latest Date stamped b:,or°' '''°" '^^

the U„lver,i,y. *• """y '""'t «" dismis5ol fromTo renew call T^IakI.."a"! leiephone Center 3li i»in#>

L161—O-1096

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

http://www.archive.org/details/reviewofresearch10univ

SPRING, 1977 NUMBER 6

^/f\ ' 3X.

JHi: LIBRARY Or TV

AT URBANA-CHAa^PAIGN

Review ofResearch in

Visual Arts

Education

Review of Research in Visual Arts Education

niti

pring 1979 Number 10

Editorial Consultants

Bette Acuff

Columbia UniversityBrian Allison

Leicester Polytechnic, G.B.

Kenneth R. BeittelPennsylvania State University

Ginny BrouchFlorida State University

Robert L. Cardinale

University of Arizona

F. Graeme ChalmersUniversity of British ColumbiaGilbert Clark

Indiana University

Robert D. ClementsUniversity of Georgia

Michael DayUniversity of Minnesota

Helen DiemertUniversity of Calgary

Rex DorethyBall State University

Arthur Efland

Ohio State University

Elliot W. EisnerStanford University

Martin EngelNational Institute of Education

Barbara W. FredetteUniversity of Pittsburgh

George GeahiganPurdue UniversityW. Dwaine GreerS.W.R.L.

Denise HickeyMackie College, Australia

Guy HubbardIndiana University

Al Hurwitz

Newton Public SchoolsLarry A. KantnerUniversity of Missouri-Columbia

Gordon KenslerUniversity of OregonEvan J. KernKutztown State CollegeDiana KorzenikMassachusetts College of Art

Hilda P. LewisSan Francisco State UniversityStanley MadejaCEMREL, Inc.

H. James MarshallUniversity of Illinois

Clyde McGearyPennsylvania Department of Education

Harold McWhinnieUniversity of Maryland

Ron NeperudUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Ross A. NorrisOhio State University

Gordon PlummerUniversity of Cincinnati

Charles A. Qualley

University of Colorado

Max RennelsIllinois State University

Eric E. RumpUniversity of Adelaide, Aus.

Elizabeth J. SaccaConcordia University-Montreal, Can.

Richard SalomeIllinois State University

Robert J. SaundersConnecticut Department of Education

Bernard SchwartzUniversity of Alberta, Can.

Maurice J. SevignyBowling Green State University

Ronald H. SilvermanCalifornia State University

Ralph A. SmithUniversity of Illinois

Marvin SpomerUniversity of Nebraska

Michael Stuckhardt

Miami University

Anne TaylorUniversity of New MexicoJack TaylorArizona State University

James VictoriaConcordia University-Montreal, Can.

Dennis WhiteUniversity of Houston

Brent WilsonPennsylvania State University

Marjorie WilsonFlorida State University

Foster WygantUniversity of Cincinnati

Marilyn ZurmuehlenUniversity of Iowa

Review of Research in Visual Arts Education

Spring 1979 Number 10

Editors Editorial Board

George W. HardimanTlieodore Zernich

Department of Art and Design

University of Illinois

Champaign, Illinois

Laura H. CliapmanCincinnati, Ohio

Dennis A. DahlUniversity of Illinois

Edmund B. FeldmanUniversity of Georgia

Howard GardnerHarvard University

Jessie Lovano-KerrIndiana University

June King IVIcFeeUniversity of Oregon

Editorial Associates

Sara Dyl

Contents

Editorial v

Articles

Priorities for Basic Research in Art

Education— Report of Subcommittee Bof the Doctoral Advisers' Roundtable

Ivan Johnson, Chairperson 1

Chasing Rainbows and theImplications of Research

Jon W. Sharer 6

Moss on the Tree: Canadian GraduateStudy in Art Education

James U. Gray 10

An Epistemological Approach toChildren's Development in ArtNorma K. Pittard 21

Toward an Art Education Theory onQualitative Responding to ArtKenneth R. Beittel 33

Book Review: Why Children Drawthe Way They DoClaire Golomb 41

Reviews

The Effects of Advance and Non-organizers with Restricted and Un-restricted Modes for Eighth-GradeStudents at Three Cognitive Levels

of Learning and Retention UsingSelected Materials in the Arts

Brian P. Ewing

Reviewer: Elizabeth C. Clarke 45

The Development of a Scale for theObservation of Imposed Conditionsand the Composition of Control inan Art Classroom and a Studyof Its Potential for Use in TeacherSelf-Evaluation

Kathleen A. Berhalter

Reviewer: Robert D. Clements 50

Evaluation of Selected Competenciesin Art Education for Teachers of the

Educable Mentally Retarded

Betty E. Johnson

Reviewer: Kenneth Marantz 55

The Effect of Visual Realism andCognitive Style on the Performance of

Simple and Complex Perceptual TasksJohn G. Hedberg

Reviewer: David Pariser 58

A Study of the Effect of a Programof Perceptual Training on the Drawings

of Institutionalized Mentally Retarded

Children

David F. Alexick

Reviewer: Jim L. Cromer 64

Development of an Instrument toMeasure Qualitative DiscriminationBased on Visual PerceptionResponses to ArtRita K. Roosevelt

Reviewer: Douglas G. Marschaiek . . .69

Picture Content Preferences of YoungChjidren as Influenced by Age and SexLana S. Clauss

Reviewer: Robert L. Cardinale 75

A Comparison of Spatial Relationshipsin the Drawings of Advantaged andDisadvantaged Elementary School

Children in Mississippi

Elizabeth J. Stansfield

Reviewer: Marjorie Wilson 79

An Experimental Study to Determinethe Influence of a Cross Cultural

Learning Experience on Aesthetic

Sensitivity Understanding and

JudgmentChi Chong Lee

Reviewer: Denise Hickey 84

Dissertations Reported 89

Editorial

The first annual Award for Excellencein Dissertation Research was awardedto Maurice Sevigny, Associate Pro-

fessor of Art Education at BowlingGreen State University at the Doctoral

Advisers' Roundtable meeting in San

Francisco. Maurice was presented theaward by Al Hurwitz on behalf of the

Review for a dissertation entitled "ADescriptive Study of Instructional Inter-

action and Performance Appraisal in aUniversity Studio Art Setting: A Mul-tiple Perspective." His graduate workwas done at the Ohio State Universityunder the direction of Professor Arthur

Efland. An article describing the tri-angulated methodology for studyingart classroom interaction developed by

Sevigny appeared in the Spring 1978

issue of the Review (number 8, 1-16).In all, thirty-one 1977 graduates ap-

plied for the award. In terms of re-search orientation, thirteen were em-pirical studies, seven methodological,

five philosophical, four curricular,

and two historical. Next year's awardwill be for dissertations completedduring the 1978 calendar year. A formalannouncement will be distributed nextfall.

This issue includes the preliminary

report from the Doctoral Advisers'Roundtable Subcommittee on Prioritiesfor Research in Art Education, chaired

by Ivan Johnson. The recommendationsof this committee provide four broadcategories for research in art education

that are remarkably rich in contentand clearly represent foundationalquestions for our field to consider.

It is apparent that no single researchstrategy or approach is suitable forall of the recommendations offeredby this committee. As we have indicatedelsewhere (Art Education 29, 2, 23-26)

what is needed in art education research

is an approach to examining importantresearch questions wherein a seriesof research strategies would be em-ployed. Since different strategies elicit

different sorts of information and tendto compensate for each other's weak-nesses, it seems reasonable that to-gether they can provide a compre-hensive network of information abouta particular research question that nosingle strategy can possibly offer.

Response to the winter issue has beenmost encouraging. At this writing theentire press run which included anextra 250 copies has been sold, andsubscriptions are at an all time high.

So is our mail from readers, much ofwhich suggests that we seriously con-sider increasing the frequency of pub-lication from twice to three timesyearly. In light of the small number ofscholarly journals which serve aspublishing outlets for researchers in

art education, and considering thegrowing number of articles which aresubmitted annually to these publi-cations, such a request is under-standable. The truth is that we havebeen examining the possibility ofincreasing the availability of publishing

space for some time. However, thecosts associated with such an effortare prohibitive. Our solution to thisproblem has been to increase the num-ber of pages in the Review from 67pages in issue Number 7 to 105 pagesbeginning with issue Number 9. Thisrepresents an increase of approximately

50% in available publishing space. Webelieve that the Review is the bestbargain in the profession. It needs and

deserves your continued support.Please make it a point to return theenclosed subscription materials at the

earliest date. This will save the expense

of a second mailing.

