Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The integration of art and language arts in the intermediate grades: two case studies Parker, T. Jeanne 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0589.pdf [ 3.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054769.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054769-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054769-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054769-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054769-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054769-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054769-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054769-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054769.ris

Full Text

THE INTEGRATION OF ART AND LANGUAGE ARTS IN THE INTERMEDIATE GRADES: TWO CASE STUDIES by T. JEANNE PARKER B.Ed., University of Saskatchewan, 1985  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Curriculum Studies)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1994 © T. Jeanne Parker, 1994  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department of  C’c/’r’ fr-Ld’ 5  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2188)  %J)  /,/ q’-/  ii ABSTRACT  This study is comprised of two case studies that examine two intermediate—grade teachers’ beliefs about knowledge and the place of art and language arts  in their beliefs about knowledge,  the  teacher’s role and the students’ role in knowledge acquisition, and the relationship of these beliefs to the integration of art and language in their classrooms. interviews,  curriculum  To this end, data was collected from  documents,  and  observations  in  the  classrooms of the two teachers over one integrated unit of work of approximately eight weeks duration. The findings of this study suggest that the way in which these teachers defined art and language arts within their beliefs about knowledge had a great effect on what and how they integrated art and language arts.  Particularly influential were the ways in which  each of these teachers perceived linguistic and visual thinking in their  own  learning.  These  beliefs  of  knowledge  were  also  integrated with their beliefs about their role as a teacher and the students roles as learners.  Important to the definition of roles  was whether or not knowledge was perceived as internal or external to the learners. the  students’  Roles defined around external knowledge excluded  personal  and  idiosyncratic ways  of  knowing,  thus  disallowing much potential for integrated arts and language arts activities.  Roles defined around an idiosyncratic perception of  knowledge allowed for child—centered integrations to take place, thus  redistributing  equitable state.  the  power  over  knowledge  toward  a  more  1)].  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents List of Figures Acknowledgements.. Chapter I.  Introduction  Page 11  iii vi .vii 1  Introduction to the Study Assumptions Issues of Concern to this Study Current Research Personal Ground Research Questions ClarificationofTerms  1 2 2 8 9 10 11  Research Plan Research Methodology Data Collection and Analysis Significance of the Study  13 13 14 15  Chapter II.  The Literature Review  17  Introduction  17  The Teacher Teachers’Beliefs CultureoftheClassroom Changing Beliefs  17 18 20 24  The Nature of Art and Language as EducationalEnterprises  26  Curricular Integration  38  HowDoWeIntegrate What Is Integrated and By Whom’  39 40  Current Theories in Language Arts andArtEducation  49  Summary  56  Chapter III.  The Design of the Study  Theoretical Approach of the Study Qualitative Research Approaches Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Approaches  61 61 62 64  iv Design and Methodology of This Study Informant Selection Data Collection Strategies Researcher Role Data Analysis Strategies Chapter IV.  Summary of Data Analysis  66 66 70 72 75 78  Introduction  78  CaseStudyl:Paul  79  BeliefsaboutKnowledge ProceduralKnowledge  80 .83  Beliefs about the Role of the Teacher and the Role of the Students in Knowledge Acquisition Standard.s Students’ Motivation to Learn Trust  84 85 87 89  Beliefs about the Integration Integration of School and Self Sociallnteraction Vertical Integration Integration of Art and Language  90 90 91 92 93  Suiuiuary  97  CaseStudy2:Janice Beliefs about Knowledge The Integrated Unit Framework for Learning 1) Content Organization 2) Overriding Objectives Beliefs about the Role of the Teacher and the Role of the Students in KnowledgeAcquisition Relevance to the Students Metacognition Acceptance of Individual Differences Social Mediations of Learning Trust Beliefs about Integration Integration of Art and Language: Content  99 100 101 103 103 105  107 108 109 ill 114 1 15 118 118  V  Integration of Art and Language: School and Self Integration of School and Self: Social Mediations S ianmarr  121 127  Conclusion ChapterV.  120  128  Discussion The Research Questions Revisited  129 129  TheLiteratureRevisited 131 Traditional Classroom Culture 131 Theories of Art and Language Education....l36 Theories of Integration 142 Social Relationships 147 Trust 148 Social Mediations of Thought 152 Sununary  155  Chapter VI: Teachers’ Beliefs About Art and Language Integration: Conclusions and Implications Introduction  . .  163  Reflections on the Research Process  163  Conclusions  165  Implications  174  Suggestions for Further Research  178  References Appendices  163  Appendix A: First Appendix B: Final  180  Question Guide for Interviews Question Guides for Interviews  186 186 188  vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:  The Two Dimensions of Integration  Figure 2:  Paul’s Student Contract  Figure 3: Michelle’s “Snippet” of Time  Page 58 82 95  Figure 4: Jennifer’s Chapter 7  122  Figure5:Ryan’sChapter7  123  Figure6:Ryan’sGroup’sMural  125  Figure 7: Jennifer’s Group’s Mural  125  Figure8:Austin’sGroup’sMural  126  Figure 9:  126  Leonard’s Group’s Mural  vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would like to express my gratitude to my faculty advisor and the chairperson of my thesis committee, been  extremely  positive  and  Dr. Rita Irwin.  supportive  throughout  She has  my  research  experience, and her guidance has made a definite difference to me. I have been a particularly difficult student,  living so far away  from the campus at the University of British Columbia, Irwin  has  helped  enormously  to  minimize  the  but Dr.  hardships  I  encountered. I would also committee,  like to thank the other members  Professor Kit Grauer and Dr.  of my thesis  Marilyn Chapman.  Again,  they took on the responsibility for a long-distance student and all the  inherent difficulties.  Their suggestions  and  insights have  been invaluable. The  two  teachers  special thanks.  who were  my  case  studies  also  require  a  Both allowed me to investigate their teaching,  which I consider a very generous thing. Finally,  I need to thank my family.  My husband,  Rob,  has  taken much of the burden from my shoulders while I worked on this thesis. support.  This study would never have been completed without his  1 CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION  Introduction to the Study Curricular integration is a concept that creeps in and out of educational vogue.  Currently, the idea is driving curricular  change in many parts of Canada,  including British Columbia  (Ministry of Education,  Integration is defined as “the  1991).  making up of a whole, made up of parts which constitute a unity” (Oxford English Dictionary,  1966, p. 479).  Two very important  points that affect the educational context come from this definition.  First,  someone or something does the “making up.”  The formal curriculum makers, teachers, students,  formal documents, textbooks,  organization of time and space all can be  seen as involved in this integrating process.  Second, there are  separate parts involved which, when put together, unity.  constitute a  Currently within the educational context of integration  there is no clear delineation of what is the exact nature of these parts and what unities can or should be formed. Traditional parts of curricula have been subjects,  so most  theories of curricular integration deal with forming unities of parts from different subject areas. This study seeks to examine how two particular integrators, both intermediate grade teachers,  seek to make unities between  the subject areas of art and language.  There are a number of  complex issues that surround the integration of content areas of  2 art and language arts.  Each issue connects to other issues; the  purpose of this study is,  if you will, to understand how two  teachers integrate these issues through an examination of their belief systems of integration.  Assumptions The teacher, as an integrator, does not arrive at this task a neutral party or a blank slate to be written upon by formal curriculum theorists.  In a cross—Canada study of art teachers,  researchers from the University of British Columbia proposed that “to hire a teacher is to hire a curriculum” 1990, p.  11).  (Gray & MacGregor,  An assumption of this study is that teachers are  the single most important determiners of what curriculum is presented in classrooms. A second assumption is that teachers’ beliefs illuminate and guide what they practice.  This study examines teachers’ beliefs  about the nature of knowledge, especially in art and language, how students learn knowledge, how these two areas of knowledge are integrated and how these beliefs affect what they teach and how they teach it.  Issues of Concern to this Study One influential and complex issue is the traditional classroom culture in which most teachers were educated.  Belief  systems pertaining to education are influenced by traditional classroom culture, where a knowledge—centered,  teacher—controlled  3 model of learning through conventional modes is the norm.  This  model has roots in industrial revolution ideology (Monson & Pahi, 1991), where efficient production is key.  In contrast, most  current integrative theories are grounded in the belief that learning in classrooms should be child—centered; that is, what is learned and how it is learned is controlled by the students, rather than the teacher and formal curriculum makers  (Goodman,  1986). Turning to a child-centered model of learning, thus changing the classroom culture,  is an important component of many  integrated curricula.  These changes are difficult,  of convincing reasons. change,  for a number  Teachers’ beliefs are difficult to  especially those that they have obtained early, as  teachers have through their own education (Hollingsworth, Pajares,  1992).  1992;  changing to child-centered modes of learning  means redefining the role of the students and the teachers in the classroom, which also means a change in how order is created and maintained (Werner,  1991).  There are parallels and overlappings of this issue with the traditional ways in which language and art endeavors are perceived.  Language has always been accorded much status.  fact it has been equated with human thought  (McGuire,  In  1984).  Positive value—loaded terms such as “analytic” “logical,” and “intellectual” have been traditionally connected with language (Hamblen,  1988; Youngblood,  1983).  4 When values associated with language are contrasted with values held in traditional classroom culture, there is not much surprise in the mutual support.’ Language’s intellectual character is extensively rule—governed, and,  since it uses arbitrary  symbols to represent abstract thoughts it is what Eisner terms a “conventional mode of thinking”  (Eisner,  1982, p.  51).  Education  has traditionally focused on transmitting the symbols and rules of verbal communication.  Language education remains a central  educational obj ective. In contrast,  art has traditionally been an outcast from the  boundaries of cognitive thought; art is perceived as creative and idiosyncratic,  in the affective domain (McGuire,  1984).  While  ‘the idea that art is not an intellectual pursuit has been theoretically laid to rest (Eisner, 1983),  1981; Gardner,  1985; Hamblen,  it is not a great surprise that art remains on the fringe  as an educational enterprise. as language; rather,  Art is not as highly rule—governed  its strengths lay in its more idiosyncratic  syntax which allows for more novelty of form (Eisner,  1982).  Art  traditionally has a stronghold in “expressive modes” of representing thoughts  (Eisner,  1982, p.  52).  But these strengths  do not support the values held in traditional classroom culture. Because the change to child—centered learning involves a greater belief in what children bring to the educational setting, there needs to be a greater belief in affective, thought and creative expression.  idiosyncratic  It follows that there will be a  greater belief in ways of knowing traditionally attributed to  5 artistic endeavors.  •Because these have not traditionally held  value as cognitive or educational enterprises there is a great potential for teachers to have conflicting beliefs about integrating art and language,  at least in so far as the  integration pertains to child—centered learning. Yet this is just one issue that surrounds the concept of curricular integration  —  the issue of child—centered versus  knowledge—centered learning.  Teachers, to some extent, do direct  the knowledge presented in the classroom (Cooiubs,  1991),  so  knowledge and how it is organized for educational purposes is another major issue surrounding curricular integration.  A  polarization of integrated knowledge versus differentiated knowledge in traditional subject—oriented curricula is quite easy to envision but again a number of factors compound this debate. Integration of knowledge cannot be defined on a single plane; it is a multi-faceted concept. identifies four forms of integration: 2)  Roland Case (1991a) 1)  integration of skills and processes,  and self and 4) holistic integration.  integration of content, 3)  integration of school  Integration of elements  external to children, such as content, skills and processes, can be done in any number of ways for many purposes, overlap with child—centered integrations, school and self and holistic integration.  some of which  such as integration of How a teacher  organizes knowledge for presentation in the classroom is intertwined with beliefs that he/she holds about the nature of the knowledge itself.  6 Pring (1973)  identifies four epistemological beliefs about  the integration of knowledge. as a unity.  First is the view of all knowledge  Next is the view of knowledge as existing in broad  organizational categories with complex connections among them. Third is the view that knowledge forms unities in the quest to solve specific problems.  Finally, there is the view that  knowledge exists within discrete organizational boundaries with little or no connections among them.  How a teacher understands  knowledge will affect how they organize that knowledge for presentation in the classroom. As well, the dimensions of curricular integration, horizontal integration and vertical integration (Case, bring into play the confounding variable of time.  199la),  While  horizontal integration, the integration of elements at any given time, may promote current interest and child—centered learning, the relevance of such learning over time, known as vertical integration, has been questioned (Case,  l99lb).  Theme teaching  is a current popular method of integrating that is criticized for emphasizing horizontal aspects of integration while ignoring vertical aspects  (Case,  l991b; Court,  1991; Hirst,  1976).  When looking at what is proposed in current theories of language and art education the issues surrounding integration are even more complex.  Current trends in language education seek to  make it more like traditional art education.  A movement in  language education known as whole language began in the mid— 1980s.  This integrative philosophy is based on the beliefs that  7 1)  children learn the whole before they learn the parts,  2)  learning should be based in the children’s experiences and 3) experience is the best teacher (Froese,  1991).  This contrasts  greatly with traditional ways to teach language, which are teacher—directed and knowledge-centered (Monson & Pahi,  1991);  The philosophical base of child—centered learning, and a more holistic view of knowledge give more credence to individual experience,  interest and expression, which traditionally have  been the strong points of art education within the curriculum. Art education,  in contrast,  currently is pursuing a form  similar to traditional language education. Discipline-based Art Education 19805.  A movement known as  (DBAE) gained momentum in the mid  This philosophy is based on the belief that art is best  learned through discrete, organized and sequential content in four disciplines: aesthetics  art history, art criticism,  (Greer,  1984).  art production and  This contrasts with traditional ways  to teach art, which are bound to a philosophy of art as creative expression of the students (Lowenfeld, centered approach.  1947),  a definite child-  DBAE obviously supports a knowledge—centered  approach, with strong support for an differentiated philosophy of knowledge.  These elements have traditionally been emphasized in  language education. For teachers, current trends in art and language education pull in opposite philosophical directions involving substantially different beliefs about how knowledge is organized and how students learn.  Now add the task of forming unities between  8 knowledge in language and knowledge in art, and the task of integrating art and language is a complex endeavor.  Current Research Teachers’ beliefs about integration, therefore, will involve many issues.  To understand what integration means to each  teacher, an understanding of what the teacher believes about the nature of knowledge, how students learn knowledge, and the nature of art and language as educational enterprises are needed. Research indicates that there is confusion about integration among teachers.  A study on preservice teachers’ beliefs about  integration (Young,  199 1-92)  suggests that education students had  a weak knowledge of both subject matter and integration, and that they did remarkably little reflection about what they taught and how they taught it. Virginia Richardson, Patricia Anders, Carol Lloyd (1991)  Deborah Tidwell and  studied the relationship between teachers’  beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction.  They  found that teachers’ theories of reading fell along two continuums: the text)  a continuum of PURPOSES OF READING from (meaning in  to  (construction of meaning), and a continuum of  TEACHING READING/LEARNING TO READ from (skills/the word) to (literature).  One should note that the divisions made by  Richardson and others in this study are equivalent to divisions along a continuum of knowledge—centered to child—centered learning,  and along a continuum of differentiated knowledge to  9 integrated knowledge.  Also, the majority of the teachers studied  fall in the quadrant of separated knowledge and knowledgecentered approaches to reading instruction, as is described in traditional classroom culture. While these studies indicate the role of beliefs in the classroom practices in relation to integration and reading instruction, there is as yet no study of teacher beliefs about the integration across curricular subjects, particularly the subjects of art and language.  However, personal advocacy of an  integrated approach to language arts and art is especially prevalent in the literature using creative expression (creative writing and art production) integration (Aiudur,  1993:  One article by Mitchell  and aesthetics as components in the  Bates,  (1990)  1993; Jones,  1991; Thoms,  1985).  spoke of teaching art history  using pictures from children’s literature, but little else integrating other aspects of language, literature itself, and art, criticism.  such as drama and  for example, art history and art  An examination of the beliefs of teachers about these  integrations in a qualitative research design has yet to be done.  Personal Ground Integration is an issue that touches every classroom teacher these days,  including myself,  although my experiences with  integration are probably not the same as most teachers because all my teaching experience has been at a fine arts school.  I  taught for three years at Georges Vanier School in Saskatoon,  10 Saskatchewan, both as a grade five classroom teacher and as an art resource teacher.  I much preferred the role of classroom  teacher, and this was mostly because of the flexibility it provided me to integrate art with other subjects, particularly the language arts. At first, as an inexperienced teacher,  I saw integration  basically as a uniting of knowledge from art and language; I had not yet truly understood the issue of child-centered learning. But child-centered learning gained my attention increasingly as I became more involved in integrating.  What I found was that  presenting knowledge in an integrated form made sense to the students and motivated them to learn.  But this interest and  motivation also brought the students themselves into the learning process in a way that I could not foresee or control. emotions,  Their  interests,’ thought and organizational patterns all  played a major role in their learning.  The way I viewed myself  as a teacher and the students as learners underwent a transformation.  Trying to understand integration personally has  prompted my interest in studying the teacher’s role in curricular integration of art and’ language.  Research Questions The classroom teacher has the task of creating an environment for the students to learn language and art.  His/her  belief system has a fundamental role in selecting and defining tasks  (Pajares,  1992).  The purpose of this study is to  11 understand the teachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language by examining the following: 1) What does the teacher believe about knowledge and its organization?  Specifically how are art and language perceived in  these beliefs about knowledge? 2) What does the teacher believe about how children learn?  What  does he/she believe about the role of the students and the role of the teacher in learning? 3) What is the relationship of these beliefs to the integration of art and language? 4) How are these beliefs about the integration of art and language translated into classroom practice?  Clarification of Terms Art and language arts are two terms that are central to the investigations of this study.  Specific definitions of these two  terms are not desired for this study because they are seen as integral to beliefs about knowledge.  These beliefs are what this  study seeks to understand, so defining art and language may be limiting to this understanding.  In general terms, art,  in this  study, refers to both perception and production of visual images with aesthetic qualities.  Language arts refer to linguistic  perception and production in the forms, of reading, writing, listening and speaking.  For the purposes of this study,  arts refer to the English language.  language  12 The following terms are defined for the purposes of this study as follows: Beliefs: features:  1)  Ways of thinking that have four characteristic existential presumptions  personal truths, ideal,  3)  2)  alternativity  -  —  incontrovertible,  an attempt to create the  affective and evaluative loading  separated from, but relate to knowledge,  4)  -  feelings that are an episodic nature  —  “guiding images of past events that create intuitive screens through which new information is filtered”  (Pajares,  1992, p.  310). Ways of thinking about something that have  Knowledge:  consensuality and bounds determined by relatively wellestablished canons of argument, with consensus about ways in which these things are evaluated or judged.  Knowledge has  relatively well-defined domains of application (Nespor, Integration:  1987).  The putting together of diverse parts to form  a new unity that has a character that is different from the collection of parts.  “The parts of an integrated entity  themselves have increased significance and intelligibility because they are seen to be parts of a meaningful whole” 1991, p.  (Cooinbs,  2).  Child-centered Learning:  Child-centered learning is a  philosophy that places construction of meaning in the domain of the individual  (Young,  1991—1992).  Knowledge—centered Learning:  Knowledge—centered learning  places the construction of meaning external to those learning it;  13 meaning exists in textbooks, teachers, written texts, experts in the field, etc.  (Young,  1991—1992).  Research Plan Because the focus of this study is the understanding of teachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language at the intermediate level,  it calls for a qualitative research  design that allows for in-depth description.  The study is  comprised of two case studies: one of a grade seven teacher with background and experience in integrating art and one of a grade five teacher with background and experience in integrating language.  These case studies focus on the integration of art and  language over one unit of study,  in each case lasting  approximately eight weeks.  Research Methodoloqy This thesis is comprised of two case studies, where “integration” is the focus, and the teacher’s beliefs are the units of study.  It is important to this study to examine in depth  how teachers’ professed beliefs actually transform into classroom practice.  