pre-service and in-service || familiar, interactive and collaborative pedagogy: changing practices...

National Art Education Association

Familiar, Interactive and Collaborative Pedagogy: Changing Practices in Preservice ArtEducationAuthor(s): Lynn GalbraithSource: Art Education, Vol. 46, No. 5, Pre-service and In-service (Sep., 1993), pp. 6-11Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193380 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 17:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:05:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193380?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Photo courtesy of The Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Photo by Robert Fogt.

I :>

--i

m

C)

C) :>

2t

-U

I El I I B

mI

3

? ! CD

C)

CD

C)

C) o

CD

CD

0

C( * -

-u -5

oCD U)

-5

m~

0I

0

-U C)

C.

CD U)

Cn m -,

-.-I m

w co m

CC> CD 00



L earning to teach art is complex. The complexity of its terrain is mirrored in the host of theoretical and practical

challenges and questions that arise as pedagogical and curricular concerns associated with preparing persons to enter the teaching profession surface and are addressed. Ryan (1975) wrote: "'While teacher training has its fads and frills, it is basically an unglamorous subject It is, nevertheless, a burning presence that lurks at the edge of all proposals to improve schools and cannot be ignored" (p.ix). One of the most critical, yet potentially exciting challenges that I believe still lies on the horizon of the preservice art education landscape is how to provide preservice teachers with images of, and knowledge about art teaching that strike a meaningful balance between those practices needed for working successfully in real schools (especially during the student-teaching experience), and those that identify the need for school reform and long-term change.

As a university art teacher educator, I am constantly wrestling with this specific challenge. I realize that, given the reality of the varying philosophies and images of art education that seem to drive pedagogical frameworks within today's ever-changing schools, the expectations and goals of practicing teachers, are at times, "at-odds" with the theories and practices of university teacher educators (May, 1989). In addition, I realize that preservice art teachers hold particular beliefs, opinions, and concerns about teaching that are often reflected and valued by teachers in schools, rather than by those concerned with preservice education. It seems essential that I develop a deeper understanding of how teacher educators and practicing teachers translate and I

enact art knowledge into school subject matter and pedagogy. This understanding, in the form of visual or written descriptions of how various individual practicing teachers actually perform their jobs, must be examined and unraveled within the preservice setting. Such analyses are intended to promote an art teacher education pedagogy that will enable preservice teachers to get a handle on existing practices, yet at the same time, contribute positively and reflectively to the evolving art education pedagogy so necessary for change within schools.

This paper briefly addresses some of the issues involved in such a task. The goals of the discussion that follows are twofold: First, I suggest that teacher educators and cooperating teachers responsible for preparing teachers should begin to examine their own teacher education pedagogy (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Such analysis is necessary if I am to begin to understand and help dissolve the boundaries that appear to have formed between teacher education programs and school practices. Second, I advocate a proposed research agenda for preservice art education that encourages interactions and partnerships between teacher education faculty and teachers in schools (Galbraith, 1988; Rudduck, 1991; Schiller, 1992), and particularly, collaborations that I am developing, stimulated by initial work with interactive videodisc technology.

FAMILIAR PEDAGOGY Those of us involved in art teacher

preparation - art teacher educators and cooperating teachers - make intentional decisions about the nature of the preservice and school instructional settings that we provide. For example,

BY LYNN GALBRAITE

my judgments determine (to a large extent) not only what art curricular content and pedagogical strategies are appropriate for my preservice teachers to use within schools, but also how I integrate, model and present this information to preservice teachers. Surprisingly, I have found that college and university professors and cooperating teachers in schools often do not actually model the educational practices they verbally promote (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). It is certain that the motives, teaching abilities and supervisory skills of these gatekeepers vary.

Dewey (1904) noted the historical and ongoing tensions that emerge between theoretical and practical orientations towards teaching. It is easy to find practicing teachers, across the school subject disciplines, who argue that their teacher education programs were too theoretical, and that teacher educators do not really understand the immediacy that teaching entails. Mason's (1983) comparative study of art teacher education programs in the USA, England, and Australia, illustrates the dissatisfaction that several preservice art teachers experienced with their art education methods course work. Mason's conclusions, to some degree, provide credence to Calderhead's (1988) contention that teacher educators rarely make a dent in changing school practices!