GWH/TZ

PRIORITIES FOR BASIC RESEARCH IN ART EDUCATION — REPORT OFSUBCOMMITTEE B OF THE DOCTORAL ADVISERS' ROUNDTABLE

Ivan Johnson, Chairperson

Florida State University

Robert Cardinale

University of Arizona

Laura ChapmanCincinnati, Ohio

Rex Dorethy

Ball State University

Edmund FeldmanUniversity of Georgia

Hilda Lewis

San Francisco State University

Jessie Lovano-Kerr

Indiana University

A brace of art educators was convenedby George Hardiman and Ted Zernichin the Spring of 1978 for the purpose

of identifying some priorities for basicresearch in art education. Panel mem-bers were Laura Chapman, RobertCardinale, Rex Dorethy, Edmund Feld-man, Hilda Lewis, Jessie Lovano-Kerrand Ivan Johnson. The panelists facedtheir assignment with ambivalence.This could be much like re-inventingthe wheel since the topic has beenlabored inside and outside the vine-yards of art education for some time.A panel of art educators is not made upof people cloned to think alike, fortu-nately. This insured a healthy exchangeif not exactly new dialogue in whichdifferences and concurrencies gave wayto a tentative projection of priorities

for basic research in art education.

Prior to 1950, little research, par-

ticularly of an empirical kind, was beingproduced. In the early years we werenot sure of our research identity.Were we artist-teachers or were weeducators? Early researchers in arteducation were suspect both in theeyes of the artist-teacher camp and inthe eyes of the professional educators.The artist-teacher camp held that

scientific research was inimical to thevery nature of art. The professionaleducators doubted our capacity tohandle the processes and tools ofempirical research. It is not surprising

that we have been so long in reachinga point of trying to establish priorities

for basic research in art education.

It might be well to note two wordsused in stating our task: priorities andbasic. There seems to be no question asto What the word priorities means evenif we have not decided on what theyare. What is meant by basic is anothermatter. As this writer sees it, basicresearch is exploratory (not experi-

mental) breaking new ground, pro-ducing new knowledge. It may beproductive of theories on which applied

research may be based. Basic researchis not intended to be task oriented.

There is a great deal of attention beingpaid Albert Einstein this year. Heventured into unexplored worlds to

create models of theory. He didn'thave an application in mind at thebeginning nor was he aware even inhis later years what applications hisfindings might have. Basic research

is often regarded as that which stabi-

lizes practice, provides technical

1

guidance and often legitimatizes

some accepted practices. LauraChapman further elucidates:

Basic research in art education seeks:

(a) to map the domain of "art education"and methods of inquiry appropriate

to its study, (b) to enhance our under-

standing of phenomena within somedefinition of the domain, (c) to publish

(make public) both the process of

inquiry and the knowledge obtained

through inquiry, and to evaluate the

assumptions and procedures that govern

a, b, and c, thereby assuring that re-

search is open to review, cirticism

and refinement. (Chapman, 1978)

Research in art education thus far

in its relatively young history has dealt

more with how and why students createart than with instructional theory or

the content of an art curriculum. Most

of the research in art education done

thus far has been task oriented. The

edges of the domain of art educationhave often been fuzzy. At times art

education research has borrowed muchmore heavily from the disciplines ofsociology and psychology, for example,

than from the directly related areas

of art and art criticism. The Seminarfor Research in Art Education at Penn

State University (1966) offered an

opportunity for stock-taking. In the

past 15 years we have been filling gaps.Our panel decided early on in itsdeliberations to avoid a gap-filling

statement. There was concurrence thatwithin the domain of art educationresearchers might concern themselves

with questions regarding intent orpurpose, clarification of meaningsand concepts peculiar to what we doin art education, as well as the inter-

relations of these concerns.

A characteristic of basic researchis that it raises as many more questionsthan it might answer. If a researcher in

art education is exploring the unknown,

he may be driven by unanswered ques-tions in art as well as education. This

might be interpreted as being taskoriented but no more so than with

Einstein whose pursuits were scienceoriented. Our panel agreed that the

need for basic research in art education

is predicted on so many unansweredquestions that the best we can do isidentify the questions that seem tosurface most. The unanswered questionsin art education might be said to be

those concerned with intent or purpose

in art education; concepts upon which

we build our theories; behaviors in-herent in the act of making or re-sponding to art; and the interrelations

of these concerns.

The means we use to answer thesequestions is not as wide open orundefined as some would have usbelieve. In practice we usually typeour research as descriptive, empirical

or historical. According to LauraChapman the study of modes of inquiryappropriate to the field should be

considered basic research because —definitions of art education are built

from some notion of "the real" (on-tology), "the true and how we know"(epistemology), and what counts as

"the worthwhile" (axiology) in humanconduct and art (ethics and aesthetics).

What one inquires into and how oneinquires depends on what one seeks

and counts as knowledge (Chapman,

1978).

Doctoral students have been knownto develop a Pygmalian complex about

a particular mode of inquiry, so muchso that the selection of the research

design obscured the problem it wasto solve. Rex Porethy reminds us that

one does not select a method and then

research it; one identifies a problem,

then devises a research design ap-

propriate to it (Dorethy, 1978).

Let us consider some of the questionsraised in the panel discussion. The

mode of inquiry, it was agreed, mustbe carefully chosen to be compatible

to the nature of the question. EdmundFeldman and Robert Cardinale suggest

this in their positions on needed re-

search in the philosophical and his-

torical domains. Feldman writes:

Ivan Johnson

What suggestions for art educationalresearch can we get from art history?My answers tend to touch on concernsthat might as easily be identified with

aesthetics, anthropology and the soci-

ology of art. First, I do not believe weknow enough about the social influencesthat enter into the use or consumption

of art. What are the economic, ethnic,educational and class factors that shape

artistic and aesthetic experience?

How is formal art instruction — relatedto patterns of social living: family

formation, child rearing, recreational

activity, political behavior, secular

activity, the economic climate, classcompetition, racial rivalry, and so on?

Art Historians may deal with such ques-tions tangentially when they discusschanges in artistic patronage. But theyseem to be mainly interested in patronage

as a factor in an artist's biography or

as an influence on the execution of

specific works rather than a determinant

of the character of artistic styles in

general. The art educator, on the other

hand, given his wider and morevariegated social constituency, might

well approach the situation from another

direction, that is, by asking how artworks and art styles affect users and

consumers in specific areas of theirbehavior. (Feldman, 1978)

One nnay easily glean fronn Feldnnan'sposition statement some question towhich basic research might have the

answer. Robert Cardinale dwells

more particularly on philosophicalresearch:

Philosophical research is systematic

inquiry into questions of meaning and

value related to knowledge in and aboutvisual arts. Systematic inquiry implies

a logical system of stating a question or

defining an issue or in general delineat-

ing a conceptual area to be investigated.

Once the question is stated, the inves-tigator must use certain skills such aslinguistic analysis, logical argument,and analysis of example to pursue thepossible responses or solutions to the

question. A classic example on one appli-cation of this method of inquiry is (sic)where Morris Weitz defined art as anopen concept and then proceeded toshow that even though the definition of

the concept cannot be closed, past,present and future inquiry is necessary

and essential if a continually richerunderstanding of the nature and use of

the concept of art is to be gained.(Cardinale, 1979)

Feldman and Cardinale raise questions

that might be best answered by build-

ing a theory from which hypotheses

(philosophical or historical) could be

drawn. Humanistic research is believed

by many to be more attuned to studiesof problems unique to art education

than empirical research. Edmund Feld-man observes that:Empirical research in art education has

not been especially illuminating or

useful thus far because (a) the questions

it raises are simplistic; (b) the realities of

art teaching and learning situations

are grossly distorted or misrepresented

in the process of factoring out or ab-

stracting what are thought to be their

crucial features; (c) the models taken

from behavioral research are inade-

quate for dealing with the complexity

of the art object as a system of organized

visual signs, as a collection of symbolic

forms, as the product of a tradition of

artistic conventions and techniques,

and as part of a social tradition of work,

display, celebration, acquisition, con-

servation and commodity exchange.In other words, empirical research in

art education has not as yet figured out

ways of analyzing and interpretingthe historical, social and axiological

qualities inherent in art objects. Re-

search tap-dances around thesecrucial factors. At present, we have toconclude that humanistic research

(with all its biases and errors of subjec-

tivity) does a more satisfactory job.At least it does not simplify the art object

out of existence, reduce it to a stimulus

object, or a mere artifact of certainteacher-pupil encounters in a socio-

historical vacuum. (Feldman, 1979)

Empirical research is also a widely

accepted mode of inquiry for basicresearch. Tabulations of researches

in art education done since 1965 seemto suggest that empirical research is

on the increase. Definitions of empirical

Basic Research

research are not hard to come by. Con-sider Hardiman and Zernich:

While basic research may be broadlyinterpreted as the search for newknowledge, we (sic) interpret it toinvolve the formulation of verifiable

general laws based on an interrelated

system of propositions that can be

rigorously tested for statistical signifi-

cance and degree of influence. (1979)

They feel as David Ecker that we maynot always be able to determine the

kind of questions we would research:There seems to be genera! agreementamong researchers that much of the workin the field fails to meet even modest

interpretations of rigor and quality.