More data than a single interview can yield is  necessary to get a full picture of teachers’ beliefs because “much practical knowledge is implicit; teachers’ reasons for selecting certain strategies may not be clearly understood until teachers try to explain their actions”  (Isenberg,  1991, p.  324).  14 Sometimes what teachers do requires explanation; beliefs are often stated in ideals and do not necessarily explain what actually goes on in classrooms.  So, as a researcher 1 must gain  an understanding of what a teacher believes about the integration of art and language in the ideal using interviews.  But further  data is necessary to understand how these beliefs work in real situations.  “It is more reasonable not to relinquish ideals but  to moderate them by considering the context in which the teaching occurs and the aims the teacher embraces. is filled with trade—offs”  (Eisner,  Teaching, like life,  1991, p.  77-78).  So data  from “real—life” teaching is important to the understanding of teachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language.  Data Collection and Analysis To this end, data for each case study was collected in the following forms: 1)  Initial interview to select cases.  2)  Pre-unit interview to establish expressed beliefs.  2)  Examination of curricular materials  3)  Observations in the classroom over an integrated unit of  study. 4)  Post—unit interview to question and comment on previously  collected data. Initial interviews of teachers formed the basis for case selection.  When the two case study teachers were selected, the  pre-unit interviews established their professed beliefs about the  15 nature of knowledge, about how students learn that knowledge, the teacher’s role in this knowledge acquisition, integration, particularly of art and language.  and finally about Next the study  sought to follow these professed beliefs through the process of planning and teaching lessons.  The final interview allowed the  teachers to explain their actions.  It also allowed me to verify  my findings with the participants. Analysis of the data followed an emerging format. transcriptions, notes on curricular documents,  Interview  field notes and  final interview notes were coded to identify emerging concepts.  Significance of the Study Gaining understanding of teachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language will address several issues about integration.  First of all, the study helps us to understand how  teachers subjectively define what integration is and how this definition is put into practice. Second, the study also adds to the growing body of knowledge dealing with teachers’ beliefs by identifying the beliefs about integration and knowledge,  especially those pertaining to art and  language, upon which teachers build integrated curricula.  And  because these case studies deal with how professed beliefs are utilized in the classroom, the study addresses the translating of theory into practice.  This occurs on two levels.  First,  teachers’ beliefs are in a sense personal theories that they translate into practice; these case studies are an examination of  16 this micro—level of theory—into—practice.  Second, theories  propose that teachers’ beliefs have a great effect on what they teach; the case studies address theory—into—practice on a macro— level. As well,  it addresses concerns of art educators about the  position of art education in an integrated curriculum.  While not  aimed at this issue per Se, understanding what teachers believe about art and language in an integrated curriculum provides insight into the role of teachers’ beliefs about subject matter and subject status in an integrated setting.  17 CHAPTER II THE LITERATURE REVIEW  Introduction The task of describing and analyzing teachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language in intermediate grade classrooms demands information in many diverse areas.  First, I  will examine teacher beliefs as a vehicle for understanding what goes on in classrooms.  Next I will examine in philosophical and  historical terms the nature of art and the nature of language as educational enterprises.  Finally,  I will examine literature on  the concept of integration, particularly as it relates to art and language education.  The Teacher Context is of particular importance when we focus on education, because teachers and others involved in education have no direct access to the internal conditions of individual students except through qualities they create in the environment (Eisner,  1982, p.  55).  The context for the integration of  language and art created by the classroom teacher is of interest here.  While this involves many dimensions, the one I have chosen  to investigate in this study is teacher beliefs. examine the nature of teacher beliefs,  First,  I will  and why teacher beliefs  were chosen as the vehicle for understanding integration. I will look at the culture of the classroom,  since it is an  Next,  18 integral part of beliefs about teaching in our society. Integration and the effects that it has on classroom culture will also be examined.  Then I will explore the role of teacher  beliefs specifically in content areas, particularly language arts.  A move toward an integrated approach known as whole  language has stimulated some research into teacher beliefs.  Some  of this research focuses on changes in teachers’ belief systems from those associated with traditional classroom culture,  so  changes in belief systems are also briefly examined.  Teachers’ Beliefs Teachers’ beliefs are increasingly seen as key in understanding what goes on in classrooms 1987; Pajares,  1992).  (Isenberg,  1990; Nespor,  This is a perspective in research that  assumes that teachers’ ways of knowing affect classroom actions (Richardson, et. al.,  In order to understand how beliefs  1991).  affect classroom practice,  it is first necessary to have an  understanding of what beliefs are. “Belief” is a complex construct, difficult to define. Beliefs are seen to have four feature characteristics: 1) existential presumptions  —  immutable entities that are personal,  beyond individual control or knowledge, and unaffected by persuasion,  2)  alternativity  —  the attempt to create an ideal or  alternative situation that differs from reality, evaluative loading  -  3)  affective and  feelings involved with a body of knowledge  but operating independently from the cognition associated with  19 and 4)  that knowledge,  episodic structure  -  guiding images from  past events that create intuitive screens through which new information is filtered  (Nespor,  1987; Pajares,  1992).  One confusion that necessitates clarification is the distinction between belief systems and knowledge systems, relationship between them.  and the  Beliefs are distinguished from  knowledge in a number of ways.  One theory is that knowledge is  the cognitive outcome of thought and belief the affective outcome, but the •separation of cognition from affect has serious problems  (Pajares,  1992).  component; knowledge,  Belief clearly has a cognitive  likewise, has an affective component.  Yet differences between beliefs and knowledge stem from the emotional and affective loading and the episodic nature of beliefs.  They are very difficult to change.  to evaluation and critical examination, (Pajares,  1992).  They are not open  as knowledge systems are  Also, beliefs have no clear logical rules for  determining the relevance of beliefs to real—world events and situations.  Moreover, these may be bound up with the personal,  episodic and emotional experiences of the believer (Nespor, 1987). Beliefs are seen as providing the frame and filter through which we view new information.  Beliefs ultimately screen,  redefine, distort or reshape subsequent thinking (Pajares,  1992).  Beliefs are conceptual systems which are functional or useful for explaining some domain of activity, defining tasks  (Nespor,  1987).  and play a major role in  20 I will be examining the integration of art and language as a task of teachers.  Teacher beliefs will provide insight because  of the role that beliefs play in defining tasks. believe about classrooms, teachers,  students,  What teachers  knowledge,  students learn, and the subj ects of art and language  the way  will be a  part of their conceptualization of integration.  The Culture of the Classroom An important component of what teachers believe involves the culture of the classroom.  The way in which teachers run their  classrooms is affected by strong cultural antecedents.  Classroom  culture provides “constraints and opportunities for teachers’ work and shapes their beliefs about what they do” p.  4).  (Werner,  1991,  Monson and Pahl see traditional school cultures as having  developed operating principles closely resembling those of factories,  “where skills in reading, writing and arithmetic were  acquired with the pragniatics of the workplace in mind” 51).  (1991, p.  Emphasis on basic skills, drill and practice, presented in  an efficient and cost effective manner according to industrial revolution ideology, has remained the norm. Moving to a whole language perspective involves a fundamental change in a teacher’s belief system about the culture of the classroom.  It moves from a historical model of teaching  in which teachers dispense knowledge to the students to an approach through which students actively construct meaning (Monson & Pahl,  1991).  This is a switch from a knowledge-  21 centered model of learning to a child—centered model of learning. This is a major change that integrative theories propose. Certainly it is a problematic one. One problem comes from teachers’ definitions of child— Hollingsworth (1989)  centered learning.  labeled child-centered  learning constructivist or participatory learning,  a major  program concept for the pre—service teachers -in her study.  She  found that while all the participants professed belief in constructivist learning, preprogram beliefs affected how teachers conceived this term.  Their thinking about constructivist  learning corresponded to their preprogram notions of how students learned in classroom settings. Another problem is that changing to child-centered learning involves changes to other values that we hold in traditional knowledge—centered classrooms. knowledge and learning.  These values shape views of  For example,  held is the value for orderliness.  one of the values commonly  In traditional classrooms,  orderliness is maintained through specified,  limited pieces of  information matched to discrete behavioral objectives, transmitted by worksheets, chapter questions  short—answer quizzes and end—of—the—  (Popkewitz,  1978).  However, when teachers plan  integrated units of study, they have the opportunity to reflect on their views of knowledge selection and organization. They can move beyond the mechanistic, order— driven transmission of knowledge that is molded to satisfy values compatible with organizational controls and institutional This involves changing to efficiencies.  22 modes of teaching that include discussion of controversial topics and development of If the critical and independent reasoning. locus of integration is seen as the student, rather than the curriculum, thorough discussions are necessary in order to forge connections. (Werner, 1991, p. 15). However,  subject matters such as these may be avoided  because it is seen to detract from orderliness.  Orderliness is a  value that is deepseated and difficult to question (Werner, 1991).  Attention to management concerns are so pervasive that  they tend to drive what subject matter is presented and what students learn (Hollingsworth,  1989).  The values on which  classrooms are administered, such as orderliness, thereby have a bearing on what counts as desirable content and how it is taught. The process of child—centered learning requires that traditional roles for teachers and learners be reconfigured (Monson & Pahl,  1991).  One obvious and difficult change for  teachers to make is that they no longer have control of the knowledge base in the same manner that they do in traditional classrooms.  But another problem emerges for teachers in an  integrated setting because of the change in their role. Dismantling subject boundaries in attempts to integrate interferes with ways teachers define themselves; professional identities are largely maintained around subjects  (Werner,  1991).  Integration can also affect teachers’ roles because of perceived status of their subject. equally important.  Not all subjects are believed to be  Certainly language education and art  education are not viewed equally; As Werner (1991)  states,  23 “Courses like mathematics and the language arts have privileged positions whose legitimacy is rarely questioned in comparison to the fine arts...”  (p. 7).  Changing classroom cultures, as integration theories demand, is difficult because classroom cultures are set up to perpetuate themselves.  Teacher education programs are designed to  capitalize on the students’ preexisting knowledge, thereby ensuring that new teachers turn out to be very much like the teachers who taught them (Hollingsworth,  1989).  