Griffin (1983) has pointed out that teacher educators do think differently from practicing teachers. I can attest to Griffin's statement at first hand. Part of my university teaching appointment involves teaching art education methods courses, and supervising a large contingent of preservice specialists during their semester-long

student-teaching experience in local secondary schools. This

I latter assignment allows me to

SEPTEMBER 1993 / ART EDUCATION I



be close to the problems and joys of schooling. As I teach courses, visit schools, and read the literature on teaching, I become increasingly aware of the pedagogical issues, concerns, and even tensions that invariably surface each semester during these practicum experiences, and I find myself with increasing frequency trying to manage the dilemmas they present. Many of the schools I visit are positive and stimulating places, yet my observations of art teaching, my interactions with cooperating teachers, and individual conferences with student-teachers easily persuade me that conceptions of art knowledge and pedagogy in schools, coupled with institutional teaching conditions, are, at times, quite unlike the conceptions and views of art teaching and schooling often promoted in teacher education course work.

One of the major goals of our art education program, which is lodged in a Department of Art, is that our preservice art specialists forge curricular and pedagogical connections between their art education course work and the concepts discussed in their College of Education classes. They are encouraged to take course sections taught by distinguished professors actively involved in conducting art and teacher education research. Thus, on the surface at least, our preservice art education program seems to be guided more by theoretical expectations and academic portrayals of teaching practices that critically examine the realities of schooling, than by those who provide mere teaching tips for classroom use and survival. It is, therefore, difficult to read preservice art teacher journal comments or interview

transcripts that call for more concrete art education methods or to listen to art student-teachers explain that their course work had not adequately prepared them for what they specifically encountered during their individual student-teaching experience.

As I listen to my preservice teachers' concerns, I tactfully try to present them with the notion that the translation of the visual arts into school subject matter curricula and pedagogy not only varies across classrooms, but that our field also contains little documentation of how this subject matter is actually changed and enacted by individual teachers. I urge them to read research that suggests that teaching within the schools, in general, may be considered far from innovative (Cuban, 1986); to reflect upon the notion that not all art teaching practices in schools should be imitated; and to think back to their own art experiences in schools.

My research on some of my preservice teachers (Galbraith, 1992), concurs with that of other researchers who suggest that preservice teachers are often influenced, negatively and positively, by their beliefs and understandings of their own schooling (Lortie, 1975; Valli, 1992) and by momentary assessments of their teacher education course work (Doyle, 1990). The resulting dispositions towards teaching are powerful forces within education (Calderhead, 1988; Smythe, 1989). It has also been found that preservice student-teachers tend to imitate their cooperating teachers (Valli, 1992), and are often overly concerned about using correct techniques. Such findings serve to augment the complexities of preparing teachers to teach.

Differences between how teacher educators and practicing teachers think may be exacerbated by the fact that there is sparse information on the

practices of either group. (Zimpher & Howey, 1987). Relatively little is known about what motivates practitioners to take a novice "under their wing;" especially when cooperating teachers (in general) receive little compensation or kudos for their mentoring (Koemer, 1992). I find this lack of information worrisome, especially when the research literature suggests that cooperating teachers hold more influence over student-teachers than teacher educators (Valli, 1992). In turn, little documentation has been gathered on the teaching and supervisory skills that art teacher educators develop and utilize within the preservice setting, and during fieldwork in schools. In my own case, my work in schools is inextricably meshed with my professional and personal concerns about teaching, scholarship, and tenure. I enjoy working with student-teachers, but find such work time-consuming and complex. There is no doubt that my workload flavors and influences the supervisory conditions that I uphold.

I also struggle with the dilemmas of the student-teaching experience. Of the collective traditions that mark entrance into the teaching profession, student- teaching forms the rite of passage wherein individual preservice teachers begin to feel like teachers (Calderhead, 1988). I find I caution my student- teachers not to be judgmental about the practitioners with whom they will work, to remember that they are guests in someone else's classroom, to dress and act professionally, to fit into the established routines of the classroom, and so forth. With these protocols in

I

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1993



hand, it is undoubtedly much easier for them to make the transition from university student to practicing teacher in settings that often stress conformity, rather than institutional change. At the same time, in my preservice art education classes, I try hard to develop my preservice teachers into reflective and analytical student-teachers. I find that most of my preservice teachers are quickly socialized into the prevailing patterns of their schools. It is something I expect them to do. One of the unwritten requirements of student- teaching is that student-teachers identify with existing school practices; if they do not, they are asked to be tolerant This tolerance is often linked to the assump- tion that if they are patient and "hang in there," they will soon be a "real" teacher, in charge of their own classes!

Student-teaching is the one experience that many preservice teachers maintain is the most worthwhile and helpful of all their teacher education course work (Griffin, 1983). Despite this initial rev- erence for wanting to take on the role of the teacher, some student-teachers regard the experience as something to survive, rather than something that helps them learn how to teach. No doubt, many practitioners can recall the pleasures and horrors of their own student- teaching practica; experiences which are often passed on to future interns entering the profession. From this perspective, the student-teaching experience, in many cases, most probably marks and represents not only the physical separation of preservice teachers from their art teacher education and studenting situation, but also their intellectual detachment as well.