Furthermore, a review of past work shows

a field having an unreasonable amountof difficulty in separating substantive

questions from trivial questions. These

circumstances point to the problem of

determining what variables are impor-

tant for study. To truly conduct basic

research which examines aestheticphenomena, researchers must consider

the multiplicity of variables which sur-

round this complex behavior. However

fervently one claims to deal with wholes,

from the standpoint of progress in

basic research and the aesthetic be-

havior in the visual arts, one mustfractionate or abstract out certain

features of the total behavior being

observed. (Hardiman and Zernich,

1978)

Chapman adds some interpretationsof her own:

If the question of definition and de-

termining appropriate modes of inquiryfor art education is answered on theempiricism, then one must accept the

assumptions undergirding scientificresearch — determinism, finite causa-tion, the opportunity for prediction and

control — as proper bases for the studyof human conduct vis-a-vis "art."

Jessie Lovano-Kerr and Hilda Lewis

have questioned the modes of inquirybeing used by doctoral students aswell as the choice of questions they

seek to answer. Lewis observes that

we still know so little about the young

child in art. We have yet to answerquestions about how children respondto art, how they make art and what isour role in nurturing both response

and learning. Recently Wilson andWilson have been researching chil-dren's drawings. Their research is

remarkable in design and productivein findings. They seem to be workingtoward answering some of Lewis'questions about how children makeart and how they respond to modelsaround them.

So many questions were raised bythe panel, we were faced with the di-lemma of narrowing and organizingour ventures into a manageable form.Chapman suggested that:— basic research in our field shouldbe conceived so that the references

and phenomena under investigation are"sortable" at some broad level. Researchmay, in fact, focus primarily on under-

standing characteristics of persons,

or particular kinds of interactions

among persons, or the character ofmatters taken as valuable in art or

settings in which art is encountered,

or the intents (goals, purposes) of

interactions.

All discussions of specific questions

to be solved through basic research

covered similar ground. Rather than

list these, it seemed more prudent toenvision broad categories and sub-

sume them with a few questions forillustration. Although many of thequestions seemed to imply a modeof inquiry, as it was pointed out earlier,it is the researcher who must find themode of inquiry to suit the problem.The broad categories for basic re-

search are:

1. Intent and purpose of art. Onwhat premises do we predicate ourteaching of art? What knowledge ofart is to be gained through art educa-

tion?

2. Ttie nature of the discipline of

art. What forces effect the making andresponding to art?

3. Learning behaviors in art. How

Ivan Johnson

do we respond to art? What makes uscreate art the way we do? How do welearn in art? What are the criticalconsiderations for differences in ages,

sexes, geographical and environmental

conditions and teacher strategies?

4. Evaluation in art education. Howdo we know what the effect of arteducation is on the pupil? How do weknow if we have effected knowledgegain? How do we know if the strategiesand resources are appropriate andeffective in nurturing learning in art?

If these headings seem familiar,they are well-tread ground. We seem

to have a ganglia of concepts, partly

validated, partly speculative, whichsustain us, but we need not call amoritorium on speculation or asking

questions. Perhaps we don't need toidentify priorities but just be sure wecome closer to having concepts incommon about basic research.

Reference

Hardiman, G. W. &Zernich,T. Basic research:

aesthetic behavior in the visual arts. View-

points: Dialogue In Art Education 6 (1)29-39.

Ivan JohnsonSchool of Visual Arts

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Robert Cardinale

Department of Art

University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona 85721

Laura Chapman343 Probasco Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45220

Rex E. DorethyDepartment of Art

Ball State University

Muncie, Indiana 47301

Edmund FeldmanArt Department

University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia 30601

Hilda Lewis

Education Department

San Franscisco State UniversitySan Francisco, California 94100

Jessie Lovano-Kerr

Department of Art EducationIndiana University

Bloomington, Indiana 47401

Basic Research

CHASING RAINBOWS AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH

Jon W. Sharer

Arizona State University

In the tradition of the Hawthorne and

Halo effects, there is a variation of the

self-fulfilling prophecy which meritsattention. This research phenomenais called the rainbow effect and it is

found chiefly in the implications sec-

tions of research reports. The rain-bow effect can be observed whenconclusions and implications basedon the conclusions are colored byone's beliefs about the utility of theresults. These beliefs precipitate specu-

lation about the results to be found at

the end of the research spectrum and

oftentimes lead to anomalous or er-roneous research implications. Forexample, somebody who believesthat creativity is a result of freedommay conclude that classes researchedwith the most student freedom are themost creative and, therefore, one should

provide more freedom of expressionin the classroom. In this oversimplified

example, an improper inference ismade based upon underlying assump-tions or concepts which are unclear.

In quantitative research, this kind

of erroneous reasoning is found whenmethods are the basis for inferringimplications about ideas or concepts in

art and education. Frequently, thestatistical form and design of a studyis the basis for determining the impli-

cations of ideas for art education. Thesemethodological concerns are oftenthe principle basis for lauding variable

A over variable B and for extrollingthe potential of this variable for art

education.

A typical approach might be to arguethat A is a research variable upon whichlittle research has been done. But,because A is statistically significant

in comparison to variable B or is statis-tically correlated with B, it is an im-

portant determiner or factor in artperformance, and data about one's ob-servations of variable A are potentiallyuseful to the educator. This approachis suggested by the following examples:

Because this study does point to thepositive relationship among aestheticsensitivity, positive art attitudes, and

amount of art knowledge, educators andadministrators cannot so easily dis-regard the potentially important role

that art does and can play in develop-

ing sensitivity. (Anderson, 1971, p. 54)

Since this study suggests that repre-

sentational drawing skills may be re-lated to a child's perceptual orientation,

this implies that art instruction should

include strategies which develop the

child's abilities to observe his environ-

ment analytically (Grossman, 1970, p.53).

In both of the above examples, the

rainbow effect can be seen because, in

each, the implication is colored by the

expectations of the researcher. Ap-

parently, if variable A is statisticallysignificant in comparison with variable

B, it must have implications for arteducation. However, it does not follow

that just because art is correlated with

some measure of aesthetic sensitivitythat art contributes to it, nor does itfollow from a correlation betweendrawing and perceptual orientationthat it will be useful to have the child

observe his or her environment analyt-

ically. In both cases, the expectations

of the researchers led them to infera conclusion which could not plausibly

be reached on the basis of correlational

evidence.

Conclusions realized in the impli-

cations of research do not rest onstatistical relationships but on logicalrelationships. To assume a relationshipbetween data and ideas and practicesin art education is not to provide logi-

cally derived evidence for this relation-

ship, and without such evidence one ismerely stating a claim or hypothesizing.

If this is the case though, how does oneaccount for statistical relationshipswhich seem to have prima facie "im-plications" of research as for examplewhen a type of organism consistentlydies after eating something? After all,death which is induced is a highlyreliable result. It is also a result that

has consequences for a particularpopulation or organisms to which thefinding can be generalized. Hence, theutility of the finding is a matter ofprobability or sampling and not oneof logical inference which characterizesthe process of deriving implications.This example is relevant to educationalresearch since historically the emphasisof such research on the reliabilityor consistency of findings has over-shadowed the stepchild of research,i.e., validity. However, the basis forresearch implications is not the relia-

bility of the results, but the validity or

meaning of the ideas under investiga-tion. Especially in social research, it

is the meaning of the key conceptsbeing researched that is crucial toone's understanding of events.

Rather than focus on the statistics ofvariables in developing research im-plications, one needs to focus on theconsequences of the meaning of thevariables being studied. Statistics are

used to organize data which provideevidence for the conditions to whichinterpretations of a variable meaningcan be reasonably applied, but theimplications of an inquiry are basedon how these interpretations of avariable can account for data and ideasin other contexts. For example, theimplications of work by anthropologistsdoes not hinge on methodology, e.g..

statistics, but on interpretations ofnotions like institution and role andthe utility of these notions in account-ing for the data and ideas of differentcontexts.

Reflect on the work of researcherswhich has had implications for educa-tion and/or art, e.g., Skinner, Bruner,

Plaget, and Lowenfeld. Has the impactof their work been based on the collec-tion of facts derived through the designor statistics used, or has it been basedon the ideational account of what theywere investigating? Clearly, the latteris the case. While the collection ofdata is necessary for any empiricalstudy, methodology and facts are nosubstitute for ideas. After all, whatimplications are there for a study whichis methodologicallyelegantand factuallyaccurate, but conceptually barren? Astudy which focuses more on advancinginteresting ideas to account for thedata collected would be by far moreuseful in establishing implications for

art education — even if the data areinconclusive. If there is a lack of soundempirical support for ideas, it does notfollow that there can be no implicationssince these ideas may be of heuristicvalue in establishing implications. Thus,

the lack of conclusive data should not

be, used as a rationalization for a lackof implications.

