities of art in specific, universally pleasing ways can one’s imagination experience the power of the true aesthetic experience. Artists must learn and apply these visual rules to their works to reach their singular purpose of using these principles correctly to elevate the viewers’ emotions to a heightened state of perception. All art, no matter what culture or time-period, can be analyzed according to these visual qualities, often referred to as the elements and principles of design (Bell; Fry).

As historian Arthur Efland (1987) explains in his landmark study of the curricular evolution of art education, in 1919, Germany’s Bauhaus School of Design formalized college freshman level curriculum based in part on the formalist ideal that compositional excellence and technical skills are basic and universal in visual art. The Bauhaus’s “first year course” curriculum focused on repeatedly practicing exercises to strengthen the art students’ mastery of these visual and technical skills. Once teachers from the Bauhaus School, forced out of

Germany by the Nazi regime, relocated to faculty positions in the United States, this curriculum gained widespread popularity in college art programs. The term foundations was ultimately adopted by college art departments to reference the idea that this curriculum teaches aspiring artists the fundamental basic universals needed to effectively master their craft. Almost 100 years later, first-year art students continue to learn these universal compositional and technical skills, demonstrating the firmly rooted influence of formalism on college art foundations curricula.

Formalism has been critiqued for purposely divorcing art from daily life and denying the relevance of subject matter and cultural context on art. For example, leaders and scholars in the field of art education argue that “the purpose for teaching art is to contribute to the

3 understanding of the social and cultural landscape that all individuals inhabit” (Efland,

Freedman, & Stuhr, 1996, p. 2). Furthermore, the National Art Education Association’s

(NAEA, 2013/14) standards for art teacher preparation agree that teacher education programs in the visual arts should teach teachers how to help students, “Synthesize and relate knowledge and personal experiences to make art” (Anchor Statement #10), and “Relate artistic ideas and works with societal, cultural and historical context to deepen understanding” (National Visual

Arts Standards, 2014). Within this context based conception of art education, art is intrinsically tied to the time it is created, the culture it is within, and the experience of the artist or community from which it comes. The formalist model firmly ignores experience, context, and culturally imbedded meanings within art works and can thus fail to address the needs of today’s art students who tend to prefer to view the world through personal and social contexts to contribute relevant ideas to our culture. If instruction in the visual arts is to be relevant to a broad number of students, and not an arcane set of skills that only a select few have the interest to master, then art foundations practitioners cannot continue supporting a curriculum that disconnects art from lived experiences. To remain relevant to contemporary students, art foundations curriculum must evolve to include a multiplicity of perspectives, aesthetic judgments, varied forms, and contextual meanings.

While some colleges have taken steps to re-imagine the foundations curriculum, it is unclear how prevalent these changes are. Further, there is little research on the extent of the impact that formalism, or other art education theories, has on the current foundations curriculum. The lingering impact of formalism is anecdotal. This study seeks to fill this gap in research through an examination of written data gained by gathering foundations course

4 descriptions. The purpose of this study was to compare foundations course descriptions among state and private art colleges in the U.S. to examine evidence of art theories within written course curriculum. This study resulted in an empirical research foundation and theoretical framework for an integrated, postmodern approach to art foundations written curriculum in higher education art programs. Results of this study provide a framework that incorporates an updated foundations curriculum reflective of postmodern art and theory on which future researchers may build.

Contemporary Context

The Bauhaus model promoted formalist exercises intended to instill strategies for art students to construct and critique compositions based on universally accepted visual qualities

(Dockery & Quinn, 2007; Efland, 1987; Freedman, 2003; Gude, 2004; Tavin, Kushins, &

Elniski, 2007). Contextual, narrative, and varying perspectives of compositional excellence are excluded in the model, contributing to its critique. For example, as Freedman (2003) wrote,

The application of formalism in curriculum present(s) a dualistic problem….it close(s) off symbolic interpretation as a critical foundation of art education. It became the definition of aesthetics in education and in the process reduced the importance of social and cultural meanings of art in education. (p. 31)

Consequently, the implication is that one single, universal method of visual design is correct and that various other ways of interpreting art go unacknowledged. This idea of singular meaning lay in contrast to postmodernism, in which Freedman (2003) further noted that

an important message of postmodernism for general education and art education is that teachers should make their students aware of the many layers of interpretation that exist, that continual flux influences and shapes understanding, and that this flexibility of knowledge is vital because it enables creative thought. Irony, metaphor, and double-

coding, given attention in postmodernism, could not exist without the wealth of possible interpretations that language and other forms of communication provide. (p. 46)

When a singular framework for making and creating art is taught through formalist curriculum, multiple voices remain silent, rendering curriculum undemocratic and elitist. The consequence is that this curriculum tacitly teaches students that in visual art only one answer is correct. While this concept of a right answer in art may appeal to some in our time of standards based testing, arguably the value of the arts is that it demonstrates different ways of thinking and problem solving (Eisner, 2002). Therefore, progressive art educators advocate for multiplicity of ideas and creative practice inspired by ensuring that students may view and create from multiple viewpoints. Notions of an ideal art form “are historically conditioned, ideological, and subject to argument” (Duncum, 1990, p. 207).

In K-12 art education, a scientific (right answer), skill-based approach to art teaching marked a trend in art teacher education for pre-service art teachers in the middle part of the twentieth century. In a model akin to formalism in its scientific, universalist underpinnings, noted Art Education researcher and professor, Manuel Barkan (1966), argued that art education curriculum should focus on combining artistic, critical and historical perspectives, much like the disciplines of math and science (Efland, 1987). This discipline-oriented movement lost force during the 1970s, but gained popularity in the 1980s in art teacher preparation programs because of declining test scores throughout the U.S. (Efland et al., 1996).

6 discipline standards found a home in Disciplined-Based Art Education (DBAE; Dobbs, 1992).

Lesson plans focused on four components: art history, art production, art criticism, and aesthetics. Funded by the J. Paul Getty Trust, DBAE promoted a style similar to formalism through standardized stages of development and the establishment of universally accepted art elements. The goal of DBAE was to induct learners into the discipline, or “a component of the literate culture” (Schiro, 2013, p. 19). DBAE supported viewing art education as a discipline, or, “a set of characteristic procedures and ways of working that facilitate exploration and inquiry” (Dobbs, 1992, p. 3). Disciplines were defined by three commonalities: “a recognized body of knowledge or content; a community of scholars who study the discipline; and a set of characteristic procedures and ways of working that facilitate exploration and inquiry" (p. 3).

Proponents of the model asserted that "these disciplines of art provide knowledge, skills, and understanding that enable students to have a broad and rich experience with works of art” (p.

9). Curriculum structures included “sequential organization, the centrality of works of art, a balanced integration of content from all four disciplines, and organization of materials” (p. 3).

By structuring art education to mirror frameworks commonly associated with math and science, art became universalized. In this hierarchical approach to curriculum, students are exposed to art through what educators allow to be visible, rendering a variety of perspectives invisible, and unexplored. In this manner, DBAE is linked to formalism.

Critics of DBAE have rallied against this model since its inception for its undercurrent of conservative ideology and the “tendency to see art education as the study of past cultural achievements certified by credentialed experts” (Efland, 1987, p. 254). Art education scholars argued for the inclusion of visual and popular culture in art education, and protested the

7 advancement of DBAE, viewed as a systemized set of visual ideals based on a one-sided conception of art, disconnected to students’ lives (Balengee-Morris & Stuhr, 2001; Carpenter &

Tavin, 2010; Duncum, 1990, 2002; Efland, 1987, 2004; Efland et al., 1996; Freedman, 2003;

Freedman & Wood, 1999; Tavin et al., 2007). Duncum (1990) wrote, “The assertion of common-sense, self-evident, ideal standards must give way to an acknowledgment that standards are historically conditioned, ideological, and subject to argument” (p. 207). Visual

Culture scholars argued that combining the study of the fine and popular arts are equally necessary locations for art education and should further be promoted in college art foundations.

While art education fell victim to this standardization, a movement toward a more postmodern approach to teaching art became an alternative. As Art Education Professor Kerry

Freedman (2003) recounted, “In the 1980s, critical social theory became part of the discourse of art education and fueled the growth of social perspectives of the field that lead to broader conceptions of teaching visual culture” (p. 7). As a result, art educators supported curriculum that included the everyday visual and popular culture experiences of students as sites for learning. This type of curriculum supports the development of contemporary artists. Artists of today are not singularly influenced by Modernism, but instead they reflect on multiple subjects, including large and globally relevant stories, small personal narratives, political ideology, and problems of oppression. Artists are no longer bound by convention or specific visual rules or theories that confine subject matter, remove cultural stories, or ignore political stances.

Instead, artists allow their work to carry multiple meanings. In fact, “in postmodern art, different interpretations may result from deliberate use of contradiction, irony, metaphor, and ambiguity, also called double-coding.” (Efland et al., 1996, p. 40).

Efland et al. (1996) contended that postmodernism is a theory of art and society that supports art as a document of a culture, continually in flux, a marker of the conditions and contexts in which it is created, and a generator of creativity. Barrett (2011) furthered the argument against formalism in curriculum by defining postmodern art theory as

a condition of loosely connected ideas that assert that art and aesthetics cannot be separated from social, ethical, and political worlds. Postmodernism critiques Modernism and all its tenets, such as the possibility of originality, the uniqueness of the artist, and distinctions between ‘high art’ and ‘low art’ and rejects Formalism as a theory of art. (p. 239)

Applied to art and art education curriculum, postmodernism is inherently democratic, exposing art to multiple interpretations. In a postmodern framework, “aesthetic discussions analyze art as a method of revealing characteristics of a culture” (Efland et al., 1996, p. 38).

Students are encouraged to view, create, and analyze art in connection to the context of its production, the history it reveals, and the multiple readings and interpretations imbedded in the work. A postmodern art education deconstructs universalized visual standards, revealing the underlying power structures and multiple meanings associated with art forms (Duncum, 1990,

2002; Efland et al., 1996). This idea lies opposite to the singular concept of universally pleasing visual compositions devoid of subject or context specific narratives supported by formalist theories.

Postmodern art education includes the study of visual culture. Freedman (2003) defined visual culture art education as encompassing all visual forms, not exclusively those categorized as fine art, but including traditional fine arts as well as the popular arts. Freedman argued that our notion of the aesthetic manifests in a multitude of forms ranging from the visual culture of

9 our everyday encounters to those in fine art and includes the little narrative, the power- knowledge link, deconstruction, and double-coding.

The little narrative applied to postmodern curriculum suggests that curriculum focuses on smaller snapshots of a theme or idea (Efland et al., 1996, p. 92). The philosopher Jean-

Francois Lyotard influenced the development of the little narrative when he affirmed that part of the condition of modernism is the simplistic categorization of an epoch in time, creating meta-narratives that influence and simplify our conception of conditions of the past (Efland et al., 1996, p. 92). According to Efland et al. (1996), “large, epoch-driven narratives can create an exclusionary curriculum, but, a curriculum built on the idea of little narratives could deal with several stories, each one emphasizing a different content” (p. 87).

The French philosopher Michel Foucault believed that those controlling institutions also control what we know (Foucault, 1979). Applied to curriculum it follows that those in positions of power influence what we teach, linking power to knowledge. As applied to art teaching,

“postmodern teachers need not impose an aesthetic on students in ways that past generations were taught about ‘good design’ and the principles that supposedly make it good” (Efland et al.,

1996, p. 101). This idea exemplifies the power-knowledge link. Instead of teaching art through one conception of visual qualities, the art teacher can expose students to a multitude of ideas and aesthetic conceptions.. As a result, power is overturned and students may develop their own ideas about art and visual qualities.

The French philosopher Jacques Derrida introduced the term deconstruction. From a postmodern curriculum perspective, conflicting information in a work of art can show that

10 many meanings can all be correct (Efland et al., 1996). The elements and principles of design, taught as if they are fact suggests that it is the only way to create meaning.

Efland et al. (1996) attributes the terms ‘double-coding’ to Charles Jenks, who

“identified ‘double-coding’ as the principle characteristic that distinguishes postmodern objects from the modern” (p. 108). This characteristic is a condition in which postmodern principles reside with modern ideas, reflecting multiple messages and “codes” (Efland et al., p. 112).

More recently, Siegesmund (2013) suggested that the curricular goals of art education can transform from training in a discipline to a form of thought that allows for civic engagement. Although K-12 art education has worked to evolve toward this postmodern approach, art foundations programs in higher education appear to have remained virtually unchanged. They are rarely studied, and tend to keep art away from our daily visual experiences in a formal, fixed, elite, separate, universalist realm.

Connecting curriculum to art students’ personal histories supports an evolution of creativity and visual investigation that artists need. In contrast, a curriculum devoid of any personal connections to students’ lives or interests supports a passive student and a lack of learning (Pinar, 2012). Art education scholars have continuously argued for curriculum connected to the lives of students through the inclusion of visual and popular culture, protesting the proliferation of a systemized set of visual ideals based on a one-sided conception of art

(Ballengee-Morris & Stuhr, 2001; Carpenter & Tavin, 2010; Duncum, 1990, 2002; Efland,

1987, 2004; Efland et al., 1996; Freedman, 2003; Freedman & Wood, 1999; Gude, 2004, 2007;

Tavin et al., 2007). When a curriculum implies that only one way of seeing the world is relevant and is presented as a universal truth, students are further divorced from the possibility

11 that more perspectives exist, that their personal perspective is as valid as any other, and that the multiplicity of perspectives represent the democratic condition.

Authentic artistic inquiry is a result of experiences and interactions with the world

(Dewey, 1934). To restrict students of opportunities to examine their personal experiences and interests to inform art making is to deny them of their ability to think critically about their lives and to create work that reflects their personal beliefs, empowering and challenging viewers in similar reflections. Meaningful knowledge construction occurs through students’ personal connections with subject matter and connectivity to their interests, values, and communities. As

Dewey (1929) believed that the experiences of the students, and not subject matter, should drive curriculum. Dewey (1902) implored educators to locate students’ experiences as central and vital to curriculum, where it is not fixed and formal but is fluid and adaptable to the way students experience and interact with the world.

As discussed previously, postmodern curriculum, inclusive of students’ own perspectives and reflective of their interests and life experiences, engages students in the process of learning. For artists, creativity is further engendered. In her book studying the nature of creativity in schools, Anna Craft (2006), Senior Lecturer in Education at The Open

University, stated, “facilitating the evolution, expression and application of children’s own ideas forms the heart of ‘creative learning’, which, it is proposed, engages children powerfully in knowledge production” (p. 55). Because written curriculum, once enacted in the classroom is mediated by all within a class, it is an inherently political activity. What we choose to leave out of curriculum teaches students what we value as a society. Discounting students’ own interests in curriculum development not only creates a fixed environment, stifling creativity,

12 but it also de-values students’ affections and invalidates their ideas, resulting in disempowered apathetic students ill equipped to succeed in arts related practice or to practice thinking democratically. Unfortunately, the formalist foundations framework serves as an example of a curriculum with little connection to students’ interests.

Personal Experience

As a professional artist, former foundations faculty member, and foundations department chair, my experiences are relevant to the context of this study. From a young age, I enjoyed all aspects of two-dimensional art and was encouraged by my mother, an artist, and my elementary art teacher to keep practicing. In sixth grade, after years of spotty attendance and difficulty in class because of instability at home, I was given permission to leave the classroom and use the art room any time I wanted, provided my class work was complete. My attendance improved because of this agreement; I was motivated to complete my class work, and I suffered less anxiety overall through arts practice. At this young age, I realized the importance of art to me personally, as it was always there to meet me where I was and, with the support of my mother and elementary art teacher, creating art gave me the freedom to explore darker places I was afraid to discuss in words.

I attended a large, middle class suburban high school in the late 1980s. Art course offerings included commercial art, photography, and painting. I was very excited to take a freshman level art course; however, a teacher who focused on a single talented student, at the expense of the remaining class members, discouraged me from taking classes in my sophomore and junior years. Nonetheless, I took advanced painting as a senior. I was bored, as the

13 curriculum, much like my freshman year experience, focused on creating work that exactly copied the work of famous artists or replicated a well-known period in art. I created a pointillism landscape, illustrated a cubist self-portrait, and painted a Georgia O’Keefe style cactus flower. I loved art history, but I was not encouraged to find my personal voice, nor was

I given demonstrations or instructions on how to use the materials or how to create strong compositions. I applied to art colleges on my own without the help of my art teacher, making mistakes along the way as well as beginning and then dropping out of an open enrollment art college in San Francisco.

Thereafter, I was admitted to the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, where I completed my Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) in painting and drawing, and my Master of Art

Teaching (MAT) in Visual Art Teaching. I thrived in the foundations year, finally feeling as if

I were learning something useful to my practice. The two semester courses consisted of Two-

Dimensional Design, Observational Drawing, and Three-Dimensional Design. While projects focused solely on visual characteristics, composition, and use of materials, I felt more confident as my foundations teachers taught and demonstrated techniques and visual qualities I had never understood. I also took the required two semesters of Modernism, where I learned art’s purpose was to elevate the emotions of the viewer to an aesthetic experience, allowing them to escape into the imagined worlds that only art can provide. I did not understand that this was just one perspective of art’s purpose, but believed it to be true since it was presented as fact.

Although I was unsure how the non-objective artwork and the color exercises I created would inspire such viewer experiences, I was excited to move forward with a better understanding and greater confidence in my technical skills when I declared my major.

During my sophomore painting class, I was suddenly challenged to come up with more thematic work based on my own research into various concepts and ideas. I did not know where to begin, and I felt lost and confused, often skipping classes. I was told to sketch in my sketchbook and paint what I wanted. I turned toward the visual techniques and skills I learned in foundations, but my professors told me to disregard what I learned and let my work reflect meaning. One professor encouraged me to add moose (the animal) and Cheerios to my drawings, although I had never mentioned an interest in either subject. I did not understand at the time that perhaps he was pushing me to appropriate popular elements into my drawing, but

I had no context or conception for this. I came to sophomore year with the belief, fostered by my professors, that the elements and principles of design were facts. I did not think there were multiple or alternative elements and principles, I had not considered non-Western views, and I had never been encouraged to create work that included narrative elements, such as perhaps the combination of moose and Cheerios. I felt as if I was trying to reach an unspoken expectation from my professors, but I had no idea what that was. I continued feeling lost throughout the rest of my undergraduate years. In my senior thesis review panel, the five members argued with each other, in my presence, about the fact that I had brought poems in from my youth and matched them up with my paintings. They said my work could not be tied to a time or place. I did not understand what they meant, as I had been encouraged to create work meant to elevate viewers out of their own lives and transport them into an imaginative realm. I felt like a failure at graduation, and for years after I abandoned my work.

None of my art professors understood how to encourage my artistic voice. I knew this was poor teaching, and when I entered the Master’s in Teaching program my suspicions were

15 confirmed. I was driven by the fact that the only strong teachers I had for art had been my elementary art teacher and my foundations teachers. My elementary art teacher encouraged personal and conceptual growth, and my foundations teachers taught me how to build my skills with materials and the elements and principles of design. I had not yet experienced them integrated; however, I knew that no matter what level of education art is being taught, teachers needed to foster student learning by clarifying expectations and techniques and encouraging the integration of skillful use of materials, visual qualities, and conceptual growth. These expectations needed to be reflected, and clearly explained, in course descriptions. I wondered why this was not part of my own experience.

Later in life, I left K-12 and became a foundations teacher myself, where I found that my art teacher education training program gave me the skills to build curriculum. In teaching

Color Theory and Fundamentals of Design, I taught the elements and principles of composition

I had learned in my own foundations experience. I quickly found that students needed a personal reason to care about these visual principles, so I created projects focused on concepts and themes students were interested in, while continuing to teach skill-building and the elements and principles of design. Teaching foundations re-inspired my arts practice, and I began to understand how to use these visual qualities in my own work. As time went on, I noticed students entering my courses with various art skills. Some could not read a ruler to measure and create a layout, while other students were well beyond understanding how to use the elements and principles of design since they had done so throughout high school. I also noticed the difference between my style of teaching and those of my colleagues. Some had no knowledge or inclination to design curriculum or revise projects to incorporate student ideas.

Some believed their jobs were to weed students out before they reached sophomore year. I remembered what it was like feeling lost and feeling like my professors did not believe in me, so I worked to meet each student where he/she was.

I eventually led a foundations department. In my administration of the curriculum I saw some great teachers who had gained teaching skills by trial and error, without formal training, but through many years of personal experiences. I also found others who taught to serve their own artistic ambitions. I found teachers who cared deeply for their students and fervently believed it was important the students memorize what the elements and principles of design were without integrating them into more conceptually driven work. I tried to develop all teachers best I could.

I entered the doctoral program at Northern Illinois University (NIU) where I found, for the first time, theories of curriculum based on the marriage of skill and concept. I tried incorporating these ideas into faculty development at the art college where I taught. Still, some faculty felt that students needed to build skills before concepts were introduced, so they continued teaching students to create non-objective works driven by demonstrating their understanding of specific art elements. The problem was that students who had already learned these principles were bored and those who needed to learn them did not understand why they should without some type of personal or social connection to the work. Our department often heard from upper level faculty that students did not know how to create strong compositions. I thought the answer was clear—that there was rarely integration of skillful use of visual qualities and conceptual work in their foundations year. Eventually, I went back to teaching

17 foundations, where I tried incorporating visual and technical skill building with concept-driven projects.

I began looking back on my own foundations experience with a more critical eye. What had been the point of teaching me to improve my technical skills and create good compositions if they did not communicate anything? Why did my foundations teachers not prepare me to use these visual and technical skills to communicate about and question the world around me through my art? Why, 20 years later, did this situation seem unchanged? Plus, who cares if you know the skills unless you say something with them? Conversely, how can you get your visual message across if your skills and compositions are poor, distracting from the meaning of the work? I realized that although my foundations professors taught me much, I lacked any understanding of how to integrate these qualities into my voice as an artist. I finally understood what I had missed throughout the rest of art school. I wondered how many other students were like me. Artists are integral to the growth of society, both economically and culturally (Pink,

2006). When we rob students of their artistic voice and teach them that their ideas are irrelevant, we rob them and society from true democratic practice. When we ignore contextual questions in teaching art, we lessen the likelihood of preparing future artists to contribute relevant and culturally shifting ideas to the world. These questions led me to embark on this study. To revise the foundations curriculum, we need research into the theories underlying faculty’s beliefs about foundations and we need to introduce contemporary strategies of making art into teaching art at every stage.

Problem and Purpose

Traditional art foundations models promote rudimentary exercises intended to instill technical material skills and universal strategies of visual composition in aspiring artists based primarily on a formalist view of a constructed system of fundamental layout skills known as the elements and principles of design (see Wucius Wong, Principles of Two-Dimensional Design,

1972, and Mary Stewart, Launching the Imagination: A Guide to Two-Dimensional Design,

2002; see also Dockery & Quinn, 2007; Duncum, 1990, 2002; Freedman, 2003; Tavin et al.,

2007). Formalism is critiqued by Freedman (2003) as “a pseudoscientific conception of aesthetics developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries at a time when science was gaining currency as applied to all areas of life” (p. 27). This scientific approach to teaching art enforces skill building as the primary artistic goal through the creation of non-objective compositions adhering to a constructed, universalized system of visual balance, hierarchy, form, and space, devoid of context, narrative, or historical connections to the art maker.

Conceptions of the field of art foundations are changing with contemporary issues, as demonstrated by the organization Integrative Teaching International (ITI; n.d.). Created by foundations practitioners meeting and discussing foundations education at the biennial conference, Think Tank, ITI’s mission promotes a reevaluation of curriculum:

Foundations teaching can and should be an ideal conduit for familiarizing students with the competencies necessary to cultivate not only sound drawing and design skills, among others, but also critical thinking and, relatedly, contextualization practices

integral to a 21st century education. While traditional Foundations classes can offer, for example, background or historical information about art objects, a lack of time in the classroom customarily prevents in-depth study, leaving students without adequate proficiencies to realize how each of their products “speaks” to the cultural context of its time. (Curzon, 2017, p. 69)

It appears that first-year college art programs continue to proliferate this formal methodology. Further, the traditional separation of subjects into silos of drawing, painting, two- dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) design does not match the blurred disciplinary lines in many art practices today (Freedman, 2003). Art’s value is not solely visual, aesthetic, and one-dimensional, as the formalist model suggests, but it is social and contextual, supporting the need to study multiple art conceptions. As Efland et al. (1996) stated,

The fundamental reason for teaching the arts is to enable students to understand the social and cultural worlds they inhabit. These worlds are representations created with the aesthetic qualities of art media. To understand how these qualities function to create meaning, students need to encounter these in their own experience with media. An art curriculum should also enable students to encounter the interpretations and understandings made by philosophers, art historians, and critics who have studied the arts in their complexity. Because these fields are interpretive in character, the statements of such scholars are not presumed true in the sense claimed for scientific representations but they are valued when they enable us to see possible worlds portrayed in the arts. (p. 73)

Contemporary aims in art education serve democratic ideals by defining art “as a form of cultural production whose point and purpose is to construct symbols of a shared reality”

(Efland et al., 1996, p. 72). While art education scholars support this context-based approach to teaching art, it is unclear how or if this approach has been integrated into the college foundations curriculum. Some foundations faculty support an updated curriculum (Dockery &

Quinn, 2007), but art foundations programs in higher education have not been universally revised to include contextual approaches to art theory and production for students entering the arts at the college level. We live in a postmodern time that calls for ever changing and evolving discourse, but we are still teaching foundations from a Modernist, structural perspective of one

20 way is the right way. This signifies an historical disjunction in much of the way traditional technical and formal based foundations curricula are written. This incongruity affects college art foundations students and their ability to assimilate these ideas into their artistic growth, and practice democratic participation and choice making in art and in life.

This gap in research demonstrates areas affecting art foundations curricula not yet explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the impact of Modernist formalism and Postmodern art theory on written foundations curricula in the U.S. This study resulted in an empirical research foundation and theoretical framework for an integrated, postmodern approach to teaching foundations.

Research Questions and Sub-Questions

This study explored the following research question and sub-questions:

1. Do theories of art education impact art foundations curriculum?

a. What is common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum based on

course descriptions?

b. What similarities and differences exist among state university art foundations

curriculum content and private nonprofit art foundations curriculum content

based on course descriptions?

c. What similarities and differences exist between art foundations course

descriptions among four regions of the United States?

Significance of the Study

Results of this study will help higher education art foundations faculty acquire knowledge regarding art education theories underlying the content of their curriculum, so they may attempt to write and incorporate more postmodern approaches into foundations curriculum for their students. Art foundations students will also benefit from results of this study, as art students will experience a relevant, useful curriculum reflecting a more holistic and contemporary approach if faculty choose to rewrite curriculum based on the provided framework resulting from this study. This study will also help upper level higher education studio and applied art faculty and administrators connect their curriculum to a revived foundations curriculum relevant to today’s art student needs.

