ERIC ED338540: Examining Discipline-Based Art Education as a Curriculum Construct.

36 Pages·1991·0.88 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
SO 021 696
ED 338 540
Clark, Gilbert A.
AUTHOR
Examining Discipline-Based Art Education as a
TITLE
Curriculum Construct.
Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for Art Education,
INSTITUTION
Bloomington, IN.; ERIC Clearinghouse for Social
Studies/Social Science Education, Bloomington, IN.
Getty Center for Education in the Arts, Los Angeles,
SPONS AGENCY
CA.; Office of Educational Research and Improvement
(ED), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
91
RI88062009
CONTRACT
NOTE
36p.
Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Information Analyses -
PUB TYPE
ERIC Clearinghouse Products (071)
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Art Education; *Curriculum Development; *Curriculum
DESCRIPTORS
Evaluation; Educational History; Educational
Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education;
*Instructional Development; Intellectual
Disciplines
*Discipline Based Art Education
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
Discipline-based art education (DBAE) can best be
uPderstood as a curriculum construct if it is seen in the context of
traditional, major curriculum orientations. The three major
curriculum orientations are child-centered orientation,
society-centered orientation, and subject-centered orientation. DBAE
is a contemporary construct of the subject-centered orientation. Its
focus is on developing students' capacities for improving skills in
art making activities and improved understanding of related studies
including aesthetics, art criticism, and art history. Critics of DBAE
have charged that it excludes child-centered or society-centered
curriculum orientations. This booklet responds that viewed as a
curriculum construct, DBAE is coherent, but not always complete. DBAE
can take its place beside child-centered and society-centered
orientations to art education. The history behind the emergences of
DBAE is discussed in detail. Considerable attention is paid to how
DBAE (and other curriculum perspectives) address the main components
of the art curriculum-content, student, teacher, and setting.
(DB)
*************************************************************U*********
Reproductions supplied by EDRS Lre the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
MIR
411111
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
*INS
doCument haa been reprOduced as
leceived horn the person or organization
originating it
CI Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduCtion quality
Points ot view or opinione stated in this docu-
ment do not necesaanly represent otficiai
OERI position or policy
ERIC:ART
An Adjunct Clearinghouse for Art Education at the
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education
tc)
Indiana University
1991
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
1
1
EXAMINING
DISCIPLINE -BASED
ART EDUCATION
CURRICULUM
AS A
CONSTRUCT
Gilbert A. Clark
LERIC
ERIC:ART
An Adjunct Clearinghouse for Art Education at the
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education
Indiana University
1991
3
INFORMATION
ORDERING
from:
This publication is available
Publications Manager
Center
Social Studies Development
Indiana University
2805 East Tenth Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
[phone]
©Copyright 1991 by the
J. Paul Getty Trust
All Rights Reserved
The Getty
commissioned with support from
This Trends/Issues Paper was
however, are the
the Arts. The views expressed,
Center for Education in
J. Paul Getty
those of The Getty Center or of the
author's and not neo ssarily
Trust.
Educational
with funding from the Office of
This publication was prepared
under contract
U.S. Department of Education,
Resea. oh and Improvrment,
do not necessarily reflect the
The opinions expressed
no. RI88062009.
OERI or ED.
positions or policies of
ERIC
Information Center, is an information system
ERIC, Educational Resources
within
Educational Research and Improvement,
sponsored by the Office of
Education.
the U.S. Department of
4
CONTENTS
v
About The Author
v
About ERIC:ART
vi
Acknowledgments
.
PART I
Art Education, DBAE, and Traditional Curriculum Orientations
1
PART II
Components of an Art Curriculum
6
PART III
The Emergence of Discipline-based Art Education
10
PART IV
16
DBAE and the Future
PART V
22
Conclusion and Recommendations
24
Notes
28
ERIC Resources
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gilbert A. Clark is a nationally and internationally known educator in art
education and gifted/talented education. He earned his Ph.D. in art educa-
tion from Stanford University in 1970 and has been on the faculty of Indiana
University since 1976, where he has taught courses in art education, curricu-
lum, and gifted/talented education. Dr. Clark is author of numerous journal
articles about art education, art curriculum development, and gifted/talented
education. He is also co-author, with Dr. Enid Zimmerman, of a high school
textbook, Art/Design: Communicating Visually, and two books related to edu-
cation of gifted/talented art students: Educating Artistically Talented Students
and Resources for Educating Artistically Talented Students. They also have
authored, with Marilyn Zurmuehlen, a survey and analysis of measurement
in art education research and practice, Understanding Art Testing. In addition
ERIC:ART, an Art Education
to teaching, Dr. Clark is currently Director of
Adjunct Clearinghouse within the ERIC Clearinghouse for Social
Studies/Social Science Education (ERIC/ChESS) at Indiana University.
ABOUT ERIC:ART
ERIC:ART is a new Adjunct Clearinghouse for Art Education associated
with the ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education
(ERIC/ChESS) at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. The Adjunct
Clearinghouse has been established with major support from The Getty Cen-
ter for Education in the Arts and additional support from ERIC (Educational
Resources Information Center), ERIC/CliESS, and the National Endowment
for the Arts. Service, development, and research activities of ERIC:ART are
directed to elementary and secondary art teachers and specialists, curriculum
specialists, researchers, teacher educators, and educational policvmakers.
