INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in Qpewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. U'^iverSity M;crc!. rrs .:':err'a; orai A Be' & Howe' .'''•or"-3r or C oH rar-, 300 Ncr;r Zeec Roac Anr ArGor Ml AS-06-’ 3A6 3-3 751-4700 600 :2'-050C Order Number 9238208 The effects of art knowledge, pedagogical experience, and contextual information on art teaching Kowalchuk, Elizabeth Ann, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1992 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor. MI 48106 THE EFFECTS OF ART KNOWLEDGE, PEDAGOGICAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ON ART TEACHING DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Elizabeth Ann Kovalchuk, B. F. A., M. F. A. The Ohio State University 1992 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Judith S. Koroscik Arthur Efland Advisor Marilyn Johnston tment of Art Education Michael Parsons Copyright by Elizabeth Ann Kowalchuk 1992 To my parents, Jo and Tola Kowalchuk 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I began my studies at Ohio State without a clear picture of what getting a doctorate entailed. Oh, I had some ideas. I knew it involved something called research. But, I didn't know what research was, and I wasn't sure if I would like doing it. I didn't know that a doctorate was really about investigating ideas and problems, about inquiry. I didn't know it was about becoming a scholar. I owe my understanding of the nature of disciplined inquiry to the professors in the Department of Art Education. I owe my understanding of what it means to be a scholar to the members of my committee. I express sincere appreciation to my advisor, Judith Koroscik, for encouraging and guiding me through the doctoral process. I thank Michael Parsons and Arthur Efland as well. My friends and family have lived through this experience with me. I thank my mother for her unfailing patience and encouragement. I thank Sam Short, Mary Leigh Morbey, Lorrie Blair, Jeanie Auseon, Rina Shere, Eugenia Costa-Giomi, Candace Stout, and Bob Dalton for advice. 111 friendship and moral support. I thank Sue Carey for convincing the teachers in her district to participate in this study and for helping me to keep writing a dissertation in perspective. IV VITA March 18, 1958............. Born - Miami, Florida 1976-1980........... ...... B.F.A., The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 1980-1982................. M.F.A., The University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois 1982-1983, 1985-1988........ Elementary Art Teacher, School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida 1988-198 9................. University Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1989-199 0................. Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, Department of Art Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1990-199 1................. Director, The Saturday Art Workshop, Department of Art Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1991-Presen t .............. Assistant Professor, Buffalo State College University, Buffalo, New York FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Art Education TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................. i ü VITA............................................. V LIST OF TABLES..................... xi LIST OF FIGURES..................... xii LIST OF PLATES...................... xiii CHAPTER PAGE I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...................... 1 Studying Teacher Understanding............. 3 The Problem of Teacher Understanding....... 6 Research Questions and Overview............ 7 II. LITERATURE REVIEW............................. 11 Current Conceptions of Learning............ 11 Domain Specific......................... 13 The Role of Prior Knowledge........... 15 Forms of Knowledge................... 16 Frames of Understanding.............. 18 Content frame................... 18 Problem-solving frame............ 19 Epistemic frame................. 19 Inquiry frame................... 19 Expert and Novice Comparisons......... 20 Domain specific expertise........ 21 Perception of meaningful patterns and multileveled knowledge structures.................... 22 Use of knowledge................ 24 Speed and accuracy.............. 25 Short and long term memory....... 26 Self monitoring skills........... 27 Constraints to Understanding Art...... 27 Naive concepts.................. 28 VI Underdifferentiated concepts..... 28 Garbled knowledge................ 29 Compartmentalized concepts....... 30 Applications of Learning Research to Art Education.......................... 30 Current Conceptions of Teaching............ 33 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching... 34 Content knowledge in art teaching.. 37 Pedagogical Content Knowledge......... 38 Dimensions of pedagogical content knowledge..................... 39 Expert-Novice Comparisons in Teaching... 41 Constraints to studying teaching expertise..................... 42 Knowledge structures of expert and novice teachers................ 44 Planning and presenting lessons.... 44 Research methods................ 45 Implications of Teaching Research for Art Education.............................. 46 III. METHODOLOGY................................... 48 Phase One: Lesson Plan Writing............. 48 Design.............................. 48 Participants......................... 49 Materials............................ 51 Key artwork..................... 51 Supporting artworks.............. 53 Lesson plan folders..... ....... 53 Optional reference materials..... 67 Procedures: Phase One................ 67 Phase Two: Lesson Presentation and Follow-up Interview.............................. 70 Design..................... 70 Participants......................... 70 Materials........................... 71 Procedures: Phase Two................ 71 Phase Three: Content Knowledge Interview 72 Design.............................. 72 Participants and Materials............ 72 Procedures: Phase Three............... 73 Art content understanding........ 73 Pedagogical decision-making...... 74 Pedagogical content knowledge..... 75 Vll IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA.............................. 76 Analysis Procedures for All Phases......... 76 Analysis Procedures for Specific Phases.... 80 Phase One: Lesson Plan Writing........ 80 Phase Two: Lesson Presentation and Follow-up Interview................ 81 Lesson presentation.............. 81 Follow-up interview.............. 82 Phase Three: Content Knowledge Interview......................... 82 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................ 83 PART ONE.................................... 83 Phase One: Lesson Plans................... 83 Range of Ideas....................... 84 References to formal meanings.... 84 References to descriptive meanings. 86 References to historical meanings.. 89 References to interpretive meaning. 91 Reinforcing Learning: The Studio Activity.......................... 93 Understanding or Making: The Use of Artworks in Lessons................ 96 Effects of contextual information..... 98 Direct effects of fragmented contextual information......... 99 Direct effects of integrated contextual information......... 100 Indirect effects................. 102 Summary........................ 107 Phase Two: Lesson Presentation and Follow-up Interview.............................. 108 Teaching Contexts.................... 109 Beginning art education students...109 Intermediate art education students...................... 109 Student teachers................. 110 Experienced teachers............. 110 Carry-over of Ideas: Historical Information in Lessons.............. Ill Missed Opportunities to Deepen Art Understandings..................... 117 Incomplete Explanations............... 119 Influence of contextual information.... 122 Fragmented contextual information..122 Integrated contextual information..123 Vlll Summary.............................. 126 Phase Three: Content Knowledge Interview 128 Art Knowledge........................ 129 Grouping and seeing relationships..129 Understanding Manet.............. 132 Distinguishing between simple and complex ideas.................. 137 Pedagogical Decision Making........... 141 Pedagogical Content Knowledge..........144 Summary............................ 147 PART TWO.................................... 148 Combining Phases: A Comparison of Novice and Expert