Delimitations

Written descriptions of courses were limited to two colleges or universities a state, including the largest state university offering undergraduate art education and studio art courses with an art foundations component and the most selective private nonprofit art college in the state. The largest state college art program was chosen as representative of common state run art programs. As not every state has a privately-owned art college, this pool was limited by availability.

When locating course descriptions, the researcher excluded art history, art appreciation, and theory-based art courses devoid of art production. As not all foundations programs categorize such courses in their named foundations program, excluding these courses allowed

22 the researcher to view the written course descriptions with equal criteria and focused on formal, technical, and concept-driven approaches to art foundations course descriptions.

Limitations

As a massive amount of written data would need to be collected to gain a full picture of art foundations through written descriptions, the choice of the largest state college art program and the most selective private nonprofit art program per state for the analysis of written course descriptions was a limitation of this study. In narrowing the amount of data gained in this phase, the resulting data only related the status of course descriptions based on those chosen colleges and not on the entirety of art foundations courses throughout the United States.

However, the resulting data will constitute a representative portion of the state of art foundations, and the impact of art education theories on written curriculum. Another limitation in this data set was the possibility that web-related information might be outdated. The researcher made every effort to collect the most current data via the internet and to use the most current information collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2017) to locate the largest state run art programs and most selective private nonprofit art schools per state. As the NCES site could also be slightly inaccurate due to the nature of college reporting, this could also be a limitation.

Assumptions

It is further assumed that foundation course titles and descriptions accurately reflect current curriculum at the colleges and universities chosen for study.

Definitions

The following definitions are referred to throughout this study.

Aesthetics: In a postmodern framework, aesthetic discussions analyze art “as a method of revealing characteristics of a culture” (Efland et al., 1996, p. 38).

Art Foundations: These are freshman-level higher education art courses required by art, design, and art education college students as fundamental to their chosen degree program. An art foundations curriculum helps prepare students for their advanced coursework. Traditional art foundations programs rely heavily on formalist theory rooted in the Bauhaus School of

Design in Germany in the early 20th century. The curriculum’s objectives were to train the eye and senses in control, seeing and arranging through compositional strategies thought to be universally pleasing. Many current foundations programs include this model, although some have moved toward incorporating a postmodern approach that accounts for context, concept, and narrative as it relates to the culture (Dockery & Quinn, 2007).

Conceptualism: “The philosophical doctrine that universals exist only in the mind.

(Freedictionary, 2012). “Conceptual art is based on the notion that the essence of art is an idea or concept that may exist distinct from, and in the absence of, an object as its representation”

(Conceptual art, n.d.).

De-contextualization: A formalist quality of looking at art that “tend[s] to encourage the perception of art apart from its origins and purposes, that is, to see it only as form, rather than as having specific and special meaning for its makers and its original users” (Barrett, 2011, pp.

119-120).

Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE): The movement in art education in the 1980s supported by J. Paul Getty in the publication Beyond Creating: The Place for Art in America’s

Schools (1984). DBAE “proposed content was to be drawn from the art studio, art criticism, and art history. To these was added a fourth discipline, the study of aesthetics, but the central idea was the familiar one of basing instruction on the representative ideas of the disciplines comprising art” (Efland, 1987, p. 254).

Formalism: Barrett (2011) defined formalism as a “twentieth-century theory of art that privileges considerations of compositional elements and principles above all else: Subject matter, narrative, symbolism, cultural, political and religious references are deemed distracting, irrelevant, and to be ignored.” (p. 236). The visual qualities of art are believed to be universal in their relationship to the elements and principles of design such as line, shape, rhythm, texture, unity, and color.

Modernism:

Cultural tendencies and movements arising from changes in Western society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The view that traditional forms of culture are outdated. An assessment of the past as different from the modern age; a recognition of a more complex world; a challenging of traditional authorities such as reason, science, government, and God. (Barrett, 2011, p. 238)

Postmodernism:

In art theory, a condition or loosely connected ideas that assert that art and aesthetics cannot be separated from social, ethical, and political worlds. Postmodernism critiques Modernism and all its tenets, such as the possibility of originality, the uniqueness of the artist, and distinctions between ‘high art’ and ‘low art’ and rejects Formalism as a theory of art. (Barrett, 2011, p. 239)

National Core Arts Standards: The National Art Education Association’s (NAEA) document of standards that K-12 art educators may follow as a guideline for curriculum.

Visual Culture: Freedman (2003) defines visual culture as encompassing all visual forms, not exclusively those categorized as fine art, and includes traditional fine arts as well as the popular arts. The study of visual culture in an art education curriculum includes the making and studying of the visual as it reveals qualities of the culture within which it was produced, providing students with multiple understandings and perspectives in society.

Methodology

Combining qualitative and quantitative research strengthens and broadens the understanding and analysis of research problems more thoroughly than by either method alone

(Creswell, 2008). As the researcher asked questions seeking to understand the impact of

Modern and Postmodern theory on art foundations written curriculum, data initially resulted in words and phrases. This qualitative data were quantitized to statistically answer the research questions. Therefore, a pragmatist worldview, supporting a mixed-methods design, was most appropriate for this study as it provided a methodology tailored to the research questions. Data were located through online web searches. Methods used to collect and analyze data are further detailed in Chapter 3.

Organization of the Study

This study is presented in five chapters beginning with Chapter 1, which includes an introduction to the study, the conceptual framework, the problem and purpose statements,

26 research questions, definitions, and methodology. Chapter 2 explores art education and art foundations literature, including related research on curriculum structures and content. The methodology used for this study is explained in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 includes an analysis and synthesis of the data. This study concludes with a discussion of the implications of this research and suggestions for future research regarding theories impacting art foundations, including a theoretical framework of foundations curriculum on which future researchers may build.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

We don't need no education We don't need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone All in all it's just another brick in the wall All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

(Roger Waters, “Another Brick in the Wall, Part II,” 1979; Young, 2008)

In the 1980 album, and film by the same name, The Wall, Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters sang these lyrics that personified the rebellious rocker’s impression of formal schooling as a place of mind-control, a place where kids are controlled to the point of being “just another brick in the wall,” a metaphor for multiple people who are all the same being used by those in power to control thoughts, ideas, and outliers to the norm. Although his schooling took place in the United Kingdom, Waters’ lyrics encapsulates the state of our formal educational system in the United States. Kids are sorted and categorized, schedules are regimented, subjects are separated, and students know from their first entry into grammar school that thinking and living outside the imposed acceptable boundaries will get them in trouble.

Around the same time that Roger Waters wrote these words, the French philosopher

Michel Foucault wrote about society’s imbedded power and control dynamic. Foucault (1979)

28 examined the controlling influence policy has on our lives. He contended that these policies, or disciplines, both overtly and covertly coerce our decisions, physical movements, and interactions with the spaces and places we inhabit, and through specific policies that systematize, regiment, segment, and routinize our actions, our bodies, or more broadly our humanity, is sorted into categories of citizens that “produce(s) subjugated and practiced bodies,

‘docile’ bodies” (p. 138). These controlling systems coerce us to obey and comply with multi- institutionalized control over all aspects of our lives, obstructing the enactment of democratic ideals by subjugating people to a regimented social order in service of the dominant culture.

Foucault wrote that in becoming docile, we serve as “the body of exercise, rather than of speculative physics; a body manipulated by authority, rather than imbued with animal spirits”

(p. 155). This power and control dynamic in the public-school system renders interest and engagement in subject matter learning non-existent, as no time during the school day and no movement through the school building is left to chance but is under constant surveillance and scheduled activities. This practice leaves no idle time for spontaneous action, boundary shifting, or authentically generated learning experiences.

These power structures track, alphabetize, label, and schedule children through adulthood. This sorting of people into categories, compartmentalizing of subjects, and scheduling of all time spent in school are forms of military education forcing conformity with the status quo so that power and control stay embedded within the school system. As students learn to police themselves and each other, students who do not comply with the accepted behavior may be labeled trouble-makers and rebels. They are pressured by classmates, teachers, employers, and parents to comply with and participate within the standard school

29 framework without question. These military-like systems permeate all institutions, including higher education, normalizing them as central to the way our systems work (Giroux, 2008).

Framed through Foucault’s (1979) aesthetics of the body, curriculum itself is part of this machine – undermining ways of knowing, creating, and expanding knowledge. Student outcomes are pre-ordained to account for the efficient use of all their time to meet these pre- determined goals. In this controlled context, learning institutions do not really educate; instead they serve to indoctrinate students into submission to the status quo, socializing them to support the power structures that uphold the economic hegemony of the dominant culture, while simultaneously squelching individual or collective political dissent. As a result, curriculum and the culture of educational spaces become fetishized, a stereotyped brand of education in place of an education with authentic value (Baudrillard, 1997), where standardized curriculum is simply a product for consumption with prescribed conditions and outcomes. Unfortunately for students, artists, and art educators, an environment with restrictive and prescriptive steps and outcomes creates a climate of fear, stifling creativity and permitting no room for aesthetic experiences (Gude, 2010). As a result, those students become absorbed into this machine as adults, who then subjugate the next generation into that same servitude, continuing a cycle of stifling creativity and subverting democratic participation. Roger Waters and the members of

Pink Floyd may not have read Foucault or familiarized themselves with U.S. schools, but

Waters wrote directly from his experience of public education – in service solely to feed an economy, sort citizens into various professions, and commodify our interests and our lives so we become complacent in supporting this type of cultural dominance.

It was not always this way. Public schooling in the U.S. originated in the late 18th century as a response to the Revolutionary War and the French Revolution, which created governments founded on democratic principles (Siegesmund, 2013). These new democratic societies called for a populace of well-informed citizens to thoughtfully vote for their elected officials through educated decision making and participation in the democratic voting process.

The original purpose of public education in the U.S., and later, the art college, was to educate the public for democratic participation. Some independent art colleges, such as the

Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, embraced this principle, influenced by a definition of aesthetics popularized by the German philosopher Fredrick Schiller. Schiller (2004) stated that aesthetic experience is "a form of active thinking [leading] to the production of new ideas for immediate [interaction] with the world" (as cited in Siegesmund, 2016, p. 68). Furthermore,

Siegesmund (2013) stated that “Schiller’s aesthetics aligned with a new political project of producing a citizenry that thinks for itself and thereby confidently exercises its responsibilities in new emergent forms of republican politics” (p. 304). The need to create an environment supporting the active choice-making to support democracy could be fulfilled through the public-school system (Siegesmund, 2013).

Therefore, to examine this evolving change to the purpose of art education in the U.S., this literature review is composed of four sections. In section one, conceptions of aesthetics at odds at and in service to democracy will be explored to showcase the democratic roots of our educational ideology. In section two, the history and evolution of the purposes for stand-alone art colleges in the U.S will be explored along with the history and framework for art foundations in U.S. art colleges. Section three will focus on the history of art education in the

U.S. and will include an examination of the AP and IB programs in secondary art classrooms as well as research instances demonstrating collaboration between secondary art teachers and higher education studio art foundations faculty members. Finally, research in the field of art foundations will be explained in section four as well as details of the familiar foundations curriculum and ideas for change supported by professionals in the field of foundations. In conclusion, the researcher will consider curriculum theory and its relationship to democratic practice to provide a context for the outcomes of this study detailed in Chapter 4.

Aesthetics and Democracy

In 1795 (as reprinted in 2004), Schiller’s On the Aesthetic Education of Man explored ways of shaping a democratic populace (Siegesmund, 2013). Inspired by Schiller’s writings,

Johann Pestalozzi introduced drawing to the school curriculum in the 19th century. Believing drawing to be foundational to all learning, he developed a curriculum that was later to be recognized as the German Drawing method, that “shaped the public-school art education curriculum in both the United Kingdom and North America” (Siegesmund, 2016, p. 69). These beliefs influenced Frederick Froebel, the German educator who created the Kindergarten model of curriculum in which play and experimentation with specific visuals was the central component of the school day. Froebel believed this type of play was a form of thinking that at the youngest age inspired curiosity and, therefore, engendered a democratic foundation of questioning, problem-posing, and choice-making. While the US interpreted the Pestalozzi method as a focus on thinking (e.g., Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts), the British applied it to the training of industrial designers. The British method became more popular in the U.S. by

32 the late 19th century (e.g., The School of the Art Institute of Chicago and the Maryland Institute

College of Art). Still, it is an important distinction, which “leads us to remember that the role of art education in public schools began as engagement in democratic thinking, as opposed to its current focus on the transfer of artistic skills and cultural knowledge” (Siegesmund, 2016, p.

69).

Influenced by Schiller’s ideology, the contemporary philosopher, Jacques Rancière, views aesthetic experience as a political act. Because of multiple philosophical ideas about aesthetics throughout history, Rancière (2009) names his definition aesthesis. Rancière’ss aesthesis supports art as a political act, not because of political subject matter, but because politics and art are both what he calls “communities of sense” in which we participate and comply (p. 32). These communities, like Foucault’s disciplines, are communities and ideas in which humans silently comply with the spatial and symbolic boundaries and roles delineated for them within that regime.

However, Rancière (2009) believes these structures can be disrupted. Applied to art education, students can develop new associations that reveal the very structures not visible to them in the familiar classifications and categories they take for facts as presented. Within these new associations an equalizing force emerges and results in a power that engenders aesthetics.

Rancière names this “aesthetic dissensus” (p. 46) or acts that overturn rules that bind us to seemingly unbreakable boundaries that separate and categorize us to uphold dominant power structures. In these new realms, all barriers and imagined differences are broken down and reconfigured in new arrangements, provoking and inciting conversation that does not result from our usual interactions and configurations (Rancière). Visual art’s purpose is not to

33 replicate reality, but to create fictitious associations that open the border between real and fantasy, “undoing and rearticulating the connections between signs and images, images and times, or signs and space that frame the existing sense of reality” (p. 49). This re-articulation demonstrates that reality is constructed and therefore can be constructed anew. In practical terms, people can create new realities, governments, and power structures by noticing their fluidity and impermanence.

Rancière shares his recognition of aesthetics as an agent of democratic dialogue with the progressive educator and early 20th century philosopher John Dewey. Dewey’s (1934) conception of an aesthetic experience continues to influence art education and progressive education in the U.S. He believed that all objects, things, or life moments not normally connected to what we usually conceive of as visual art can also give rise to aesthetic experiences. Dewey’s aesthetic experience involves the recognition of the intrinsic and extrinsic value of everyday experiences, as well as commonly categorized artistic ones, through sensory modes of creator and spectator that create equalizing dialogues among individuals, communities, cultures, and political realms. For Dewey (1934), an aesthetic experience

“exhibit(s) qualitative unity as well as a sense of closure or consummation. These qualities can belong even to simple experiences like that of lifting a stone, as long as it is done with sufficient attention” (p. 44). This definition democratically includes the participation of all people and shapes new understandings of the world. Enemies of aesthetic experiences include conformity to convention, procedure, and a forced submission to the dominant culture (Dewey,

1934).

Dewey’s (1934) theory of aesthetic experience can be applied to the current study through its clear opposition to aesthetic disinterestedness characterized by formalist artwork critiques. For example, formalist critiques focus purely on the physical aspects of artwork; the arrangement of forms; and how qualities of line, shape, color, and texture are unified for an overall universally pleasing compositional balance meant to incite an aesthetic pleasure separate from function or culture (Barrett, 2011; Shusterman, 2006). This type of critique that privileges visual qualities deemed universally aesthetically pleasing forces the dominance of a singular vision of what art is and stifles the possibility of an authentic aesthetic experience.

Dewey’s aesthetics of experience does not support singularity, but in its multiplicity, it includes all possible personal experiences of the object or event. Doing so allows for silenced ideas about art to surface, opening us up to much more than just the visual qualities of the work, but also to our experience of it, the story within it, and what it awakens within us. This idea has important implications for the field of art education at all levels. Art educators need to support a dialogue with students that accounts for the possibility that many different perspectives are possible and can/should be included in the conversation. In doing so, art education better supports democratic ideals, allowing students the freedom to make new meaning based on their own thoughts and ideas.

Further supporting Dewey’s (1934) aesthetics of experience, Shusterman (2000) applied this idea to art education, calling for the inclusion of popular art in aesthetics discussions and education and disallowing a privileged class to marginalize others by claiming that aesthetic experiences are only possible through an elite conception of fine art. Art educators have also supported including both popular and fine art in art education for examination of multiple

35 perspectives that challenge the status quo (Efland et al., 1996; Freedman, 2003). Dewey’s assertion that aesthetic experiences are intrinsically tied to the everyday mundane as well the extraordinary interprets aesthetics as a function of everyday life that validates not only a

Western conception of art and life but all people’s historical and personal histories

(Shusterman, 2006). Aesthetic experiences are not just for an elite cultured class of people, or for relegation to museums and galleries, but they are experiences for all people at any time and any place. Therefore, if multiple conceptions of art can occur and if one can have experiences of the aesthetic anywhere, then teaching students about art must not privilege any visual conception over another, but instead it should include all possible realms of experience to support a democratic education and engaged populace. In developing a democratic consciousness, and supporting aesthetics within our multiple experiences, it follows that embracing the arts of the everyday within our visual and popular culture democratizes art education for all people, not just a select few.

Foucault (1979) wrote, “if economic exploitation separates the force and product of labour, let us say that disciplinary coercion establishes in the body the constricting link between an increased aptitude and an increased domination” (p. 138). To take back the spaces of aesthetic experience, we must first recognize our subservience and then reclaim control of our bodies, spaces, and time. Doing so requires actively disrupting all boundaries of time, space, and categorization that sorts us, so that spontaneous, active control is recovered in service of authentic learning, education, and aesthetic experience. It is through these disruptions that the aesthetic can be found (Foucault). For example, a curriculum revolving around a systematized set of elements and principles practiced as repetitive exercises, as in the case of a formalist

36 framework (Freedman, 2003; Gude, 2004, 2007), can be viewed as a curriculum in service to the control of our body through its regimented orderly steps of practice leaving no room for spontaneous windows of new ways of making, being, or thinking to be discovered. In this study, I looked for both adherence to visual standards in written curriculum, as well as signifiers of a breakdown of normalized foundations categories. These disruptions were indicated by crossing boundaries meant to reveal to students the previous structures of control.

As a result, students are purposefully challenged to harness powers for themselves and regain capacity for aesthetic experiences, and thus, democratic thought.

These philosophies of aesthetics support a necessary disruption to the status quo, quite different from our current state of education that conceives of aesthetics as the experience of beauty or the appreciation of visual qualities and views all of education as training for a job. In the case of Rancière (2009), it is opening physical, mental, and sensory boundaries to create new associations where aesthetics occurs. Dewey (1934) rejects aesthetics as responses to purely physical objects of art and places the aesthetic in every day experiences. Foucault’s

(1979) finds the aesthetic in the displacement of the usual grids of categories, details, compartments, structures, assortments, spaces, and temporal infringements to locate aesthetics in the reclamation of the body, space, and time, so that unmitigated and spontaneous environments conducive to aesthetic experience can occur. These philosophical conditions all locate aesthetics as a political act that, by its very superfluous nature, renders inequalities visible, equalizes humans, and brings humanity to its essential core of instinct shared by all animals, including human animals.

Aesthetics defies definition by its nature. It is an all-encompassing, engrossing act or sensation that overtakes the body and pushes forward a need to bring out something sensual, automatic, something deep inside that is somehow not within only but within all around as well

(Dewey, 1934, Rancière, 2009). This essence in some sense has always been, and through nurturing, it becomes continuously. From a standardized educational standpoint, aesthetic experience cannot be quantified, as it does not speak a logical language in line with the way we create curriculum. It speaks to something that can only be sensed through glimpses between logic and emotion. These aesthetics definitions democratize art experiences and support unstructured structures that allow people to re-experience themselves as unrestrained by standards of logic, promoting care for community. In this democratic equalization, the other, foreign, or the invisible become visible and a level of empathy for each other is recovered.

Within these various definitions and ways each philosopher defines a route to aesthetics, all of them in one form or another disrupt the status quo and democratize art, leading to the questioning of the dominant culture and our conception of the purpose of schools, society, and art when used as a tool of oppression. This aesthetics is not a concept that can be contained by a product or a singular definition, although a product can be part of an aesthetic experience. It is within play, risk-taking, and reimagining a prescribed outcome that challenges art students to create meaning by making confident decisions about their work. This act is democratic as it relies on student choice and supports the type of thinking and citizenry needed to uphold democratic dialogue.

History, Purpose, and Evolution of the Stand-alone Art College in the U.S.

Both the American and British ideas about public education were heavily influenced by

Schiller and Pestalozzi, as explained in the previous section. While the British took this in the direction of commodifying education to produce people to work in industrial society, the US stayed true to its original purpose for a time. In 1806, the U.S. established the first college Art classes in the at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, “with the stated object of educating students in art” (Schools of Art and Design, 1879, p. 94). However, the influence of mass production, the assembly line mentality and competition eventually spread to the states, and the purpose of education for a democratic citizenry was usurped by industry and replaced with a

“useful” curriculum. Art school and art education became places to train for these design and industry roles, even though public education in the U.S. was created to educate the public for civic action and responsibility in a democratic society. By the time Philadelphia’s Franklin

Institute Drawing Classes started in 1824, “the practical tendency of art to [form] a close relation with industry is shown in the fact that these classes were established ‘for the promotion of the mechanic arts’” (Schools of Art and Design, 1879, p. 94). As women in the 19th century demanded communities for participation in the professional world, the Philadelphia School of

Design for Women opened to educate women for industry (Schools of Art and Design, 1879, p.

94), blending the American tradition of democratic participation with the British tradition of vocational training.

In the 1879 publication, The Art Amateur, the author interpreted the statistics compiled by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Education in the Department of Interior in Washington through 1877. This synopsis demonstrates the abundance of art schools that opened in the 19th

39 century, beginning with the Pennsylvania schools above and continuing with the City of New

York, which, in 1826, founded the National Academy of Design “to advance art by public exhibitions and free art schools” with “the object the school as stated in its charter, in order to notice the beginning and trace the growth among us of industrial art” (Schools of Art and

Design, 1879, p. 94).

In 1848, the Maryland Institute School of Art and Design in Baltimore was founded. In

1852, New York’s Woman’s Art School was established; and in 1857, the Free School of Art opened. In 1865, the Pittsburg School of Design for Women followed, and in 1867, the Art

Schools of the Chicago Academy of Design. Then, in 1870, the Ladies Art Association began, and in 1875, students from the National Academy of Design started the Art Students League

(Schools of Art and Design, 1879, p. 96).

Multiple stand-alone and public colleges began moving in the direction of an art education geared toward industry. In the state of New York, Vassar School of Design,

Cornell’s architecture program, the Brooklyn Art Association, and the College of Fine Arts at

Syracuse University were established. In Boston, in 1849, the Lowell Institute of Drawing

Classes instructed elementary students in art. In 1872, the same group established the Lowell

School of Practical Design to meet the market demands from manufacturers. In 1861, a

Department of Architecture was founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and in

1873, the Normal Art School began training teachers in industrial drawing. The Museum of

Fine Arts started the School of Drawing and Painting in 1876, and in the same year the Yale

School of Fine Arts opened in New Haven. In 1873, the Art Association of San Francisco started the School of Design. In Toledo, Ohio, the University of Arts and Trades opened, and

40 the University of Cincinnati opened the St. Louis Art School in 1872 “to give instruction in drawing and painting” (Schools of Art and Design, 1879, p. 96). In 1877, the Pennsylvania

Museum and School of Industrial Art opened classes to the public.

Transformed by economic changes resulting from the Industrial Revolution, these stand-alone art colleges saw as their purpose to train people for work within industry through the arts. The unidentified author stated,

when we find schools established for the express purpose of teaching the art of design, it simply proves that we are being transformed from an agricultural into a manufacturing people; that, measuring ourselves with other nations at international expositions, we have found them head and shoulders above us in the artistic quality of our goods. These figures will show exactly when we first awoke to the fact that the great need of this country was schools of technical education; and that the artisan must be also the artist. (Schools of Art and Design, 1879, p. 96)

The transformation of education from a place of educating a participatory citizenry to a place devoted to industrial outcomes firmly took hold in the American art colleges.

Formalism and the Bauhaus Legacy

As industrial and economic purposes usurped the democratic purpose of education in the U.S., formalism in art education gained popularity in the early 20th century as a rebellion to the academy style of teaching art that mainly relied on imitating nature through realistic drawing. In contrast, formalists believed imitative drawing was irrelevant and that the object of a drawing already exists for whatever purpose it holds. Formalists believed art was relevant only when it was created by the artist for the sole purpose of being an object of art and nothing more and carried with it inherent universally correct visual qualities that artists could combine

41 to bring about aesthetic experiences in the viewer (Bell, 1913; Dow, 1913, Fry, 1909).

Aesthetic judgments could be made based on the quality of these combinations of forms according to their ability to evoke emotion from the viewer. Subject matter meant nothing, as these emotional reactions were separate from daily life because in the imagination the mind may travel without restriction of morality or social norms (Fry, 1909). As the realm of art lie above and separate from daily life, art should not focus on personal stories, contexts, or political motivations, but it should focus only on inciting emotions in the viewer through the combination of ‘significant form’ (Bell, 1913, p. 13). The German Enlightenment philosopher

Immanual Kant is often credited with laying the groundwork for this theory, believing that “all viewers of art should gain the same understanding of each work when focusing solely on the work and not include their own interests, thoughts, history, or experiences, detaching themselves and focusing solely on the sensory qualities of the work itself” (as cited in Barrett,

1997, p. 21).

Artist and critic Roger Fry (1909) argued that objects not created for the sole purpose of the viewers’ pleasure, including nature and the human form, should be excluded from all questions of aesthetics. The aesthetic experience could only be created through art, as art is only created to do so (Bell, 1913; Fry, 1909). Further, he believed that aesthetic experiences are not related to our perceived world but are instead manifested in the imaginary world of our minds where we may focus on emotions not needed for survival or immediate action. Fry

(1909) called for art to be “adapted to that disinterested intensity of contemplation” (p. 4). He formalized his theory by naming the visual qualities of order, variety, and unity as essential, additionally listing the elements: rhythm including line and gesture, mass, space including light

42 and shade, color, and the combination of mass and space. Fry believed that each of these elements connected to our experience of the physical world, so emotional responses are naturally evoked when used correctly in art objects. Ultimately, Fry believed that art worthy of consideration must be made purposefully by the artist, “not to be used but to be regarded and enjoyed, and that this feeling is characteristic of the aesthetic judgment proper” (p. 7). Thus, all art should be judged against this standard and this standard only. These ideas strengthened the influence of art education as a mechanism for economically driven outcomes, which also excluded the everyday as sites for aesthetic experiences Dewey (1934) argued for.