Since implications are not directlyderived from data but from interpreta-tions or meaning of a variable whichaccount for the data, there does notseem to be any independent empiricalcontrol of the implications. This, how-ever, poses the thorny problem of therelationship between idealism andrealism which has been debated foryears by philosophers. Categoriesinfluence what we see because ofwhat they mean or how we interpretthem, but if categories of thoughtdetermine what one observes, thenthere can be no independent controlover one's thought and the implica-tions which such thought produces.On the other hand, if one's categories

Implications of Research

of thought do not determine whatone observes, then what is observedmust be formless and nondescriptand incapable of providing any test

of one's thought and the implications

of such thought (Scheffler, 1967, p. 13).That one's categories of thought

influence what one perceives has been

established by Jerome Bruner, whodemonstrates how one matches whatone sees to one's model of the world

(1968, pp. 634-662). The influence ofmental sets on the world of art has also

been poignantly illustrated by E. H.Gombrich in his discussions of style(1969, pp. 63-90). One's motivations

and beliefs constantly influence what

one sees. However, there is a distinctionbetween categories or terms whichdesignate variables, and beliefsor assertions about these categories

or terms. As Scheffler says:

Conceptualization relates to the idea

of categories for the sorting of items,

and to the idea of expectation, belief, or

hypothesis as to how items will actuallyfit available categories (pp. 37-38).

A category system is a social con-vention and it does not prejudge thematter in which these categories areapplied to the world. The categoriesprovide the pigeon holes; but it isthrough hypothesizing that one assignsthem (Scheffler, p. 38). Conflictinghypotheses can involve the same cate-gories, for they are merely a different

assignment of the same categorysystem. One does not have to exorciseone's categories to make a differenthypothesis about the world so thatone is not without a means of structuringwhat is to be seen (Scheffler, p. 39). Aviewer is not left in a formless andnondescript world. Moreover, one cangrant that perception is categorized

without being locked in a subjective

prison where observation has nocontrol over one's thoughts for one's

hypotheses are grounded in observa-tion. Hypotheses make assertions aboutwhat is seen. The test of whether they

are true or not is based on the evidence

of observation. Consequently, there

is independent empirical control over

one's thought.

Since implications are rooted in the

meaning of categories used in asser-tions or hypotheses and since asser-tions about the world can be confirmed

or disconfirmed empirically, there is

also independent control of implica-

tions. But, it does not follow that thereare implications just because there is

evidence to support a hypothesissince the meanings of terms used inassertions are governed by socialconvention and are not subject toempirical controls but social use.

Hence, if assertions or hypotheseshave strong empirical support and the

meanings of categories used in theassertions are not clear, what is being

asserted or implied is not evident.

Assertions and implications arerelative to the use of a category. Asthe use of the category changes, its

meaning changes. This shift in functionalters the kind of assertions which can

be reasonably made about a category.Terms which have complex socialuses like intelligence, creativity, aes-

thetics, or visual thinking cannot easily

be reduced to a stipulated convention

such as the classic case of I.Q. equals

intelligence, for the limitations of the

convention are lost in the many dif-ferent applications of the term. These

changes in function alter the kindsof assertions which can reasonablybe made about a category. For example,it would be misleading to make cross-cultural assertions using the term"intelligence " and 1.0. as an indexsince the use of the term and themeanings which underlie this useare not necessarily the same acrosscultures. What signifies "intelligence"to one group is not necessarily what

signifies "intelligence" to another —a finding which had led some investi-gations to consider the term a matter

of adaption rather than an underlying

Jon W. Sharer

ability (Cole, 1971a, pp. 213-216,

Cole 1971b, pp. 870-871). Consequently,

if one gathers empirical support foran assertion, one needs to determine

whether the meanings of the categoriesused in the assertion are commensuratewith it. The truth of the hypothesishas a bearing on the truth of the im-

plications, but the implications will

not count for much if the meaningsof the categories are inconsistent with

the inferences drawn.

In this light, meanings and data arecomplementary in developing im-plications. They are the yin and yang

of research. They function in this manner,

however, when inquiry into the meaningof key ideas or variables is seen aspart of the research process. Without

such inquiry, there can be no reasonableimplications since the ideational basis

of the key elements has not beenclarified. As has been stated, if animplication is stipulated based on one'sbeliefs without clarifying what isinvolved in key ideas or variables, the

rainbow effect is likely to be present.For example, the ideas associated

with hemisphere function are frequentlynot clarified. Instead, implications are

hypothesized based on the associa-tion between brain processing of visualinformation and the fact that art ispredominately visual. The mere associa-tion of two considerations, however, isnot sufficient to establish implica-

tions. Just because hemisphere func-tions involve visual processing it doesnot follow that there are implications for

learning and instruction involvingvisual stimuli, even if one might believethis to be the case. To claim otherwise

would be tantamount to assumingimplications between two studies just

because they both involve elementary

school children. What art educationresearch needs is not rhetoric of this

kind, for there is no pot of gold at the

end of these kinds of rainbows. Instead,

we need good ideas upon which tobase Implications, and we need impli-cations in which the inferences areclearly and logically developed fromthe meanings of the ideas underlyingthe data of an inquiry.

References

Anderson, F. E. Aesthetic sensitivity, dog-

matism, and the Eisner art inventories.

Studies in Art Education, 1971, 12 (2),49-55.

Bruner, J. On perceptual readiness. In R.Haber (Ed.), Contemporary theory andresearch in visual perception. New York;Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.

Cole, M.eta\. The cultural context of thinking:

an exploration in experimental anthro-

pology. New York: Basic Books, 1971.Cole, M. & Bruner, J. Cultural differences and

inferences about psychological processes.

American Psychologist, 1971, 20 (10).Gombrich, E. H. Art and illusion. Princeton,

N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Grossman, M. Perceptual style, creativity and

various drawing abilities. Studies in Art

Education, 1970, 11 (2), 51-54.

Schefler, I. Science and subjectivity. India-

napolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.

Jon W. Sharer

Department of Art

Arizona State University

Tempe, Arizona 85281

Implications of Research

MOSS ON THE TREE: CANADIAN GRADUATE STUDY IN ART EDUCATION

James U. GrayUniversity of British Columbia

Moss does grow thickest on the shadiestside of the tree. If a particular tree

happens to be in the open where thesun can reach it unimpeded throughoutthe day, the shadiest side will be north.

Also to be taken into consideration is

the fact, however, that certain growths

resembling moss thrive best on thesunniest portion of the trunk. (Angier,

1956, p. 188)

Perhaps the most reasonable charac-

terization of Canadian graduate studyin art education is that it is somewhatuneven in density, and irregular inform. In many respects it exists some-what symbiotically on outgrowths wellrooted in the United States. It therefore

manifests features of its Americanform.

Based on my recent limited analysisof graduate programs across Canadain conjunction with visits to four Ameri-

can centers I have been able to develop

two classes of evaluative informationof unequal value. One class containsquantitative data perhaps of publicvalue for reviewing the form and function

of Canadian art education graduateprograms while the other class ofinformation is more personally valua-ble but less easily communicable.This report will present as much as ispracticable of both classes of infor-

mation. Were it not, however, forsupportand cooperation from two sourcesthere would be nothing to report.The University of British Columbia's

study leave policy and proceduresenabled me to set aside the time totravel in search of viewpoints developed

through experiences gained by on-site

visits. The interest, time, and assistanceof my colleagues in Canada and theUnited States made it possible for me

to clarify my perspectives and to seeotherwise hidden details and qualitiesassociated with graduate study indiverse regions of both countries.The following persons offered advice,elaborated upon their graduate studyviewpoints, and made it possible togenerate a quality of idea exchangesunavailable through correspondenceor conference meetings. On-site visits

were conducted in the following order

between September 27, and November4, 1978.