A RESEARCH AGENDA: INTERACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE PEDAGOGY

Despite the comparative lack of research on teacher education pedagogy, it goes without saying that teacher educators and practitioners are powerful figures in preservice teachers' lives. Given the magnitude of the tasks involved in preparing and monitoring those who wish to be initiated into the profession, we must develop ways in which to verbalize and model art education pedagogy, so as to enhance the preservice education of future teachers. Preparing preservice art

teachers to simply survive their practica experiences, or to take on immediately the characteristics of their cooperating teachers, or to cut their ties with their teacher education course work not only seems self-defeating, but also unethical.

How then should student-teachers be prepared? To return to my original dilemma: how can I prepare preservice teachers to face the realities of schooling, yet at the same time, urge them to be willing contributors to the evolving pedagogy of art education? This is difficult, for as persons begin to step outside what they know, they become vulnerable and anxious. Change is unsettling, and has few rewards.

Prawat (1992) maintains that one way to help persons to change their beliefs is to provide them with ways in which to link new beliefs with earlier

conceptions. I maintain that if I am to be successful in helping my preservice teachers view aspects of art teaching as problematic, I must furnish them with the means to increase possibilities for success in field experience settings. I am working on ways to achieve this, through a resourceful and constructive relationship between art teacher programs and schools. Rudduck (1991) has suggested that this connection can be forged by developing shared

notions of research, research-based teaching, and research-based teacher education. This type of research opens possibilities for renewal and for changes in the direction of art teacher education, as well as opportunities to document successful curricular and pedagogical practices. The broadening of exemplary pedagogical techniques,

SEPTEMBER 1993 / ART ED U CATION l_



and the strengthening of art curricula must be inspired and advocated by those like myself who teach and conduct research at the college or university level, yet it must be sanctioned and put into place by practitioners in schools - and vice- versa.

Over the past two years, I have conducted case study research on preservice and practicing art teachers. I am interested in exploring the links between teacher thought and action, and my research is focused on teacher beliefs, pedagogical practices, and classroom knowledge. Recently, however, I have started to integrate the use of interactive technologies into my research. Aided by a grant, I am currently developing a videodisc (professionally filmed, edited and produced) depicting the pedagogy that local art specialists develop as they teach elementary and middle school students. These teaching events have been chosen, written and scripted by a cadre of practicing art teachers in our area schools. After much consultation, the teachers have drafted lessons that examine the impact of their own particular conceptions of art knowledge and pedagogy upon the pedagogy they use to develop, enact and reflect upon successful art lessons.

What is particularly exciting is that this cadre of teachers, having helped design the teaching events, are now discussing how they can actually model innovative pedagogy for preservice teachers. Preliminary data suggest that the teachers are asking fundamental questions about their own teaching including, importantly, how they may affect preservice teachers who view them on the videodisc. Recent conversations with these teachers

... Future art teachers must

become familiar

with computers,

especially as a

teaching tool

within their

classrooms.

include analyses of their "mind workings" as they attempt to define how they teach. The practitioners have found that deciding how to model successful pedagogy and conceptions of art knowledge for those who are learning to teach requires a shift in thinking. Data analyses of these conversations are quickly becoming part of a research agenda, especially as means by which I can document how cooperating teachers explain the reasons behind teaching practices.

Preservice art teachers in my program will have access to this videodisc, which is linked to a HyperCard Stack on a Macintosh computer. The hypermedia text contains information on the teaching events depicted on the videodisc, written comments of the teachers, information from research on teaching and art education, and supporting written case study materials. Basically, the interactive technology will allow my preservice teachers to make connections between what they already know about teaching and the teaching events depicted on the videodisc. This procedure allows them to begin to unravel pedagogical questions posed, and interpret and solve teaching dilemmas. Moreover, the hypermedia text allows for the development of an interactive alternative which can be continually refined and updated as the

preservice teachers enter their interpretations, responses, and reflections on the data-base.

Connections between the University and the schools, grounded on a common research base, are appealing and worthwhile. Descriptions (on videodisc, videotape, written form, and so forth), that illustrate the work of art teaching in schools need to be discussed and analyzed in the safe haven of the preservice setting. I am hopeful that this kind of research will allow me to develop examples of how successful practitioners plan, teach and merge the various visual arts disciplines into a pedagogical framework; actually represent this framework to students; and model and verbalize this framework for preservice teachers. What is exciting is that these examples are now not only becoming part of my research agenda, but also form curricular components of my art education methods course.