Bell (1913), a contemporary of Fry, furthered this perspective, with the hypothesis that all art, regardless of when, where, or who made it, could be judged according to specific visual qualities. Bell asserted that a singular quality, which he named “significant form,” is commonly found in all works of visual art and combines to create an “aesthetic emotion” in the viewer (Bell, p. 13). The artist’s only job is to create compositions by combining these forms to create emotional and/or aesthetic responses in the viewer. All other art, including narrative or descriptive work, is irrelevant unless it is created with the sole purpose of instigating our aesthetic emotions. Art is above daily life, revealed only to those who can perceive it rather than tied by time or place, and is in its own realm entirely (Bell). This exclusive realm did not include all people, but only those responding directly to art made to be art only.

Arthur Wesley Dow (1913) brought the influence of formalist theory into the college art curriculum as early as 1899, culminating with his appointment as the Director of Fine Arts at

Columbia University’s Teachers College in 1904 where he further structured his formalist curriculum with art students and pre-service teachers. Dow, in a stance similar to Bell’s and

Fry’s, rebelled against the traditions of the academy, believing that composition and learning universal rules of visual design are essential before any imitative drawing can be practiced. In response to his imposition of these qualities in the analysis of Oriental art, he created a system of teaching art that relied on an ordered progression of compositional exercises to be applied to all art from any culture. Dow believed art students should master composition and that modern painting, Salon style painting prevalent in the art school ethos of the time, was little more than

“picture-writing; only story-telling, not art” (p. 3).

In the early 20th century there was widespread rebellion in Europe against the academy style of teaching, but none rebelled so as famously and as influentially as the 1919 establishment of the Bauhaus School of Design in Germany. Founded initially on the then- revolutionary idea that teaching visual art should start with exercises based on composition rather than imitation, this curriculum ideology has evolved over time to become the standard foundations curriculum throughout the last century (Efland, 1987). The most notable innovation of the Bauhaus School was the implementation of the Vorkers course, or the

“foundations course” (Efland, 1987, p. 215). Led by artist and teacher Johannes Itten, this course formed the basis of fundamental learning in higher education art schools (Efland, 1987, p. 215). Students were admitted to school on a six-month trial period during which they drew from nature using basic materials, practiced compositional exercises with ordinary objects, and created contrasts of visual qualities. However, in contrast to formalist ideas, Itten believed in personal expression and a spiritual component to his ideology, calling the purpose of the course to “height[en] the students’ awareness of the expressive power of the design elements” (Efland,

1987, p. 217).

Accused of creating a cult-like following at the Bauhaus (Taylor, 1992), Itten left the

Bauhaus for the U.S., leaving Josef Albers to take over. In stark contrast to the spiritualism of

Itten, Albers created a more structured, scientific curriculum dealing with the physical properties of materials and light beginning “with a series of experiments working directly in various materials, starting with a limited number of tools and gradually adding new tools and materials” (Efland, 1987, p. 217). Much of what we now know as foundations comes from this more formal model, as Bauhaus instructors fled to the U.S. during the Nazi regime, bringing this curriculum to colleges across the country. For example, Albers directed the art program at

Yale University and established a highly influential foundations color theory curriculum

(Albers, 1963). Over time, the Bauhaus model became further systematized to combine technical material skill with formalized composition (Efland, 1987). Thus, it is here that the familiar foundations program of today, combining technical skills with formalized visual qualities, was born, excluding the original purpose of educating a democratic populace in

America.

Art Education in Public Schools: Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE)

With a similar economically driven objective, in the middle part of the twentieth century, a scientific, skill-based approach to art teaching marked a trend in K-12 art teacher education. Offering a model similar to formalism in its scientific underpinnings, Barkan (1966) argued that art education curriculum should focus on combining artist, critic and historical perspectives, much like the disciplines of math and science (Efland, 1987). This discipline

45 oriented movement lost force during the next decade, but it regained currency again in art teacher preparation programs in the 1980s (Efland et al., 1996).

With the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence, 1983), the government called on educators to toughen standards in schools to compete with growing technological advancement overseas. Thus, an effort to systematize art in schools to reflect this standardization found a home in Discipline Based Art Education (DBAE). Lessons focused on four components: Art History, Art Production, Art Criticism, and Aesthetics. Funded by the J.

Paul Getty Trust, DBAE promoted a style similar to formalism through standardized stages and proliferation of universally accepted art elements. The goal of DBAE was to induct learners into the discipline, or “a component of the literate culture” (Schiro, 2013, p. 19). In this hierarchical approach to curriculum, students were exposed to art through components of culture made visible, rendering a variety of conceptions of art unexplored and stifling democratic participation.

Resulting from DBAE’s domination, a number of art education scholars argued for the inclusion of visual and popular culture in art education, protesting the proliferation of a systemized set of visual ideals based on a one-sided conception of art disconnected to students’ lives (Ballengee-Morris & Stuhr, 2001; Carpenter & Tavin, 2010; Duncum, 1990, 2002;

Efland, 1987, 2004; Efland et al., 1996; Freedman, 2003; Freedman & Wood, 1999; Gude,

2004, 2007; Tavin et al., 2007). Duncum (1990) wrote, “the assertion of common-sense, self- evident, ideal standards must give way to an acknowledgment that standards are historically conditioned, ideological, and subject to argument” (p. 207). Scholars argued that a combination of the fine and popular arts is equally necessary locations for the study of art, so

46 that students could connect the material to their own experiences, allowing for multiple ideas about art.

For example, Freedman and Wood (1999) discovered connections and interpretations students made when simultaneously studying fine and popular art. The results of this mixed methods case study suggested students often placed images in multiple descriptive categories of meaning. Supporting Duncum’s (1990) claim, students’ postmodern approaches to image interpretation proved the value of including both fine art and popular visual culture in art education (Freedman & Wood). Students were better able to critique, interpret, and understand both genres through dual exposure.

Ballengee-Morris and Stuhr (2001) criticized DBAE for its lack of connection to students’ daily lives by providing an alternative framework in which “the disenfranchised are also given a voice in the art and visual culture education process” (p. 10). Offering six key positions modeling a visual and multicultural curriculum as the basis for art education,

Ballengee-Morris and Stuhr asserted school reform must effectively help students understand the complex nature of culture as well as the power connected to social structures personally, locally, and globally. The DBAE model lacked this necessity as it supported a singular, universal way of teaching, knowing, and creating art.

To locate a middle ground of study between DBAE and visual culture, Efland (2004) described an aesthetics art and visual culture education. Correcting the misconception that including visual and popular culture in art education ignores aesthetic education and the fine arts, Efland assert “the aesthetic is deeply intertwined with the issues and concerns raised by the proponents of visual culture” (p. 236). He further supported Freedman and Wood’s (1999)

47 study, stating “if works in the popular culture are to be studied with seriousness, as I believe they should be, the methods of critical engagement with works of fine art could well serve as an appropriate model to emulate” (Efland, 2004, p. 243). Efland (2004) proposed an inclusive visual culture art education that fosters student dialogue regarding high art, popular art, and student art.

In her critique not only of DBAE but also of the proliferation of the elements and principles of design, Gude (2004) called for a revamped curriculum based on a thematic curriculum structure emerging from her Spiral Curriculum Workshop for the University of

Illinois at Chicago’s Saturday classes for teenagers and her Contemporary Curriculum Project

Initiative (CCCI). She argued that current teaching focused on formal elements of the early

20th century is devoid of the original context and holds little meaning in a contemporary art education. Instead of planning curriculum around the elements and principles of design,

Gude’s (2004) criteria included

curriculum based on generative themes that relate to the lives of students and their communities; studio art practices of contemporary art making and related traditional arts; art as investigation-understanding the art of others and seeing their own art making, not as exercises, but as research that produces new visual and conceptual insights. (p. 8)

Emergent curriculum themes revolved around practices, including appropriation, juxtaposition, recontextualization, layering, interaction of text and image, hybridity, gazing, and representing

(Gude, 2004). Noting that the hybrid natures of these practices are common characteristics of postmodern artifacts, she asserted they cast away “the boundaries imposed by outmoded discipline-based structures” (p. 8). These principles in curriculum mirror those of

48 postmodernism as they reflect the blurred boundaries inherent to a visual culture art education as well as to democratic education.

Continuing her argument against the formalist elements and principles of design and discipline-based models of art education, Gude (2007) discussed ways of creating a quality curriculum that instead begins with “investigat(ing) big questions about the uses of art and other images in shaping our interactions with the world around us” (pp. 6-7). The resulting curriculum, titled Principles of Possibility, included playing, forming self, investigating community themes, encountering difference, attentive living, empowered experiencing, empowered making, deconstructing culture, reconstructing social spaces, not knowing, and, believing (Gude, 2007). She stated that these “goals are widely accepted as important by art teachers and other educators, though they’re often underemphasized in current art curriculum structures that are based on formalist and media checklists” (p. 14).

Although art education scholars for over 20 years have agreed that curriculum based solely on discipline-based models like DBAE and the elements and principles of design lack connection to students’ lived experiences, as well as undervalue multiple perspectives, La

Porte, Speirs, and Young (2008) found the heavy influence of both these paradigms as late as

2008. Their empirical study utilized a sample of 437 art teachers who completed a survey designed to “discern the extent to which certain factors might influence current curriculum content taught by K-12 art teachers in the United States with zero to seven years teaching experience” (p. 358). La Porte et al. found that “overall, DBAE ranked as the most dominant approach or theory in the teacher’s undergraduate training, followed by studio practice (Art

Forms, Media & Materials)” (p. 363). Further, “in practice at the K-12 level, Art Studio

Production ranked the highest usage of all content areas followed by Design

Elements/Principles” (p. 364). Also, although postmodern principles had a moderate influence, contemporary art was noted as having the least influence on curricula. Although conceptions of the purpose of art and teaching art have changed, curriculum shifts have been slower to take hold at the K-12 level, and it is unclear if this influence is evident in higher education.

Overview

This literature clearly demonstrates supporting art educators in shifting curriculum to include fine art and visual culture production and study, multicultural strategies of school reform, and multi-dimensional analysis of visual qualities based on context. However, Gude

(2004, 2007) and La Porte et al. (2008) agree that many art teachers still focus on discipline- based models like DBAE with elements and principles of design as the central core. Therefore, high school art educators may be teaching similar outmoded curriculum models to art foundations students, signifying a need for collaboration between the two sectors, not only for a more contemporary curriculum but also to combat repetitive concepts. However, regardless of how prevalent changes are in high school art education, K-12 art educators have acknowledged a pivot away from formalism to a post-modern inclusive slant. This idea reflects the nature of public schools’ original purpose, which was to promote democratic thought and action. The prevalence of this pivot in art foundations is less clear.

Advanced Placement (AP) Portfolio Assessment

One area in which collaboration between high school art education and art foundations sectors is seemingly evident is in the AP portfolio. Designed by the College Board in 1974, the

AP portfolio is a testing mechanism for students taking high school AP art (Willis, 2004). AP portfolios are submitted to a review board of college art faculty who score the portfolios on a scale of one through five. Higher scores may be used for art foundations credit in colleges with articulation agreements with high schools.

Graham and Sims-Gunzenhauser’s (2009b) sought to find similarities connecting the

AP portfolio assessment program across thirty-five years, how the program has changed, and how it defines advocacy and policy for high school art education. Graham and Sims-

Gunzenhauser concluded that while education policy contributes to art education’s marginalized status in the high school curriculum, AP programs have generated significant support for secondary art education by establishing a college-endorsed standard of artistic performance. Graham and Sims-Gunzenhauser maintained that an objective portfolio measure of student achievement offers an argument to policy makers on the benefits of art education.

In a similar study, Willis (2004) further supported Graham and Sims-Gunzenhauser’s

(2009b) results. By summarizing the growth in popularity of the AP portfolio over time, Willis explored challenges and outcomes of its use, arguing that its popularity supports K-12 art education not only for "gifted" students but also for all students. Willis also sought to discover if the AP portfolio does in fact reflect the beliefs of art educators. By examining statistical information regarding the growth of the AP portfolio assessment tool, coupled with evidence of extensive AP training sessions for faculty, Willis concluded that the AP assessment is a useful

51 model of inclusion as a national college requirement. However, critics have cited AP portfolio assessment’s focus on the formalistic elements of art production separate from its contextual qualities, as a defect in the scoring process (Graham & Sims-Gunzenhauser, 2009a)

Ultimately, both studies are limited in that researchers asserted the portfolio is endorsed by college faculty, yet no evidence has demonstrated college level faculty’s agreement with the aspects of art the portfolio tests. The AP portfolios’ de-contextualized scoring and viewing procedure demonstrates an outdated and formalistic approach diametrically opposed to context- based curriculum espoused both by scholars in art education and some art foundations educators as detailed above. The research leaves questions regarding how much input professional artists and faculty at the foundations and college level have on the specific qualities taught and then assessed in the AP portfolio, and further, if indeed these qualities are what constitutes a solid art education in preparation for foundations and beyond. In addition, it begs the reader to ask if there may be overlap or complete ignorance of each other’s curriculum requirements. No evidence details exactly what happens in art foundations curriculum that either is, or is not, similar or connected to a K-12, or, specifically, a high school art curriculum.

Supporting the need for more collaboration regarding curriculum and portfolio requirements, O'Donoghue (2009) conducted a study in Ireland about the portfolio preparation of high school students entering art college. O'Donoghue examined the predictive validity of the college entrance portfolio score on the outcome grade after the first year of college. Not surprisingly, results revealed that portfolio scores were only a minimal predictor, implying a need for future research into knowledge art students need for academic success in the first year, as well as success in the years following. O’Donoghue supports more attention for portfolio

52 requirements by colleges to ensure standards are aligned with college art expectations to gain greater clarity on curriculum goals and support student success. The portfolio requirements may in fact be quite different than the expectations of faculty in the first year of college art programs. Although conducted in Ireland, the results demonstrate the consequence of differing expectations on art students at the secondary and college levels and the impact that lack of collaboration can have on student achievement.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) program is a breakthrough in art education.

Supporting a comprehensive education that “[aims to] develop internationally minded people who, recognizing their humanity and shared guardianship of the planet, help to create a better and more peaceful world” (International Baccalaureate, 2013). This mission does not include a subjective rating system of the visual qualities of art. Instead, the program elicits and assesses the manner of engagement with art and ideas through sustained inquiry and reflective responses to art. This approach has at its forefront a conceptual focus, so that students can deeply engage with meaning. The IB program “encourages students to become active, compassionate, lifelong learners” through this sustained engagement (International Baccalaureate, 2013, p. 3).

High school art students research, journal, create multiple iterations of ideas, and write about their experiences. This holistic program assesses the totality of experience the art student demonstrates. This comprehensive program fits within the framework of supporting a portfolio-based evaluation, allowing for multi-dimensional student learning and preparation for our globalized society. The IB program, however, is not offered in every high school, so not all students of art have the opportunity to conduct this type of inquiry, however, it serves as a

53 model of conceptual development for the high school art student. (International Baccalaureate,

2013).

Art Foundations Now: Curriculum

This section focuses on the current state of research and models of curriculum in art foundations. Contrasted with K-12 art education research, art foundations in recent years shows little to no change in curriculum strategies (Betz, 2003; Dockery & Quinn, 2007; Tavin et al., 2007). While research (Dockery & Quinn, 2007) shows faculty support seeking to evolve the common elements and principles framework, little has changed in the way of implementing them. For example, Betz (2003) conducted a 36-question web-based survey of

250 foundations instructors to assess the current state of art foundations. The results revealed that manual skills and content organized around basic exercises and use of materials were the most prevalent foundations models. The participants were asked, “What classes are considered your Foundations Classes?” (p. 4). Of the 250 respondents, 210 listed 2D design, 224 drawing, and 191 Life Drawing, demonstrating the prevalence of curriculum organized around a common foundational model. The results also showed little change to foundations curriculum in prior years. For example, to the question “to your knowledge, do you believe foundations teaching has changed as much in the last 20 years as the professional art/design world,” 122 out of 236 replied “no” (Betz, p. 13).

Adding to the remaining prevalence of the traditional Bauhaus model in art foundations,

Dockery and Quinn (2007) explored past and current trends in foundations programs in the overall experience of the visual art student and examined the role the traditional Bauhaus model

54 plays in meeting the needs of young artists in training. Through survey data from 55 colleges, combined with statistics from Betz’s (2003) survey, results verified that the skill-based method common in the Bauhaus model was still the most prevalent form of teaching art foundations.

However, Dockery and Quinn found that faculty strongly support revisions of foundations curriculum to a more contextual approach. The authors concluded that while skill-based curriculum is necessary to a degree, conceptual approaches to curriculum need to be emphasized to help students succeed in the intricacies of arts related practices.

Tavin et al. (2007) continued questioning the common foundations model and its fit for both art students and pre-service art teachers. Defining many art foundations experiences as “a preoccupation with form and media removed from content, context, and theory” (p. 14), they argue that foundations curricula should revolve around a thematic contextual approach to visual culture analysis and production. Agreeing with Gude (2004), Tavin et al. argue the common foundations framework influences the artist and K-12 art education equally as future K-12 educators move into teaching after college, asserting that “elements and principles of art and design…dominate K-12 art curricula” (p. 14). Tavin et al. suggested restructuring art foundations curriculum to reflect a sequence of changes much like those at the School of the

Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC), which introduced a First-Year Program (FYP) based on thematic approaches, with secondary emphasis on formalist principles.

Ultimately, clarity of purpose and the needs of a successful artist need to be fostered by collaboration among artists, foundations faculty, and K-12 art educators to illuminate a common language for the benefit of student understanding, continuity in the arts, and democratic participation in the classroom, studio, and life.

Professional Organizations: Foundations Now

As further evidence of some art foundations instructors embracing integrating contemporary practices into models of foundations are publications by the nonprofit organization ITI (Integrative Teaching International, n.d.). Since 2006, the group has focused on “questioning the ways curriculum development can be flexible and responsive to 21st century cultures” (Adams, 2012, p. 7). During organization meetings called Think Tanks (TT), art foundations educators from across the U.S. meet to brainstorm new ways of teaching art foundations to respond to contemporary students. For example, during the Chicago-based

Think Tank 7 (TT7), 56 educators met to focus on and create a presentation based on the following objectives:

To explore ways of integrating emerging practices into existing foundation curricula; To develop effective connections among our missions, goals, learning outcomes, and assessments; to identify the essential features of a foundations curriculum that is responsive to a multicultural contemporary framework; to develop student studio research skills and facilitate the growth of critical thinking; (and) to experiment with new technologies, including work with social networks, virtual spaces, and online tools. (p. 7)

During ITI’s seventh Think Tank in Chicago in June of 2012, art foundations faculty participated in break-out groups focused on considering new ways of teaching foundations.

The facilitator for each group wrote an article reflecting the ideas considered in each session.

In the resulting publication, one article in particular, Connecting the Dots: Inside and Outside the Box (Winant, 2012) focused on the transitional aspects of school, location, and personal growth for influencing students during art foundations. To help students during this stage,

Peter Winant, the Director of the School of Art at George Mason University, suggested that “a

56 primary connection must be made between the entirety of a student’s life experience and the integration of the experience of their education” (p. 27). Winant and his group called for building on students’ past educational experiences to connect present and future ones. This challenge implied a need for collaboration between secondary and higher education art faculty to discuss curricula to identify areas of commonality in which to do so.

As Head of Foundations at Northern Illinois University (NIU), Cindy Hellyer-Heinz’s

(2012) report on the breakout group Manifestos and Manifestations, the participants stated that

“shifting the emphasis from the end product to the process used to get there requires we acknowledge and value the students’ previous experience” (p. 39). The participants challenged educators to permit students to explore, risk, and fail to find success. The challenge inherent in this call was changing the continued proliferation of a culture in which a final outcome is the goal, with a definitive “right” answer, often proliferated in a disciplined-based and formalist approach to art education as well as the overall approach to much of K-12 education today.

The break-out group, Integrative Learning: Bridging Today and Tomorrow, promoted a strategy of migration toward an integration of “hard and soft skills, or habits of discipline and practice…[coming] together to allow the student to demonstrate a rigorous engagement with process that evolves in a commitment of time” (Siegesmund , 2012, p. 49). Aligned with contemporary art education, Richard Siegesmund (2012) stated, “a non-contextual evaluation of objects based on historical formal elements of art and design is of little value in assessing how thoughtfully and full-heartedly a student has engaged with this zone of integrative learning” (p. 47). However, when students move to college following an art education that may have focused on more formal aspects of evaluation, shifting to a context-based approach in art

57 foundations may be difficult.

Although the familiar considerations of implementing a context based art education align in theory to curriculum and research trends in contemporary K-12 art education, there is still a missing component of communication between the two. In questioning the reason for this separation, we must begin with further study into foundations so the current picture is clear, so that all of art education can reimagine a type of curriculum for a democratic populace.

Curriculum for Democracy

Teacher intentions and curriculum models only partially paint the picture of student learning. In addition to written and overt content, curriculum “becomes both a means for developing modes of thought and a symbolic structure that defines a hierarchy of values for the young” (Eisner, 1998, p. 76). This symbolic structure is the hidden curriculum, one in which unwritten objectives transfer to students through classroom processes (Eisner, 1998; Schiro,

2013). As students attend school, overt statements of democratic values are declared, yet students are systematically and repeatedly taught to remain silent (Freire, 1970). For example, using testing as the dominant barometer of successful learning manipulates students into believing that singular correct answers to problems are the only choice and high grades are the most important goal of school. Curricula singularly serving testing outcomes support student conformity, discourage risk taking, and oppose democratic principles. Freire (1970) viewed this type of curriculum control as oppressive domination, contrary to democratic participation and inquiry. While the testing movement does little to reflect learning, it does much to control

58 public thinking by disconnecting students from sharing and creating a vision for society, thereby squelching subjective and critical thinking (Pinar, 2012).

The NVAS (National Visual Arts Standards, 1994), in support of keeping art education free from communicating only singular ways of learning, stated,

the arts cultivate the direct experience of the senses; they trust the unmediated flash of insight as a legitimate source of knowledge. Their goal is to connect person and experience directly, to build the bridge between verbal and nonverbal, between the strictly logical and the emotional—the better to gain an understanding of the whole. Both approaches are powerful and both are necessary; to deny students either is to disable them. (p. 7)

By practicing democratic principles in art education, curriculum supports personal growth as active and participatory, acknowledges its socially constructed nature, and fosters classrooms as dialogic locations of democratic pedagogy (Shor, 1992). When taught well, the arts encourage democracy, for when students locate varied solutions to problems; they become empowered in their personal decision-making abilities, nurturing the qualities necessary for active participation in life, community, and society at large. The recent NVAS (National

Visual Arts Standards, 2014) update to the National Core Art Standards affirms this stance, calling for art educators to foster collaboration and “in an enjoyable inclusive environment as they create, prepare, and share artwork that bring communities together” (p. 10).

However, even with a high school art education serving the democratic ideals described above, college art foundations faculty cannot expect their entering students to have not suffered from the numbing effect that so often results from a general high school experience that privileges and reinforces standardized testing. Additionally, if our overt, written and operational curriculum does not support material to empower our students and if art

59 foundations curriculum continues revolving around formalist models, foundations itself will be just another reinforcement of a disempowering education, nullifying any positive effects of postmodern democratic art education in high school art classrooms.

The arts are the logical, natural place to teach students that the dominant ideology is not the sole answer or path, that not one answer is always correct, that learning is cyclical and connected, and that risk-taking is essential to creativity and innovation. Artists break ground, discover new paths, subvert old thinking, and push boundaries. The future needs innovators who create meaning and who can “synthesize rather than…analyze; (who) see the relationship between seemingly unrelated fields; (who) detect broad patterns rather than to deliver specific answers” (Pink, 2006, p. 130). To stand for a democratic society, artists must continue using art to render oppressed voices heard. Therefore, foundations must create curriculum in support of this ideal as part of the aims, goals, and objectives of a comprehensive arts education so that students can continually move through levels of reinforcement, reflection, and deep investigation about art, society, and their personal experiences in the world.

Meaningful knowledge construction occurs through students’ personal connections with subject matter as well as connectivity to their interests, values, and communities. Dewey (1902) believed that, instead of subject matter disciplines, the social lives of students should be the centerpiece of curriculum. Dewey implored educators to locate the child’s experience as a central and vital part of the curriculum, not fixed and formal, but fluid and adaptable to the way students experience and interact with the world.

Connecting curriculum to art students’ personal histories supports an evolution of creativity and visual investigation that artists need. Curriculum structures need to align to help

60 students understand that notions of an ideal art form “are historically conditioned, ideological, and subject to argument” (Duncum, 1990, p. 207). Artists produce art because of experiences and interactions with the world (Dewey, 1934). To rob students of examining their personal experiences and interests to inform art making is to deny them of their ability to think critically about their lives and create work that reflects their personal beliefs, empowering and challenging viewers in similar reflections. The formalist foundations framework serves as an example of a curriculum with little connection to student interests.

Summary

This chapter explained trends in art education, including DBAE and visual culture, explored the history of art foundations, and explored research relevant to these topics. Chapter

3 will explain the methodology by which the researcher undertook this study.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of Modernist formalism and

Postmodern art theory on written foundations curricula in the U.S. This study resulted in an empirical research foundation and theoretical framework for an integrated, postmodern approach to teaching foundations.

Research Questions and Sub-Questions

This study explored the following research question and sub-questions:

1. Do theories of art education impact art foundations curriculum?

a. What is common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum based on

course descriptions?

b. What similarities and differences exist among state university art foundations

curriculum content and private nonprofit art foundations curriculum content

based on course descriptions?

c. What similarities and differences exist between art foundations course

descriptions among four regions of the United States?

Research Design

It is important to examine the philosophical underpinnings of a research design to broaden the general understanding of the lives of educators (Mertens, 2009). As Creswell

(2008) explained, research designs form out of four possible philosophical worldviews. In the

Post positivist worldview, “data, evidence and rational considerations shape knowledge”

(Creswell, p. 7). This view lends itself to a quantitative research design in which hypotheses and research questions are tested by comparing the relationships and causal effects of variables, resulting in statistical numerical findings (Creswell). In contrast to this paradigm, the social constructivist worldview holds that individual meaning is constructed according to context, rendering veracity relative to the situation (Creswell; Mertens, 2009). This construct generally supports a qualitative methodology in which meanings regarding the human condition are generated through an exploration of various conditions and interpretations (Creswell; Mertens,

2009). In addition, the advocacy and participatory worldview holds that researchers should problematize power structures to make visible areas in which reform for marginalized peoples can be studied using either a qualitative or quantitative approach (Creswell). Finally, a pragmatist worldview holds that truth is relative to the time and context and is not based on a structural dualism (Creswell). Accordingly, “the pragmatist orientation rejects the either/or mentality suggested by a choice between the postpositive and the constructivist paradigms”

(Mertens, 2009, p. 296).

A pragmatist worldview, supporting a mixed research design, was most appropriate for this study, as this paradigm supports a methodology tailored to the research questions.

Furthermore, Creswell (2008) agrees that “there is more insight to be gained from the combination of both qualitative and quantitative research than either form by itself” (p. 203).