Parents and others concerned with art education in schools also are likely to
be interested in the activities and publications of the ERIC Adjunct Clearing-
house tor Art Education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
and individuals in
the help of several groups
The author acknowledges
Getty Cen-
Paper. First, support from The
development of this Trends/Issues
Social
ERIC Clearinghouse for
in the Arts and the
ter for Education
publication possi-
iucation has made this ER1C:ART
Studies/Social Science F
drafts of this paper for
thanks several reviewers of
ble. Second, the author
included Evan
supportive comments. The reviewers
helpful suggestions and
Koret Foundation; Enid
University; Stephen M. Dobbs,
J. Kern, Kutztown
Fred
Guy Hubbard, Indiana University;
Zimmerman, Indiana University;
Leilani Lattin Duke,
and Vicki Rosenberg and
Risinger, Indiana University;
the author is grateful to
Education in the Arts. Finally,
The Getty Center for
Ms. Schlene is Coor-
Patrick for editorial services.
Vickie Schlene and John J.
for Social Studies/Social
of the ERIC Clearinghouse
dinator for User Services
Director of
/ChESS) and Dr. Patrick is the
Science Education (ERIC
ERIC / ChESS.
vi
We believe an arts program should help students under-
stand a historical ar.d cultur, context in which the arts are
perceive aesthetic qualities in nature, the man-
created
.
.
.
provide them
made environment and art works [and]
.
. .
with opportunities to create their own work. We believe all
of these are important and necessary means of achieving a
holistic approach to education in the
more comprehensive,
Appreciating art, making art, understanding art all
arts
reouire tuition and instruction.
Leilani Lattin Duke, Art Education (September 1983): 6.
vii
k
DBAE, and Traditional
I. Art Education,
Curriculum Orientations
education advocacy, curricula, and programs
A great many forms of art
the many years of formal schooling
have come, gone, and reappeared during
theory and development have been dynam-
in the United States. Curriculum
and schooling have been molded in reaction
ic and everchanging as schools
large; art education has a similar history. Vari-
to major changes in society at
conceptions and
for art education have spoken for different
ous advocates
for their times, including Benjamin
curricula they felt were appropriate
the 1800s, Viktor Lowenfeld in the
Franklin in the 1700s, Walter Smith in
the 1960s, and The Getty Center for Edu-
1940s and 1950s, Manual Barkan in
Getty Center for Education in the Arts,
cation in the Arts in the 1980s. The
has declared advocacy for discipline-based art
since its inception in 1982,
"DBAE", as a new form of art ,-.k..1,:ation for
education, known popularly as
ioa, Beyond
Getty Center's first major pub
America's schools.1 Since The
America's Schools, was distribute H 1985, The
Creating: The Place For Art in
discipline-based art educatiwt liar taken manv
Getty Center's advocacy for
conferences, rounu-,ble discussions,
forms including sponsorship of national
velopment at
institutes, in-service progra!
diverse publications, regional
in schools. Inc distribution of
universities, and program implementation
Education Association
to all members of the National Art
Beyond Creating .
.
.
audience of art education advocates and policy makers
(NAEA) and a wider
about the nature of discipline-based
raised questions in many peoples' minds
schools.
place as a curriculum construct for our nation's
art education and its
professional and popular dialogue,
DBAE has become the focus of more
education. Despite
both pro and con, than any other past orientation to art
about it, DBAE has influenced policy state-
arguments or questions raised
National Art Education Association (NAEA), as in its
ments issued by the
and also has influenced policy deci-
Quality Art Education: Goals for Schoo1.3,
for the Arts, National Assembly of State
sions by the National Endowment
Chief State School Officers, and many other arts,
Arts Agencies, Council of
Since 1985, DBAE has been a
education, and arts education organizations.
1
dialogue among art educators
relatively central topic for much professional
such publications as Art Education and Studies in
at NAEA conferences and in
NAEA.
Art Education, the major journals of the
education as a
This essay is an attempt to examine discipline-based art
for understanding DBAE as a
curriculum construct, provide a foundation
questions and critique DBAE as a
coystruct "of and for its time," and raise
understand this con-
popular new movement in art education. One way to
the context of traditional, major curriculum
struct at this time is to see it in
understanding discipline-based
orientations; these provide a background for
art education as a curriculum construct.
curriculum orienta-
Many writers have described different education and
explain important phases of
tions, from widely separated points of view, to
United States. In 1949, Tyler distin-
the history of education in schools of the
child- or learner-centered,
guished three major curriculum orientations: (1)
knowledge-centered (see Figure 1).2
(2) society-centered, and (3) subject- or
curriculum literature to
These three orientations are cited frequently in
policies and practices that have
describe and explain major swings in school
and social changes in
occurred as educators' responses to political, economic,
points-of-view in many con-
society. These orientations co-exist as popuiar
and many curriculum textbooks are structured
temporary school practices
orientations.3 Those
around this triumvirate of child-society-subject-matter
philosophical and theoretical
who hold these orientations bring differing
whole and on art education in particular. In
stances to bear on education as a
of these three major curriculum
the following brief review, key characteristics
background for understandin the devel-
orientations will be described as a
education.
opment of discipline-based art
subject-centered
orientation
society-centered
child-centered
orientation
orientation
cure.culum.
Figure 1. Three traditional orientations to education and
10
2