Elliot Eisner, Stanford

University Sept. 27

Ken Lansing, University ofIllinois Oct. 3

George Hardiman, Universityof Illinois Oct. 3

Ted Zernich, University of

Illinois Oct. 3

James Marshall, University ofIllinois Oct. 3

Ralph Smith, University of

Illinois Oct. 4

Cynthia Colbert, University of

Illinois Oct. 4

Guy Hubbard, IndianaUniversity Oct. 5

Gil Clark, Indiana University Oct. 5

Harold Pearse, Nova ScotiaCollege of Art & Design Oct. 23

David York, Nova Scotia

College of Art & Design Oct. 23

Keith Sullivan, Atlantic

Institute of Education Oct. 23

Elizabeth Sacca, Concordia

University Oct. 25

Micheline Calve, Universite

du Ouebec a Montreal Oct. 25Andree Beaulieu-Green,

Universite du Quebec aMontreal Oct. 26

John Lidstone, OueensCollege, New York Oct. 27

Clarence Bunch, QueensCollege, New York Oct. 28

10

John Emerson, University

of Toronto Oct. 31

Richard Courtney, Ontario

Institute for Studies in

Education Oct. 31

Ron MacGregor, Universityof Alberta Nov. 3

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THISSTUDY

This study was planned to yield in-formation about the nature of Canadian

graduate study leading to advanceddegrees in the field of art education.

Although the information producedmight be of general Interest to Americanuniversity or college graduate student

advisers and their students, it probablyhas greater value for members ofCanadian art education departmentsand other faculty members interestedin graduate study. The greatest valueof the study, however, exists in what

it has provided the investigator. Therein

lies a weakness as well as a strengthof the study and the report.

On the one hand, data generatedwere neither critical nor usefullyquantifiable, yielding therefore simple

generalizations confirming common-sense notions. On the other hand, thestimulating process of departing from

an interview schedule of questionsto develop and to extend lines ofquestioning regarding precedentsand problems proved to be highlyrewarding.

Because the outcomes of this studywere not entirely predictable somequestion sequences and topics de-veloped preordlnately had to beabandoned while others were modifiedand extended. There was no doubt,even in the planning stages that tours

and interviews would be highly variablein scope, focus, and sequence. For thatreason I had adopted a flexible ap-proach for obtaining and organizingdata.

In a sense, I undertook a form ofresponsive evaluation of the nature

of art education graduate study.Responsive evaluation as a researchmethodology proposed by RobertStake (1975) requires that the capa-bilities and the ends-in-view of theevaluator be considered carefully.This I did as a means of justifying thetime and money for the study.

Certainly I sensed strengths as well

as limitations in my capabilities, butin checking the balance, I planned to

use some of the strengths to reducesome weaknesses: that was a majorreason for undertaking this study. And,

I had several well defined ends-in-view derived from experience.

Experience gained through teaching

graduate students and in serving ongraduate council committees hadgiven me some Important insightsabout where and how improvementsmight be made in providing graduatestudy in art education. Moreover,between 1967 and 1978, circulation of

several graduate study position papers

from within and without the University

of British Columbia Faculty of Educa-tion served to reinforce a sense ofneed for, and the wisdom of, under-taking an evaluation of graduate study

programs and practices.Experience had also taught me that

my frames of reference were limited.My ends-in-view therefore becamequite simple: to seek enlightenment

through asking a selection of leaders

these four generic questions.

1. What Is the nature of your graduatestudent population?

2. What Influences the selection anddeployment of faculty?

3. What governs the developmentand modification of degree programs?

4. How does the department, orfaculty, function relative to other de-

partments or agencies?

From these four generic questionsmore than sixty inquiries could bedeveloped during each Interview. Allwere designed to provide for an in-depth interview where appropriate,and to permit me to tape record to

Canadian Graduate Study 11

note details of a routine nature as well

as ideas of major value. Each interview

was structured for the purpose ofachieving my major end-in-view: Iwished to improve my capabilities asboth a connoisseur and a critic in

matters of art education graduate study.

Such an interlocking function andcompetence, argue Broudy and Eisner,

is needed today.Harry Broudy, a philosopher of

considerable influence in developing

art education theory in North America,

has noted that a connoisseur is someoneto whom little differences can makea big difference (1976). He argues

formally that judgment and criticism

become more enlightening accordingto the degree of sensitivity and dis-

crimination one develops as a connois-

seur. And, in keeping with this view-

point, Elliot Eisner develops a useful

overview of how one might study thestate of the arts in North America (1 976).

He recommends that evaluation beperformed as a form of connoisseur-

ship and criticism when seekingchanges. One may act primarily as aconnoisseur, that is, for personal

enrichment, or as a critic, makingstatements to the public. The connois-

seur, it is argued, grows in power and

is enriched according to how he canbecome sensitive to subtle variations,alert to meanings, and able to detect

forms and relationships. In short,

he knows what to look for though he

need not communicate his perceptions.

The additional function of serving as

a critic, however, requires that one be

able to identify and communicatedifficulties and be able to explain what

is evident. The critic must know wliatto say.

Quite aside from being sensitive to

our local and regional needs and pres-

sures, most of us in art education are

aware of concerns similar to our ownbeing expressed across North America

by members in our professional field.The need for art educators to know whatto look for and what to say has been

fairly well presented in articles over

the past several years. For example,

Harlan Hoffa has provided an insight-

ful review of influences upon research

in arts education, and has given a

forecast of needs. (1977)

Ross Norris has examined the prob-

lems we face in identifying basic as-sumptions about what is of research

consequence and cites the dilemma weface regarding the unavoidability of ,1

making "value choices" (1977). Hardi- ^

man and Zernich (1977) proposed a 12item agenda as a focus for examining

the nature of doctoral study as it

pertains to research. And implicit inDennis White's analysis of the growth

in numbers of doctoral programs in

North America, is the notion that the

profession should try to anticipate

the form and focus of further research

programs (p. 6).To my satisfaction the foregoing

viewpoints justified my study in respectto the time and energy I expended and

the time and attention I obtained from

my participating colleagues. What Ihave uncovered through my interviewswill undoubtedly serve to better myfunctions as a graduate adviser in art

education and can also prove valuable

in the further development of the grad-

uate art education program at the

University of British Columbia. More-

over, what I share in a written analysis

can prove valuable to others in Ca-

nadian universities and colleges

planning to develop or modify their

graduate programs associated with

art in education.

The report of this study suffers from

limitations arising out of the complex

nature and scope of the project and

might, therefore, be of limited extrinsic

value. The study itself, however, wasintrinsically valuable for me becauseof the dynamic qualities of experiences,

sharpening of perceptions, and elabora-

tion of ideas, none of which can be

adequately conveyed through print.

Nevertheless, what follows is an attempt

12 James U. Gray

to present information and ideas as

simply and as effectively as possible.

Study Procedures

Three American universities were

selected from those ranked as having".

. . the top ten graduate programs"

(Hardiman et al., 1975, p. 27). Through

correspondence, arrangements were

made to spend two days on each campusfor interviewing key personnel and

graduate students as well as for examin-

ing facilities and learning resources.

By the end of June 1978, agreement to

participate in the study was securedfrom the following art educators, and

by October 5, each had been visited:

Elliot Eisner (Stanford University),

Kenneth Lansing and George Hardiman

(University of Illinois) and Guy Hubbard,Indiana University.

Each participant responded to most

of the questions prepared in a ques-

tioning guide and agreed to havinghis responses and discussion taperecorded. When and where practicable,the host participant attempted to

arrange for me to meet colleagues andstudents, to inspect facilities, and then

to meet informally or socially.

At the end of the two week periodscheduled for these interviews Ireturned to Canada to analyze andorganize the information I had gathered.

This first stage of information gather-

ing provided a useful range of ideas

about the nature of current art educa-

tion graduate programs and servedto test the efficacy of the data gather-

ing techniques. Modifications weremade where necessary in preparationfor visiting five Canadian institu-tions.

Those persons representing the fol-lowing Canadian institutions had agreed

by mid-June to participate in the study.

They were: Harold Pearse, Nova ScotiaCollege of Art and Design; AndreeBeaulieu/Green, Universite du Quebec aMontreal; Elizabeth Sacca, Concordia

University; Richard Courtney, Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education; John

Emerson, University of Toronto; andRon MacGregor, University of Alberta.

Visits to these Canadian institutions

were conducted between October 20and November 4, 1978. Some of theoriginal questioning patterns andtopics in the guide were altered tosuit Canadian interests and values.Fundamentally, the Canadian andAmerican visits and interviews wereConducted in an identical manner.

Between June and August 1978,arrangements were made to visitKeith Sullivan, of the Atlantic Institute

of Education in Halifax, and JohnLidstone, of Queens College, New YorkCity. In Montreal, Elizabeth Saccaarranged an interview for me with Miche-line Calve, of the Universite du Quebeca Montreal.

Presentation of Findings

As stated earlier, two classes of findings

were generated in the course of this

study. Much information was neithersusceptible to quantification nor prob-

ably of interest to a wide population

of art educators. Few findings, there-fore, warrant detailed publicity. What

could be of interest, however, might

be ,a few generalizations derived from

counterpoised discussions about

students, programs, research, andneeds of the field according to what I

heard from a small sample of leading

American art educators.