In the case of this research design, words and phrases, qualitative in nature, needed to be converted, or quantitized, to produce statistical results. Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2011) describe quantitizing as the process by which data “involve the conversion of one type of data into the other type” (p. 564). Therefore, this study followed a mixed model research design, with the initial qualitative data strand quantitized so the final results could be analyzed using quantitative methods.

Data Collection

Following the mixed model design, the researcher located course descriptions, conducted a content analysis, and statistically determined the prevalence of common art theories on foundations program’s written curriculum throughout the country. Written descriptions from both state and private art college foundations programs allowed the researcher to compare curricula to locate similarities and differences in the collected content. In addition, sorting colleges by region of the country made it possible to examine whether there were any significant differences between the regions. The researcher also looked for correlations between the type of college and the region of the country. These data led to the resulting empirical framework of current foundations curriculum. There are currently no similar studies in art education focused on understanding the current state of written foundations curriculum, and the researcher finds this needs to be the first step in a larger body of research.

Documents

This study primarily involved gathering written course descriptions that detailed art foundations programs from college and university art programs throughout the United States.

Course descriptions were collected through college websites to gain insight into sub-questions

(a) What are common undergraduate art foundations curriculum contents based on course descriptions? (b) What similarities and differences exist among state university art foundations curriculum contents and private nonprofit art foundations curriculum contents based on course descriptions? and (c) What similarities and differences exist between art foundations course descriptions among four regions of the United States?

Internet based data collection provides the advantage of rapid access to a wide variety of materials but can be compromised through insufficient organization by the researcher as well as the possible compromised reliability of information published by websites (Fraenkel et al.,

2011). Therefore, to organize the search method, a protocol was established before any data collection began to sufficiently locate colleges and to record the web address for each college website. This protocol also allowed the researcher to systematically gather information from each college. This internet search was defined, detailed, followed, recorded, and organized to ensure a systematic review of the material for organized data collection. The following protocol, including sampling techniques and sample sizes, demonstrates the researcher’s systematic and organized method of data collection for these purposes. In addition, step-by- step directions for Internet searches and collected material are detailed so future researchers can replicate this method and readers can follow the structure of collection. All of the research

65 questions involved web research, a content analysis of collected course descriptions, and a statistical evaluation of the results.

Operationalized Definitions

Operational definitions guide researchers when attempting to locate a concept or theory for empirical measurement. Fraenkel et al. (2011) explained that researchers must be precise about what they study to clarify the trajectory of the research, which may even transform the investigation. They further state that to improve the clarity of the research questions, all terms need to be clear and bound by the researcher’s defined constraints. For example, a constitutive definition (from the dictionary) is limited since there is no way to be certain the meaning of the definition does not alter depending on the receiver. In this case, the researcher needed to clarify the categories guiding the content analysis by creating operational definitions.

Operational definitions “require that researchers specify the actions or operations necessary to measure or identify the terms” (p. 31). Frankel et al. contend that an Operational Definition should be contrasted for the reader by providing to the reader of the study, a constitutive definition, so that the reader can be educated on what the researcher means by the term used.

As such, the researcher sought to clarify categories guiding the content analysis for 97 college course descriptions. The researcher looked to the history of art education and of art foundations to locate theories driving curriculum. The categories formal, technical, and conceptual were identified, their constitutive definitions were located, and operational definitions were created by the researcher. These definitions guided the sorting of words and phrases within course descriptions into the three categories, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1

Definitions of Categories

Category Constitutive Operational

Formal 1 a : belonging to or constituting the form or essence of Words and phrases in art a thing b : relating to or involving the curriculum focused on teaching outward form, structure, relationships, or arrangement of composition and layout through the elements rather than content texture, movement, rhythm, balance, form. 2 a : following or according with established form, custom, or rule b : done in due or lawful form

3a : characterized by punctilious respect for form: methodical b : rigidly ceremonious : prim

4 : having the appearance without the substance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/formal Technical http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technical Words and phrases in art curriculum focused on use of and/or Simple Definition of technical a variety of materials, learning a : relating to the practical use of machines or science in skill, applying craftsmanship, industry, medicine, etc. observing and replicating reality, : teaching practical skills rather than ideas about including perspective and life literature, art, etc. drawing. : having special knowledge especially of how machines work or of how a particular kind of work is done

Conceptual http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceptual Words and phrases in art curriculum focused on meaning of Simple Definition the work including narrative, : based on or relating to ideas or concepts theme, cultural, contextual, personal, content based. Full Definition : of, relating to, or consisting of concepts

Sampling Strategy: Purposive

A purposive sampling technique guided the choice of colleges and universities in the

United States for which course descriptions were gathered. Purposive sampling involved strategizing to collect samples offering a collection of materials in which the most information on the topic could be learned in response to the research questions (Creswell, 2008; Fraenkel et al., 2011; Merriam, 2002). In addition, a purposive sampling strategy required the researcher to establish specific criteria for gathering the sample. Criteria were used to choose two colleges or universities with undergraduate art foundations programs per state and the District of Columbia for a total intended sample of 102 participating colleges and universities as sites for collecting art foundations course descriptions for analysis. Two separate criteria guided the selection of the two types of colleges per state (public and private/nonprofit), comprising the full sample.

The first type of college in the sample included 51 public colleges, and the second included 46 private nonprofit colleges. Four states in the second sample, private nonprofit colleges, did not have art programs meeting the criteria for inclusion in the data, which is further explained in the next section. Therefore, the final sample included a total of 97 participating college and universities as data sources. By establishing criteria for the sample, the strategy resulted in the typical cases needed for information rich source material (Merriam, 2002).

In addition, the credibility of internet sources was essential for establishing the criteria for both groups. Fraenkel et al. (2011) suggested choosing nonprofit government organizations when possible to locate source material. The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2017) guided the search for colleges. Criteria and justifications

68 for choosing the participating college in each state and the District of Columbia for the first group, public state colleges and universities, are detailed in the criteria sample below:

Sample Group 1 Criteria

1) Public state university: Since public state universities comprise the majority of

colleges and universities offering bachelor’s degree programs in the United States,

this criterion was justified as a site offering typical information for data collection.

2) Largest population of undergraduate students in that participating state and the

District of Columbia: Since states may have more than one public college or

university, the largest population was chosen to maximize the variety of typical art-

3) Accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) or

other regional accrediting body: NASAD accreditation is a specialized accrediting

body specifically for college level art programs, ensuring that the standards for art

department courses meet nationally accepted parameters.

4) Regionally accredited colleges typically ensure that all college programs meet

rigorous standards as defined by regional education institutions. Acceptable

regional accrediting bodies included the Middle States Association of Colleges and

Schools (MSA) and its subdivision, the Middle States Commission on Higher

Education, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) and its

two subdivisions, the Commission of Institutions of Higher Education and the

Commission of Technical and Career Institutions, the North Central Association of

Colleges and Schools (NCA) and its subdivision, the Higher Learning Commission

(HLC), the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), the

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and its subdivision, the Commission

of Colleges (SACS/SCOC), and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges

(WASC).

5) Offer bachelor’s degrees in one or more of three visual art categories, including 25

subsequent subcategories of visual art related majors typical of art related

undergraduate programs as defined by the NCES (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2017).

Sample 1 Search Protocol

The NCES (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017) synthesizes statistical data for all colleges and universities in the United States, including programs of study, population, and percentages of students applied and admitted, costs, and accreditation information.

Therefore, an internet search for the 51 public colleges, according to the criteria detailed above, began with this source. To verify that the intended search protocol would systematically result in the information needed for this portion of the study and be replicable for other researchers, collection processes are detailed below in the order of steps taken by the researcher:

1. Visited homepage for NCES

2. Hovered mouse over “school search” and selected “college navigator”

3. Chose the first state listed on the left side of the screen

4. Clicked “Browse for Programs”

5. Selected the three categories and 25 subcategories detailed below

6. Selected the criteria: bachelor’s, public, and four-year

7. Clicked “Show Results”

8. Generated lists of colleges meeting these criteria

9. Located statistical information, including total undergraduate population, for each

college listed

10. Selected the college or university with the highest population of undergraduate

students meeting the criteria for the sample

11. Created a Microsoft Word table to enter the information found for each state,

labeled APPENDIX A

12. Entered the number of possible schools for the state in APPENDIX A

13. Clicked on the name of the college to find the web address for the college to be

used in the later portion of data collection and recorded the web address in

APPENDIX A

14. Checked the accreditation status under the accreditation tab and recorded the

accreditation type as either NASAD or one of the accepted regional accrediting

bodies in APPENDIX A

15. Followed the same protocols for each state, including the District of Columbia, and

recorded all information in APPENDIX A

16. Organized information in a password protected electronic file, with a backup of the

file on a password protected external hard drive

17. Used the information summarized in APPENDIX A to locate the program

information for the art departments in each college within the sample

18. Recorded textual evidence for all college art programs found for each college,

including titles and course descriptions, in a separate file folder marked with the

state abbreviation, college type, and college name

19. Used collected data from each state’s chosen college for the content analysis and

statistics calculation portion of the study

Category 1 – Fine and Studio Arts

Art/Art Studies, General

Ceramic Arts and Ceramics

Drawing

Fiber, Textile, and Weaving Arts

Fine Arts and Art Studies, Other

Fine/Studio Arts, General

Metal and Jewelry Arts

Intermedia/Multimedia

Painting

Printmaking

Sculpture

Category 2 – Design and Appled Arts

Commercial and Advertising Art

Commercial Photography

Design and Applied Arts, Other

Design and Visual Communications, General

Fashion/Apparel Design

Game and Interactive Media Design

Graphic Design Illustration

Industrial and Product Design

Interior Design

Category 3 – Film, Video, and Photographic Arts

Cinematography and Film/Video Production

Film/Video and Photographic Arts, Other

Photography

Visual and Performing Arts, General

Digital Arts

The resulting sample size included 51 colleges or universities (N=51) meeting all the research criteria for this purposive sample (see APPENDIX A).

Sample Group 2 Criteria

A criterion sample was also used to purposively select the Group 2 sample, private nonprofit art colleges, with slightly more complicated differences than in the criteria used for the first sample. This sample of colleges and universities was first chosen according to their specializations as schools of visual art, not within a larger university or college, but as stand- alone visual arts colleges. This approach was justified as the researcher chose a typical sample representative of the population of colleges and universities in the United States offering visual art programs that included first year foundations courses. To exclude schools that specialized in this area would not sufficiently demonstrate the typical programmatic similarities and differences in the total population. However, not all states have a specialized visual art college, so in cases in which one was absent, a school of art embedded within a larger nonprofit private college was chosen if available. In four cases, detailed below, a second college was not available, impacting the sample size.

In addition, since NASAD accreditation is typically the most specialized accreditation for art programs in any type of school, if the researcher found more than one instance of private nonprofit specialized visual art schools in a participating state, a choice of a NASAD accredited school overrode any other accreditations. In cases in which more than one specialized art school was NASAD accredited, the researcher chose the school with the lowest admittance rate, demonstrating evidence of selective student admission requirements.

In cases of states without specialized visual art schools in which the college chosen was one with art departments embedded into larger private nonprofit colleges, the researcher first

74 limited the choice to NASAD accredited schools and then chose the school with the lowest and, therefore, most selective percentage admittance rate. The most selective rate of acceptance was comparable to the selectivity of private nonprofit specialized visual art schools. However, if none of the colleges in the state were NASAD accredited, the researcher limited the colleges by their regional accreditation and, subsequently, chose the school with the lowest and most selective percentage admittance.

A comprehensive list of the criteria follows:

1. Private nonprofit art college, preferably as a singular entity but secondarily within a

larger private nonprofit college or university.

2. NASAD accreditation preferred, secondarily regional accreditation by one of the

recognized regional accrediting bodies including MSA and its subdivision,

MSCCHE; NEASC and its subdivisions CIHE and CTCI; NCA and the subdivision

HLC, NWCCU, SACS/SCOC, and WASC.

3. In cases in which two or more colleges fit the above criteria, the college with the

highest rate of selectivity, or the lowest percentage admitted, was chosen.

4. Colleges or universities offering bachelor’s degrees in one or more of the three

categories, including the 25 subsequent subcategories of visual art related majors as

defined by NCES.

Sample 2 Search Protocol

1. Visited homepage for NCES, at http://nces.ed.gov/

2. Hovered mouse over “school search” and selected “college navigator”

3. Chose the first state from the left side of the screen

4. Clicked “Browse for Programs”

5. Selected the three categories and 25 subcategories

6. Selected the criteria: bachelor’s, private nonprofit

7. Clicked “Show Results”

8. Generated a list of colleges and universities meeting the criteria

9. Created a singular table to record the information as shown in APPENDIX B

When the choice was more complicated, the researcher selected based on the following conditions:

1. If only one choice was listed, the researcher recorded the percentage admitted, total

undergraduate population, and accrediting body for that college in APPENDIX B.

2. If more than one choice was listed, the researcher checked under general information

to find out if it was a specialized college. A specialized college was labeled as

“Special Focus Institutions : Schools of art, music, and design” (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2017).

3. If only one school was a specialized focused institution, that school was chosen for

the sample and the researcher recorded the percentage admitted, total undergraduate

population, and accrediting body for that college in APPENDIX B.

4. If no colleges included a specialized focus, the researcher checked the accreditation

for each college by clicking on the college tab labeled accreditation. The researcher

first looked to see if the college was NASAD accredited.

5. If more than one college was NASAD accredited, the acceptance rate was compared

by clicking the admissions tab under each college. The researcher chose the school

with NASAD accreditation and the lowest percentage admitted and entered the

information in APPENDIX B.

6. If no college was NASAD accredited, the researcher looked for one of the accepted

regional accreditations for the colleges.

7. If only one college was regionally accredited, that college was chosen and

information including percentage admitted, the total undergraduate population, and

accreditation body were entered in APPENDIX B.

8. If more than one college was regionally accredited, the researcher compared the

acceptance rate by clicking the admissions tab under each college.

9. The college with accreditation and the lowest percentage of admittance was chosen

and entered, along with the total undergraduate population and accrediting body, as

shown in APPENDIX B.

Once completed, the same protocol for each state, including the District of Columbia, was followed and recorded in APPENDIX B for a final list of the sample. The list of colleges in the sample combined in APPENDIX B was used to gather web addresses for this sample so searches for course descriptions could commence. All information was kept organized in a password protected electronic file, with a password protected backup file on an external hard drive.

In the next stage of data collection, the researcher used the information from

APPENDIX B, along with web addresses, to locate the program information for visual art

77 departments in each of the colleges in the sample. Once located, a record of first-year college visual art programs for each college—all titles and course descriptions—was gathered and saved in a separate file folder marked with the abbreviation of the state, college type, and college name. Data collected from each state’s chosen college was used for the content analysis and statistics calculation portion of the study, described in Chapter 4.

The final sample size of 46 (N=46) schools met all criteria in the Group 2 purposive sample. Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming were excluded, as no schools in those states offered visual art bachelors’ programs in a specialty or larger private college or university.

The total number of colleges and universities comprised this purposive sample meeting the researcher’s criteria was 97 (N=97). This sample was used for multiple calculations to answer the research questions. (See Appendix B.)

Data Collection

The data collection strategies are described in this section and a detailed description and rationale of the development of each strategy are provided. In this case, Operational

Definitions guided the researcher to locate words and phrases within each course description for all 97 schools so data could be sorted into categories. Once data collection began, it became evident that some course descriptions included words or phrases signifying a combination of categories. Therefore, four additional categories, showing these combinations were created. For example, a foundations course may include “elements and principles of

78 design” coded as F, for formal, while also including “learning techniques with a variety of materials,” coded as T, for technical. With F and T both present, a new category, FT, for formal technical was created. In addition, this same example may include language signifying

C, for conceptual through the statement, “thematic content,” resulting in FT and C, for a new category, FTC, for formal, technical, conceptual. In this same manner, the categories FC, formal conceptual, and TC, technical conceptual were created.

This resorting resulted in the three initial categories, and the four combination categories, for a total of seven categories, listed below:

1. F represents Formal category

2. T represents Technical category

3. C represents Conceptual category

4. F/T representing Formal/Technical

5. F/C representing Formal/Conceptual

6. T/C representing Technical/Conceptual

7. F/T/C representing all 3 categories Formal/Technical/Conceptual

The procedural model in Figure 1 clarifies the sequence of collection, and the processes for collecting and organizing.

Operationalized Definitions 79 Formal (F) Technical(T) Conceptual(C)

Gathered Course Descriptions

Content Analysis: Located and sorted words and phrases into categories

F C FT CT FTC

Figure 1: Data collection procedural model.

Data Collection Processes: College Art Foundations Course Descriptions

Each website for 97 colleges and universities in the sample was visited, and each art foundations program was located. Course descriptions for courses contained in art foundations programs in the sample comprised the data for the initial content analysis. A password- protected electronic folder was created with the state name, type of college (public or private/nonprofit), and school name as well as the full course, title and program descriptions gained from each website. In addition, a table indexed each document collected for each location. A sample of this organizing structure is pictured in Table 2.

Table 2

Example Index of College and University Collected Information

State College File name Foundations Titles and Number of visual course course art programs numbers description taking art included included foundations Alabama The AL_Public_ X X 5 University of UofA Alabama Alabama Stillman AL_Private_ X X 2 College Stil

Since there is no common process for finding the information on any of the websites, each college/program website required individual routes to find the information needed for this study. Therefore, the researcher copied each “click” or link in each of the 97 websites, so the

81 search could be replicated. Each path to art foundations course descriptions is located in the file for that college with the text of course descriptions included. A discussion regarding the diversity and, in some cases, difficulty finding the information is explored in Chapter 5 of this study.

Once course description information was located and saved electronically, the operational definitions guided the sorting of words and phrases from each college’s foundations courses. This content analysis resulted in three main curriculum categories, including formal, technical, and conceptual. In some cases, a single course description was sorted into two or all three categories depending on the words or phrases in the course description. This overlapping resulted in seven possible categories explained in the previous section. As course descriptions may have included out-of-date information, the researcher acknowledges the challenge of interpretation. Therefore, documentary information was analyzed and compared to historical and current art education research gained in the literature review so interpretation could be based on the most common foundations frameworks found. Results were then analyzed statistically.

Phase 2 : Web Research/Document Analysis

After an extensive search for college and university art foundations course descriptions and titles, I sorted and analyzed the first data set: state universities. The resulting documents were initially sorted into two categories: Formalism and Conceptual, as guided by the previously created Operational Definitions. After consultation with my dissertation advisor, an

82 additional category, Technical, was created and operationalized. The Formal category was resorted into Formal and Technical, while Conceptual remained the same.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data

Data gathered from web research and subsequent content analysis were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The operationalized definitions drove the content analysis, so words and phrases that signified the definition could be located. These words and phrases were then counted per category, which then were converted into percentages to demonstrate the results in statistical format, illustrated in Chapter 4.

Therefore, evidence of the three categories of content found in art foundations courses from all 97 colleges was calculated. This method allowed the researcher to gain insight into sub-question a) What is common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum based on course descriptions? The researcher gathered words and phrases evident of each category and marked an X in two spreadsheets, one for each school type, listing all the colleges with the courses numbered. When a word or phrase signaled one of the three categories, the researcher marked an X under that category, signified by F (formal), T (technical), C (conceptual.

Thereafter, next to each college, the breakdown of the number of courses and final count of each category were identified. In the example below, 4=FT signifies that Alabama’s (AL) public college art foundations program includes four courses including formal (F) and technical

(T) content, but no conceptual (C) content so C is not listed. Below is an example of the sorted data for ease of reference for the reader. Percentage results for research question a are illustrated in Chapter 4.

The full content analysis spreadsheets can be found in Appendices C and D. Table 3 is an example of the sorted data for ease of reference for the reader.

Table 3

Sample of Sorted Data

School F T ALpub3 1 x X 2 X X 3 x X 4 x X Note. 4=FT.

Once the content analysis was finished, the researcher created a table with the three initial categories and the four combination categories, and counted the number of times a word or phrase signified each category. Percentages were then calculated resulting in the percentage of each category evident compared to the total number of courses for each category, creating the final results. The combination of the above three resulting percentages made it possible for the researcher to gain initial insight into sub-question b) What similarities and differences exist among state university art foundations curriculum content and private nonprofit art foundations

84 curriculum content based on course descriptions? A Chi-Square test compared the curriculum types per college type. Research questions a and b, their categorical variables, and what was compared are shown in Table 4. Percentage results and p-values for research question b are illustrated in Chapter 4.

To gain insight into sub-question c) What similarities and differences exist between art foundations course descriptions among the four regions of the United States, the researcher further divided the colleges by their type and regional locations. The four US region

(Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) selection was based on information from the 2013 US

Census Bureau. The researcher then listed the number of courses for each state, coded for each of the seven categories. The total number of courses in each region and the total number per each of the seven categories per region were then counted, and percentages were calculated, located in Appendix E. To further analyze the comparison between regions, Chi Square Tests were performed, explained in the next section.

Chi-Square Tests

To compare the distribution of curriculum categories per college type (sub-question b),

Wald chi-square tests were completed. Field (2013) states, “chi is an extremely elegant statistic based on the simple idea of comparing the frequencies you observe in certain categories to the frequencies you might expect to get in those categories by change” (p. 721). In the case of this study the chi-square tested whether the distribution of the seven categories

Table 4

Variables Used for Comparisons and Format of Results

Question Categorical variable(s) Comparison of Format of variables results

What is the Types of curriculum Level of Results prevalence of prevalence of each reported in • Formal formal, curriculum type in percentage technical, and • Technical the two types of format. postmodern • Conceptual colleges (state run approaches to art • Formal/Technical or private foundations • Formal/Conceptual nonprofit art based on written • Technical/Conceptual school). curriculum? • Formal/Technical/Conceptual

(F/T/C/FT/FC/TC/FTC) were the same for private and public schools. Chi-square compared the prevalence of each curriculum type based on the type of college.

For the comparison between regions (sub-question c), chi-square tests were also used to gain these results. Research question (c), its categorical variables, and what was compared in the chi-square tests are shown in Table 4. Chi-square results for research questions b and c are illustrated in Chapter 4, and data tables are in Appendix F.

The analysis was done by region to consider the distribution of curriculum categories according to region of the country (sub-question c), so the analysis was done separately for each of the four regions. A likelihood ratio chi-square test was also conducted in all four regions to compare the goodness of fit for the models used. In these data, there were five variables: state, region, type, curricula label (F/T/C/FT/FC/TC/FTC), and count.

Because this study was exploratory in nature with a low number of categories, Wald

Chi-Square was chosen for these calculations in order to avoid a type II error (retaining the null hypothesis when interactions exist that warrant rejecting the null hypothesis). In addition, in the case of these categories, differences in the distribution of the categories would be relevant regardless of the level of difference, and categories would need further refinement to use

Pearson’s Chi-Square. Refining categories further would not allow me to focus on these familiar categories in visual art language, so it would not have been relevant to this study.

Results are illustrated in Chapter 4. Similarly, due to exploratory nature of this study, and to avoid type II error, the study employs a .05 level of significance.

Content Analysis Validity

Krippendorff (2013) describes the unique aspect of validity for content analysis. He affirms that to strengthen the validity within content analysis, the choice of unit being measured needs to be large to strengthen validity as well as small enough for the researcher to manage, adding to reliability (p. 102).

In addition, Krippendorff (2013) contends that categories should be clearly delineated by their commonalities. In the case of this study, after all course descriptions were located, the researcher sorted words and phrases according to the operationally defined established categories, and a separate spreadsheet was created on which the researcher listed each word or phrase related to each curriculum category, adding to this record throughout the process.

Unitizing

Krippendorff (2013) supported the important process of unitizing as a method to target a strong sample for inclusion in a study to gain the most reliable information. There are various types of units that need to be defined to organize the study and ensure reliability. The first were sampling units that were chosen selectively for this study according to the previously described criteria set up by the researcher. In the case of this study, the sampling units were the

97 colleges chosen for this study and their identified foundations course descriptions. Titles of courses were removed to limit researcher bias based on the names of the courses. Coding units were next defined, which included the words and phrases in each of the course descriptions for the 97 schools in the sampling unit. Context units were also used to ensure that the researcher

88 considered the influence of the context of the sentence on the word or phrase being coded, thus impacting the choice of category.

Validity was also established throughout the data collection process. However, “in

Content Analysis, validating evidence is largely ex post facto, as its Research questions are posed in the very absence of direct evidence for what it seeks to infer from available Text”

(Krippendorff, 2013, p. 389).

Summary

This chapter described the methods used for this study, including a detailed description of the instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. Chapter 4 will present the findings in a detailed format.

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

The purpose of this study was to compare foundations course descriptions among state and private art colleges in the U.S. to examine evidence of art education theories within written course curriculum. This study sought to fill the gap in research of college art foundations curriculum. The purpose of this chapter is to present the data analysis and findings according to the protocol described in Chapter 3. This chapter is organized first with a summary of the collected data and the research questions. Codes used during the content analysis are explained for the reader, followed by examples from the content analysis. The findings, organized by research question, and a model of the findings follows. The chapter ends with a final summary and a conclusion that transitions to Chapter 5.

Summary of Collected Data

Four hundred fifty-two written course descriptions from 97 colleges in the U.S. with art foundations programs were gathered and analyzed. This data included 228 written course descriptions from 51 state colleges, and 224 written course descriptions from 46 private nonprofit art colleges, as described in Chapter 3. Appendices C and D detail the colleges’ names, the number of courses analyzed per college, the type of college (public or nonprofit/private), and the resulting counts for each of the categories for which words and

90 phrases were coded per course. Each of the colleges’ course descriptions were coded by words and phrases guided by the operational definitions described in Chapter 3 for each curriculum category.

Research Questions

The research questions were:

1. Do theories of art education impact art foundations curriculum?

a) What is common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum based on

course descriptions?

curriculum content and private nonprofit art foundations curriculum content based

on course descriptions?

among four regions of the United States?

Content Analysis Coding

This study involved gathering written course descriptions that detailed art foundations programs from college and university art programs throughout the United States. As described in depth in the previous chapter, a purposive sampling technique guided the choice of colleges for which course descriptions were gathered through college websites. Following the mixed model design, the researcher located course descriptions, conducted a content analysis, and used descriptive statistics to determine the prevalence of common art education theories on

91 foundations program’s written curriculum throughout the country. Written descriptions from both state and private art college foundations programs allowed the researcher to compare curricula to locate similarities and differences in the collected content. In addition, sorting colleges by region of the country made it possible to examine whether there were significant differences between the regions. The researcher also looked for correlations between the type of college and the region of the country. These data led to the resulting empirical framework of current foundations curriculum.