Teachers react to theories of integration in different ways. There is a pervasive notion in education today that integration is inherently good  (Daniels,  1991; Young,  advocate dis—integrated knowledge? integration is common.  1991—1992); who would  Professed support for  In Jean Young’s  (1991-1992)  study of pre  service teachers perceptions of curricular integration, although all 43 participants thought integration was a good thing and were planning to integrate, what they meant by integration differed greatly.  Young described three degrees of integration.  First,  low degree of integration, was characterized by separate subject boundaries with a common theme linking a unit of study together. A great deal of pre-planning of the knowledge characterized this approach,  so that in a sense “the teacher acts as if he or she  owns the knowledge”  (p.  4).  Second,  intermediate degree of integration.  Young described an This approach involved the  teachers being aware of subject boundaries, but their units were presented in a holistic manner in which subjects lose their  a  24 Knowledge is still “public” but the focus is on the  identity.  children acquiring the knowledge, knowledge  (p.  rather than the transmission of  The final approach was a high degree of  5).  integration, where students become the starting point of planning, and the units were not oriented toward subjects; they were drawn upon as needed.  Only two of the 43 participants in  this study subscribed to the third approach. In a study by William Schmidt, Laura Roehler, Jacqueline Caul, Margret Buchinan, Barbara Diamond, David Solomon and Pat Cianciolo  (1985)  of curricular integration of language arts  instruction, the six teachers studied generally favored integrating language arts instruction but only minimal amounts of integration could be documented in their classrooms,  accounting  for less than 10% of instructional time.  Changing Beliefs Werner (1991)  believes that when integration is attempted  “the web of implications for the school’s culture starts to emerge”  (p.  23), making change difficult.  implement some aspects of integration,  Many teachers will  such as organizing  knowledge around themes, because this is relatively easy to do. Others will present a false front; they will claim to subscribe to integration but not practice it. teachers may exhibit “false clarity”  This may not be conscious; -  “when people think they  have changed but have only assimilated the superficial trappings of the new practice”  (Fullan,  1982, p.  28).  25 Because integration involves for most teachers a change from traditional classroom culture,  it will be illuminating to address  how changes in classroom practices occur.  Prevailing theories  suggest that practices must change first; then beliefs change (Guskey,  1986).  Teachers have a “gestalt” transformation of  their belief systems, another.  commonly converting from one authority to  But changes are relatively rare; people perform all  sorts of mental gymnastics,  if the information contradicts their belief  presented to them, systems  1992).  (Pajares,  including denying what is logically  The earlier belief systems are  acquired, the more difficult they are to change  (Pajares,  1992),  making beliefs teachers acquire during their own schooling a significant factor. Nespor (1987)  proposes that changing teachers beliefs  involves helping teachers become reflexive and self—conscious of their beliefs as well as presenting objective data on the adequacy or validity of these beliefs. beliefs must be available.  But a new system of (1991)  Monson and Pahl  learner—centered model of teacher education,  advocate a  as traditional  “corrective orientations do not reflect the changes that new integrative theories, learning process”  (p.  teachers as learners.  like whole language, 53).  endorse about the  This perspective acknowledges  Several case studies provide evidence that  changing to a whole language approach to teaching language is a gradual process,  and that,  contrary to current theories, beliefs  26 often change before instructional practices do (Richardson, et al,  1991; Sierra and Combs,  1990).  Changing from a traditional classroom to a child—centered, integrated approach to teaching is a very complex task involving the teachers’ beliefs about the culture of the classroom, the teachers’ role, the students’ role, and values that teachers hold for subject matter.  These are all factors that aid in the  understanding of the integration of language and art in the elementary school classroom.  But because I am looking at the  content areas of language and art specifically, and because teacher beliefs are tied to the dominant ideas of classroom culture, an examination of art and language as educational enterprises will help to further define issues surrounding art and language integration.  The Nature of Art and Language as Educational Enterprises Language and art as ‘educational enterprises have contrasting histories.  Language has been historically and philosophically  characterized as logical, cognition.  analytical and integrally related to  Art, on the other hand, has been historically and  philosophically distanced from the idea of cognition; characterized as affective and intuitive, from cognition  (McGuire,  1984).  it is  in a separate domain  Here I present a brief  examination of this contrast and its relation to the current educational context.  27 Western philosophy is credited with creating a dichotomy between verbal,  logical forms and artistic, affective forms of  knowledge (Eisner,  1981; Hamblen,  1983; Youngblood,  If  1983).  the study of cognition is labeled a science, then it aligns the concept of cognition with the verbal logical side of this historically created dichotomy.  This is evident in Gardner’s  definition of cognition in The Mind’s New Science (1985).  He  indicates the desirability of the exclusion of affective factors or emotions, the contribution of historical and cultural factors and the role of background context in defining cognitivescientific enterprise. field of art education.  This idea of the separation affects the This historically created dichotomy has  lead to attitudes which have legitimated certain types of educational practices while withholding legitimacy from others, particularly in areas of artistic endeavor.  Hamblen (1983)  believes that “Statements in which the non—verbal is separated from the cognitive are powerful, blatant notices that the former does not constitute knowing and, by inference, that non—verbal (pp.  apprehensions of the world are inferior to verbal knowledge” 177—178).  Youngblood (1983)  characterizes the dichotomy as the  difference between classic and romantic modes of thought.  He  sees schools as rewarding the classic mode; romantic modes of learning are accorded little value in the schools. Some credit the dichotomy between verbal, and artistic,  logical thinking  intuitive thinking to a physiological cause.  One  argument centers on the premise that language and logical thought  28 are centered in the left hemisphere of the brain and artistic and intuitive thought are located in the right hemisphere. (1990)  Healy  has used the separate halves of the brain to formulate an  argument for the growing state of illiteracy in the United States.  She argues that the plasticity of a child’s growing  brain allows for the environment to shape the way the brain is structured.  There are certain critical periods where the brain  needs specific stimuli in order for certain abilities to develop. Because the brain is involved in a condition of “neural darwinism”, different areas of the brain try to take over neurons from other areas. media,  Children today are so immersed in the mass  specifically television, whose fast pace and exciting  visuals stimulate the right hemisphere.  Therefore, right  hemisphere functions are taking over the neurons in the left hemisphere targeted for language.  Hence,.the children of today  are losing biologically their ability to process verbal information because the right side of the brain is taking over! Healy is not alone in her ideas of physiological separation of artistic and language processing.  Edwards’s book Drawinc with  the Right Side of the Brain (1986), postulates that the symbolic, logical and analytical left side of the brain must be relieved of its dominance in order for the right side of the brain to function in the creation of visual images. However,  these theories are extreme.  Currently, there is  interest in the understanding of how specific areas of the brain function together rather than in the idea of physiological  29 distinction of the brain’s two hemispheres.  Gardner (1985),  in  reviewing work of the characterization of the functions of the two hemispheres,  found no clear dichotomization.  He goes on to  stress the more important dynamic interaction between the two Youngblood (1983)  hemispheres.  argues that even if visual and  verbal cognition are lateralized in the brain,  it does not mean  that the work of the each hemisphere is carried out in isolation. He credits humans as having a propensity for dichotomizing our world that has arisen from our philosophical history rather than from the organization of the brain. Instead of limiting the concept of cognition to strictly verbal logical activity,  several people have proposed a united  notion of cognition that encompasses all forms of knowing. claims that thought is not separate from non-verbal  Eisner (1981)  He argues that no concepts can be formed without  comprehension.  sensory information. sensory in form,  (p.  image surrogates like words would be  So “in the beginning there was the image, not the  meaningless. word”  Without concepts formed as images that are  49).  Further, he argues that feeling constitutes one  type of thought process and that thought should not be limited to verbal operations. Hamblen (1983)  coins the term “cognitive  umbrella” to indicate this broadening of the concept.  That  individuals have distinct and semi—autonomous intellectual realms has been proposed by Gardner 1)  language,  2) music,  3)  spacial conceptualization,  (1983).  These “intelligences” are:  logic and mathematics, 5)  4) visual  bodily-kinesthetic skills,  6)  30 knowledge of other persons and 7)  knowledge of self.  Gardner  does not tie any of his realms to distinct bodies of knowledge. They are not preordained to be involved in any specific activity; rather each can function for a number of ends. Philosophical perspectives and neurophysiologic approaches have developed a notion of separateness between language and art that has been challenged.  Conversely, when art and language are  examined from the perspective of the, function they serve, art and language have a history of being united.  Because both language  and art function in communication of meaning, the notion of art as a language is a well-established metaphor (Osborne,  1984).  However, there are areas where art and language differ in their functioning.  An examination of these similarities and  differences is important when applied to the educational. context of integration. Art and language as functions of communication of meaning may differ because of the nature of the function.  A useful  organizing tool to delineate these functions is Eisner’s modes of treating “forms of representation.”  He saw humans as having  imaginative capacities that allow them to examine and explore the possibilities of sensory information. springboard for expression.  This capacity is a  Forms of representation are “devices  that humans use to make public conceptions that are privately held  ...  and might take the form of word, pictures, music,  mathematics, dance and the like”  (1981, p.  have three functions, which Eisner (1981;  47). 1982)  These forms can terms “modes”:  1)  31 mimetic, an imitation of the sensory input, 2)  expressive, a  revelation of what an event expresses, rather than what it was physically like, and 3)  conventional, an arbitrary sign.  modes are not isolated within any particular form.  These  Any one form  of representation may perform all three of these functions. Art is clearly used for mimetic functions.  Language is used  mimetically only in very limited cases of onomatopoeia.  This tie  of image-making to the physical world has led to cognitive theories of art that begin with the premise that art is a representation of a physical reality.  Arnheim (1974)  explains  the process of making art as an act of invention in that objects in the world are observed, then abstract mental equivalences are invented to represent these object, then a graphic configuration is reproduced from the mental equivalences to represent the original perception of the object.  Many. investigations have  taken place trying to determine the rules by which humans make their images “real” Willats,  1977).  (Golomb & Farmer,  1983; Lansing,  1984;  But these rules are limited to representational  work. Because art has a direct link with the physical world,  (ie.,  there is a physical resemblance between what is portrayed in art and what actually exists), mimetic functions are used extensively within the educational context.  In the classroom art is often  used predominantly for illustrative purposes  (Mitchell,  1990), a  limitation seen especially when art is integrated with other subjects  (Kindler,  1987).  32 The expressive mode reveals many instances of similarities between art and language.  The standard model for the treatment  of perception and concept formation is the notion that we come to know something outside ourselves.  But in the arts, perception and  conception are often centered on an interior world (Perry, Emery (1989)  1984).  identifies belief as critical to the artistic making  and thinking process. suspend disbelief.  She used belief to denote the ability to  In art, believing entails conceptualizing  that marks on a paper are real worlds, even though we know they are not.  To believe is to engage in complex cognitive and  sensate processes transforming the artistic media into expressions of ideas.  This is the mode that art and language  have the most in common, as evidenced by the numbers of articles advocating the integration of art and language Bates,  1993; Jones,  1993; Thorns,  1991; Meyer,  1985).  (Amdur,  1988; Mitchell,  1993;  1990; Stout,  Language arts share much common ground with  visual arts because both subjects concentrate on a means of creative expression. Creative expression is enhanced by integration of art and language.  Bates (1993)  used T.  S. Elliot’s words to  describe  how visual images trigger unconscious, deeply—felt responses, “The painting or sculpture acts as the objective correlative for the writer’s emotions, the interaction often producing poetry that is filled with strong language and vivid imagination” 42-43).  Jones  (1991)  (pp.  found that different approaches enhanced  33 the end—product,  allowing for complex exploration while avoiding  redundancy. Aesthetic education, as well, integrated approach.  is seen to necessitate an  It is difficult to imagine,  for instance,  any aesthetic or critical art education component not relying on language to express ideas.  Thoms  (1985)  asked students to  examine a painting and write a literary transformation.  He  theorized that aesthetic understanding is only achieved when it is transformed through the perception of the spectator.  This  transformation is enhanced by creative writing. The conventional mode involves the use of conventional sign systems to communicate meaning. this way. concept.  Language is certainly defined in  Art as a visual sign system has been a popular This has led to attempts to borrow a form for art from  the form of language. The form of language, surface structure,  as outlined by Chomsky (1972), has  a deep structure and mental processes called  transformations that operate between the two.  Surface structures  are the rules and interactions of rules of specific languages. The deep structure is the “universal grammar”; this is a highly restrictive innate schema present in all language users that is the basis for human intellectual capacities. highly rule—governed,  it is also creative.  While language is The transformations  allow for generation of an infinite number of pairings between deep and surface structures.  34 However,  there is no equivalent in visual image—making to  language’s surface structure.  Attempts to find pictorial  structures equivalent to grammatical rules has not been promising (Willats,  1979).  Forrest (1984)  states that art cannot be  defined as a language because there is no agreed syntactical basis for art and that the elements of art and the principles of design have little in common with the rules of grammar. (1984)  Osborne  contends that fine art has no lexicon, a list of  expressions that belong to a single syntactic category that have at least one form and meaning. lexical entries. grammar.  Rules of grammar operate on  Since art does not have a lexicon,  it has no  Whether or not language and art have similar forms at  the level of deep structure has not been ascertained, perhaps because the form of deep structure in language is now still at a theoretical level  (Chomsky,  1972).  That visual signs have some organized properties that allow for communication is evident.  “It is not that art has no rules,  but that the rules are unaccompanied, as they are in language, by systems of correct application”  (Forrest,  1984, p.  saw all forms of representation as having syntaxes,  28).  Eisner  but he uses  “syntax” as meaning arrangement of parts within a whole.  He  places syntaxes as on a continuum between rule—governed and figurative. The less rule—governed and the more figurative the syntax,  the more it permits idiosyncratic interpretation and  novelty of form (Eisner,  1982).  governed than visual images.  Language is obviously more rule—  35 Verbal language, written language and art each have unique functions in the communication of meaning.  Interesting work has  been done on the developmental interdependence of drawing, talking and writing as symbolic representations of thought. Dyson  (1988,  1992)  proposes a dynamic and interactive process in  the development of written language, which she labels “symbolic weaving”  (1988, p.  355).  The ability to express ideas through  drawing develops in children before comprehension does (Gardner, 1989); the reverse is true in spoken and written language. Bringing talking and drawing together for young children aids in the creation of ideas and their expression. collaboration in the meanings of drawings. deliberate and planned activity follows. capable of mediating  -  Talking becomes a Increasingly more  “Drawing becomes more  shaping and being shaped by  social and representational intentions”  (Dyson,  -  the child’s  1992, p. 5).  First writing is used as a “prop” to constructing meaning through dramatic play and drawing. descriptions of drawings.  Written words generally are labels or But because drawings are static in  time, and children need ways to express social interaction, they develop writing strategies to resolve these time/space dilemmas (Dyson,  1988).  Writing develops into a “mediator” through which  meaning is constructed interactively through the symbolic representations in speech, drawing and writing. It is interesting to note that within our educational system drawing often appears to revert to being a “prop” once writing is a well-established skill.  Drawings,  instead of holding  36 credibility as creations of meaning, become illustrations of stories,  something extra.  Kindler (1987)  is concerned that art  is included in an integrated curriculum with “extrinsic rationale (p. that points to the usefulness of the arts in other areas of learning and claims that arts are instrumental in achieving better results in other areas of academic pursuit”  52).  This  is a continuation of the devaluing of artistic ways of knowing within our educational system because art is viewed as a “prop” to other subjects. What happens developmentally with the dynamic interaction of speech, writing and drawing is complex. studies of young children.  Dyson’s work is based on  She states that,  “Children’s  interweaving of media does pose developmental challenges as, eventually, children must differentiate and gain control over the unique powers of each medium”  (1992, p.  16).  What this means for  (p. education in artistic, verbal and written expression, especially as children move through to the intermediate grades, clear.  is not  Dyson advocates talking to children about their efforts  to help them reflect upon their processes.  This is echoed  convincingly by Stout (1993), who advocates a dialogue journal in secondary art classes, where “writing is a generative process for learning, writing as a complement to studio activity”  40).  The dialogue journal should have two delineated components: one is the content of academic experiences and the second is the reflections on  these experiences.  Both Stout and Dyson are  strong advocates of child—centered learning, and reflection on  37 the processes of thoughts (metacognition)  figure greatly in their  philosophies of students creating their own meaning. However,  it is conventional modes of thought using language  as a form of representation that are the primary focus in schools today (Dixon & Chalmers,  1990; Eisner,  1982).  Language is seen  as the structural organizer, categorizer and manipulator of cognition (McGuire,  1984).  When this idea is paired with  dominant classroom culture ideology, where efficiency of means is emphasized,  it is hardly surprising that educational emphases has  been on transmitting language’s rule—governed syntax. Ironically,  an elevation of the status of the expressive  mode within art education during the progressive movement of the late l920s and early 1930s was followed by a loss of emphasis on artistic skills and knowledge (Freyberger, common rationale for including  1985).  In fact, a  art within the curriculum is that  art gives insight into the students feelings and emotions. this lends credibility to art’s expressive function,  While  it denies  the importance of “the uniqueness and comprehensiveness of knowledge within the area of art”  (Kindler,  1987, p.  57).  In summary, language and art have distinct histories when considered as cognitive enterprises. cognition have been inexorably linked,  While language and art has only recently  gained theoretical acceptance as a cognitive enterprise.  This  dichotomy has had implications for education; while language is considered core to any educational program, legitimacy.  art fights for  Yet when they are examined in terms of the functions  38 that they serve, there is a great deal of overlap, providing the possibility for the integration of art and language in educational settings.  Eisner’s modes of expression  mimetic, the expressive and the conventional  —  —  the  provide a  framework for examining how language and art are used.  While art  has more mimetic functions, both art and language have many uses in the expressive mode, providing support and opportunity for integration.  In the conventional mode,  language has a more  formal syntax, while art’s more figurative syntax allows for greater flexibility of form.  But the greater structure of  language in the conventional mode has been the major focus in education. These differences and similarities between art and language are yet another of the dimensions affecting what teachers believe about the integration of the two subjects.  Next I will examine  the dimension of curricular integration itself.  Curricular Integration Traditionally within the context of the elementary school, the mastery of the three R’s has had primary emphasis 1982).  (Eisner,  Content areas have been limited to a few of Eisner’s  forms of representation, most notably words and numbers.  In  terms of Gardner’s intelligences, heavier emphasis has been given to the language and the mathematics intelligences rather than spacial, musical, intelligences.  kinesthetic, personal or interpersonal  Because these content areas of reading, writing  39 and arithmetic are taught with an emphasis on conventional modes of treatment, wider aspects of cognition are not being addressed (Eisner,  1982).  The predominance teaching of rules, deductive logic patterns,  “building block” approaches and the notion that there  is one correct solution to all problems what it is) 1981; Healy,  (and the teacher knows  are educational practices that are questioned (Eisner 1990; Nessel,  1989; Temple and Gillet,  1989).  Attention is being shifted to providing a wider, more balanced, and more relevant curriculum.  To achieve this end, a movement  towards curricular integration is being instigated in many North American elementary school systems,  including British Columbia.  There is a great deal of confusion about the term “integration.”  This arises from determining exactly what is to  be integrated, how these integrations take place and who orchestrates the integration.  A necessary and mostly overlooked  aspect of integration is that it presupposes differentiation. that are brought together in some  There must be discreet  tlthingsll  manner by some force.  Determining what these things are, how  they are brought together and by whom define the integrated curriculum.  How Do We Integrate? I will deal briefly with the “how” question of integration, as this is the most readily addressed. place in various ways.  Integration can take  Some theories of integration are  40 basically definitions of space, time and use of personnel within the educational context.  For example, Jacobs  continuum of options for content design.  (1989)  proposes a  First there is  discipline—based curriculum, where students learn separate subjects from separate teachers within their own classrooms. Then there are parallel disciplines, where teachers examine the same theme concurrently in their own classrooms.  Next there is a  multidisciplinary approach; teachers now co-plan their units, but still teach them separately in their own classrooms.  Then there  are interdisciplinary units, where teachers of different subjects and students work in the same space over an extended period of Then there is integrated day, where no subject boundaries  time. exist. (1960)  Finally there is the complete program  —  such as Neill  describes in Summerhill.  This conceptualization of integration deals with the mechanics and logistics of integration, how integration can be done.  But this does not encompass the crucial issue of what  elements are to be integrated and by whom.  This is intricately  entwined with beliefs about the nature of knowledge itself.  What is to be Integrated and by Whom? In terms of what is to be integrated,  Case (l99la),  in his  “Anatomy of Curricular Integration” suggests that there are four forms of integration: of skills/processes,  1) 3)  integration of content,  2)  integration  integration of school and self,  and  41 4)  holistic integration (p.  not separate,  These forms are distinct, but  from each other.  Of these four forms, two,  2).  I have distinguished between the first  integration of content and integration of skills and  processes, and the last two, the integration of school and self and holistic integration.  The major difference between these  forms is that the former are mostly centered on the integration of knowledge external to the student that education seeks to make internal.  I am calling these knowledge—centered integrations  since they deal with what is to be integrated.  The latter are  focused on students’ internal knowledge that education seeks to make external; thus I have labeled them child-centered integrations.  “Who” questions about integration are generally  centered on questions of child—centered versus knowledge—centered integration. This difference is significant for two reasons.  The first  is that knowledge—centered integration is often seen as being child—centered integration.  I hope to clear up confusions about  integration by making the distinction.  The second reason is that  within the educational context, the culture of the classroom has dictated a knowledge-centered approach.  Traditionally,  education has focused on the knowledge base.  language  In contrast, art  education, which has for the most part been relegated to the fringes of core education, has focused mainly on the child’s self—expression and creativity.  But current movements within  language education are moving toward a child—centered approach;  42 in art education there are movements toward a knowledge—centered approach. The integration of curricular knowledge content,  skills and processes,  are elements  under the domain of  curriculum—makers, text books, teachers etc. knowledge is objectified; that is,  the integration of  -  This curricular  it is knowledge that is  conceived, organized and integrated without input from those attempting to gain the knowledge. external to the students.  It is knowledge that is  The learning process seeks to  internalize this knowledge. Content integration is the attempt to draw connections among the understandings promoted within and among discreet bodies of knowledge.  Processes and skills are generic procedural  knowledge, the methods and abilities educators hope to foster in all applicable contexts  (Case,  l991a).  This knowledge must be  brought together to form a new unity that is more than a collection of its constituent parts; the whole and these parts have meaning or significance. organizational tool;  Integration is more than an  it is a unifying principle (Coombs,  The Year 2000 Intermediate Document  (1990)  1991).  from the Ministry  of Education of British Columbia was until recently the guiding force behind curricular change for this province. of the confusions about the term integration.  It showed some  It defined  integration as “an orientation that accepts the integrated nature of knowledge and the interconnected relationships that exist between and among all things”  (p.  89).  This definition has an  43 underlying premise about the nature of knowledge  -  that there is  an essential unity of all knowledge, which Pring (1973) his four major epistemological positions on integration.  as one of The  second is the division of knowledge into broad fields of experience.  Interestingly this is also a position also found in  the Year 2000 Intermediate Document (1990)  in its division of the  curriculum into four strands: the humanities, sciences, and practical arts.  fine arts  The third epistemological position is that  problems or issues must unify elements from different bodies of knowledge. (Coonths,  This is also known as instrumental integration  1991).  The fourth of Pring’s positions is the belief  that there are distinct and autonomous “forms of knowledge” but that there are complex conceptual connections between them. A philosophy of a unity consisting of all knowledge creates a great deal of skepticism.  Objectively,  all knowledge does not  fit the definition of a unity, where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole 1991).  (Coombs,  1991; Court,  1991; Daniels,  But this philosophical approach is more centered on the  belief that the student creates the unified whole of his/her knowledge.  Because knowledge is defined subjectively,  philosophically this definition is dealing primarily with the question of who does the integrating.  Advocates of child  centered learning support this conception of knowledge in stating that students are being educated to subjectively define their world (Goodman,  1986).  44 But major criticisms of this philosophy of knowledge question the interactions of the students with the knowledge base.  Must each student start creating a system of knowledge  from scratch?  Clearly this is not a useful educational goal.  Child—centered learning “does not obviate the need for acquiring a clear conception of the unities to be formed by parts of the curriculum”  1991, p.  (Coombs,  makers, teachers etc.,  6).  It is the case that curriculum  form some unities in knowledge for  educational purposes. The remaining three perspectives of knowledge are views where knowledge has discrete organizational categories. difference between them is the  The  boundaries of these categories,  the purpose of making connections between them and the nature and strength of these connections. Coherence of the elements united through curricular It must be the case that things integration is a key concept. (p. being integrated are logically, causally or pragmatically (Daniels,  1991).  For example,  Coombs  relevant vary.  of study”  —  Ideas of what these elements are (1991)  called these elements “objects  intellectual and aesthetic constructions such as  concepts, propositions, theories, arguments, judgments rules, procedures, performances  techniques, artistic creations and expert 9).  His conception of curricular elements  allows much flexibility in constituting unities. However, most commonly in schools, knowledge is organized into subject categories.  Traditionally,  it is only these subject  45 categories that are treated as unities. sound philosophically. existing in basic forms.  Hirst (1975)  saw human knowledge as  These basic forms are mathematics,  physical science, knowledge of persons, morals,  Some see this as being  religion and philosophy.  literature and fine arts,  Each of these has its own  concepts, theories, methodologies and standards of judgement. But each âf these distinct forms involves an integration or cohesiveness within its own boundaries.  Each domain of knowledge  has a logical grammar, which consists of the rules for the meaningful use of the terms it employs.  This logical grammar  provides the primary organization for this knowledge. However, (Coombs,  subjects as unified entities are questioned  1991).  One of the major arguments for curricular  integration is that subject boundaries are arbitrary, confining and do not reflect the way students learn.  Indeed, this argument  for integration of subjects raises a common overlap of the dimensions of knowledge—centered versus child—centered learning. This overlap causes many confusing issues to surface. For example, the Year 2000 Intermediate Document (1990) denounces a segregated approach: another,  “Isolating one subject from  and specifying discrete learnings within each subject,  has given rise to disintegration of personal learning and fragmentation of school experiences”  (p.  89).  “Personal  learning” is a term that connotes child—centered learning. is the students who are to perform these integrations. external knowledge such as subjects,  So it  Unifying  it is argued here, will  46 affect internal integration.  This may not necessarily be so.  Teaching through themes is a common example of a way to integrate knowledge that supersedes subject boundaries.  But, themes as an  integration of knowledge external to the students do not necessarily have personal relevance.  “organizing all instruction  around theme—based units may not enhance students’ perceptions of school relevance; in fact it could exacerbate the problem if our organized themes hold little significance for students” 1991b, p. 7).  (Case,  Integration of knowledge is often and mistakenly  seen as addressing issues that are really integrations of school and self or holistic integration. Teaching through themes may not even be an effective way to organize knowledge.  Themes have been criticized because they may  be used only as a differentiating or organizing tool, not as one that provides a principle for unity (Case, Court,  1991b; Coombs,  1991;  1991; Dearden, 1976).  While integration of knowledge is an obviously important element of curricular integration,  integration of school and self  is often the major purpose for implementing integrated curricula. The goal is to make school more relevant to the students’ lives, which in turn enhances interest and motivation, quality of learning and the students’ desire to stay in school 1991).  (Court,  But the relevance of schooling itself is a complex  educational issue.  Daniels sees the purposes of making relevant  connections in schools are enlightenment and empowerment. Enlightenment refers to the use of knowledge gained through  47 schooling that enables us to interpret our world in increasingly Empowerment is the use of  more coherent and sophisticated ways.  knowledge gained in schools for specific purposes, vocational training (Daniels,  such as  Major criticisms of child-  1991).  centered approaches are that students do not know what is good for them;  in other words, they cannot know what will enlighten or  empower them (Coombs, In fact,  1991; Daniels,  1991).  as students get older, knowledge—centered learning  is seen as being more significant so that it “takes over” from child—centered learning.  Aiudur (1993)  speaks of integration of  art with other humanities at a secondary level.  He states:  The free-ranging ‘follow your bliss’ orientation of whole language is well—suited for developing appetites for intellectual However, once students are inquiry. receptive to learning, they are able to reach beyond idiosyncratic interests and vernacular vocabulary to master the concepts, vocabulary and skills fundamental to a comprehensive education (p. 14). Even if themes may provide interest and may be relevant to the students at that particular time, this cannot guarantee relevance over time.  The dimensions of curricular integration,  called vertical and horizontal, relevance.  are also seen as contributing to  Theme teaching is for the most part horizontal,  ts because it is the integration of elements from different subjec at a specific time.  Vertical integration refers to the  integration of elements over time (Case,  l991b).  Traditional  subject curricula have built knowledge vertically, albeit within the traditional subject boundaries.  It is the vertical dimension  48 that may be lost through the teaching of themes.  Hirst (1975)  believed that organization around themes may enhance student interests, but he calls these second—order organizations of as knowledge because the student must first grasp the elements of logically related to other elements in the primary divisions knowledge.  It is argued that “putting together” requires some  knowledge of the separate parts to be integrated into a whole (Court,  1991).  This becomes a “chicken and egg” argument  —  one that is  evident in debates about current integrative philosophies.  Do  ts? students need the knowledge base in order act on their interes on Can integration take place internally without external directi about its constituent parts?  