Following these few comments isa list of Canadian institutions offering

graduate study in art education. Im-

portant aspects of each institutionare presented to indicate the relative

scope and influence of the institution.

Similarities and Differences amongAmerican Institutions

Entrance requirements for doctoral

programs do not vary significantly.Several years of teaching will be re-

quired unless an applicant has a clearly

Canadian Graduate Study 13

TABLE 1

American Program Magnitude, Fail, 1978

Institution Faculty Graduate Students En

M.Sc. M.A.

rolled in Art Education

Ed.D. Ph.D.

Stanford

Illinois

Indiana

1

55^ 70

10

35

13

5

9"

The five art education faculty members work with fifteen teaching assistants.' Thirty students are admitted to the program currently.

defined career goal of a non-classroom

nature; for example, in museum orcommunity arts education. Then anapplicant would be required to provide

evidence of relevant work experience.

At Stanford, an applicant's ac-

complishments and demonstratedabilities will be rated by three faculty

members who assign numericalvalues under five to six categories. At

Illinois a personal interview is required

early in the application process.

Each institution provides a rangeof suitable elective courses as part

of a student's doctoral program. At

Stanford a student is required to take

the three art education courses and a

seminar in art education research for

doctoral students, all serving as the

core requirements for the degree. Just

over one-third of the Illinois degreerequirements are met through art and

art education course work bearingtitles almost identical to the Stanford

core requirements. Another 30% ofthe Illinois program content must bemade up of courses given in education.The courses required at Stanford are:1. Foundations of Aesthetic Educa-

tion.

2. The Artistic Development of theChild.

3. Curriculum Development in theVisual Arts.

4. Seminar in Research in Art Edu-cation.

Similar courses required at Illinois are;

1. Development of Aesthetic Judg-ment in Art.

2. Aesthetic Inquiry and Criticism in

Art Education.

3. Issues in Art Education.

4. Curriculum Development in Art.

5. Special Problems.

At Indiana, the completed doctoral

study requires 90 semester hours beyond

the work for a baccalaureate. Approxi-

mately 30% of the required course workmust be foundational for the disser-

tation. Five art education courses from

among twelve stipulated are: history,philosophy, psychology, art education

research, and survey of research in

art education. A minor in fine arts,which can include studio activity, isrequired for the doctorate and can

constitute another 30% of the program.Eisner diagnosed problems or weak

aspects of art education scholarship

today relative to possible needs in the

future and suggested that new modesor forms of inquiry be developed for

our field. These changes should bebased on perceptions of what the field

is, from within the field, to determine

our unique needs. Hardiman andZernich, while acknowledging the need

for developing alternate research

strategies, choose to emphasize basic

research in their program, and choose

also to restrict their area of investigation.

They discussed the need to develop

a healthy respect for what constitutes

one's area of academic strength,expertise, or competency.

This is not to say, however, that

Eisner does not exhibit the same degreeof awareness and responsibility. On

14 James U. Gray

the contrary, Eisner's approach is to

seek expertise for a student wherever

it can be obtained: across faculties,

off campus, or from other relevantprofessions. The nature of facilitiesand personnel available at Illinois,

however, permits Hardiman and Zernich

to develop a reasonably self-contained

but campus enriched research program.If I dare characterize the difference

between these two programs I would

use Robert Stake's terms, preordinate

or responsive.

Hubbard's program at Indiana, like

Eisner's, I consider responsive. At

Indiana one might focus on the nature

of art education field practices, art

criticism, curriculum development,

or multi-cultural issues. These rep-resent the faculty strengths and balance

Hubbard considers appropriate forhis institution.

In summary, the American visitsforeshadowed what I might find —except for one major element — whenvisiting Canadian institutions. I had

found one predominant theme withvariations and counterpoint. This I could

find in Canada, too. Missing, however,

would be the tempo: the major element

of experience and much of a historyof graduate study in art education.

Visits to Canadian Institutions

NSCAD: Nova Scotia College of Artand Design, Halifax. Participants,Harold Pearse and David York. Their

program is less than two years old.Between 1978 and 1979 the first student

to graduate from the program willhave earned a Master of Arts in Art

Education.

AIE: Atlantic Institute of Education,

Halifax. Participant, Keith Sullivan.

The Institute has been operationalfor four years, and in June of 1978awarded its first Ph.D. degree throughthe "Open Access Study Plan." Thedegree, however, was not in art edu-cation.

Concordia: Concordia University,

Montreal. Participant, Elizabeth Sacca.

Concordia was created in August 1974through a mergerof Sir George Williams

University and Loyola College. ThePh.D. program there is approximately

two years old and has not yet produced

a Ph.D. graduate.

UQAM: Universite du Quebec a Mon-treal. Participants, Micheline Calve

and Andree Beaulieu-Green. Theirprogram is only two years old and will

be graduating its first degree holders

during 1978 and 1979. The highestdegree offered is the maitrise en arts

plastiques: I'option education, a Master

of Arts degree in Education.

OISE: Ontario Institute for Studies

in Education, Toronto. Participant,

Richard Courtney. A degree grantingrelationship has been developed be-

tween OISE and the University ofToronto. The OISE-University of To-ronto degrees earned in art, or arts

education represent study in educa-

tional theory in the Department of Cur-

riculum. The Ed.D. is designed for high

levels of practice and the Ph.D. is

earned through demonstrated high

level scholarship. Presently in Ontario

only OISE offers the M.Ed, degree in

a subject matter field.

U. of T.: University of Toronto. Parti-

cipant, John Emerson. Emerson de-scribed the work he does in providing

study for a post baccalaureate degree,

a B.Ed., in which some art curriculumspecialization is available. For moreintensive specialization, or for graduate

work in research and development, a

student can apply to OISE.

U. of A.: University of Alberta, Edmon-ton. Participant, Ron MacGregor.Last year this university made history,according to MacGregor, in awarding

the first Ph.D. degree in art education

from a Canadian university.

UBC: University of British Columbia,Vancouver. Resource, James Gray.The Master's program has been active

for approximately 20 years. Only

recently has strong attention beengiven to developing the interdepart-

Canadian Graduate Study 15

mental Ed.D. program in art education.

The visit to New York to confer withJohn Lidstone and Clarence Bunchof Queens College, N.Y., was fittedinto the Canadian itinerary as a matter

of travel convenience. As a leading

art educator in the United States and

as a Canadian who still maintains anactive interest in the nature of Canadian

art education, Lidstone was able todiscuss his metropolitan New Yorkperceptions in respect to their possible

implications for Canadian art education

practices.

Because this limited study was ex-ploratory in nature I was unable toinclude information about what could

be classified as art education graduate

study in such institutions as the Uni-

versity of Victoria or Carleton Uni-

versity, to name just two. The problemof conducting a comprehensive survey

or examination I leave to others. Indeed,

through pointing out inadequacies in

this report and in supplying corrective

information someone else could beperforming a valuable service.

Problems of identification, labels,and terminology exist when trying topresent a Canadian overview. Without

explanation, Table 2 can give several

false impressions about faculty ex-pertise. For example, the AtlanticInstitute of Education provides an

Open Access Study Plan using a core

faculty of 13. No art education expertiseis available from that faculty, but in-

stead, from outside sources according

to where a student receives permissionto study.

Technically the entire graduatefaculty of the Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education becomes a stu-dent's pool of expertise although in

fact the student would receive directionfrom a small committee of OISE faculty.

Moreover, the student has the option

of taking some external course workunder the aegis of OISE.

The following comments are likethose based on the American interviews

and represent salient aspects of ex-

tended discussions. Out of context

they can yield publicly only a portion

of their value in the overall discussion.

Where possible I have paraphrased theparticipant's comments.

Similarities and Differences amongCanadian Institutions

In common with UBC, the AIE, Con-cordia, NSCAD, and UOAM have yet tosee the first graduates from their re-

spective new programs. The Ed.D.candidate at UBC is undertaking inter-departmental studies while the AIE

candidate is studying for a Ph.D.

degree. Each of the eight candidates

at Concordia is working for a Ph.D.,

TABLE 2

Canadian Program Magnitude, Fall, 1978

Institution Faculty^ Graduate Students Enrolled in Art Ed ucation

M.Ed. M.A. Ed.D. Ph.D.

NSCAD 6 8AIE 13" 1

UQAM 1.5 7Concordia- 5+ 55 8OISE 150+" 50 4 2

U.of T. 2.5

U. of A. 5 3 2

UBC 10 14 10 1

These are art education faculty members who teach or advise graduate students.See the text of this paper for an explanation of these figures.