Data was collected using a strict Internet search protocol and specific criteria for inclusion in the study, as detailed in the previous chapter. Each college’s website was visited so I could locate the foundations courses. Once located, I copied the course descriptions to a

Microsoft Word document. Once all the course descriptions were collected, I did a content analysis to locate words and phrases that aligned with the Operational Definitions described in the previous chapter. Data was initially sorted into 3 categories, Formal (F), Technical (T), and

Conceptual (C), but some courses included more than one category, leading to 4 combination categories for a total grouping of 7 types of curriculum. Table 5 details the types of curriculum categories and their codes for ease of reading findings:

Curriculum Types

During the coding process, I continually compared words and phrases to the operationalized definitions explained in Chapter 3. Examples of Formal, Technical, and

Conceptual words and phrases sorted, directly from the data, are in Appendix G. The combined F/T, T/C, F/C, and F/T/C examples are not listed, as the 3 main categories, when

Table 5

Codes for Curriculum Types

Technical/Conceptual TC

Formal/Technical/Conceptual FTC

combined in those specific ways, are in and of themselves examples of these categories of curriculum.

Once each course was sorted through the content analysis, I counted the number for each category, and compared it to the total number of courses in the group. For example, in the group of state colleges, there were 228 courses in total. I calculated percentages of each of the categories for the state group as compared to the total number of 228 courses. Tables were created to show the numbers and percentages for each category in both the state and private groups. A third table was created to combine the groups together.

Findings for sub-questions (a) and (b) utilized these descriptive statistics as percentages to describe the results. Findings for sub-question (c) were calculated using chi-square analysis,

93 which was used to calculate whether there is a significant association between the type of college and region of the country with respect to the prevalence and distribution of each of the curriculum categories.

Findings: Sub-Question (a)

State Colleges

Sub-question (a) What is common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum based on course descriptions?

Once the data was sorted and counts for each category was complete (Appendix C), results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The category counts from Appendix C were calculated as percentages to show how prevalent each of the 7 categories of curriculum is for state colleges with art foundations programs. The most common content found in foundations course descriptions, as illustrated in Table 6, was the F/T, or formal and technical, found 77 times, or 34%. These results demonstrate that roughly 1/3rd of public college art foundations written course descriptions use formal and technical (F/T) language in their course descriptions.

Forty-nine instances, or 21%, include formal, technical, and conceptual (F/T/C) language in their course descriptions, implying that including conceptual components to the foundations curriculum is evident in roughly 1/5th of course descriptions analyzed. These findings suggest that, because the greatest level of use was F/T, foundations does not evenly incorporate conceptual language (C) in their course descriptions. In addition, formal (F) qualities were found 35 times, or 15%, while technical (T) was found 7%, and conceptual (C) 6%. Language

94 that signals formalism was most prevalent. As such, the most common singular category content found in state college art foundations descriptions was formal. Table 6 illustrates these findings.

Table 6

Public Colleges Results

Pub Schools Courses F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL F/T/C

# 51 228 35 15 14 77 16 21 49

% 15% 7% 6% 34% 7% 9 % 21%

Total 177 162 100

Results show that the Formal/Technical (FT) category is the most prevalent at 77, or

34% of the 228 courses have this category dominating the written course descriptions. This means that state schools are still primarily driven by Modernist, formal theory, in which foundations focuses on visual composition and skill-building. In addition, only 100 of the 228 courses had conceptual components in the language at all.

The second largest category evident in course descriptions is the combined FTC category at 49 courses, or 21% of 228 courses. Language demonstrating the integration of conceptual development with skill-building is evident in these courses, however, this remains

95 for only just over a fifth of all courses studied. This means that 79% of 228 courses have no conceptual, or postmodern component in written course descriptions.

Private Colleges

Sub-question (a): What is common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum based on course descriptions?

224 written course descriptions from 46 private nonprofit art colleges with foundations programs were analyzed. Each of the colleges course descriptions were coded by words and phrases guided by operational definitions described in Chapter 3 for each of the categories.

Once this was complete for each course, I counted the total number of each category for the entire group of private college course descriptions.

The results were then calculated using descriptive statistics to result in the percentages in each of the 7 curriculum categories for the private school group. As illustrated in Table 7, the highest percentage of curriculum type is F/T, the same as state schools, but at a higher percentage, at 42%, demonstrating that nearly half of all language in course descriptions were formal and technical. In the case of private colleges, 28% included formal, technical, and conceptual (F/T/C) language in their course descriptions, implying that including conceptual components to the foundations curriculum is evident. This means that private art colleges most common content found is the same as state, in the formal and technical (F/T) category. Table 7 shows the breakdown.

Table 7

Private Nonprofit Art Colleges Results

Pri Schools Courses F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL F/T/C

# 46 224 25 18 9 94 9 8 62

% 11% 8% 4% 42% 4% 4% 28%

Total 190 182 88

Results show that, like the state group, the Formal/Technical (FT) category is the most prevalent at 94, or 42% of the 224 courses have this category dominating the written course descriptions. This means that private art schools are also still primarily driven by Modernist, formal theory, in which foundations focuses on visual composition and skill-building. In addition, only 88 of the 224 courses had conceptual components in the language at all.

The second largest category evident in course descriptions is also the combined FTC category at 62 courses, or 28% of 224 courses. Language demonstrating the integration of conceptual development with skill-building is evident in these courses, however, this remains for only just under a third of all courses studied. This means that 62% of 224 courses have no conceptual, or postmodern component in written course descriptions. As private art colleges focus solely on the arts, these results were surprising, as I expected a stronger conceptual, postmodern theory underlying curriculum.

Findings: Sub-Question (b)

Sub-question (b) What similarities and differences exist among state university art foundations curriculum content and private nonprofit art foundations curriculum content based on course descriptions?

For this question, the researcher wanted to compare the two types of colleges to locate similarities and differences among the level found of each of the 7 categories. To do this, the researcher combined all the data. A total of 452 courses at 97 colleges were analyzed. F/T

(formal technical) was the highest % combined at 38%, with the second highest percentage

F/T/C at 25%, once again demonstrating only about 25% of all colleges in this study incorporate conceptual components into their course description. Together, stand-alone formal language equaled the highest percentage combined of 13% of course descriptions including only formal (F) language in their descriptions.

Results show that, the Formal/Technical (FT) category is the most prevalent at 171, or

38% of the 452 courses. These results show the most prevalent theory is still Modernist, formal theory, in which foundations focuses on visual composition and skill-building. In addition, only 188 of the 452 courses had conceptual components in the language at all.

The second largest category evident in course descriptions is also the combined FTC category at 111 courses, or 25% of 452 courses. Language demonstrating the integration of conceptual development with skill-building is evident in these courses, however, this remains for only just under one fourth of all courses studied. This means that 75% of 452 courses have no conceptual, or postmodern component in written course descriptions. Table 8 illustrates these results.

Table 8

Public and Private Colleges Combined Results

Public & Schools Courses F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL private F/T/C

# 97 452 60 33 23 171 25 29 111 % 13% 7 % 5% 38% 6% 6% 25% Total # 367 344 188 Total % 81% 76% 42%

The answer to this research question is that both state and private art colleges have foundations programs that are similar in the way they are primarily influenced by Modernism, focused on a formal, technical approach to content. There are no significant differences in the results between the two groups. Table 8 illustrates combined counts and percentages of all colleges.

In addition to the percentage calculations, a chi-square test between public and private schools for each curriculum type resulted in no significant differences, with a p-value of 0.1138 with respect to Formal (F) curriculum. However, private colleges, with a p-value of 0.0054, demonstrated that there is a significant difference between private and public colleges with respect to Technical (T) curriculum. Specifically, private colleges had a larger percentage of courses referring to technical skills than public colleges. With respect to Conceptual (C) curriculum, there is no significant difference between the two groups with a p-value of .5505.

Findings: Sub-Question (c)

Sub-question (c): What similarities and differences exist between art foundations course descriptions among four regions of the United States?

For this research question, data was sorted by region of the country and college type

(Appendix E), so I could assess whether the region of the country and the type of school had an effect on the type of curriculum, to assess if there are any significant differences in results between regions.

First, the two variables, type of college (public or private) and region of the country were tested to check whether there is a significant association between type and region in its effect on curriculum. A Chi-Square test was performed for each curriculum type. Note that for this portion of the study, curriculum codes changed in the following manner: F=FF, T=TT, and

C=CC. Tables F1 through F23 depict each test and the results for each type of curriculum are explained.

Results for “Type” and “Region”: Formal (FF)

Results from the first Chi-square test show a nonsignificant association between the type of college and the region of the country, with respect to FF curriculum. This means that the odds of FF curriculum in all regions is the same regardless of the college type, state or private. From the Type 3 Analysis of Effects (Table F2), results show that type of college and region of the country does not significantly impact the prevalence of a Formal (FF) curriculum,

100 at 5% level of significance, meaning formal curriculum is not affected by the regional location or the type of college.

Although the results are nonsignificant, they do tell us that there are small differences in some regions with respect to the type of college’s affect on FF. Private colleges have a larger percentage of courses that contain FF than state colleges, after the difference in region was adjusted. Here the one unit change in private college, the log odds, Table F2, which measured the probability of ‘FF,’ increased by 0.386, signifying the larger percentage of courses including FF is at private, as opposed to public, colleges, with region of the country not a significant predictor.

In addition, the Midwest region has a smaller percentage of courses containing an FF component than the West region, as the probability of FF occurring was smaller than that of the

West demonstrated by the log odds measurement of probability table.

The Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row, Table F3, depicts the probability of FF occurring because of the influence of the region of the country, as compared to the odds of the outcome occurring without the regional influence. An estimated odds ratio compared pairs of regions to generate these findings. In this case, the odds ratio for FF curriculum in the

Midwest is -0.0732 =0.929 times, or 92.9% of the West region, meaning the odds of FF curriculum present in the Midwest is more likely than in the West by 92%. In the same manner,

I interpreted the rest of the results, which all show a nonsignificant (with p >.5) difference in the odds between all the other pair combinations of the U.S. regions. The last column gives the specific p-values of the comparisons.

101

Results for “Type” and “Region”: Technical (TT)

The two variables, type of college (public or private) and region of the country, were then tested to find out whether there is a significant association between these variables with respect to the effect on technical (TT) curriculum. For TT curriculum, private schools significantly differ to public colleges in the percentage of courses containing TT elements, after adjusting for difference in regions. Results show that private schools are less likely to include

TT than state colleges.

The Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row, Table F4, depicts the probability of an TT occurring because of the influence of the region, as compared to the odds of the outcome occurring without the regional influence. An estimated odds ratio compared pairs of regions to generate these findings. In this case, the odds ratio for TT curriculum in all regions was similar, meaning the results are nonsignificant, or, the odds of the prevalence of the TT curriculum is the same for all regions. The effect of the region on the prevalence of TT in each particular region was nonsignificant, meaning the region of the country does not affect the prevalence of TT, while, as explained above, state colleges are more likely to include TT components than private colleges.

Results for “Type” and “Region”: Conceptual (CC)

For the CC contents, private schools do not seem to differ to public schools (p-value

0.7080) in the percentages of courses containing CC elements, after adjusting for difference in

102 regions. However, the regions of the Midwest and South seem to differ significantly (with p- values 0.0042 and 0.0031), after adjusting for the type of school. The Midwest and south regions have a smaller percentage of courses containing CC elements than the Northeast and

West regions. The interpretations for the rest of the regional comparisons were nonsignificant, meaning the region did not affect the prevalence of CC.

Sub-Question (c) Findings: Interaction Effects

Here I considered the interaction effect of the type and region. Tests were performed to tell me whether the difference of public and private schools inclusion of the curriculum categories are the same for different regions.

Results for “Type” and “Region” with Interaction: Formal (FF)

The interaction term Type*Region is significant (with a p-value of 0.0447), meaning the difference between public and private schools are different across regions. In particular the

Northeast region seems to differ to the rest of the regions in terms of the effect of the school type. For example, there is a significant difference (with p-value 0.0096) between Northeast schools and West schools in terms of how the school type (private or public) affects the percentage of FF contents.

In the Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row table (Table F14), the pairwise comparisons are for comparing whether the effect of school type is the same for different

103 regions. This means that the odds of FF curriculum in the Midwest region is exp (.2456) =

1.2783 times that of the west region with respect to the difference between public and private college. These results show that the Midwest region is more likely to include FF curriculum than the Western region. In the same manner, I interpreted the rest of the results. The last column gives the p-values of the comparisons.

Results for “Type” and “Region” with Interaction: Technical (TT)

For the same test for the Technical (TT) category, the interaction is nonsignificant, meaning the school type affected the percentage of TT contents the same way across all regions. The interpretations of the other variables are the same. Results show that the regions do not have a significant difference in the inclusion of TT language for state and private colleges. (See Tables F5 and F6)

Again, results show the interaction is nonsignificant, meaning the school type affects the percentage of CC contents the same way across different regions, meaning there is no significant difference between the regions of the country in the inclusion of the conceptual

(CC) category. The interpretations of the other variables are also the same.

Chi-square test for curriculum type (F/T/C/FT/FC/TC/FTC) by “Region”

The chi-square test tests whether the percentages (distribution) of the seven categories

F/T/C/FT/FC/TC/FTC are the same for private and public schools. The analysis is done

104 separately for each region. Wald Chi-Square was used as the study was exploratory and my goal was to locate any change in the distribution of categories.

Midwest Region

For the Midwest region, the p-values given by two tests (Chi-Square, Likelihood Ratio

Chi-square) are both over 0.05, meaning there is no significant difference between private and public schools in terms of the distribution of the seven categories in the Midwest region of the country (See Table F7). As with the use of the Wald Chi-Square, a 0.05 level of significance supports exploratory work and thus provides a generous level of confidence that if the Chi-

Square does not meet this level, one can be generally assured that one is not making a type II error of overlooking a significant difference where one exists.

Northeast Region

For the Northeast region, the p-values given by the two tests (Chi-Square, Likelihood

Ratio Chi-square) are both < 0.05, meaning there is a significant difference between private and public schools in terms of the distribution of the seven categories in the Northeast region of the country, (See Table F8)

South Region

For the South region, the p-values given by the two tests (Chi-Square, Likelihood Ratio

Chi-square) are either around or < 0.05, meaning there is a significant difference between

105 private and public schools in terms of the distribution of the seven categories in the Southern region. (See Table F9.)

West Region

For the West region, the p-values given by two tests (Chi-Square, Likelihood Ratio Chi- square) are both over 0.05, meaning there is no significant difference between private and public schools in terms of the distribution of the seven categories in the Western region. (See

Table F10).

Visual Model

For me to best understand the findings, I explored the data visually in Model 1 (see

Figure 2), for a comprehensive framework of art foundations curriculum that responds to my main research question:

1. Do theories of art education impact art foundations curriculum?

The numbers did not speak to the relationships in the way that visual metaphor can for me. To strengthen the statistical results and my understanding of the data so I could report these findings, I visually represented the 3 categories of curriculum and their additional 4 combinations, to depict the 7 categories of curriculum using a Venn diagram. Size of the category was changed based on the prevalence of the category, and color saturation represents the level of prevalence of categories.

1. Do theories of art education impact art foundations curriculum?

While there is similarity between the DBAE model of K-12 art education curriculum and

106 formalism, it appears that postmodern art education theories and research has not impacted art foundations curriculum.

Technical (T) 7.30% Formal Technical (FT) 37.831%

Formal (F) 13.274% Formal Technical Conceptual (FTC) 24.557% Technical Conceptual (TC) 6.451%

Conceptual (C) 5.088% Formal Conceptual (FC) 5.530%

Figure 2. Model of foundations curriculum for 97 colleges.

107

Summary

Results of the research study findings show little differences between private and state colleges in the types of curriculum used. Similarly, very little differs between regions of the country with the exception of the Northeast’s distribution of the 7 categories significantly more than that of the South and Midwest. Codes for curriculum types to designate categories of curriculum coded from the data were explained, and examples directly from the data were illustrated. The research questions were answered and explained throughout the narrative. A model of the current state of foundations based on this study was illustrated and depicts the results in a Venn diagram. FT was the largest curriculum category, followed by FTC for both state and private colleges, suggesting formal and technical priorities are the most important areas of exploration.

Conclusion

The findings of this study delineate categories of curriculum reflected in course descriptions. These findings suggest that the conceptual category of curriculum is the least present in all regions, while formal and technical curriculum takes precedence. This result demonstrates a lack of updates to foundations curriculum to reflect a conceptual approach while maintaining a Modernist paradigm of formal and technical curriculum content.

In interpreting these findings, it is necessary to understand the underlying causes for the prevalence of curriculum types. Chapter 5 will explore possible influences on the prevalence or lack of prevalence of categories by examining power relationships through the frameworks

108 of Rancière’s politics of dissensus, Foucault’s “Discipline of the Body,” and Dewey’s pragmatism.

CHAPTER 5

INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS

By analyzing foundations course descriptions throughout the U.S., this study creates a framework of current art foundations curriculum by locating the prevalence of art education theories within course descriptions. Furthermore, in this final chapter, I suggest a theoretical model of an updated foundations curriculum.

This research was necessary because there is no existing analysis of the prevalence of formal, technical, and conceptually based curriculum components embedded in foundations course descriptions. Through a content analysis of 452 courses at 97 colleges (51 public, 46 private), I operationalized definitions for formal, technical, and conceptual, then sorted words and phrases into categories. As discussed in Chapter 4, descriptive statistics gave me the results of the research questions.

Limitations

The unit of analysis chosen was a limitation of this study. Choosing to focus on written course descriptions excludes the mediation of curriculum in the classroom through faculty members, and their styles of teaching, which may or may not adhere to stated written guidelines. In addition, within the data set was the possibility that web-related information might be outdated. I made every effort to collect the most current data via the internet and to

110 use the most current information collected by the National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES, 2017) to locate college art foundations programs to analyze for this study. As the

NCES site could also be slightly inaccurate due to differences in the timing of colleges reporting data, this could also be a limitation of the study, as well as the time I took to complete the dissertation.

Organization of the Chapter

This chapter is organized first by an interpretation of the findings and an analysis of the results. The findings are divided by the research questions, followed by possible causes for the results, and how I interpreted these results. In the next section, Rancière, Foucualt, Dewey, and

Efland’s aesthetic theories inform the theoretical model of a transformed foundations curriculum resulting from this study. A reflection on my experience conducting this research to note possible bias, preconceived ideas, and various insights I recorded while conducting this study continues the chapter, which ends with concluding thoughts about the future of art foundations and suggestions for further research.

Interpretation of the Findings

Research question a) What is common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum based on course descriptions?

Results show that common content in undergraduate art foundations curriculum is, as I suspected, primarily focused on formal and technical priorities, in both types of colleges, with some conceptual components embedded in the language. This means that many foundations

111 programs have not moved beyond Modernism to update curriculum to a relevant body reflective of postmodernism. This result is significant as it demonstrates that foundations is using an outdated and outmoded model that may be affecting students’ growth and development as artists and future art teachers. Foundations education does not sufficiently incorporate current art education theory into curriculum.

Research question b) What similarities and differences exist among state university art foundations curriculum content and private nonprofit art foundations curriculum content based on course descriptions?

For this research question, results show that state colleges and private art colleges were similar in the way they described courses. Both state and private colleges are focused primarily on formal and technical preoccupations in foundations, at the expense of concept. This is a significant result as the data shows that foundations has not sufficiently evolved beyond the formalist model, while the art world and K-12 art education has. Although both public and private colleges began in the U.S. with an emphasis on learning for critical participatory citizenry, the evolution of the standard formal curriculum is relatively unchanged. This is significant because fifty years after Andy Warhol came on the art scene, and declaration of the end of art (Danto, 1997), signaling a later labeling of the work Warhol and his contemporaries were doing in the 60’s as Postmodern, foundations curriculum, according to the data from this study, has not evolved to reflect this long-passed evolution.

112

I was surprised by these results, as I had suspected private art colleges, whose sole focus is art, would have the time to have updated their curriculum. However, results show similar results in the content found in course descriptions regardless of the college type. For example, from the courses analyzed at private colleges, 42% of them included primarily formal and technical language in course descriptions, and for public colleges, 34%. Private colleges incorporated concept 28% of the time, while public included it 22%. Although the private results for concept are slightly higher, the results show that over 70% of course descriptions do not include any conceptual language.

I suggest that this fissure between art foundations practice and current arts practice affects art foundations students by promoting an outdated and irrelevant curriculum when compared to today’s art world. The consequence to students is an underdeveloped conceptual focus, boredom from repetition of projects from high school and non-objective visual exercises revolving around the elements and principles of design (Gude, 2013). As a result, students could continue their college art education without a sense of their voice as artists and a depressed lack of democratic practice as advocated by progressive art educators (Freedman,

2003). The main purpose of public school is “building literate, civic-minded, socially responsible students who prize productive labor” (Cuban, 2003, p. 54). If we want conscious participatory citizens then we need a curriculum that includes conceptual development and encourages students to push beyond boundaries to imagine and create new and novel ideas and works by breaking these rules or making these visual rules relevant through a conceptual component. As the National Core Arts Standards (National Coalition for Core Arts Standards,

2014) state, in the “Connecting” component, anchor statements 10 and 11 respectively, students

113 should “Synthesize and relate knowledge and personal experiences to make art” and “Relate artistic ideas and works with societal, cultural and historical context to deepen understanding”

(p. 8). If foundations curriculum is only teaching students the elements and principles of design, how to draw from life, using visual rules for composition, and technical skills for manipulating various materials it is not achieving this objective.

The findings from this study suggest that much of foundations written curriculum is disempowering as the exclusion of personal or cultural voice and content influenced by context does not support democratic participation, pays no mind to the new core arts standards, and leaves little room for disruptions or surprise combinations, play and experiential learning in art foundations. The consequence, I contend, is a lack of democratic participation both in the art studio and out, disengaged students, and a structure unsupportive of democratic pedagogy. The shift of the reason for the arts as instruments to support industry and business has become a popular reason for keeping art education in schools, and justifying an artist’s higher education, but in doing so it replaces the important purpose of arts practice as a form of resistance to this justification. Baldacchino (2013) demonstrates the current trend of art education in service to the “Creative Industries” (p. 354). In much the same way that artists and educators throughout history have rebelled against the impositions of commercialism on arts-practice, artists of today need to reclaim the arts not for its industrial usefulness, but for its ability to strengthen community, empathy, and personal agency in the choices artists make. Foundations education, an art student’s entry into higher education, is the first and most obvious place of resistance.

Baldacchino eloquently states,

Any measure of “success” for the arts is found in how far art’s productive ambiguity subsists. If such ambiguity is eliminated by those institutional strategies that are meant

114

to legitimize the arts within Industry, the School, the State or any other system of power, then it would mean that the arts would have to be reinvented – and that would not be the first time that this has happened in human history. This is how, throughout history, artists have managed to defy the status quo and sustained their claim to political autonomy. If that does not suffice, then the problem lies not with the arts, the artist or the arts educator, but with those who have mistaken the arts for the Creative Industries. (p. 354)

The current political situation in the US is profoundly troubling. The current administration, not even in power for a year has already diminished the rights of immigrants, minorities, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) communities. It is imperative that educators foster democratic participation in the face of this oppressive climate, and resist the usurping of the arts as support for products and industry. Students should realize their own autonomy in arts practice and transfer this practice to democratic participation.

Without this preparation, artists serve the status quo. In art foundations theory and practice we can teach students to remake their own realities, but to do so they need to practice understanding the constructed nature of all institutions, including their foundations education.

While formal and technical intelligence is certainly useful and necessary for students to translate ideas clearly without the distraction of poor technique or competing visual elements, if they carry no tie to the student and contemporary contexts, they are meaningless. A contextual component is at the core of how foundations education should evolve, and evidence demonstrates that foundations educators are embracing this challenge (O’Day, 2011-2012). As

Siegesmund (2013) states,

Art can restrict or open dialogue and possibility. Art Education curricula cannot be held to preordained designs; they need to risk. They need to pause and play; they need to take the chance that time spent in instruction may be useless. (p. 307)

115

Artists need to embrace and nurture their authentic experience and voice, and need, like all of us, to practice democracy. These results suggest that foundations faculty and administrators who drive curriculum needs to risk changing to reflect the conceptual, social, and democratic needs of society.

Regional Differences in Conceptual Language

Research question c) What similarities and differences exist between art foundations course descriptions among four regions of the United States?

Results show a significant difference in the amount of conceptual language used by certain regions, whether the course analyzed was a private or a public college. The South and

Midwest regions utilized a smaller percentage of conceptual language than the Western and

Northeastern regions, while the rest of the curriculum categories were similar across regions and college types. This is significant as the choice of where to go to college should not affect the quality or relevant nature of the education students receive. Because of this uneven distribution, many students could be left out of conceptual conversations and art-making, leading to an unequal art foundations education for future art teachers and young artists.

Cause of Regional Differences

Reasons for regional differences are subject to multiple interpretations, but the most obvious influence is the political climate and voting patterns for the region. Looking at past

116 elections can tell us why curriculum may be written as such, as colleges are subject to policy and regulations that affect funding, so they may be focused on recruiting in-state students influenced by the political climate of their state and region. To consider the political climate by region, the voting trends in presidential elections from 1992-2016 were located and compared

(Appendix G).

Appendix G shows that presidential voting trends in the South and Midwest since 1992 show an increase in conservative Republican state wins, while the Northeastern and Western regions have held a progressive Democratic majority. Republicans are more conservative which may be influencing those regions choices not to change and evolve foundations curriculum to reflect a postmodern perspective. Conservatives conserve and preserve tradition.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see that results from this research show that the Northeastern and Western regions include more concept-driven language in their course descriptions than their Southern and Mid-Western neighbors, where conservatism thrives.

For example, a foundations course from Texas Christian University, from the southern region of the US, states:

ARST 10133 - Three Dimensional Design

Emphasis on use of three dimensional media, exploration of materials and introduction to some of the most widely used technical processes relative to contemporary 3-D artists. (Texas Christian University, 2014-2015, p. 106)

In contrast, a foundations course from Washington state’s Cornish College of the Arts catalog states,

FN 123-124 foundation Studies I & II: Studio 8 credits, Fall/Spring

117

FN123-124 is taught through a sequence of rotational modules. Studio faculty will work in a six-member team representing the broad disciplinary domains of Art and Design. Students will be placed in one of six groups, taught by a different instructor every five weeks. Each module will draw on the instructor’s disciplinary perspectives in relationship to the Unit Theme. Moving through the modules students will be immersed in an exploratory diagnostic experience, whereby existing assumptions about discipline, media, and methodology will be challenged, guiding the development of practice through a diverse range of options and related contexts. Learning outcomes to be addressed include applied outcomes (practical and technical skills), cognitive skills (problem solving and critical analysis), communication skills, digital literacy, and agency, accountability, and working with others. (Catalog, 2014-2015, p. 17)

Clearly, Cornish is attempting to expose students to a broader and more contextualized approach to foundations education, while Texas Christian University only mentions contemporary art in the context of materials and the use of those materials.