IMPLICATIONS In order to conduct this type of

collaborative research, as an art teacher educator, I need access to art classrooms, and a willingness on the part of practicing, and even potential cooperating teachers, to forge research partnerships with our teacher education program. I acknowledge that it is not easy to have researchers in one's classroom, or to be asked to do even more for the University. Developing a videodisc or even quality videotapes requires a few days of videotaping in schools, with quality video production staff. Routines are disrupted, student permission slips are needed, and these and other inconveniences must be suffered in the knowledge that teacher

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1993



and students are on show - a showing that has the potential to leave all involved vulnerable and open to outside criticism.

As a University art educator and a novice at the computer (apart from word processing), I am learning about hypermedia and computer programming. There is no doubt in my mind that a hypermedia text holds much potential for preservice art education. Scott (1992) has argued that future art teachers must become familiar with computers, especially as a teaching tool within their classrooms. This research takes Scott's ideas further. The project has a number of outcomes, but two in particular, are important The first is the development of novel and innovative technology for use with preservice teachers. They are able to use this technology at first hand, and receive much needed instruction working with computer technology, especially at a university where resources are becoming more limited or outdated. The second outcome involves the development of a new knowledge base within art teacher education. The technology allows for the complexities of teaching visual studies in schools to be brought into the preservice setting. Further, examples of artistic and innovative teaching, as well as familiar models, can be selected, viewed, and examined, as well as the use of real teaching examples that practitioners model and verbalize. My preservice teachers can be given consistent and appropriate feedback as they work with the videodisc. Moreover, the videodisc can provide large numbers of novices and practitioners access to selected teaching issues within visual studies education. In programs where resources and access to good

practitioners are limited, the videodisc could become a necessary component for art teacher preparation.

I anticipate that this type of interactive and collaborative research, based on a working relationship with teachers in schools, can lead to the construction of a teacher education pedagogy which will allow preservice teachers to connect what they already know about teaching to knowledge gained from practitioners in schools. In addition, it should contribute to the enhancement of, and changes in the practice of art teacher education. It is important that as we move towards the 21st century and try to meet the changing complexity of art education we promote an art teacher education pedagogy that truly reflects this challenge.

Lynn Galbraith is assistant professor, Department of Art, University of Arizona, Tucson.

REFERENCES Calderhead, J. (1988). Teachers'professional

learning. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction:

Another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 677-11.

Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C.A McMurray (Ed.), Third yearbook of the National Society

for the Scientific Study of Education, Part 1 (pp. 9-30). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W.R. Houston (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.

Galbraith, L. (1988). Research-oriented art teachers: Implications for art teaching. Art Education, 41 (5), 50-53.

Galbraith, L. (1992, May). Beliefs and dilemmas: Making the transition from university student to novice teacher. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Art Education Association, Phoenix, Arizona.

Griffin, G. (1983). The dilemma of determining essential planning and decision-making skills for beginning educators. In D.C. Smith (Ed.), Essential knowledge for

beginning educators, (pp. 16-22). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Koerner, M.E. (1992).The cooperating teacher: An ambivalent participant in student-teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (1), 46-56.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher:A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mason, R. (1983). Art-teacher preparation in England, Australia, and the USA: Some observations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 9 (1), 55-62.

May, W.T. (1989). Teachers, teaching, and the workplace: Omissions in curriculum reform. Studies in Art Education, 30 (3), 142-156.

Rudduck, J. (1991). Innovation and change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100 (3), 354-395.

Ryan, K (1975). Teacher education: The seventy-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schiller, M. (1992). Teacher education and graduate studies in art education. Art Education Policy Review, 94 (1), 23-26.

Scott, A. (1992). Computer-mediated art education: Extending the paradigm of computer art education. Arts Education Policy Review, 94 (1), 27-33.

Smythe, J. (1989). Educating teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge. New York: The Falmer Press.

Valli, L. (1992). Beginning teacher problems: Areas for teacher education improvement. Action in Teacher Education, XIV (1), 18-25.

Zeichner, K & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In R.W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.

Zimpher, N.L. & Howey, KR. (1987). Adapting supervisory practices to different orientations of teaching competence. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2, (2), 107-127.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This research has been funded by the Institute

for Studies in the Arts, Arizona State University, (Richard Loveless, Director) and the Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Arizona, (Maurice Sevigny, Dean).

SEPTEMBER 1993 / ART EDUCATION ON



pre-service and in-service || familiar, interactive and collaborative pedagogy: changing practices...

Documents