Or do students need interest in  order to act on the knowledge base?  Does internal direction  stimulate the need for external knowledge?  Ultimately, there is  but a dynamic process between internal and external knowledge, how teachers view the relevance,  importance and sequence of these  the acquisitions of knowledge will affect what they present in classroom.  -  In summary, confusing.  integration is a term that is ultimately  One confusion lies in the conception of knowledge.  a Philosophically, the nature of knowledge can be viewed on continuum from differentiated knowledge, where meaning exists only in isolated bits, to integrated knowledge, where all knowledge is seen as a unity. where integration takes place.  Next, there is the confusion about Integration may be seen as the  49 bringing together of content, skills and processes that are external to the students.  Or,  integration may be seen as a  process internal to individuals.  This is the difference between  knowledge—centered integrations and child—centered integrations. These are not mutually exclusive; some integration of knowledge takes place externally to students and students do bring their own ideas to the knowledge base.  Again,  integration can be  viewed as taking place on a continuum from knowledge—centered to Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge  child—centered.  and the locus of integration will affect their teaching.  Current Theories in Lanquage Arts and Art Education It is important here to examine curricula in the subject areas of language and of art in their current state, as well as views on uniting these bodies of knowledge.  The “chicken and  egg” argument will be discussed both in the phonics versus whole— language debate in language education and the scientificrationalism versus creative expressionism debate within art education. Traditionally,  language has been taught from small to large  units; students learn specific skills like phonics, grammar,  reading, creative writing, composition,  public speaking,  literature,  and listening and the whole of language is  presumed to be learned. these elements  spelling,  (Goodman,  A whole language perspective integrates 1986).  The major concern voiced against  this integrated approach is that in the whole students lose the  50  parts.  The most notable argument is that students do not learn  phonics; hence they do not have the skills necessary for reading (Monson & Pahl,  1991).  This is a heated debate, polarized in a  whole language versus phonics war that currently rages. Traditional approaches to teaching language are sequential, knowledge—based and teacher-directed.  For example, the phonics  approach to teaching reading follows a traditional pattern; Reading is learned  reading must be taught in an explicit way.  from the parts to the whole through a carefully worked-out sequential hierarchy of skills, and each skill must be taught, positively reinforced, mastered, and tested before the next appropriate skill in the hierarchy is presented (Monson & Pahl, 1991). Whole language, as the name implies,  is about learning from  the whole of language to the specific parts.  There is a major  body of developmental, phsycholinguistic and sociolinguistic research that supports whole language as the natural way to read and write  (Monson & Pahl,  1991).  A summary of these findings  upon which the practices of whole language are based are:  1)  children learn the whole before they understand the parts,  2)  learning occurs when the context has meaning for the children and 3)  experience is the best teacher (Froese,  1990, p.  270).  The desirability of meaningful context and the importance of personal experience are evident in the whole language approach. Context is very important in that it influences the functionality and the motivation of what is being taught.  Whole language  51 theorists often talk about “real” language, or the language that has meaning to the students internally directed.  (Goodman,  This learning is  1986).  Because child—centered learning is integral intuitive, global and expressive  to a whole language approach,  thought, attributed historically to artistic endeavors and physiologically to the right side of the brain, have a new and prominent role in the educational setting.  The teaching of  conventional modes are directed from the outside, a sequence of skills outlined by the teacher and directed toward a foregone conclusion.  In contrast,  a whole language approach begins with a  broad perspective that is not objectively but rather subjectively defined.  So language education is moving from isolated content,  skills and processes towards an integrated form, as well as emphasizing child—centered as opposed to curriculum—centered knowledge. Art education does have similar debates.  While there is a  strong core of proponents of a child—centered creative expression stream within art education,  currently much emphasis has been on  knowledge—centered approaches.  Research into artistic endeavors  that shows parallels to research in whole language has been conducted by Harvard Project Zero since 1967  (Gardner,  1989).  Over 100 researchers have investigated various aspects of artistic activities in a cognitive framework.  Part of their  research has been centered on determining a natural developmental trajectory of important artistic capacities.  Their findings  differ from findings in natural language research in several  52 areas.  In most areas of development, children simply improve  with age.  But in several artistic spheres there is a high level  of competence in very young children followed by a decline in the years of middle childhood. language,  As well,  in most spheres,  like  an individual’s perceptual or comprehension capacities  develop in advance of his/her productive capacities.  But with  artistic functions the reverse appears to be true, and these differences have been noted in this paper earlier because the interaction of producing art with speaking and writing activity provides interesting educational implications. However,  these differences in the natural development of  language and the natural development of art do not take on great significance in relation to the similarities, especially in the educational context.  Howard Gardner makes a number of  recommendations for involving students in the ways of thinking exhibited by individuals involved in the arts.  A summary of  recommendations that reveal a similar philosophy to whole language are:  1) particularly at the younger ages production  activities out to be central to any art form; 2) perceptual, historical, critical and other “pen-artistic” activities should be closely related to, and emerge from, the child’s own productions; 3) whenever possible, artistic learning should be organized around meaningful projects, which are carried out over a significant period of time and allow ample opportunity for feedback, discussion and reflection; 4)  in most artistic areas,  sequential curriculum will, not work because it “flies in the face  53 of the holistic, contextually—sensitive manner in which individuals customarily gain mastery;” 5) Artistic learning is not the same as mastery of a set of skills or concepts because the arts are deeply personal areas; students need to see that personal reflection is a respected and important activity (Gardner,  1989, pp.  76-77).  Thus Gardner also recommends child-  centered learning with a strong emphasis on the integration of school and self and holistic integration. An emphasis on child—centered learning has powerful antecedents in art education.  A stream of art education called  creative expressionism began after the second world war (Efland, 1990),  spearheaded by Lowenfeld (1947)  and his book Creative and  Mental Growth, who saw the goal of art education as “a child who gràws up more creatively and sensitively and applies his experience in the arts to whatever life situations may be applicable”  (Lowenfeld, cited in Efland,  1990, p.  272).  While Gardner’s approach and creative expressionism are similar to whole language philosophy in they both advocate childanother  centered learning and integrated approaches to knowledge,  prominent movement in art education seems to move away from the notion of curricular integration.  A stream in art education,  labeled scientific rationalism, became increasingly evident during the late 1950s through to the 1960s.  Programs referred to  such attributes as “having an organized body of knowledge, specific methods of inquiry,  and a community of scholars who  generally agree on the fundamental ideas of their field”  (Efland,  54 241).  1990, P.  Currently, this movement is represented by an  approach called Discipline-Based Art Education  (DBAE).  DBAE divides art into four distinct elements: art production, 1984).  art history, art criticism and aesthetics (Greer,  DBAE is clearly knowledge-centered.  The emphasis is on  the content of the curriculum as it exists as a predefined entity (Hamblen,  1988).  This “brings it in line” with traditional  educational practices, where technocratic rationalism is the dominant rationale of curricular design:  “efficiency of means is  emphasized, behaviors are routinized and outcomes are predefined” (Hamblen,  1987, p.  69).  But an interesting contrast arises if DBAE is viewed strictly from a knowledge perspective, centered philosophical position.  rather than from a child—  Because DBAE emphasizes  talking, reading and writing about art as a means of learning critical, aesthetic and historical knowledge, acceptable as an integrative philosophy.  it is quite  While seemingly at  opposite philosophical stances when viewed on a child—centered to knowledge—centered continuum, DBAE and whole language may be viewed as basically in step with each other’s goals,  if we are  talking about uniting knowledge that is external to the students. This issue then brings into play issues of content integrity and  conflicting purposes of integrating art and language.  DBAE recommends a curricular structure where the boundaries between the various subjects are well defined, with regular amounts of time and space for art instruction, because “visual  55 arts often suffer when they are taught exclusively in an integrated form  ....  When the visual arts are integrated into  other subjects at the elementary school level, their distinctive contributions are often neglected or underemphasized” 1988, p.  23-24).  (Eisner,  Currently in British Columbia, art educators  have concerns about art being lost in an integrated curriculuju (Grauer,  1991; Kindler,  1987,  1991).  Teacher beliefs about subject matter may have an obvious effect when applied to a high status subject like language and a low status subject like art.  “Teachers often teach the content  of a course according to the values held of the content itself...this combination of affect and evaluation can determine the energy that teachers will expend on an activity and how they will expend it”  (Pajares,  1992, p.  310).  As well, two teachers  may have similar subject knowledge but teach in different ways. Ernest (1989)  studied two mathematics teachers and suggested that  belief had a powerful effect on what and how mathematics was taught.  Teachers’ beliefs affect the content of what they teach.  This may be of particular importance when applied to subjects with greatly different perceived worth,  such as language and art.  Integration puts the status of different subjects in question and intensifies the struggle around issues of time allocation and content integrity. they distribute time to content. on institutional limitations,  Teachers vary widely in how While this is partly dependent  internal factors,  such as teachers’  sense of competence in teaching different areas of curriculum and  56 teacher beliefs regarding curricular subjects, have a significant effect (Schmidt & Buchiuann,  1983).  as allocating more time for art,  While integration may be seen  it may,  in reality,  cause art to  lose legitimacy as a specialty and to lose time within the curriculum (Werner,  1991).  In suiiuuary then, within the areas of language education and art education there are proponents of each end of the continuum of child—centered to knowledge centered learning.  A whole  language philosophy and Harvard’s Project Zero show similar views of knowledge and philosophies of knowledge acquisition in that both strongly support child-centered integration.  Discipline-  based Art Education and phonics approaches to reading value isolated content,  skills and processes; as well, they tend to  support strong subject boundaries.  Summary The review of literature relating to art and language integration as a task of the teacher reveals many complex and integrated issues. Beliefs of teachers will be affected by strong cultural antecedents.  