By failing to reject these usual conceptions of curriculum, we reinforce the status-quo structures imbedded within the course materials controlling student’s movements, thoughts, and resulting actions, mitigating the possibility for spontaneous and authentic aesthetic learning experiences. Foucault’s (1979) aesthetics of the body and care of the self finds the aesthetic in the displacement of the norm, through the disruption of the usual categories, details, compartments, structures, assortments, spaces, and temporal infringements that direct us.

Aesthetic experience is found in reclaiming the body, space, and time for the self, so that unmitigated and spontaneous environments conducive to aesthetic experience can occur. There is no reclamation in foundations without overturning the power structures controlling and translating the curriculum. Faculty become part of the status-quo by keeping this outdated model unchallenged. In fact, many times teaching assistants (TAs) are asked to teach the foundations courses as professors often prefer teaching upper-level students. Further, grading

118 and preparation time are minimal when curriculum has a “one answer is correct” mentality.

With a conceptual component as the integral subject matter of the work, grading is more difficult and time-consuming as it relies on dialogue, critique, and the experience of the student, and a rubric with a one-size-fits-all parameter is not conducive to this type of conceptual development.

Faculty and students need to reclaim the curriculum and displace the usual boundaries between us that disempower thought and action. Young artists and future K-12 art teachers need curriculum that reflects the world as it is, with its multiple paths, choices, and blurred boundaries. Collaboration between art education professors and foundations faculty can result in updated curriculum reflecting today’s world.

An example of this type of collaboration that balances conceptual, technical, and formal focus is Arizona State University’s (ASU) foundations program at the ASU Hershberger

Institute School of Art. Called the CORE, the program integrates 2D studio, Color, 3D studio and 4D studio through themes that lead and thread throughout the CORE courses. Dan Collins,

Professor of Intermedia at ASU, and foundations coordinator in the late 1980s collaborated with Mary Erickson to create this integrated approach (M. Erickson, personal communication,

September 15, 2017). Collins stated that he “felt that we had a solid “studio fundamentals” approach, but lacked a way of systematically investigating content. Hence our embracing of

Mary’s approach” (D. Collins, personal communication, September 17, 2017). Through collaborating and adopting thematic inquiry and weaving this inquiry through the program while continuing to study visual qualities and technical skills, Collins and Erickson led the department in embracing and adopting this model. A website dedicated to this approach is

119 accessed by all teaching assistants so that concept takes the lead in projects and research in all foundations classrooms. The integration not only of the curriculum, but the collaboration between art education and studio faculty is a rare example of embracing concept driven foundations that foundations and art education faculty can use together as a model of postmodern curriculum. Future researchers can investigate the effectiveness of the CORE program to inform change in the field of foundations.

College students, reflecting our global culture, do not conform to artificial boundaries, like those between art education and foundations education. For example, technology entrepreneur and Content Chief for the online newsletter, “The What,” Gina Pell (2016) describes a way of classifying individuals as Perrenials, instead of confining them to generational age grounds defined by birth years (like Generation X or Y) Perrenials are forever blossoming in some sense, not confined by age or years born, like Generation X or Y or Baby

Boomers. They defy categorization, they continually redefine their lives, and do not necessarily transform and conform to a standard we confer upon them because of their year of birth. They are seemingly ageless, they don’t live according to an imposed model of how they should act at their numerical ages, and they take risks, often moving in multiple career and personal paths throughout life. These Perrenials live between these categories, a different condition than the rigid foundations model, highly formal, technical, and universalized in nature. This signifies a shift in culture to a postmodern condition, in which categories are defied and the boundaries that signify generational separations disappear. Curriculum created through interdepartmental collaboration, following concept-based themes is a natural reflection of disappearing separations in art and in life.

120

By not changing, and by upholding fixed standard categories within foundations, we disallow students to defy categorization, as we present the elements and principles of design, the separation of materials, and the formal qualities we impose upon the visual as fact. The consequence is that students are still subjugated by a dominant ideology that is rigid and does not account for student experience.

Students of today defy the categorization imposed by older generations, and in the same way, curriculum should reflect who they are, what they need, and what reflects their culture.

The NVAS supports this as well. For example, in the Connecting component of the National

Visual Arts Standards (National Visual Core Arts Standards, 2014), Anchor Standard #10 states that students should “Synthesize and relate knowledge and personal experiences to make art.”

By standardizing this curriculum to a Modernist ideal that is culturally irrelevant, we fall short of these standards, and a misalignment exists between students of today and what foundations is teaching, as well as between foundations and K-12 art education.

The arts cannot fall victim to the standardization that has taken hold of curriculum in the U.S. It is one of the only places left where it is fully evident to students that more than one answer can be right, that questions can lead to more questions, and that they can affect the answers through participation, thus, supporting democratic thought, taking us back to the reason public art colleges were established. With the rigidness of a formal and technical program we ignore this possibility and stifle the inception of novel and authentic idea generation through breaking free of imposed constraints and create new pairs and groups and categories and associations, or not. Either way, it is relevant, and thus incites this impulse to create, as well as foster democratic thought by demonstrating boundaries that are seemingly

121 fixed can be broken.

Art education scholars support a democratization of art, imbibing its qualitative and constructed nature within the contextual environment in which it resides. For example, in an article calling for postmodern principles in Art Education, one principle Gude (2004) advocates for is Representin’. She defines this concept as “U.S. urban street slang for proclaiming one's identity and affiliations, representin' describes the strategy of locating one's artistic voice within one's own personal history and culture of origin” (p. 11). Gude describes an autobiographical comics project in which the work “creates comfortable opportunities or students to represent themselves situated within their families and communities” (p. 12). Exposing students to artists that do this and allowing them to explore their own contexts through their artwork, validates their voices, histories, and communities, demoncratizing art by bringing it to their lived experience.

Curriculum Models

To evolve current foundations curriculum from the uneven distribution of conceptual components in course descriptions to a more relevant and postmodern approach, I have two suggested theoretical models for future researchers, faculty, and art teachers to build upon. The first model, based on the ideas of Rancière and Foucault, requires strong resistance, and a drastic overhaul of the entire educational system, while the second model, based on the theories of Efland and Dewey, supports incorporating conceptual development into current practice, a more practical solution for curriculum change.

122

A Rancièrian Theoretical Curriculum Model

Rancière’s (2009) definition of aesthetics conceives of art as a political act, not because of political subject matter, but because politics and art are both what he calls “communities of sense” to which we all comply (p. 32). These are communities and ideas in which humans silently concede to spatial and symbolic boundaries and roles defined within that regime. As

Tanke (2010) wrote, “a given distribution thus delimits, in advance, forms of participation and subjectivity, by first defining what is visible or invisible, audible or inaudible, and said and unsaid” (p. 5). Applied to foundations, curriculum is written in advance of teaching with boundaries imposed before any practice occurs, so students concede to the rules as given.

However, these sensible realms can be disrupted to develop new associations and communities that reveal structures not visible within our typical classifications. Within these new spaces an equalizing force emerges and results in a power that engenders aesthetics. An aesthetics of dissensus overturns rules that bind us to seemingly unbreakable boundaries that separate and categorize, upholding dominant power structures. In these new realms, all barriers and imagined differences are broken down and reconfigured in new ways which provoke and incite conversation that does not result from our usual interaction with visual qualities and art techniques (Rancière, 2009). The formal and technical nature of foundations is so embedded in curriculum we take it as fact, but it is not. Educators should challenge students by helping them realize the constructed nature of foundations can also be deconstructed and reimagined through their art explorations.

Rancière (2009) believes that art is not meant to demonstrate reality but instead should

123 create fictions to open the border between real and fantasy, “undoing and rearticulating the connections between signs and images, images and times, or signs and space that frame the existing sense of reality” (p. 49). He advocates for four methods of doing so. The four forms are political acts, in that these new associations disrupt the status quo, breaking hierarchies so that new associations, spaces, and roles are created. As Lewis (2013) wrote in his analysis of

Rancière’s (2009) aesthetics regime,

Emancipation can begin only with the disruption of these dichotomies—reminding us that viewing is an activity that selects and, most of all, interprets sensual raw materials, and that spectatorship is not a passive reception of raw sensory data but is rather constantly constituting the forms of time and space that help organize our manifold experiences. (p. 64)

Specifically, Rancière (2009) believes that four forms of art and art display can cultivate aesthetic dissensus; “the joke, the collection, the invitation, and the mystery” (p. 46). These four forms are ways in which art can be used to create new associations and an aesthetics of dissensus resulting from their particular arrangements. All these forms break apart the usual foundations curriculum.

The joke. Rancière (2009) describes the joke as the act of placing like visual elements together but framing them as if they are structurally, physically, and conceptually opposites, thus challenging viewers to discuss their differences (p. 46).

An example could be the comparison of large sculptures by Claes Oldenburg. At first glance his larger than life public sculptures are similar in their humor, size, and placement in public spaces. However, students could investigate the placement of each sculpture to find differences in their meaning. Perhaps the placement of Spoonbridge and Cherry at the

Minneapolis Sculpture Garden of the Walker Art Center of Minneapolis, Minnesota could

124 be contrasted to the placement of The Clothespin, located at 1500 Market Street, Center Square in Philadelphia, PA. Contrasting the meaning through the environment and context in which the sculptures reside could show how interaction by the public with each sculpture is quite different. The Clothespin is located in the heart of the city, where many people catch the train, while Spoonbridge and Cherry is in a quiet, grass filled garden.

The collection. In the second form, the collection, Rancière (2009) suggests placing visual elements together that connect in meaning, though the physical materiality or surface forms may initially appear vastly different. This collage of seemingly disparate types begins to demonstrate similarity by viewers linking their common histories and meanings, reflecting new associations and an equalization of ideas (Rancière, 2009).

A simple example is to relate unlike elements through concept. For example, in exploring the concept of identity, students can view various art forms that all explore this concept. Viewing photographs by Cindy Sherman and paintings by Frida Kahlo, students view a collection of artwork created at different times in history, using different materials. By challenging students to delve deeply into the meaning of these seemingly disparate art forms, they find their similarity through the expression of identity. Students could then study the concept of identity through their own work, and explore the multiple identities we project whether by the context we are in, the people who know us, or the way we view ourselves.

Through this exploration, medium is chosen based on the particular identity the student chooses to explore, and formal qualities are analyzed according to what the student wishes to communicate. For example, rather than teach the concept of emphasis, isolated from meaning, students learn to visually emphasize what they wish the viewer to see first. As a result, formal

125 and technical qualities are embedded into personal exploration of the concept.

The invitation. The third form promotes creating exhibition spaces inviting visitors to specifically and personally interact with artwork in meaningful ways, creating new organizational relationships between the exhibition space, the participants, and the artwork in this interaction (Rancière, 2009).

An example of this type of exhibition would be to plan an art foundations gallery show.

Invite people to the opening, where they will walk into the space and unexpectedly see all the artwork in piles on the floor of the gallery. Messages on each pile will ask the spectators to choose where the work should be in the show. During the reception, all visitors would be invited to move the artwork around in various formations they each choose. In this way, the audience is invited to interact with the artwork and the barriers that make exhibition spaces seem sterile, and the discouragement to viewers to touch the artwork is eliminated. Viewers have the experience of sorting and creating multiple ways of looking at and distributing the work. As the exhibition continues after the opening, all visitors are invited to recreate the space and interact with the work by movement and display. Visitors can be invited to create artwork or write messages they attach to the work to transform and participate in it, collapsing the boundaries that separate artists from spectators. The students whose work is in the exhibition learn to let go of the precious nature of their work and realize that multiple meaning is created by their work simply by changing its location and allowing others to participate in its making and evolution of meaning.

The mystery. The fourth form, the mystery, asks artists to juxtapose unusual physical items within a work of art to immediately challenge the viewer to engage in understanding a

126 new and unseen association (Rancière, 2009). These forms create new spatial, physical, and intellectual associations for viewers by the nature of their production. Curriculum can open spaces for this type of exploration, and collapse the familiar structure that binds the course.

There are examples of this type of arts practice in the yarn-bombing trend. Cities are filled with surprise yarn patterns creeping up trees and wrapped around familiar signs. The juxtaposition of the man-made knitted artifact with nature, and with familiar space, are examples to show students how, by putting together unusual materials, new meaning is found.

This idea can then be practiced by overturning norms within art materials. For example, ask students to sculpt using marble or other three-dimensional material with the objective of viewing the sculpture from all viewpoints. Overturn this sculptural norm by asking students to find ways to move the focus from the whole to one part, perhaps by painting one side of the sculpture and embedding the sculpture in an unusual place like the ceiling or floor. Students can then discover how ways of creating and looking at objects changes our relationship to it and the meaning it reveals to the viewer.

A Foucaultian Theoretical Curriculum Model

Similar to Rancière’s promotion of a disruption of categories for authentic aesthetic experience, Foucault’s (1979) definition of aesthetics also suggests the need to break open the entirety of the curriculum structure to support student exploration. Through this lens, the entire structure of schools, the curriculum divisions, the tracking of students, the matriculation of students from one place to the next, from high school art classes to college foundations, and further into upper level art courses is a form of control, rendering the curriculum itself barren of

127 any opportunity for authentic and spontaneous aesthetic experience. Even in the creation of portfolios for entry into different levels or categories of art and art education in both the high school and higher education levels, are mechanisms to, “hierarchize individuals in relation to one another, and, if necessary, disqualify and invalidate” (Foucault, p. 223). This hierarchy sorts people by their seeming worth, which is then replicated in society, and students comply because they are not given the opportunity to break through. A curriculum revolving around a systematized set of elements and principles, practiced as repetitive exercises, in the case of a formalist framework (Freedman, 2003; Gude, 2004, 2007), can be viewed as a curriculum in service to the control of our body through its regimented, orderly steps of practice leaving no room for spontaneous windows of aesthetic opportunities.

Foucault (1979) believed that disciplines create strengthened bodies to be utilized for the economic power of the dominant culture, while simultaneously squelching individual or collective political dissent. Foucault believed that disciplining all manner existence created an environment conducive to dominance, including art spaces. To take back the spaces of aesthetic experience, we must first recognize our subservience, and then reclaim control of our bodies, spaces, and organized time. Doing so requires actively disrupting all boundaries of time, space, and categorization that sorts us, so that spontaneous, active control is recovered, in service of true learning, education, and aesthetic experience. It is only through these disruptions that the aesthetic can be found. Domination can be broken by disrupting disciplines that bind us, including structures of curriculum.

To disrupt these boundaries, I propose transforming the syllabus into a living document, meditated by students, introduced as a socially and politically constructed contract that can be

128 modified and broken. Specifically, on the first day of a foundations class, instead of passing out a syllabus and reviewing the requirements for the course, start foundations courses with questions. Why are you taking this course? What do you think this course should focus on?

Find out who the students are and allow them to construct the syllabus. Print out the familiar definitions of the elements and principles of design listed within the course objectives and ask students to dig into the meaning of the objectives. Does it help or hinder their growth as artists? Students can form groups and together deconstruct the printed course objectives and rewrite them to reflect their needs as artists. They can they use their rewritten course objectives to visualize and create works of art about the nature of reality and move beyond the constraints of the list of objectives.

From the beginning of a foundations course, students can be challenged to imagine and create artwork knowing that the boundaries placed on them are only within. If we break down structures that control the curriculum, it serves as an example to students that they can break through their own sense of borders so that their imaginings and creations are limitless and not tied down by memorizing the meaning of the elements and principles of design, or creating non-objective artwork devoid of any connection to them or their world.

Another example is deconstruction of the color wheel. While there is a scientific reason for the ordering of colors, the construction of the wheel does not need to be restrained by simple color mixing of the 3 primaries to gain the rest of the secondary and tertiary colors.

Instead, give them familiar color wheels and ask them to reimagine it and recreate it in a manner that is meaningful to them.

129

A Deweyan Theoretical Curriculum Model

According to Dewey (1934), an aesthetic experience lies not just in a product as in that of fine art, but can happen any time in any place, within any context and situation. It is characterized by a constant attention and undergoing, different from regular experiences in that it also includes a culminating crescendo (Dewey, 1934). All objects, things, or moments not normally connected to what we usually conceive of as art can give rise to aesthetic experiences

(Dewey, 1934).

An example may be to build the course starting from the students own experiences.

Create a list of themes collaboratively and ask them to deepen their understanding of the chosen theme through research, concept-maps, and visual and textual iterations of their idea.

Continue to question them until they delve deeply into the meaning. For example, taking the concept of identity explored in the previous section, this theme can move in multiple directions.

What is identity? What is your identity? Who says this is your identity? Is this your conception of yourself? Why or why not? Can you reinvent your identity? This does not mean to do away with the elements and principles of design or ignore helping students gain technical skill. They need these because their concept may not come clearly if the viewer is distracted by poor composition or skills. However, beginning with the concept, like identity, something that they experience every day in their lives will allow each of them to connect to the subject matter because it's personal to them. Further, students can explore how each identity builds community through locating similarities in all of our identities, promoting understanding and empathy. Instead of lectures, foundations faculty can ask questions to let students develop

130 deeper reflection of concept. Discussions about composition, for example can be in support of their concept. For example, are they trying to demonstrate an unstable identity? Ask them how they could use elements like line, shape, and color, to suggest instability. Do they wish to suggest an orderly, formal, fixed identity? Discuss the difference between symmetry and asymmetry. Which one feels more stable? In this way, the elements and principles connect in meaning to their work and their lives. As Dewey’s ideas suggest, beginning from the student’s experience, instead of dictating elements and principles with no connection to students will allow them to deeply investigate who they are as people and artists within their community and the world at large while also building the skills and techniques they may choose to use.

Dewey’s assertion that aesthetic experiences are intrinsically tied to the everyday mundane as well the extraordinary, interprets aesthetics as a function of everyday life that validates, not an exclusively Western conception of art and life, but all people’s historical and personal histories (Shusterman, 2006). Aesthetic experiences are not just for an elite, cultured class of people, or for the relegation to museums and galleries, but are for all people, at any time and any place. Therefore, if multiple conceptions of art can occur, and if one can have experiences of the aesthetic anywhere, then teaching students about art must not privilege any visual conception over another, but should include all possible realms of visual experience to support a democratic education and populace. In addition, curriculum needs to leave room for these occurrences.

A simple way of demonstrating this to students is to ask them to bring in an object that is meaningful to them. Have them think about why it is meaningful. They can discover the meaning is not necessarily in the materials or the structure that makes up the object, but in the

131 meaning it has for them. This example leads students to think about objects as historical documents of the lives of people. In this case, it would not be meaningful simply to look at these objects and describe their visual forms as it discounts the authentic experience the student has with the object. This can serve as a metaphor to show students that critiquing artwork solely on the basis of materials and formal qualities does not reach the heart of the experience of the work. Instead, students investigate the meaning they prescribe to the object based on their experience with it and the history it reveals.

In art, the product of an experience encapsulates the undergoing and doing that created it (Dewey, 1934). An artist undertaking the doings of creating art, experiencing the aesthetic, has as the product a physical record of that experience, that can then be used to reflect those feelings to the viewer. The viewer can take in the qualities of the work inciting a further aesthetic experience through their own personal interaction with the piece. Dewey’s (1934) aesthetic experience involves the recognition of the intrinsic and extrinsic value of everyday experiences, as well as commonly categorized artistic ones, through sensory modes of creator and spectator that creates equalizing dialogue between individuals, communities, cultures, and political realms. Dewey (1934) affirms that enemies of aesthetic experiences include conformity to convention, procedure, and a forced submission to the dominant culture. Dewey

(1934) rejects aesthetic experiences as responses to purely physical objects of art, and places the aesthetic experience in the becoming and the undergoing of action, thought, sensation, or experience. Art educators at every level can refocus curriculum to authentically generated ideas forming from the student’s experience and voice.

132

Towards a Democratic Post-Modern Curriculum Model

Lastly, Efland et al.’s (1996) supported using art education curriculum to validate multiple perspectives and recognize cultural differences through art. However, Efland et al.’s differs than that of Rancière, Foucault, and Dewey, in that in his conception, we still name, label, create, and foster artistic encounters that reflect and critique the contextual significance and historical narratives revealed in art. Efland et al.’s definition is concrete and can be used to transform schools by working from within the curricula, as it currently exists, to challenge the status quo and include multiple ideals.

Efland et al.’s (1996) aesthetics incorporates realism, a changing of perceptions from within and not without. While it is possible that Rancière, Foucault, and Dewey may view

Efland et al.’s definition, working within the system, as a means of fostering a docile subservience of the artist and educator to the status quo school system, it still reflects a pragmatism that recognizes the nature of society, in that small changes from within accumulate to push the boundaries out from the inside, over time, with sustained, unified force.

These suggestions for a transformed foundations curriculum democratizes art experiences and supports unstructured structures that allow people to experience art, unrestrained by the standards of logic. In our equalization, the invisible become visible and a level of empathy is recovered, promoting care. As Siegesmund (2013) wrote,

Art can restrict or open dialogue and possibility. Art education curricula cannot be held to preordained designs; they need to risk. They need to pause and play, they need to take the chance that time spent in instruction may be useless. For only in that risk, can Art Education curricula hold a promise of being useful to democratic ends through an aesthetics of empathy and care. (p. 307)

133

Aesthetics is an all-encompassing, engrossing act or sensation that overtakes the body and encourages the need to bring out something sensual and automatic, something deep inside that defies definition and the limits of words. These ideas support, in one form or another, a disruption of the status quo to democratize art, leading students to question the dominate culture or belief in schools, society, and in art itself when curriculum is used as a tool of oppression.

To overturn and democratize foundations, a destruction of the current state of curriculum and system of learning in schools needs to occur, with a conscious stance by art educators, artists, and art students at every level. These stances may be difficult to undertake, as Dewey’s (1934) aesthetics ultimately incites societal change by challenging all people to notice the aesthetic sensation in daily life to recover a joy that would strengthen society, bringing us back to care for each other through the common human experience.

Building a Spiral Curriculum

By practicing democratic principles in art education, curriculum supports personal growth as active and participatory, acknowledges its socially constructed nature, and fosters classrooms as dialogic locations of democratic pedagogy (Shor, 1992). The arts encourage democracy, for when students locate varied solutions to problems; they become empowered in their personal decision-making abilities, nurturing the qualities necessary for active participation in life, community, and society at large. As stated by the NVAS (National Visual

Arts Standards, 1994), “the arts are indispensable to freedom of inquiry and expression” (p.

134

11). While society cannot be transformed simply through classroom practices, schools can be locations of high quality critical education, democratic practice, and positive relationships with learning (Shor, 1992). This personal empowerment in choice-making to become contributing members of society has started to affect K-12 art education, but needs to be more embraced in higher education to continue fostering students voice and agency both in art and life.

Scholars have long supported curriculum alignment through different types of sequential models. For instance, Tyler (1949) cautioned that inconsistent student experiences, without chronological connections, would fail to support integration of knowledge or positive learning experiences for students. Thus, Tyler advocated a vertical curriculum formation sustaining increased subject matter complexity at each grade level. In a contrasting stance,

Doll (1993) criticized Tyler’s modernist curriculum strategy, challenging educators to conceive of a more relevant post-modern curriculum emphasizing a cyclical structure to support student learning through exploration, open discussion, and individual inquiry into experiences with material. In this curriculum format, material continues gaining complexity through chronological sequencing, but concluding learning segments actively integrate new concepts to foster student created cyclical connections between objectives (Doll, 1993). While both Tyler and Doll differ on the manner of sequencing, they agree that curriculums must build through multiple and sustained student reflection, resulting in more complex learning. Integrating both curriculum theories, Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) asserted that an important component of curriculum design includes mixing vertical repetitive sequences with a continued cyclical expansion of concepts.

135

There are encouraging signs of the need and will to collaborate between high school art teachers and foundations faculty. For example, at the 2013 FATE conference at the Savannah

College of Art and Design (SCAD), 3 sessions focused on exploring such collaborations. In one session, foundations faculty members and AP studio art scorers discussed the value of the current AP portfolio system, in the session titled, 40,000 Portfolios in Eight Days-The Past,

Present and Future of AP Studio Art Programs: Are they a True Indicator of Preparation for

Advanced Classes? (Becker, Clifford, & Skaggs, 2013). A session titled Building Bridges: AP

Art History and the Studio Art Student (Reilly, 2013) focused on ways of collaboration in this area. Further collaboration occurred in the session New Directions in AP and IB Art

(Siegesmund & Graham, 2013), which brought public school teachers, art education professors, and foundations faculty together to discuss the need for collaboration. While evidence of further collaboration is unclear, the integration of these ideas into the conference shows an understanding of how curriculum could improve through collaboration. Further discussion can explore ways of redefining curriculum to integrate ideas towards building a recursive curriculum.

In addition, ITI’s publications continue to focus on the evolution of foundations curriculum. In the article, Mentors/Teachers: Practice and Advocacy, written resulting from the collaborative discussions at Think Tank 9, Lead Author and Associate Professor of Art at the University of Charleston, Raymond Yeager (2017), advocates for empathy in the foundations curriculum, “through play, practice, and mentorship — through which an empathy- based learning environment develops” (p. 29). Further, the author acknowledges the need to teach students based on understanding that students “have been raised in an educational system

136 that, by and large, asks them to memorize facts, events, and ideas. Free and open play, unguided exploration, and embrace of failure are not readily fostered” (Yeager, p. 29). As a result, Yeager advocates understanding and acknowledging foundations students’ history and experience to meet them at the level of their abilities. This idea implies necessary and meaningful understanding of the high school student experience to meet students while mentoring care and empathy by “facilitat(ing) their growth into self- advocating, curious, and engaged learners” (p. 29). In fact, 3 articles in this issue focus on empathy as part of the foundations practice, and all articles focus on developing methods to embrace change in the foundations curriculum.

Freedman (2003) advocated a synthesis of the two positions, suggesting a spiral curriculum structure in which students “build(s) on knowledge not only by advancing information to an increasing and more sophisticated level, but by revisiting the same concepts and skills to promote rehearsal” (p. 113). Each level and conceptual review emphasizes and expands knowledge so that iterations promote deeper and more complex connections with curriculum topics. A spiral curriculum best reflects a paradigm of curriculum planning that prepares students for future course material, while also allowing open-ended qualitative reflection and investigation.

Students moving from high school art education into college art foundations courses would benefit from a spiral curriculum through opportunities for such “recursive reflections”

(Doll, 1993, p. 269). Deliberate contemplation and multiple opportunities for students to practice skills and concepts are paramount to the growth of professional artists. Not only do skills and conceptual thinking improve over time, but reflective investigation also strengthens

137 art students’ abilities to synthesize learning experiences through deeper inquiry and thematic connections. A misaligned curriculum results in disconnected knowledge, and simple mimetic reproduction of examples. In the case of foundations curricula solely revolving around practicing the elements and principles of design, visual qualities, devoid of all narrative substance and investigative relationships between the learner and their experience with the materials is absent (Duncum, 1990; Efland, 1987; Efland et al., 1996; Freedman, 2003; Gude,

2004, 2007; Tavin et al., 2007). However, an alignment of curriculum aims, goals, and objectives among high school art teachers and art foundations faculty can serve students by incorporating skill based learning with conceptual complexity.

