1 / 49

ATTITUDES OF TEACHER CANDIDATES TOWARDS ART EDUCATION

ATTITUDES OF TEACHER CANDIDATES TOWARDS ART EDUCATION. Gay Lynn P. Smith April 2006. Chapter One: The Problem. Introduction. Debate of nonessential or core subject Goals:2000 – core subject NCLB – must be highly qualified

sharis
Télécharger la présentation

ATTITUDES OF TEACHER CANDIDATES TOWARDS ART EDUCATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ATTITUDES OF TEACHER CANDIDATES TOWARDS ART EDUCATION Gay Lynn P. Smith April 2006

  2. Chapter One:The Problem

  3. Introduction • Debate of nonessential or core subject Goals:2000 – core subject NCLB – must be highly qualified • Criteria for highly qualified outlined in SB2042 • Coursework and CBST/CSET

  4. Problem • Teachers lack artistic skills & training to teach content • Teachers commit to curriculum: ◦Benefits ◦Understand content ◦Confident in skills to teach (Gardner, 1990) • SB2042 does not address artistic skills, only content and methodology. • Is there a disconnect between content and application of the arts?

  5. Historical Overview of Art Education • Agreement of art benefits in education • Argument in art methodology: • Taught only by sensitive artists (Mangravite,1930) • Artists needed examination and theory to teach (Haggerty, 1935) • Art only for self expression (Eisner, 1965) • Anyone can coach and motivate art (Lowenfeld, 1987) • Art principles and elements (Smith, 1987) • Research by Oreck (2001)

  6. ORECK: Influences on teachers’ use of the arts in the classroom • 423 K-12 teachers • Supported benefits of art • Rarely taught art • Factor analysis: Self-efficacy, self-image, lack of support, and time constraints • Created arts-based professional development to build confidence in skills and self-image as artist and implement more art in classroom • Current study to project possible actions from teachers’ attitudes as suggested by Oreck

  7. Significance of the Problem • Provides an opportunity to assess: deficiencies in candidates art background effectiveness of visual art courses in teacher candidates’ program • Unprepared candidates will minimize art instruction (Gardner, 1990; Schwartz, 1989) • Future teachers inability to teach the arts

  8. Purpose of the Study • Evaluate artistic attitude of multiple subject teacher candidates for future lesson plans • Assess level of skills to competently teach the arts by standards • Examine any needed change in SB2042 to address deficiencies

  9. Research Questions • Attitude of confidence to teach: • Performance skills • Historical and cultural perspective • Aesthetic valuing • Artistic perceptions • State and National standard K-12 content • Attitude of prerequisite to teach: • Adequate art training prior to SB2042

  10. Limitations • Limited to populations within SB2042 • Generalized to only SB2042 programs • Self-reporting surveys reactive methods • Pilot • Confidential • Anonymous

  11. Delimitations • SB2042 multiple subject students • California University of Phoenix students • SB2042 multiple-subject graduate students

  12. Definition of Terms • NAEA Standards (2000) • NCLB – highly qualified “subject matter competent” • SB2042 – 2002 • Art Methodology Course • Art Education • Arts Education

  13. Chapter Two:Literature Review

  14. Purpose of Art Education • Effects of Art on Learning • a) emotion/motivation b) communication • c) use of senses d) aesthetic sensitivity • e) problem-solving f) self-understanding • g) respect diversity h) assessment • i) Integration of art and life • (Bloom, 1956; Cornett, 2003; Gardner 1993; Goodwin 2004; Parson, 1987; Getty Educational Foundation, 1996)

  15. Purpose of Art Education Effects of Art on Child Development • a) cognitive and social • b) emotional; • c) communication • d) curious learners • e) multiple intelligence (Piaget, 1959; Kellogg, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978; Lowenfeld, 1987; Gardner, 1990)

  16. Arts Education Standards • National Arts Education Association (1993, 2000) • California Visual Art Framework (1996; 2005) • Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Preparation Programs • Subject –specific SB2042 – Standard 8 (2002)

  17. Impact of Legislation on Art Education • Proposition 13 (1978) • Goals 2000 • No Child Left Behind (2001) • SB 2042 (2002) Implemented (2003)

  18. Art Methodology Practices • Art Education History (Eisner 1979; Efland 2004) • Art Education Theorists • Elliott Eisner – discipline based art education • Howard Gardner – Arts PROPEL • Ellen Dissanayake – species centered • Peter London – community based art • Modern Art Programs - Theories • Theory to Practice – foundational knowledge; application and performance skills; integration (Schwab, 1969; Grauer 1999; Fink, 2003)

  19. Multiple Subject Teacher as Artist • Teachers’ Attitude Towards the Arts • Discipline of content (structured) • Curriculum content (standards) • Pedagogical content (perform, explain, demonstrate (Ryan & Cooper, 2000) • Role Modeling and Behavior (Grauer, 1999; Siegesmund, 1999; Oreck 2001) • Teacher as Expert (Seifert, 1999; Mangravite, 1932; Lowenfeld, 1987)

  20. Assessment Practices of Art Education • Teacher Candidate Assessment for Performance Content (McKean, 1999; Bach, 2005) • Assessment of Teacher Candidate Attitudes (Tyler, 1969; Fink, 2003; Koster, 2005) • Assessment of Art Methodology Practices (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Fink, 2003; Tyler, 1969; Diamond, 1998)