16 James U. Gray

and those students about to graduate

from either the NSCAD or UQAM will beearning Master in Arts degrees. Con-

sidering the graduate program magni-

tude in Canada and the portion of it

yet to become visible, it is no wonderthat one hears, "What graduate pro-grams?"Four Canadian institutions have

responded to needs of their respective

constituencies by developing flexible

programs and by utilizing resources

beyond those on their own campus.This responsive attitude was advocated

in the United States by Eisner with

reference to making theory and practice

consonant; by Lansing in respect to

encouraging work in classrooms and

in studios as a means of enrichingpractice and scholarship; by Hubbard

in the way he saw the function of his

overall program; and by Lidstone whowas highly specific in his analysis ofacademic self-interest vis-a-vis fieldneeds.

The Nova Scotia College, forexample,

requires field experience in conjunc-

tion with its inquiry course. The AtlanticInstitute encourages scholarly studyof field-based problems. The OntarioInstitute places considerable value on

"experiential" course work relatedto field activities. And Concordia ac-knowledges the need to work within a

culturally diverse framework. Moreover,

these four institutions insure that

students are enabled to work in a largerintellectual community than the oneprovided by each alone.

Discussion about improving the nature

of Canadian graduate study in art educa-

tion brought forth several notions. Oneparticipant affirmed that we should workwithin the obvious constraints of having

a small population covering an im-

mense area. We should, therefore,identify Canadian problems and developCanadian approaches, avoiding U.S.patterns: "avoid trying to make or becarbon copies." Another participantwarned, however, that there can be

nothing common among Canadianviewpoints and that we must acceptand work with the reality of our culturaldiversity.

Nothing in the interviews leading to

the foregoing was stated in an anti-American spirit, but instead, as anadmonition to become more self-reliantin developing scholarship. To appreciate

the benefits we have gained fromelsewhere and the supply lag we facein Canada one has only to consider thenumber of university art educationpositions occupied by Canadians whoearned their doctorates in the United

States. I estimate that at least 15 art

education doctorate holders work in

the institutions I visited in Canada.

To my knowledge, only one earned hisdegree in Canada.The need to know what is being tried

and what is being accomplished in

Canadian art education graduate study

was keenly felt by participants. Mosturgedthat better lines of communication

be developed. This need was discussedby each participant not only in respect

to how a wider and more completeframe of reference would be personally

illuminating, but also in respect to

counseling graduate students. Eachperson wanted to be informed about

Canadian graduate study problemsand prospects but, for several goodreasons, seemed unable to locate anyuseful documentation.

Reasons for this lack of self-aware-

ness nationally seem simple but oftenignored. For very sound academicreasons we monitor and participatein American art education activities.

And for obviously good reasons we useAmerican resources and expertise inour graduate teaching. The promi-nence, accessibility, and high quality

of these physical and conceptual tools

of the trade distract us from developing

our own necessary equivalents.Implicit in most of the graduate de-

gree required courses encountered in

this study are the expectations that

Canadian Graduate Study 17

students will become informed, en-lightened, and productive. To do this,according to Sacca, "students reflect

upon issues and problems, improveupon teaching, and articulate art edu-cation theory and criticism." Implicit

too, in comments by Eisner, Courtney,and Lidstone, is the criticism that someacademics and art(s) educators arethemselves in need of doing for them-

selves what they would have theirstudents do. The three educators madesimilar observations about the im-portance of having broader viewpoints

regarding the nature of research, its

focus, its content, and of evolvingrelevant values and criteria pertaining

to research.

MacGregor, while advocating that the

nature of the Ph.D. be consideredrelative to the changing needs of edu-

cation as a field of study, also cited

its importance as a research degree.

In some respects his values were similarto those of Hardiman and Zernichregarding the development of basicresearch in art education. And,

MacGregor argued well for increasedfinancial support by teacher groupsand other school agencies to further

basic research and to provide effective

application and development. Mac-Gregor sees the needs of the university

and field as compatible if each con-stituency can understand its responsi-

bilities and capability. Those under-standings are not easily achieved,however.

In respect to understanding and com-munication, I encountered difficulties

which reduce the amount of detailin this paper. While crossing Canadaand during my American visits I becameaware that the concepts of researchand its bearing on the nature of thedoctoral degrees were too variableto warrant useful generalizations.Moreover, the implied rationales foroffering Ed.D. degrees or Ph.D.'s,or M.Ed.'s and M.A.'s were hazy. Find-ings, therefore, about such mattersas thesis requirements, dissertation

committees, and adjudicating pro-cedures were interesting to me, but ,not of generalizable value. I

Discussion

What I have reported is a reflection ofmy values and interests regarding thenature of art education graduate study

in Canada. My views are expressedrelative to a sample of current develop-ments and outlooks in the United States.This document reveals only partiallywhat I have been examining in myefforts to become first, more of aconnoisseur on the subject and second,

better prepared as a critic. Not sur-

prising then, is the limited discussion

and absence of any statements ofimplications. Instead I draw attentionto several isues and problems stillneeding clarification and resolution,keeping in mind that one institution's

present problems represent chapters

in the history of accomplishments inother institutions.

The association of the Ph.D. with"scholarship and theory" and the Ed.D.

with "practice and field directed de-cision-making" seems faint amongseveral institutions. The Ed.D. andthe Ph.D. programs both offered atOISE are designed for clearly different

career purposes. The Ph.D. programat the Atlantic Institute seems torepresent a strong field focus, while

the Ed.D. program at Illinois seemsoriented toward basic research. Atthe University of British Columbia the

subtle distinctions, and territorialrights, are still maintained and in fact,

a Ph.D. is not offered.

Approximately 12 years ago DeanJohn Goodlad of the University ofCalifornia — Los Angeles GraduateSchool reported to then Dean ofGraduate Studies at U.B.C., Ian McTag-gart Cowan, that under given conditions

the Ph.D. be authorized after develop-

ment of a number of appropriate pro-grams. In part of his clear analysis

and within his explications he stated

James U. Grav

that "the distinction between the Ed.D.

and the Ph.D. should be . . . not one

of status, but one of function" (1967,

p. 8). This document has existed as aset of blueprints detailing subtle

arrangements for achieving usefulchanges. There has been very little

building based on the specifications.

Some of the Goodlad distinctions andrationales would sound familiar toart educators since they are consistent

with those of Eisner regarding recom-

mended graduate study for art educa-tion. (Eisner, 1965)

To discuss the quality of graduate

study is to discuss the nature of the

immediate and the ultimate benefi-

ciaries of advanced study and there-

fore, of an institution's obligation to

a past, a present, and a future society.

Two consequent obligations some-times constrain art educators: one of

working to uphold institutional aca-demic or professional responsibility,and the other, of being socially and

professionally responsive. On the onehand the university is charged to con-

serve social values and to set standards

of scholarship excellence, and on the

other, to develop flexibility, becomeexperimental, and promote innovation.

Somehow, somewhere, the art edu-cator — according to many commentsmade during the interviews — mustfunction within several academic juris-

dictions, focus attention on significant

theory and practice elements across

time, and meet a range of needs amongseveral populations. Such demands,according to Hardiman and Zernich,tend to weaken a faculty member'sexpertise and the quality of an insti-

tutions's research mission. To Hubbard,

however, these challenges can becomevitalizing for art education. To Eisner,meeting such demands entails betterdevelopment and adaptation of theo-retical and practical elements of art,education, teaching, and learning,toward the synthesis of a more usefulconcept of art education. Such a major

job, if completed successfully, would

perhaps reduce difficulties encountered

in the present multifaceted world of

art education graduate study.

Although Courtney, Lansing, andLidstone diagnosed problems and sug-

gested remedies for some of our presentquestionable practices, several of their

ideas might be strategically inappro-

priate at this time for economic reasons

when declining enrollments and tax-cuts generate conservatism. In Canada,

however, the time might be right for

making adjustments and for conceivingdiffering patterns for graduate study.

For, as MacGregor has said, "Ourattempts to develop our programs comeat the wrong time. . . a bust time, yet,perhaps being small, slow and steady

will ensure quality."

Recommendations

Art educators acknowledge the im-portance of being informed about the

nature of all levels of art education in

North America. Canadian graduatestudy in art education is an educational

phenomenon neither clearly examinednor adequately reported. It would seemprudential therefore to conduct adetailed analysis of the nature of that

phenomenon and to publicize theresults of such a study.

Canadian art educators claimed that

while they were interested in the nature

of Canadian art education graduate

study programs, they had no generally

available reference material to provide

information. One means of obtainingrelevant data is through construction

and employment of a survey instrument.It would seem useful therefore to con-duct a survey and to write a report for

interested parties.

I therefore recommend that a com-prehensive analysis of Canadian grad-

uate study in art education be conducted

through appropriate means and thatthe results be made public to interestedpersons in North America.

Canadian Graduate Study 19

References

Angier, B. Living off tfie country: iiow to stay

alive in tlie woods. New York: CollierBooks, 1956.