Conclusion

As Freire (1970) stated, “the oppressors are the ones who act upon men to indoctrinate them and adjust them to a reality which must remain untouched” (p. 150). We cannot allow art education to become complacent in the face of this indoctrination. Instead, we must empower a community of artists that can trust their own perspectives, acknowledging the possibility of multiple viewpoints and solutions to visual art problems as well as in life’s challenges.

Without an aligned arts education, students are in danger of apathy, looking only to follow the rules of socialization, conforming to the dominant thought, and serving an imposed vision instead of leading new realities for the future.

However, college art foundations faculty cannot expect students to enter college, even art classes, without the numbing effect so often resulting from multiple high school classes that

138 reinforce the impact of a testing culture, even with a high school art education serving the democratic ideals described above. Additionally, it is not enough to simply align if our overt, written and operational curriculum does not support material to empower our students. If art foundations curriculum continues revolving around formalist models, foundations itself will be just another reinforcement of a disempowering education, nullifying any positive effects of postmodern art education in high school art education.

Because curriculum is a social process, like all other social processes, it is inherently political. What we choose to leave out teaches what we value as a society. Discounting students’ own interests in curriculum devalues their affections and invalidates their ideas, resulting in disempowered apathetic students, ill-equipped to succeed in arts related practice.

Creativity thrives on personal insight and risk-taking. For example, in his famous study of creativity to uncover commonalities in creative thinking across disciplinary domains,

Csikszentmihalyi (1996) found that creativity is characterized by divergence, individual, subjective solutions, the ability to synthesize various perspectives, and the capacity to locate unique solutions to disparate problems. To foster this creativity and innovation in artists, curriculum should support student interests as the impetus and generation of subject matter so that multiple perspectives can be integrated. Aligning curriculum in high school art education with art foundations means cultivating and recognizing the multiple experiences, ideas, perspectives, and experiences of students to foster this type of creativity, finding a way to integrate the formalist stance with students’ personal experiences and conceptual development.

Siegesmund (2010) wrote that in conceiving of an aesthetics related to education, we

“prepare individuals for responsible, participatory citizenship” (p. 88). It is within this

139 responsibility that these definitions of aesthetics have in common. However far from the center of the defined sphere of the aesthetic within the barriers of school regulations, all art educators can strive to bring a sense of responsibility and care for the community into the practice of art and aesthetics, through direct subject matter, or through an education that leaves spaces open for these sensations that connect all humanity and equalize us through our individual experiences. These aesthetics philosophies strive to alert us to lead our students in seeing and noticing, validating and celebrating, what may have been before unseen.

Suggestions for Future Research

These findings, while limited to 97 colleges results in a clear picture of the state of foundations curriculum in the U.S., and unlike what I suspected, results showed little difference between private art colleges and state run colleges with art foundations. Both showed clearly that most language focuses on formal and technical skill suggesting art foundations programs have not evolved their course descriptions to reflect conceptual and thematic development.

These conclusions show that future studies will be important to incorporate more information about curriculum so that foundations can evolve to include thematic development integrated with skill and form. Multiple areas in the category of foundations are needing exploration. The connection between the AP and IB programs to art foundations curriculum is an area I suggest for additional research. I found very little evidence of collaboration between the teachers and faculty who sit on either side of this curriculum. A study of the relevance of the AP portfolio to

140 foundations curriculum would be a great first step to gaining insight into the effectiveness and the predictability of success based on IB and AP schools.

Qualitative studies that look at the cultures within specific colleges including faculty and student interviews could add to the picture of foundations curriculum once mediated by classroom practice. Studies that consider the culture of foundations departments would engender insight into the fixed nature of foundations curriculum. Studies that look at the efficacy of various foundations curricula throughout colleges in the U.S. would give scholars a clearer picture of programs so they can be compared and assessed for effectiveness.

In addition, studies that compare the artwork between concept driven and non-objective elements and principles driven work need to be conducted to assess whether skills and concepts are integrated. Lastly, more studies looking at the student experience of foundations education would confirm or dispel theories presented here and in other studies.

Foundations education, and the FATE and ITI organizations need to collaborate with the NAEA to ensure foundations follows the same curriculum theories supported in K-12 art education. Many foundations faculty are unaware of K-12 school curriculum, but foundations faculty cannot build upon art knowledge without being acutely aware of what students bring with them to college. A collaboration between the two is long overdue, and can use the ASU

CORE model as an example of an approach that transforms foundations by building bridges between departments and enacting curriculum that embraces thematic inquiry and boundary breaking.

We need to set up the foundations environment for students to break open the curriculum and put it back together again and help them find ways to do it. They need to break

141 free of standards, overturn power grids and mechanisms of control, for in this reconfiguration of structure and power, creativity and innovation are more likely. Doing so, art foundations curriculum can invent a society in the U.S. that practices and supports a democratic republic.

EPILOGUE

Since completing writing this dissertation and preparing for my defense, I have taken a position as a fixed term faculty member at Central Michigan University, where I teach pre- service art education majors and art majors taking a ART119, Design Foundations, a requirement for all art majors. This course was recently revised to focus on both two- dimensional and three-dimensional materials while teaching the elements and principles of design. Although this is a foundations course, I was surprised to find that many of my students are not freshman and waited to take the course until their sophomore, junior, and senior year. I have been struggling to keep up with teaching art education classes while completing my dissertation and was quite concerned that applying the suggestions I give in this dissertation to the art foundations course may not be accepted by the faculty, administration, and most importantly, the students. While these changes are clearly necessary, students do not expect to be challenged conceptually in a 100 level foundations course. Further, I worried that the entire premise I have focused on in this study for the past 4 years would not work as well as I hoped.

However, as Siegesmund (2013) stated, “Art Education curricula cannot be held to preordained designs; they need to risk. They need to pause and play; they need to take the chance that time spent in instruction may be useless” (p. 307). With this idea in mind, I went forward with teaching foundations in the way I suggest throughout this study, knowing I would be testing my theories within the classroom, specifically, introducing concept as the first stage

143 of development in project exploration, supported by skill acquisition and compositional choices. Incorporating the conceptual component was a challenge for me as although I am arguing for an updated curriculum it is quite easy to fall back on the easy to grade and teach elements and principles focused course. I feared that none of my suggestions would work, but I knew I needed to jump in and challenge myself for the benefit of my new students.

For the first project, students focused on identity as a social and cultural construct that can shift depending on what is revealed, what is hidden, and the context of an individual. After studying artwork focused on identity and discussing the meaning of identity in their own lives, students created concept maps to discover the areas of their identities they wished to reveal. In support of their concepts, students learned how to create value variation for depth and form in their portraits, were challenged to choose specific areas of emphasis based on what they believed was most important in the expression of their identities, and created rhythm through collaging or illustrating repeating textual elements, specifically words and that they believe evoke the part of their identity they chose to reveal. Through small group critiques and written analysis, students described and assessed their work. They were challenged to analyze how the elements and principles and the use of materials supported the clarity of their identity concept.

All of the outcomes were completely different. Some were technically stronger than others, and some identity concepts were strong but lacked technical skill. Yet, some resulted in pieces that meaningfully revealed the individual identities of each student, supported by skill and composition. However, within the range of skillful visual outcomes, students were engaged, excited, and thoughtful during the entire process, and expressed their excitement at being able to have the freedom to express their own beliefs.

144

For the second project, students focused on nightmares and dreams, incorporating distortion and the juxtaposition of reality and fantasy in pieces focused on color as an expressive element along with all artificially separated visual qualities as they work together to support the whole art piece. Students are at different levels of experience with materials so I am working to help each of them develop their concepts by allowing them to use any 2D and 3D materials they choose, as long as it is used in a manner that supports the meaning of their work.

During both project introductions I have been quite nervous that they would not be inspired to locate and explore different materials, and that students may prefer for me to tell them what to use. I am heartened to find that is not the case. Through individual conversations with each student, I help each one talk through their ideas. I have found that this dialogue with each student is most important, as once we discuss various solutions, and I question students on their visual goals, their decisions involve risking using materials they never have and it gives them the confidence to try.

In the third project, the concept will be protest art, in which students will research to discover social, political, or personal ideas they believe are unjust, and students will use 3D materials to create hashtags, posters, and images that reveal this chosen protest. Thereafter, students will begin to choose their own concepts as I slowly guide them to have this confidence and belief in their own abilities to think, decide, risk, and create. The amount of work involved in challenging each student in this individual way is huge, but also exciting, as each discovery becomes a new way of thinking about the subject, both for the students and myself. While I by no means believe this structure to stay the same each semester, as I evolve in my ability to

145 teach this way, and I meet new students, I am delighted that my students have jumped in whole heartedly, and trust in me to guide them to find their artistic voices.

Because the art education department is on a separate floor of the college from the studio faculty and classrooms, there has not been much in the way of collaboration between the two, but I am hoping that I can build that bridge from art education teaching methodology into foundations, as well as bring foundations strategies to my art education courses. However, I have strong support from the foundations committee, who are very excited to see how I am teaching this course, and if these ideas will help strengthen foundations at the college.

However, my belief is that a true collaboration is needed between art education and art foundations, as the crossover of ideas can only strengthen the support of one another. I have been told that in many cases studio faculty and art education faculty are not quite on the same page, and may even judge each other’s ideas as less important. I hope to overcome this separation as it is a collaboration that can only help to serve students and strengthen the culture of respect between faculty.

As a result, my future research agenda will focus on how I can incorporate this updated methodology into foundations courses, how effective this methodology is upon outcomes and student success, and instances of collaboration between art education and foundations faculty.

Because of my background in both areas, I hope to continue being employed at a university where I can be a bridge builder through collaborative research, teaching, and conversation.

While this is a large change in the structure of college art education I am hoping that through this dissertation and research to follow there will be more interest to collaborate for the benefit of college art and art education students.

REFERENCES

Adams, D. (2012). Introduction. Foundations NOW, 3(1). Retrieved from https://www.integrativeteaching.org/future-forward/

Albers, J. (1963). Interaction of color. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Baldacchino, J. (2013). What creative industries? Instrumentalism, autonomy and the education of artists. International Journal of Education through Art, 9(3), 343-356.

Ballengee-Morris, C., & Stuhr, P. L. (2001). Multicultural art and visual cultural education in a changing world. Art Education, 54(4), 6-13.

Barkan, M. (1966). Curriculum problems in art education. In E. L. Mattil (Ed.), A seminar for research and curriculum development in art education (USDE Cooperative Research Project V-002; pp. 240-255). University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

Barrett, T. (1997). Talking about student art. Worcester, MA: David Publications.

Barrett, T. (2011). Why is that art? Aesthetics and criticism of contemporary art (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baudrillard, J. (1997). Objects, images, and the possibilities of aesthetic illusion. In N. Zurbrugg (Ed.), Jean Baudrillard: Art and artefact (pp. 7-18). London, UK: Sage.

Becker, D., Clifford, D., & Skaggs, G. (2013, April). 40,000 portfolios in eight days-the past, present and future of AP studio art programs: Are they a true indicator of preparation for advanced classes? Or are they a great indicator of preparation for a university level freshman art program?. Foundations of Art: Theory and Education Conference, Savannah, GA.

Bell, C. (1913). Art. New York, NY: Frederick A. Stokes.

Betz, S. (2003). Foundations survey results. Retrieved from http://faculty.weber.edu/sjbetz/webmechanicsfolder/foundationsurvhome.html

Beyond creating: The place for art in America’s schools. (1984). Los Angeles, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/legislation- policy/naappd/beyond-creating-the-place-for-art-in-americas-schools

147

Carpenter, B. S., & Tavin, K. M. (2010). Drawing (past, present, and future) together: A (graphic) look at the reconceptualization of art education. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education, 51(4), 327-352.

Catalog. (2014-2015). Washington State’s Cornish College of the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.cornish.edu/registration/catalog/

Conceptual art. (n.d.). Guggenheim collection online. Retrieved from https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/movement/conceptual-art

Craft, A. (2006). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools?. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Curzon, L. (2017). Autonomous cohorts: Towards an integrated foundations education. Future Forward, 5(1), 68-79. Retrieved from https://www.integrativeteaching.org/future-forward/

Danto, A. C. (1997). After the end of art: Contemporary art and the pale of history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York, NY: Minton, Balch.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Minton, Balch.

Dobbs, S. M. (1992). The DBAE handbook: An overview of discipline-based art education. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED349253.pdf

Dockery, C., & Quinn, R. D. (2007). Finding balance in contemporary foundations programs. FATE in Review (Foundations in Art: Theory & Education), 28, 39-50.

148

Doll, W. E., Jr. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. Advances in contemporary educational thought (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dow, A. W. (1913). Composition: A series of exercises in art structure for the use of students and teachers. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page.

Duncum, P. (1990). Clearing the decks for dominant culture: Some first principles for a contemporary art education. Studies in Art Education, 31(4), 207-215.

Duncum, P. (2002). Clarifying visual culture art education. Art Education, 55(3), 6-11.

Efland, A. (1987). Art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual arts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Efland, A. (2004). The entwined nature of the aesthetic: A discourse on visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 45(3), 231-251.

Efland, A., Freedman, K., & Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Alexandria, VA: National Art Education Association.

Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sussex, UK: Sage Publications.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Freedictionary. (2012). Conceptualism. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conceptualism

Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Freedman, K., & Wood, J. (1999). Reconsidering critical response: Student judgments of purpose, interpretation, and relationships in visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 40(2), 128-142.

149

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Fry, R. (1909). An essay in aesthetics. New Quarterly, reprinted in Vision and Design (1920), London, UK: Chatto & Windus. Retrieved from http://rci.rutgers.edu/~tripmcc/phil/poa/fry-essay_in_aesthetics.pdf

Giroux, H. A. (2008). Militarization, public pedagogy and the biopolitics of popular culture. In D. Silberman-Keller, Z. Bekerman, H. A. Giroux, & N. Burbules (Eds.), Mirror images: Popular culture and education (pp. 39-54). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Graham, M. A., & Sims-Gunzenhauser, A. (2009a). Advanced placement in studio art and secondary art education policy: Countering the null curriculum. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 18-24.

Graham, M. A., & Sims-Gunzenhauser, A. (2009b). Advanced placement studio art and the contested territory of college art foundations. FATE In Review (Foundations in Art: Theory & Education), 31, 28-33.

Gude, O. (2004). Postmodern principles: In search of a 21st-century art education. Art Education, 57(1), 6-14.

Gude, O. (2007). Principles of possibility: Considerations for a 21st-century art & culture curriculum. Art Education, 60(1), 6-17.

Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity, possibility. Art Education, 63(2), 31-37.

Gude, O. (2013). New school art styles: The project of art education. Art Education, 66(1), 6- 15.

Hellyer-Heinz, C. (2012). Manifestos and manifestations. Foundations NOW, 3(1), 38-43. Retrieved from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/372979/20827347/1351740102527/ ITI_FutureForward_4.pdf?token=fIRufmW9WgB47OuUp98JDO qBZGQ%3D

Integrative Teaching International (ITI). Retrieved from https://www.integrativeteaching.org/future-forward/

International Baccalaureate Organization (IB). (2013, August; updated June 2015). What is an IB education?. Cardiff, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/digital-tookit/brochures/what-is-an-ib-education-en.pdf

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

150

La Porte, A. M., Speirs, P., & Young, B. (2008). Art curriculum influences: A national survey. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 49(4), 358-370.

Lewis, T. E. (2013). Jacques Rancière’s aesthetic regime and democratic education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 47(2), 49-70.

Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

National Art Education Association (NAEA). (2013/14). Standards for art teacher preparation. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2017). The condition of education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS). (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. Retrieved from http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/content/conceptual-framework

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

National Visual Arts Standards (NVAS). (1994). National standards for visual art. Retrieved from http://www.maswcd.net/National%20Visual%20Arts%20Standards.pdf

National Visual Arts Standards (NVAS). (2014). National core arts standards. Retrieved from https://www.arteducators.org/learn-tools/national-visual-arts-standards

O’Day. T. (2011-2012). Intersections: Art, sustainability, and education. FATE in Review (Foundations in Art: Theory & Education), 33, 27-41.

O’Donoghue, D. (2009). Predicting performance in art college: How useful are the entry portfolio and other variables in explaining variance in first year marks?. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(1), 82-106.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. San Francisco, CA: Pearson.

151

Pell, G. (2016). Meet the perennials. Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-what/meet-the- perennials-e91a7cd9f65f

Pinar, W. F. (2012). Studies in curriculum theory series: What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.

Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Penguin.

Politico. (2017). 2016 Presidential election results. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/map/president/

Rancière, J. (2009). Contemporary art and the politics of aesthetics. In B. Hinderliter, W. Kaizen, V. Maimon, J. Mansoor, & S. McCormack (Eds.), Communities of sense: Rethinking aesthetics and politics (pp. 32-50). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Reilly, D. J. (2013, April). Building bridges: AP art history and the studio art student. Foundations of Art: Theory and Education Conference, Savannah, GA.

Schiller, F. (2004). On the aesthetic education of man. Mineola, NY: Dover.

Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schools of art and design. (1879). The Art Amateur, 1(5), 94-96. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25626889

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Shusterman, R. (2000). Pragmatist aesthetics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Shusterman, R. (2006). The aesthetic. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2-3), 237-252.

Siegesmund, R. (2010). Aesthetics as a curriculum of care and responsible choice. In T. Costantino & B. White (Eds.), Essays on aesthetic education for the 21st century (pp. 81-92). Rotterdam, NL: Sense.

Siegesmund, R. (2012). Integrative learning: Bridging today and tomorrow. Foundations NOW, 3(1), 44-61. Retrieved from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/372979/20827347/1351740102527/ITI_FutureForw ard4.pdf?token=fIRufmW9WgB47OuUp98J DOqBZGQ%3D

152

Siegesmund, R. (2013). Art education and a democratic citizenry. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(3), 300-308.

Siegesmund, R. (2016). The origins of the work of art education and new standards. Knowledge Cultures, (5), 61-80.

Siegesmund, R., & Graham, M. (2013, April). New directions in AP and IB art. Foundations of Art: Theory and Education Conference, Savannah, GA.

Stewart, M. (2002). Launching the imagination: A guide to two-dimensional design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Tanke, J. J. (2010). Why Rancière now?. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 44(2), 1-17.

Tavin, K., Kushins, J., & Elniski, J. (2007, September). Shaking the foundations of postsecondary art(ist) education in visual culture. Art Education, 60(5), 13-19. Retrieved from https://visualarteducation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Kevin+Tavin_Postsecondary+art+ and+visual+culture.pdf

Taylor, M. C. (1992). Disfiguring: Art, architecture, religion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Texas Christian University (TCU). (2014-2015). Catalogue. Retrieved from http://tcu.smartcatalogiq.com/2014-2015/2014-2015-Undergraduate-Catalog

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Waters, R. (1979). Another brick in the wall [Recording by Pink Floyd]. On The Wall (LP). U.K. Harvest-Columbia.

Willis, S. (2004). Historical and operational perspectives of the advanced placement program in studio art. Art Education, 57(1), 42-46.

Winant, P. (2012). Connecting the dots: Inside and outside the box. Foundations NOW, 3(1), 26-37. Retrieved from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/372979/20827347/1351740102527/ITI_FutureForw ard_4.pdf?token=fIRufmW9WgB47OuUp98JDOqBZGQ%3D

Wong, W. (1972). Principles of two-dimensional design. New York, NY: Wiley.

Yeager, R. (2017). Mentors/Teachers practice and advocacy. Future Forward, 5(1), 28-39. Retrieved from https://www.integrativeteaching.org/future-forward/

153

Young, A. (2008, July 30). Rock history 101: Pink Floyd’s “Another brick in the wall, part II.” Consequence of sound [Website]. Retrieved from https://consequenceofsound.net/ 2008/ 07/rock-history-101-another-brick-in-the-wall-part-ii/

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE GROUP 1: PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WITH LARGEST

POPULATION PER STATE OFFERING VISUAL ART-RELATED BACHELOR

DEGREES WITH NASAD OR REGIONAL ACCREDITATION

156

State Sample name Undergraduate Website Accredi- Number of school population tation of schools type meeting criteria AL The University of 28,026 www.ua.edu NASAD 13 Alabama / AK University of Alaska: 16,498 www.uaa.ala NASAD 3 Anchorage ska.edu AZ Arizona State 59,382 www.asu.ed NASAD 3 University u/ AR University of Arkansas 20,350 www.uark.e NASAD 10 at Fayetteville du CA Cal State University- 32,329 www.fullert NASAD 29 Fullerton on.edu CO University of Colorado 25,941 www.colora HLC 10 Boulder do.edu CT University of 17,538 www.uconn. NASAD 5 Connecticut edu DE University of Delaware 18,202 www.udel.e MSA 2 du/ DC University of the 4,857 www.udc.ed MSA 1 District of Columbia u FL Miami Dade College 66,701 www.mdc.e SACS/ 13 du/main/ COC GA University of Georgia 26,259 www.uga.ed NASAD 15 u HI University of Hawaii at 14,655 manoa.hawa WASC 2 Manoa ii.edu ID Boise State University 19,477 www.boisest NASAD 3 ate.edu IL University of Illinois at 32,281 www.illinois NASAD 12 Urbana-Champaign .edu/

(Continued on following page)

157

Table A1 (continued)

State Sample name Undergraduate Website Accredi- Number of school population tation of schools type meeting criteria IN Indiana University 32,371 www.iub.ed NASAD 12 Bloomington u IA Iowa State University 25,553 www.iastate. NASAD 3 edu KS Kansas State 19,853 www.k- NASAD 7 University state.edu KY University of Kentucky 20,827 www.uky.ed NASAD 8 u LA Louisiana State 24,626 www.lsu.edu NASAD 12 University and Agricultural and Mechanical College ME University of Maine 8778 www.umain NASAD 6 Ontario e.edu/ MD University of 26,538 www.umd.e MSC 10 Maryland-College Park du MA University of 21,928 www.umass. NEASC 11 Massachusetts – edu Amherst MI Michigan State 37,354 www.msu.ed HLC 13 University u MN University of 34,369 www1.umn. HLC 9 Minnesota-Twin Cities edu/twincitie s/index.php MS University of 16,060 www.olemis NASAD 2 Mississippi s.edu MO University of Missouri- 26,960 www.missou HLC 11 Columbia ri.edu/

(Continued on following page)

158

Table A1 (continued)

State Sample name Undergraduate Website Accredi- Number of school population tation of schools type meeting criteria MT Montana State 12,679 www.monta NASAD 4 University na.edu/ NE University of 19,103 www.unl.ed NASAD 6 Nebraska-Lincoln u/ NV University of Nevada- 22,429 go.unlv.edu/ NASAD 2 Las Vegas NH University of New 12,804 www.unh.ed NEAS 3 Hampshire-Main u Campus NJ Rutgers University- 31,593 www.rutgers MSCE 12 New Brunswick .edu/ NM University of New 22,773 www.unm.e HLC 6 Mexico-Main Campus- du Albuquerque NY University at Buffalo 19,514 www.buffal NASAD 27 o.edu NC North Carolina State 24,833 www.ncsu.e NASAD 16 University at Raleigh du ND North Dakota State 11,988 www.ndsu.e NASAD 5 University Main du Campus OH Ohio State University 56,387 www.osu.ed NASAD 13 Main Campus u OK University of 21,109 www.ou.edu HLC 10 Oklahoma-Norman Campus OR Portland State 22,770 www.pdx.ed NCACS 6 University u

(Continued on following page)

159

Table A1 (continued)

State Sample name Undergraduate Website Accredi- Number of school population tation of schools type meeting criteria PA Pennsylvania State 39,192 www.psu.ed NASAD 19 University-Main u/ Campus RI University of Rhode 13,376 www.uri.edu NEASC 2 Island / SC University of South 23,363 www.sc.edu/ NASAD 11 Carolina Columbia SD South Dakota State 11,118 www.sdstate HLC 5 University .edu/ TN Middle Tennessee 22,371 www.mtsu.e NASAD 7 State University du TX University of Texas at 39,955 www.utexas. NASAD 28 Austin edu UT Utah Valley University 31,405 www.uvu.ed NWCCU 5 u VT University of Vermont 11,211 www.uvm.e NEASC 4 Burlington du VA Virginia Polytechnic 23,859 www.vt.edu NASAD 10 Institute and State University WA University of 29,475 www.washin NWCCU 8 Washington-Seattle gton.edu Campus WV West Virginia 22,827 www.wvu.e NASAD 7 University du/ WI University of 30,301 www.wisc.e NASAD 13 Wisconsin-Madison du WY University of 10,194 www.uwyo. HLC 1 Wyoming edu

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE GROUP 2 : CHART OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT SCHOOLS WITH

BACHELOR’S-LEVEL ART PROGRAMS BY STATE WITH NASAD

OR REGIONAL ACCREDITATION

161

State Name of school Accreditation Type of Percent Total program admitted undergraduate population AL Stillman College SACS/COC Embedded 41% 1019

AZ Prescott College HLC Embedded 81% 673 AR Lyon College HLC Embedded 62% 600 CA California Institute of NASAD Special 25% 950 the Arts focus CT Lyme Academy NASAD Special 63% 79 College of Fine Arts focus DE Wilmington MSA Embedded 100% 8133 University Delaware DC Corcoran College of NASAD Special 31% 386 Art and Design focus FL Ringling College of NASAD Special 75% 1364 Art and Design focus GA Savannah College of SACS/COC Special 63% 8845 Art and Design focus HI Brigham Young WASC Embedded 23% 3166 University ID The College of Idaho NWCCU Embedded 65% 1042 IL School of the Art NASAD Special 78% 2629 Institute of Chicago focus IN University of St NASAD Embedded 51% 1978 Francis IA Drake University NASAD Embedded 66% 3365 KS Newman College HLC Embedded 45% 2384 KY Berea University SACS/COC Embedded 16% 851 LA Tulane University of SACS/COC Embedded 27% 8357 Louisiana

(Continued on following page)

162

Table B1 (continued)

State Name of school Accreditation Type of Percent Total program admitted undergraduate population ME Maine College of NASAD Special 98% 369 Art focus

MD Maryland Institute NASAD Special 52% 1941 College of Art focus

MA School of the NASAD Special 89% 520 museum of Fine focus Arts Boston MI College for Creative NASAD Special 45% 1356 Studies focus

MN Minneapolis NASAD Special 61% 616 College of Art and focus Design MS Belhaven University NASAD Embedded 46% 2603

MO Kansas City Art NASAD Special open 822 Institute focus

MT Rocky Mountain NCCU Embedded 64% 1007 College

NE Union College HLC Embedded 45% 796

NV Sierra Nevada NCCS Embedded 100% 598 College

NH New Hampshire NASAD Special open 543 Institute of Art, focus Manchester

(Continued on following page)

163

Table B1 (continued)

State Name of school Accreditation Type of Percent Total program admitted undergraduate population NJ Steven’s Institute of MSC Embedded 40% 2575 Technology