  21. Literature Summary • Benefits of the arts • Legislation demands the arts • National Standards for skills • Teachers attitude must be positive as artist • Various assessment practices of art education

  22. Chapter Three:Methodology

  23. Design of the Study • Likert scale to study attitudes • Survey addressed the six research questions • Non-experimental exploratory research study / collect data and information only • Analyze existing phenomenon • Help determine attitudes that may result in trends, change, or forecast future needs

  24. Population and Sampling • Teacher candidates in SB2042 • University of Phoenix, California campuses • Convenient and pragmatic • Completed their Masters of Arts Education in Teacher Education (MAED/TED) coursework prior to the student teaching block

  25. Instrumentation • Visual Arts Education Survey (VAES) • Art performance skills (2, 6, 8, 9,) • Content knowledge of historical art perspectives (4, 10, 19) • Aesthetic value (5, 7) • Artistic perception (1, 3,17) • State standards (15, 18) • Previous art training (C,D,E,16) • Demographics (A, B, F, G)

  26. Validity • Content – covers what it purports to cover • Construct – format, clarity, bias-free, language, cultural wording, interpretation and directness of questions • Panel of Experts

  27. Reliability • Internal consistency of the six areas • Five items from Likert scale - Cronbach’s alpha reliability • Coefficients greater than or equal to .70 • Dichotomous items: demographics of students and eligibility

  28. Procedures - Pilot • Data Collection -30 volunteer who had completed coursework -16 students responded -Email -Random by Program Director -San Diego campus only

  29. Cronbach’s alphaSpearman Brown Prophecy Formula Sub domain (Items) Alpha Corrected Length Performance Skills (2, 6, 8, 9) .92 .96 Historical and Cultural (4, 10, 19) .85 .92 Aesthetic Value (5, 7) .91 .95 Artistic Perception (1, 3, 17) .87 .93 State Standards (15, 18) .91 .95 Eliminated questions 11, 12, 13, 14

  30. Procedures - Research • Data Collection • 100 MAED/TED students • Distributed by faculty in student teaching block • UOP CA campuses (San Diego, So Cal, No Cal, Central Valley, Sacramento)

  31. Procedures - Research • Data Analysis • Exploratory, looking for patterns • Raw scores in Microsoft Excel • Mean score and SD for each construct • Percentages per question and construct • Analysis of Variance on Art Experience • Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS

  32. Chapter Four: Results

  33. Demographics • 100 eligible students • Self-Identified Artist(did not define visual artist) • 26% • Previous Art Experience • 62% K-8 • 65% High School • 13% 3+ courses • 62% Undergraduate • 18% 3+ courses

  34. Question One Performance Skills 63% confidence level 37% lacking confidence

  35. Question Two Historical and Cultural Perspective 75% confidence level 25% lacking confidence

  36. Question Three Aesthetic Valuing 51% confidence level 49% lacking confidence

  37. Question Four Artistic Perceptions 54% confidence level 46% lacking confidence

  38. Question Five State Standards 63% confidence level 37% lacking confidence Performance 63% Historical 75% Artistic Perceptions 54% Aesthetic Valuing 51%

  39. Question Six Prior Art Experience • 75% agree beneficial for more in undergrad • 62% had undergraduate visual art

  40. Previous 3+ Experience Analysis of Variance on Art Experience • Median –”typical” • 3 more (18) 0-2 courses (82) • Historical 4.6 3.8 • Artistic 4.1 3.2 • Performance 4.5 3.7 • Aesthetic Value 4.6 3.5

  41. Self-Identified Artist Analysis of Variance on Art Experience Median “frequency” Artist (26) Non-Artist (74) Performance 4.3 3.5 Historical 4.2 3.8 Aesthetic 4.0 3.5 Artistic 4.0 3.3

  42. Chapter Five Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations

  43. Summary • Positive effects of art overwhelming • Decline of resources – 50 years legislation • Goals 2000 and NCLB – core subject • Downward spiral of best practices • Lack of confidence = will not teach • 75% suggest more undergraduate courses

  44. CONCLUSIONS • Majority confident: • 63% performance; 75% historical; 51% aesthetic; 51% artistic 63% standards • Justification of non-confident teachers • 75% historical

  45. CONCLUSIONS – cont. • Confidence in standards at contradiction • Students see four expectations as one idea of art instruction • CSET/Standards for demonstration skills • Prior experience needed

  46. IMPLICATIONS • Inclusion of the Visual Arts • Third to half will not teach • Will need additional training • State Standards and Artistic Skills • Knowledge and demonstration • Generations lacking artistic model (CEs) • Methodology Changes in SB2042 • Correspond to demonstration standards • Prerequisite prior SB2042 • Eliminate IHE assumptions of student skills

  47. RECOMMENDATIONS • Future Research • Compare demographics regarding attitude • Art training; artists; no training non-artist • Longitudinal study • Mix methodology • Evaluate other core subject attitudes • Assess teaching and knowledge attitude • Examine: affective, cognitive, behavioral • Expand to cross sample of other IHE

  48. RECOMMENDATIONS cont. • Educational Practices • Assess demonstration in MAT 534 • Prerequisite course prior to SB2042 • Include performance based assessment in CSET • Workshops for previous “non-core” courses • Restore arts K-8 with accountability of teacher and district • Promote legislation to support educational training in the arts

  49. Questions

More Related