Broudy, H. The case for aesthetic education.

In Frances D. Hine (Ed.), Tlie aestfietic eye:

generative issues. Los Angeles: Aesthetic

Eye Report, Los Angeles County Schools,

1976.

Eisner, E. W. Graduate study and the prepa-

ration of scholars in art education. In W. R.

Hastie (Ed.), Art education: sixty-fourtli

yearbool< of the national society for the

study of education (Part 2). Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago, 1965.

Eisner. Educational connoisseurship and

criticism: their form and function in edu-

cational evaluation. Journal of Aesthetic

Education, 1976, 10 (3-6), 133-150.

Goodlad, John I. Report on the matter of

offering the Ph.D. degree in education.

Report to the University of British Co-

lumbia Dean of Graduate Studies, De-

cember, 1967.

Hardiman, G. W., Shipley, J. R., & Zernich, T.

A ranking of graduate programs in art

education: an exploratory view. Art Edu-

cation, 1975, 28 (4), 26-27.

Hardiman, G. W. & Zernich, T. Editorial.

Reviev^ of Research in Visual Arts Edu-

cation, 1977, (7), V.

Hoffa, Harlan. The history of an idea. In

Stanley S. Madeja (Ed.), Arts and aes-

thetics: an agenda for the future. St.

Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1977.Norris, Ross. Research in art education.

Revievi/ of Research in Visual Arts Edu-

cation, 1977, (6), 34-52.

Stake, Robert (Ed.). Evaluating the arts in

education: a responsive approach. Colum-

bus: Chas. E. Merrill, 1975.

White, Dennis W. An historical review of

doctoral program growth and dissertation

research in art education 1893-1974.

Studies in Art Education, 1977, 19(1),

6-20.

James U. GrayDepartment of Art Education

University of British ColumbiaVancouver, British Columbia

Canada V6S 1 A7

20 James U. Gray

AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACH TO CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT IN ART(IMPLICATIONS OF PIAGET'S GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGY FOR ART EDUCATIONRESEARCH)

Norma K. PittardGlassboro State College

Research in children's drawing de-

velopment has been pursued for almost

a century. Except for the research

conducted by Jean Piaget and theGeneva school, however, no singleexplanatory theory accounts for all

the factors that constitute development.

In art education literature there are

references to developing aesthetic

awareness and developing creativeabilities, suggesting that development

is involved. There is abundant evidence

that children's drawings change inrelation to maturation and environ-mental (learning) experiences. There

is even general agreement amongopposing theoretical positions about

the kinds of drawings children are apt

to make at certain stages of develop-ment. Yet, despite a plethora of theories

and vast reams of data, the criticalquestion, how development occurs,remains a mystery.

This essay maintains that the dilemma

of traditional dichotomous concep-tions about the nature of reality and

knowledge is inherent. These concep-tions have such a lengthy history that

they seem entirely reasonable. On theother hand, principles and methodsof the classical natural sciences that

tended to support such conceptshave long since been found to bemistaken. Contemporary scientistshave replaced the naive mechanicalworld-view of Newtonian physicswith more abstract schemas that extendour understanding of the universe and

life in it, even to understanding the

nature and origin of consciousnessand the knowing mind. Piaget'stheories of knowledge and develop-

ment provide a means of bringing theunderstanding of mind within the realm

of the intellectual revolution that

accompanied the change from absoluteconcepts in a static world to theories

of relativity and atomic physics. Myaim in this essay is to discuss the

limitations of the traditional framework

and to demonstrate how Piaget's Ge-netic Epistemology resolves the paradox

that has been the stance of theories

of art and psychological research for

some 300 years. My thesis is that artis a mode of constructing and organiz-ing knowledge that not only originates

with intellectual development but also

presupposes it.

The great pitfall of art education is

the gap between aesthetic theoriesconcerned with attributes of art and

the actual issues and problems of art.

What compounds the problem is thespurious notion that mind — humanconsciousness — can be understoodin terms of absolute 'facts' which form

a realm of knowledge apart from humanvalues. Theoretical assumptions inart education stem from two interrelated

sources: the prevailing conceptualframework of the science of behavior

and theories of art holding that aes-

thetic experiences occur apart from

ordinary perception or commerce withthe world. Both are derived from the

Cartesian notion of mind as an im-material essence (psyche, or soul)oscillating between subjective and ob-

jective poles of reality. Internal,

subjective realities were concernedwith values and "higher " purposes,while external, objective realities were

concerned with discovering "laws"

21

in the material world — a material worldthat consisted of absolute matter

embedded in absolute time and space.The mechanical nature of the materialworld provided Newton with principlesand methods for rigorous scientificinvestigations. A world in whichmatter consisted of distinct, independent

substances that were moved only whenone body came in contact with anotherled to "objective" laws that seemed toremain constant. Every event had a

direct cause, and the classical physicist

could easily predict and reproduceevents to prove or verify hypotheses.

Although there were inconsistenciesin the underlying dichotomy, it had the

advantage of resolving the conflictbetween science and religion: becauseit was assumed that only the materialworld could be reduced to prede-termined mechanisms, purpose andmeaningfulness belonged to the realm

of the mind. Thus, the scientist occu-

pied himself with the external world

of 'hard' facts and the theologiansconcerned themselves with moralissues.

Until the Eighteenth century, philo-

sophical systems dealt with art eitherin terms of aesthetic pleasures accord-

ing to Aristotelian principles, or in

terms of a philosophy of beauty astheoretical knowledge. However, thesubject/object dichotomy posed aparadox in the phenomena of beauty:in one sense, beauty was assumed tobe a moral, metaphysical experience

occurring in the mind; in another sense,

beauty was palpable, a material ex-perience part of everyday life. If artwas to be seen as theoretical knowledge,it would be necessary to analyze itin terms of the logical rules to which itadhered. But a logic that consistedof independent parts would not con-form to a logic of the whole. In hisAesthetica, Baumgarten attemptedto resolve the problem by assuminga logic of the imagination and a logicof the intellect. Since imagination could

never attain the dignity of intellect,

because it dealt with the 'lower' sensous

aspects of knowledge, art could beseen as figural expressions of moral

truths that were distinct from the logicalfunctions of the intellect.

Eighteenth Century Philosophy

The question of pleasure was variouslydealt with by Eighteenth centuryphilosophers. For the Empiricists,

pleasure had two connotations: inter-ested pleasure for the sake of lustand disinterested pleasure for the sake

of virtue. For the Rationalists, art had

little meaning except as it revealedhigher truths. For the Idealists and the

Romanticists, all knowledge and allpleasures, including art, originated from

inner feelings, faith or intuitions which

affirmed the existence of God. In an

attempt to resolve the extreme dif-ference between the various pointsof view, Immanual Kant constructed atheory that proposed that pleasure,the aesthetic experience, originated

in sensory impressions separate from

and independent of other forms of'true knowledge.' In this sense, Kant

provided the basis for a theory of

art that seemed to resolve the subject/object paradox; Kantian aestheticsprovided the basis for a separate system

of philosophy that came to be knownas Aesthetic Philosophy.

While Kant's synthesis seemed to re-solve the gulf between the extremepositions of the Empiricists, the Ratio-

nalists and the Idealists, it also suc-ceeded in revealing some of the funda-mental contradictions that were implicitin them. The conflict between the notionthat ultimate truths could only berevealed to the mind through science,

and the notion that ultimate truthsrevealed themselves only through humanfeelings and faith, tended to be re-interpreted in view of Kant's theory.

Indeed, the notion that feelings, in the

sense of Kant's "pure" aestheticexperience, were not subject to thesame conceptual judgments as other

22 Norma K. Pittard

realms of knowledge opened the flood-

gates of imaginative speculation. In

a world in which the intellect was nolonger the final appeal to truth, emotions

and faith and wishful thinking about

the superior capacities of man gaverise to metaphysical and idealiststheories whose flights of fancy rivaledthose of the scholastics in an earlier

era.

In a more positive sense, Kant'stheories about the relationship be-tween the mind and knowledge provided

an approach to mental functions that

bear a close resemblance to latertheories formulated by the various

schools of gestalt theory, Freudian

psychoanalysis and even Einstein.Kant's basic idea was that man couldonly know and interpret the world interms of the forms and powers of his

own mind. In contrast to Empiricisttheories that objective' concepts of

taste and feeling were discoverablein the external world, Kant held that

aesthetic experiences could only be

derived from sensory impressionsdirectly from the object. "For every

judgment from that source of aesthetic,

i.e., its determining ground, is the feel-

ing of the Subject, and not any concept

of the Object." Unfortunately, mostthinkers of the era, including Kant,

were convinced that mental phenomenaand sensory experiences stemmedfrom different realities for particular

forms of knowledge. In