NY Pratt Institute NASAD Special 62% 3266 focus

NC Duke University SACS/COC Embedded 14% 6655

ND Jamestown College HLC Embedded 56% 943

OH Art Academy of NASAD Special 26% 195 Cincinnati focus

OK University of Tulsa HLC Embedded 41% 3160

OR Pacific Northwest NASAD Special 58% 446 College of Art focus

PA Pennsylvania NASAD Special 40% 245 College of Art and focus Design RI Rhode Island School NASAD Special 25% 1971 of Design focus

SC Converse College NASAD Embedded 51% 682

SD University of Sioux HLC Embedded 56% 1194 Falls

(Continued on following page)

164

Table B1 (continued)

State Name of school Accreditation Type of Percent Total program admitted undergraduate population TN Memphis College of NASAD Special 50% 346 Art focus

TX Texas Christian NASAD Embedded 41% 8456 University

UT Brigham Young NASAD Embedded 55% 31,060 University

VT Middlebury College NEASC Embedded 18% 2516

VA Washington and Lee SAC/COS Embedded 19% 1838 University

WA Cornish College of NASAD Special 62% 788 the Arts focus

WV Alderson Broaddus HLC Embedded 41% 826 College

WI Milwaukee Institute NASAD Special 70% 688 of Art focus

APPENDIX C

RAW DATA COUNTS: PUBLIC SCHOOLS

166

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state AL 4 X X 4FT X X X X X X AR 6 X X 1FTC X 3FT X X 1F X 1T X X X X X AZ 4 X X X 4FTC X X X X X X X X X CA 5 X X X 4FTC X X X 1FT X X X X X X X X CO 3 X 2C X 1FT X X CT 4 X X 1FT X 1F X X 1C X 1TC DE 7 X X X 2FTC X X 2FC X X 2TC X X 1C X X X X X X DC 3 X X 1FC X X 1FT X 1T

(Continued on following page)

167

Table C1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state FL 4 X X 3FT X X 1T X X X GA 4 X X 3FT X X 1TC X X X X HA 2 X X 1FT X 1F ID 3 X X 1FC X X 1TC X X 1FT IL 5 X 1C X 1F X X 1FT X X 1FC X X X 1FTC X X IN 3 X X X 1FTC X X X 2FT X X IA 4 X X X 2FTC X 1F X X X 1C KS 4 X 1FTC X 1FT X X 2F X X X KY 6 X 2FTC X X 1FT X X 2FC X X X 1F X X X X X

(Continued on following page)

168

Table C1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state LA 4 X X 1FC X X 2FT X X 1F X ME 4 X X 2FT X X 2F X X MD 4 X 1F X X X 1FTC X X 1FC X X 1FT MA 4 X X 1FTC X X 3FT X X X X X MI 5 X X 2FT X X 2FC X 1F X X X X MN 2 X X 1TC X X 1FT MS 6 X X 2FT X 1F X X 3T X X X MO 3 X X 3FT X X X X MT 3 X X X 3FTC X X X X X X

(Continued on following page)

169

Table C1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state NE 4 X 4F X X X NV 4 X 3F X 1FT X X X

NH 2 X X X 1FTC X X 1FT NJ 6 X 2FTC X X 2FT X X 1FC X X 1T X X X X X X NM 7 X X 1FTC X 1FT X 1F X X X 1T X X 3TC X X X X NY 7 X 1FTC X X 2C X X 4TC X X X X X X X X NC 6 X X 3FTC X X X 1FC X X X 1F X 1C X X X X (Continued on following page)

170

Table C1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state ND 3 X X 3FT X X X X OH 8 X 2FTC X 1C X 3T X 2FT X X X X X X X X X X

OK 5 X X 1FTC X X 3FT X X 1FC X X X X X OR 5 X X 4FTC X X X 1FC X X X X X X X X X PA 5 X 3C X X 2TC X X X X RI 3 X X 3FT X X X X SC 5 X X 1FT X 3F X 1T X X

(Continued on following page)

171

Table C1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state SD 6 X 2TC X X 3FTC X X X 1FT X X X X X X X TN 4 X X 3FT X X 1TC X X X X TX 4 X X X 2FTC X X X 1FC X X 1TC X X UT 3 X X 2FT X 1F X X VA 5 X X X 2FTC X X X 1FT X X 1F X 1TC X X VT 3 X X 2FT X X X 1FTC X X WA 8 X X 3FTC X X X 2TC X X 1FT X X 1C X 1F X X X X X X X WV 4 X X 1FT X X X 2FTC X 2F X

(Continued on following page)

172

Table C1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state WI 5 X X 1FT X 2F X 1T X 1TC X X WY 5 X X X 4FTC X X X 1FT X X X X X X X X

APPENDIX D

RAW DATA COUNTS: PRIVATE SCHOOLS

174

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state AL 3 X X 3FT X X X X AR 3 X X 1FC X X 2FT X X AZ 5 X X 2FT X X 2FTC X X X 1TC X X X X X CA 4 X X X 2FTC X X X 1FC X X 1TC X X CT 7 X X 5FT X X 2F X X X X X X X X DC 12 X 2T X 6FT X X 4FTC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

(Continued on following page)

175

Table D1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state FL 6 X X X 6FTC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X GA 6 X X 4FTC X X X 2FT X X X X X X X X X X X HI 4 X X 1FTC X 2FT X X X 1T X X ID 5 X X 2FTC X X 3FT X X X X X X X X IL 4 X X X 2FTC X X X 2C X X IN 4 X X 4FT X X X X X X IA 5 X 1F X X 4FT X X X X X X KS 4 X X 1FTC X 1T X 4FT X X X

(Continued on following page)

176

Table D1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state KY 6 X X 1FTC X 1T X X 4FT X X X X X X X LA 3 X X 1FTC X X 1FC X X X 1TC ME 5 X X 1FTC X 1F X X X 1C X 1T X 1FT MD 3 X X X 3FTC X X X X X X MA 1 X 1C

MI 6 X X 1FTC X X X 2T X 3FT X X X X X MN 5 X X X 2FTC X X X 1T X X 2FT X X X MS 5 X 1FT X 4F X X X X MO 2 X X X 1FTC X 1C

(Continued on following page)

177

Table D1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state MT 2 X X 1FT X 1F NE 4 X X 4FT X X X X X X NV 4 X X 1T X X 2FC X X 1TC X X X NH 4 X X 2FT X X 2F X X NJ 3 X X 1FTC X X X 2FT X X NY 8 X X 3FTC X X X 5FT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NC 3 X X 2FTC X X X 1TC X X X ND 2 X X 1FT X 1F OH 7 X X 1FTC X X 1FC X X X 1T X 1F X X X X X

(Continued on following page)

178

Table D1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state OK 4 X 3F X 1FT X X X OR 6 X X 4FTC X X 1FC X X X 3FTC X X X 3FT X X X X X

PA 7 X 3FTC X X X 1F X X 2FC X X 1FT X X X X X X X X RI 6 X X X 4FTC X X X 2FT X X X X X X X X X X SC 4 X 1FT X X 3FT X X 1F X X SD 4 X X 2FT X 1F X 1T X X X X

(Continued on following page)

179

Table D1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state TN 7 X X 4FT X X 1F X X 1T X 1TC X X X X X TX 4 X 2F X 2T X X UT 4 X X X 3FTC X X X 1FT X X X X X VT 4 X X 3FTC X X X 1FT X X X X X X WA 4 X X 2TC X X 2T X X WV 11 X 4FT X 1TC X X 2F X X 4T X X X X X X X X X X

(Continued on following page)

180

Table D1 (continued)

State Number Formal Technical Conceptual Total of courses per state WI 10 X X 5FTC X X X 2FT X X X 1FC X X 2C X X X X X X X X X X X X X

APPENDIX E

RAW COUNTS OF REGIONS WITH PERCENTAGES

182

There are 4 U.S. Regions, based on the U.S. Census Bureau. They are Northeast,

Midwest, South, and West. I have divided all the data up by region, for each of the two types of colleges (PUBLIC and PRIVATE) and I have listed the number of courses for each state, coded for each of the 7 categories. I then added up the total number of courses in each region, and the total number per each of the 7 categories per region. Then I created a percentage for each of them.

Region 1-Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania

Region 2-Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

Region 3-South: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

Region 4-West: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington

183

REGION 1

Table E1

Region 1-Northeast: PUBLIC COLLEGES: 9 STATES/9 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C CT 4 1 1 1 1 ME 4 2 2 MA 4 3 1 NH 2 1 1 RI 3 3 VT 3 2 1 NY 7 2 4 1 NJ 6 1 2 1 2 PA 5 3 2 Total 38 3 1 6 14 1 7 6 Number courses

Percent 100.000% 7.894% 2.631% 15.789% 36.842% 2.631% 18.421% 15.789% of 38 courses Note. F appears 24 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 28 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 20 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

184

Table E2

Region 1-Northeast: PRIVATE COLLEGES: 9 STATES/9 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C CT 7 2 5

ME 5 1 1 1 1 1

MA 1 1

NH 4 2 2

RI 6 2 4

VT 4 1 3

NY 8 5 3

NJ 3 2 1

PA 7 1 1 2 3

Total 45 6 1 2 14 2 20 Number courses

Percent 100.000% 13.333% 2.222% 4.444% 31.111% 4.444% 0% 44.444% of 45 courses Note. F appears 42 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 35 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 24 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

185

REGION 2

Table E3

Region 2-Midwest: PUBLIC COLLEGES-12 STATES/12 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C IL 5 1 1 1 1 1 IN 3 2 1 MI 5 1 2 2 OH 8 3 1 2 2 WI 5 2 1 1 1 IA 4 1 1 2 KS 4 2 1 1 MN 2 1 1 MO 3 3 NE 4 4 ND 3 3 SD 6 2 1 3 Total 52 11 6 3 17 3 2 10 Number courses

Percent 100.000% 21.153% 11.538% 5.768% 32.692% 5.768% 3.846% 19.230% of 52 courses Note. F appears 41 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 35 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 18 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

186

Table E4

Region 2-Midwest: PRIVATE COLLEGES-12 STATES/12 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C IL 4 2 2 IN 4 4 MI 6 2 3 1 OH 7 1 1 3 1 1 WI 10 2 2 1 5 IA 5 1 4 KS 4 1 1 1 1 MN 5 1 2 2 MO 2 1 1 NE 4 4 ND 2 1 2 SD 4 1 1 2 Total 57 5 6 5 27 2 0 13 Number courses

Percent 100.000% 8.771% 10.526% 8.771% 47.368% 3.508% 0% 22.807% of 57 courses Note. F appears 47 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 46 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 20 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

187

REGION 3

Table E5

Region 3-South: PUBLIC COLLEGES- 17 STATES/ 17 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C DE 7 1 2 2 2

FL 4 1 3

GA 4 3 1

MD 4 1 1 1 1

NC 6 1 1 1 3

SC 5 3 1 1

VA 5 1 1 1 2 DC 3 1 1 1

WV 4 2 1 1

AL 4 4

KY 6 1 1 2 2

MS 6 1 3 2

TN 4 3 1

AR 5 2 3

LA 4 1 2 1

OK 5 3 1 1

TX 4 1 1 2

Total 80 courses 13 6 2 29 10 6 14 Number

Percent 100.000% 16.25% 7.5% 2.5% 36.25% 12.5% 7.5% 17.5% of 80 courses Note. F appears 66 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 55 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 32 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

188

Table E6

Region 3-South: PRIVATE COLLEGES- 17 STATES/ 16 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C DE 0

FL 6 6

GA 6 2 4

MD 3 3

NC 3 1 2

SC 4 1 3

VA 4 4

DC 12 2 6 4

WV 11 2 4 4 1

AL 3 3

KY 6 1 4 1

MS 5 5

TN 7 1 1 4 1

AR 3 2 1

LA 3 1 1 1

OK 4 3 1

TX 4 2 2

Total 84 courses 9 10 38 2 4 21 Number

Percent 100.000% 10.714% 11.904% 0% 45.238% 2.380% 4.761% 25.% of 84 courses Note. F appears 70 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 73 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 27 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

189

REGION 4

Table E7

Region 4-West: PUBLIC COLLEGES-13 STATES/13 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C AZ 4 4

CO 3 2 1

ID 3 1 1 1

MT 3 3

NV 4 3 1

NM 7 1 1 1 3 1

UT 3 1 2

WY 5 1 4

AK 6 1 1 3 1

CA 5 1 4

HI 2 1 1

OR 5 1 4

WA 8 1 1 1 2 3

Total 58 courses 8 2 3 17 2 6 20 Number

Percent 100.000% 13.793% 3.448% 5.172% 29.310% 3.448% 10.344% 34.482% of 58 courses Note. F appears 47 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 45 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 31 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

190

Table E8

Region 4-West: PRIVATE COLLEGES-13 STATES/9 COLLEGES

State No. of F T C F/T F/C T/C ALL courses F/T/C AZ 5 2 1 2

CO 0

ID 5 3 2

MT 2 1 1

NV 4 1 2 1

NM 0

UT 4 2 3

WY 0

AK 0

CA 4 1 1 2

HI 4 1 2 1

OR 6 3 3

WA 4 2 2

Total 38 1 2 2 14 3 4 13 Number courses

Percent 100.000% 2.631% 5.263% 5.263% 36.842% 7.894% 10.526% 34.210% of 38 courses Note. F appears 31 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with T and/or C) above, T appears 33 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or C) above, and C appears 22 times anywhere in any combination (alone or with F and/or T) above.

APPENDIX F

DATA TABLES

192

Table F1

Presence of Formal (FF) Curriculum

FF Curriculum Untested

Type Private X

Public 0

Public Private

Reg ion Midwest X 0 0

Northeast 0 X 0

South 0 0 X

West 0 0 0

Table F2

Type 3 Analysis of Effects for FF Probability

Probability modeled is FF=1.

Wald Effect DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Type 1 2.5056 0.1134

Region 3 0.6586 0.8829

193

Table F3

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for FF

Standard Wald Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 1.2573 0.2699 21.6965 <.0001

Type Private 1 0.3860 0.2439 2.5056 0.1134

Region Midwest 1 -0.0732 0.3524 0.0432 0.8354

Region Northeast 1 -0.0992 0.3764 0.0695 0.7920

Region South 1 0.1376 0.3316 0.1723 0.6781

Table F4

Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for FF

Wald Standard Confidence Chi- Pr > Contrast Type Row Estimate Error Alpha Limits Square ChiSq Midwest vs West EXP 1 0.9294 0.3275 0.05 0.4658 1.8543 0.0432 0.8354

Northeast vs West EXP 2 0.9055 0.3408 0.05 0.4331 1.8935 0.0695 0.7920

South vs West EXP 3 1.1476 0.3805 0.05 0.5991 2.1980 0.1723 0.6781

Midwest vs EXP 4 1.0264 0.3725 0.05 0.5039 2.0905 0.0051 0.9429 Northeast Midwest vs South EXP 5 0.8099 0.2569 0.05 0.4350 1.5080 0.4419 0.5062

Northeast vs EXP 6 0.7891 0.2708 0.05 0.4027 1.5462 0.4763 0.4901 South

194

Table F5

Type 3 Analysis of Effects for TT Probability

the log odds, which measured the probability of ‘FF,’ increased by 0.386

Probability modeled is TT=1.

Wald Effect DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Type 1 8.3711 0.0038

Region 3 2.1577 0.5403

Table F6

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for TT

Standard Wald Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 1.1666 0.2673 19.0501 <.0001

Type Private 1 0.6691 0.2313 8.3711 0.0038

Region Midwest 1 -0.4757 0.3402 1.9549 0.1621

Region Northeast 1 -0.3533 0.3676 0.9234 0.3366

Region South 1 -0.2095 0.3219 0.4233 0.5153

195

Table F7

Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for TT

Wald Standard Confidence Chi- Pr > Contrast Type Row Estimate Error Alpha Limits Square ChiSq Midwest vs EXP 1 0.6215 0.2114 0.05 0.3190 1.2106 1.9549 0.1621 West Northeast vs EXP 2 0.7024 0.2582 0.05 0.3417 1.4438 0.9234 0.3366 West South vs EXP 3 0.8110 0.2611 0.05 0.4315 1.5242 0.4233 0.5153 West Midwest vs EXP 4 0.8848 0.3004 0.05 0.4548 1.7211 0.1300 0.7184 Northeast Midwest vs EXP 5 0.7663 0.2225 0.05 0.4337 1.3538 0.8406 0.3592 South Northeast vs EXP 6 0.8661 0.2787 0.05 0.4609 1.6274 0.1997 0.6550 South

Table F8

Type 3 Analysis of Effects for CC Probability

Probability modeled is CC=1.

Wald Effect DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Type 1 0.1403 0.7080

Region 3 15.0559 0.0018

196

Table F9

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for CC

Standard Wald Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 0.2380 0.2194 1.1771 0.2779

Type Private 1 -0.0729 0.1945 0.1403 0.7080

Region Midwest 1 -0.8252 0.2883 8.1945 0.0042

Region Northeast 1 -0.0778 0.3022 0.0663 0.7968

Region South 1 -0.7773 0.2628 8.7468 0.0031

Table F10

Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for CC

Wald Standard Confidence Chi- Pr > Contrast Type Row Estimate Error Alpha Limits Square ChiSq Midwest vs West EXP 1 0.4382 0.1263 0.05 0.2490 0.7709 8.1945 0.0042 Northeast vs EXP 2 0.9251 0.2796 0.05 0.5116 1.6728 0.0663 0.7968 West South vs West EXP 3 0.4597 0.1208 0.05 0.2746 0.7694 8.7468 0.0031 Midwest vs EXP 4 0.4736 0.1412 0.05 0.2641 0.8494 6.2881 0.0122 Northeast Midwest vs EXP 5 0.9532 0.2465 0.05 0.5742 1.5826 0.0343 0.8531 South Northeast vs EXP 6 2.0126 0.5509 0.05 1.1770 3.4415 6.5305 0.0106 South

197

Table F11

Type 3 Analysis of Effects for FF

Wald Effect DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Type 1 0.0630 0.8019

Region 3 5.9104 0.1160

Type*Region 3 8.0632 0.0447

Table F12

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for FF With Parameter Intercept

Standard Wald Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 1.4523 0.3349 18.7995 <.0001

Type Private 1 -0.1305 0.5201 0.0630 0.8019

Region Midwest 1 -0.1366 0.4770 0.0820 0.7746

Region Northeast 1 -0.9133 0.4746 3.7022 0.0543

Region South 1 0.0983 0.4458 0.0487 0.8254

Type*Region Private Midwest 1 0.2456 0.7060 0.1210 0.7280

Type*Region Private Northeast 1 2.2306 0.8607 6.7166 0.0096

Type*Region Private South 1 0.1893 0.6654 0.0810 0.7760

198

Table F13

Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for FF Regional Comparison

Wald Standard Confidence Chi- Pr > Contrast Type Row Estimate Error Alpha Limits Square ChiSq Midwest vs EXP 1 1.2783 0.9025 0.05 0.3204 5.1005 0.1210 0.7280 West Northeast vs EXP 1 9.3050 8.0086 0.05 1.7223 50.2718 6.7166 0.0096 West South vs West EXP 1 1.2084 0.8042 0.05 0.3279 4.4530 0.0810 0.7760 Midwest vs EXP 1 1.0578 0.6692 0.05 0.3061 3.6554 0.0079 0.9292 South Northeast vs EXP 1 7.7000 6.1722 0.05 1.6002 37.0508 6.4846 0.0109 South Midwest vs EXP 1 0.1374 0.1148 0.05 0.0267 0.7066 5.6435 0.0175 Northeast

Table F14

Type 3 Analysis of Effects: Wald Chi-Square Probability Modeled is TT=1

Probability modeled is TT=1.

Wald Effect DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq

Type 1 0.6290 0.4277

Region 3 1.8730 0.5992

Type*Region 3 2.1271 0.5464

199

Table F15

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for TT With Parameter Intercept

Standard Wald Pr > Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square ChiSq Intercept 1 1.2417 0.3149 15.5514 <.000

Type Private 1 0.4323 0.5450 0.6290 0.4277

Region Midwest 1 -0.5196 0.4319 1.4472 0.2290

Region Northeast 1 -0.2121 0.4846 0.1915 0.6616

Region South 1 -0.4533 0.3966 1.3058 0.2532

Type*Region Private Midwest 1 0.1674 0.7000 0.0572 0.8110

Type*Region Private Northeast 1 -0.2091 0.7492 0.0779 0.7802

Type*Region Private South 1 0.6718 0.6781 0.9815 0.3218

200

Table F16

Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for TT Regional Comparison

Wald Standard Confidence Chi- Pr > Contrast Type Row Estimate Error Alpha Limits Square ChiSq Midwest vs EXP 1 1.1822 0.8275 0.05 0.299 4.6616 0.0572 0.8110 West 8 Northeast vs EXP 1 0.8113 0.6079 0.05 0.186 3.5231 0.0779 0.7802 West 8 South vs West EXP 1 1.9578 1.3276 0.05 0.518 7.3959 0.9815 0.3218 3 Midwest vs EXP 1 0.6038 0.3601 0.05 0.187 1.9436 0.7154 0.3977 South 6 Northeast vs EXP 1 0.4144 0.2708 0.05 0.115 1.4917 1.8172 0.1776 South 1 Midwest vs EXP 1 1.4571 0.9853 0.05 0.387 5.4838 0.3100 0.5777 Northeast 2

Table F17

Type 3 Analysis of Effects: Conceptual Probability modeled is CC=1

Conceptual Probability modeled is CC=1.

Wald Effect DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Type 1 0.1834 0.6685

Region 3 5.5500 0.1357

Type*Region 3 1.1455 0.7661

201

Table F18

Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for CC With Parameter Intercept

Standard Wald Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 0.1381 0.2632 0.2754 0.5997

Type Private 1 0.1803 0.4210 0.1834 0.6685

Region Midwest 1 -0.7741 0.3928 3.8847 0.0487

Region Northeast 1 -0.0328 0.4182 0.0061 0.9375

Region South 1 -0.5436 0.3484 2.4347 0.1187

Type*Region Private Midwest 1 -0.1595 0.5824 0.0750 0.7842

Type*Region Private Northeast 1 -0.1521 0.6100 0.0622 0.8031

Type*Region Private South 1 -0.5220 0.5328 0.9596 0.3273

202

Table F19

Contrast Estimation and Testing Results by Row for CC Regional Comparison

Wald Standard Confidence Chi- Pr > Contrast Type Row Estimate Error Alpha Limits Square ChiSq Midwest vs EXP 1 0.8526 0.4966 0.05 0.2722 2.6700 0.0750 0.7842 West Northeast vs EXP 1 0.8589 0.5239 0.05 0.2598 2.8389 0.0622 0.8031 West South vs West EXP 1 0.5934 0.3162 0.05 0.2088 1.6860 0.9596 0.3273 Midwest vs EXP 1 1.4369 0.7448 0.05 0.5203 3.9683 0.4890 0.4844 South Northeast vs EXP 1 1.4475 0.7948 0.05 0.4934 4.2463 0.4536 0.5006 South Midwest vs EXP 1 0.9927 0.5930 0.05 0.3078 3.2009 0.0002 0.9902 Northeast

203

Table F20

Midwest region, p-values

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 6 7.3085 0.2933

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square 6 8.1429 0.2278

Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square 1 0.0853 0.7703

Phi Coefficient 0.2578

Contingency Coefficient 0.2496

Cramer's V 0.2578

WARNING: 43% of the cells have expected counts less than 5. Chi-Square may not be a valid test.

Sample Size = 110

204

Table F21

Northeast region, p-values

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 6 17.4052 0.0079

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square 6 20.5182 0.0022

Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square 1 0.0301 0.8623

Phi Coefficient 0.4579

Contingency Coefficient 0.4164

Cramer's V 0.4579

WARNING: 71% of the cells have expected counts less than 5. Chi-Square may not be a valid test.

Sample Size = 83

205

Table F22

South region, p-values

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 6 11.9791 0.0624

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square 6 13.2639 0.0390

Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square 1 3.0174 0.0824

Phi Coefficient 0.2703

Contingency Coefficient 0.2609

Cramer's V 0.2703

WARNING: 21% of the cells have expected counts less than 5. Chi-Square may not be a valid test.

206

Table F23

West region, p-values

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 6 4.4694 0.6134

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square 6 5.0442 0.5382

Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square 1 0.4312 0.5114

Phi Coefficient 0.2147

Contingency Coefficient 0.2099

Cramer's V 0.2147

WARNING: 57% of the cells have expected counts less than 5. Chi-Square may not be a valid test.

Sample Size = 97

APPENDIX G

UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL VOTING RESULTS BY REGION

208

Table G1

Northeast Region

State 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

CT D D D D D D D

MA D D D D D D D

ME D D D D D D D

NH D D R D D D D

NJ D D D D D D D

NY D D D D D D D

PA D D D D D D R

RI D D D D D D D

VT D D D D D D D

TOTAL 9D 9D 8D IR 9D 9D 9D 8D IR

209

Table G2

Midwest Region

12 STATES-ALTHOUGH IN 2008 VOTED 92,96,00 VOTED D, R IS MAJORITY

HIGHEST IN 2012, THEN HIGHER IN 2016-less concept

State 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

IL D D D D D D D

IN R R R R D R R

IO D D D R D D R

KS R R R R R R R

MI D D R D D D R

MN D D D D D D D

MO D D R R R R R

ND R R R R R R R

NE R R R R R R R

OH D D R R D D R

SD R R R R R R R

WI D D D D D D R

TOTAL 7D 5R 4D 8R 7D 5R 1D 11R

TOTAL 7D 5R 4D 8R 5D 7R

210

Table G3

Southern Region

State 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

AL R R R R R R R

AR D D R R R R R

DC D D D D D D D

DE D D D D D D D

FL R D R R D D R

GA D R R R R R R

KY D D R R R R R

LA D D R R R R R

MD D D D D D D D

MIs R R R R R R R

NC R R R R D R R

OK R R R R R R R

SC R R R R R R R

TN D D R R R R R

TX R R R R R R R

VR R R R R D D D

WV D D R R R R R

TOTAL 7D 10R 3D 14R 6D 11R 4D 13R

TOTAL 9D 8R 3D 14R 5D 12R

211

Table G4

Western Region

13 STATES-MAJORITY DEMOCRAT EXCEPT 00 AND 04-more concept

State 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

AK R R R R R R R

AZ R D R R R R R

CA D D D D D D D

CO D R R R D D D

HI D D D D D D D

ID R R R R R R R

MT D R R R R R R

NM D D D R D D D

NV D D R R D D D

OR D D D D D D D

UT R R R R R R R

WA D D D D D D D

WY R R R R R R R

TOTAL 8D 5R 5D 8R 7D 6R 7D 6R

TOTAL 7D 6R 4D 9R 7D 6R

http://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/map/president/ http://time.com/4561347/presidential-election-results-interactive/