First,  the dominant culture of the classroom has  of provided a knowledge—centered, teacher—controlled transmission pre-defined and structured knowledge.  Traditionally, this  culture has supported language education. education has a more defined syntax, and less idiosyncratic in form,  Because language  is more highly rule—governed  it is able to support values of  57 traditional classroom culture.  Art, on the other hand, has been  traditionally excluded from the realm of intellect; its place in the curriculum has not held much status.  Justification for art  within the curriculum generally center on its expressive characteristics, but within the traditional classroom culture, value for what the students- can bring to the learning setting has not been acknowledged. New theories of what constitutes thought have viewed art very differently; it has been given status as a way of knowing. Current theories of education focus more on the “whole” child, which also brings increased emphasis on other ways of knowing besides reading, writing and arithmetic.  This has brought about  an interest in integrated curricula, where different ways of knowing provide a strong educational motive.  Integration is a  term that connotes a process for learning, but as a term its definition is not clear.  As a process,  it involves many complex  issues, which fall basically into two dimensions. One of these dimensions involves who is control of the knowledge base.  Do students themselves construct knowledge, or  is it constructed externally to the students?  The other  dimension involves the question of what constitutes knowledge. Knowledge can be seen as forming a unity, or it can have various categories and concepts that have varying degrees of interrelationship.  The following diagram is an illustration of  these two dimensions:  58 FIGURE 1:  THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF INTEGRATION  The Nature of Knowledge Knowledge as a Unity  —  —  —  art as self—expression  —  whole language  pre—packaged integrated units  Harvard’s Project Zero  Child—centered Learning  Knowledge—centered Learning  (creation of meaning within the child)  (creation of meaning within the curriculum)  -  independent study programs  -  —  DBAE Phonics approaches to reading  Knowledge as Differentiated (separate subj ects)  59 These dimensions are not exclusive: there is obvious overlap between them.  Many issues arise from this overlap, and from the  process that understanding that integration is not an educational can be pin—pointed on either dimension. s Certainly one of these issues is how curricular change by proposed through integration affect and are affected traditional classroom culture.  Many integrative theories, most  that students notably whole language, are based on the premise they learn. learn better when they can control the knowledge that l classroom Issues of control challenge a value held in traditiona culture: the value for order.  Traditional classrooms maintain  teacher has all order through a knowledge-centered approach; the rdained the answers, and directs learning toward these pre—o conclusions.  be Highly directed learning prescribes knowledge to  broken down into neatly packaged bits.  What happens to order  knowledge base? when teachers no longer have control over this ing. Another issue has to do with the relevance of school Changing to a child—centered mode,  it is argued, will increase  from the the relevance of schooling because it will arise students’ own lives.  But a strong counter—argument suggests that  what knowledge students do not always have the foresight to know fore some they will need to lead successful lives, and there direction is necessary. respective In terms of art and language education, their have an effect on backgrounds as educational enterprises also may teachers’ beliefs.  Because art has not traditionally been  60 in accorded the status of a way of knowing, the importance of art the curriculum is often questioned.  Language, on the other hand,  is seen as a central curricular component, often equated with thought.  Integrating art and language, therefore, may make art a  servant of language education. about In order to gain an understanding of teachers’ beliefs must be the integration of art and language, all of these issues taken into account.  Specifically, understandings are sought of  fs about teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge, belie in knowledge the role of the teacher and the role of the student acquisition and how these beliefs lead to the design and la. implementation of integrated language arts and art curricu  61 CHAPTER THREE  THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY  Theoretical Approach of This Study ration This study approaches the understanding of the integ rooms through the of art and language in intermediate grade class This is based on “the assumption  vehicle of teachers’ beliefs.  ions individuals that beliefs are the best indicators of the decis make throughout their lives...”  (Pajares,  1992, P.  307).  This is  use the nature of particularly true in the domain of teaching beca teaching is often ill—defined, points out so clearly.  as the example of integration  It is this lack of clarity that disables  , cognitive and information processing strategies  “rendering the  or what behavior teacher uncertain of what information is needed is appropriate”  1992, p.  (Pajares,  316).  The episodic core of  such beliefs that makes their use so likely in just circumstances. “It is unavoidable that, beliefs must be inferred”,  for the purposes of investigation,  (Pajares,  1992, p.  316).  These  that individuals inferences need to take into account the ways give evidence of belief,  so “open—ended interviews,  responses to  behavior must be dilemmas and vignettes, and observation of s are to be made” included of richer and more accurate inference (Pajares,  1992, p.  327).  62 Qualitative Research Approaches ration, As a vehicle of understanding art and language integ gh teacher beliefs are most appropriately studied throu qualitative methods.  These are methods that include “rich  , and are not description of people, places, and conversations easily handled by statistical procedures.  Research questions are  they are not framed by operationalizing variables; rather, ity, formulated to investigate in all their complex (Bogdan & Bilken,  1982, p. 2).  Meaning,  in context”,  as the participants  is of essential concern to the qualitative approach.  ascribe it,  of these Participants’ experiences, their interpretation l world are what experiences and how they structure their socia & Bilken, qualitative researchers wish to discover (Bogdan  1982).  fit under There are a number of complementary terms which may be applied to the umbrella of qualitative research that also this study.  the One term that seems particularly applicable to  interactionism”. theoretical approach of this study is “symbolic participants on The emphasis is on understanding the actions of and the ways in the basis of their active experience of the world experience which their actions arise and reflect back on (Burgess,  1984).  There is a close theoretical parallel between  assumptions in the philosophy of symbolic interactionism and the this study.  e that Symbolic interactionism is based on the premis  ns. construction of meaning occurs through interactio  This study  nal constructions of began with the premise that beliefs are perso  63 meaning relying heavily on personal experience which teachers act upon when teaching. Another term that applies to this study is “ethnography.” This term is often used interchangeably with “qualitative research”; as such,  it is defined as “interactive research which  requires extensive time in the field to observe,  interview,  and  record processes as they occur naturally in a selected site” (MacMillan & Schumaker,  1989, p.  But because this term  382).  originated in the field of anthropology, having a cultural perspective.  it is often seen as  “Ethnographers’ goals are to  share in the meanings that the cultural participants take for granted and then to depict the new understanding for the reader and for outsiders”  (Bogdan & Bilken,  1982,  P.  Because the  36).  culture of the classroom is an issue in the study,  and it  examines the perception of this culture from the teachers’ inside perspective, ethnography is an appropriate theoretical descriptor for this study. A third term is “field research”, which refers to the l collection of data in natural settings as opposed to artifica ones set up in a laboratory (Bogdan & Bilken,  1982).  But the  difference between field research and traditional experimental approaches is more than the location.  In choosing a methodology,  a researcher in effect identifies an underlying philosophy. There is an underlying philosophy known as positivism in experimental settings.  This philosophy insists that the physical  and the natural world are the same  —  that there is only one  64 “real” reality and that researchers must remove themselves from this reality in order to study it (Kirby & McKenna,  1989).  Controlling as many variables as possible is key to establishing this reality,  so that it may be generalized to many situations  and therefore be considered reliable.  In contrast to positivism,  field research has an emergent design,  focusing on reality from  the point of view of the participants.  So the underlying  philosophy is one of a socially constructed reality, or multiple realities as defined by the participants in social situations (McMillan & Schumaker,  1989).  Clearly, the philosophy of a socially constructed reality underlies this study.  What is sought is not a universal reality  about the integration of art and language; rather, this study seeks to understand how two individual teachers integrate art and language through an examination of their beliefs about knowledge, learning and integration.  It seeks to define their “reality” in  teaching an integrated art and language curriculum.  Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Approaches It is important to all research, whatever methodology is employed,  to yield valid and reliable results.  But the measure  of validity and reliability is related to the methodology and its underlying philosophy.  In quantitative research, numbers and  measurement document consistencies in behavior; thus they use definitions of validity and reliability that relate to the instrumentations employed to show these consistencies  (MacMillan  65 & Schumaker,  1989).  In contrast,  qualitative research assumes  meaningfulness of human actions depends on the contexts or situations in which these actions, occur.  feelings, and perceptions  So for qualitative research to have validity,  accurately reflect what the research participants do, perceive (Kirby & McKenna,  1989).  it must feel and  Because of lengthy data  collection periods, the use of participants’ own language and the use of natural settings, validity is seen as a major strength of qualitative research (McMillan & Schumaker,  1989).  But if validity is its strength, then reliability is a serious threat to much qualitative research.  Qualitative  researchers tend to view reliability as a fit between what they record as data and what actually occurs in the setting under study (Bilken & Bogdan,  1982).  Reliability is reflected in the  decisions that qualitative researchers make throughout the entire research process.  The qualitative researcher “attempts to  balance a respect for the complexity of reality with the need to simplify for analytical and communication purposes” Schumaker,  1989, p.  419).  (McMillan &  This involves narrowing and defining  the focus of the study, explaining the underlying assumptions of that focus,  and connecting the focus to established theory.  defines where the study is coming from, premises upon which the study is built.  This  or the analytical it is important in  establishing the reliability of a study that these premises be made explicit so that it is understood what conceptual framework  66 Then findings can be integrated or contrasted  informs the study. from this framework.  The first two chapters of this study attempt to provide this framework.  But it is also necessary that, as research  “instruments,” researchers make explicit the following aspects of the research design: a) strategies, c)  informant selection, b)  researcher role,  data collection  4) data analysis strategies  (adapted from MacMillan & Schumaker,  1989, p.  189).  The  following section attempts to do this by explaining the decisions made in each of these aspects for this study.  Design and Methodology of This Study The design and methodology of this study is an explanation of the decisions made through the research process. Informant Selection Intermediate grade teachers were chosen for this study because,  for the most part, these grades are taught by a single  classroom teacher,  so elements that would affect integration that  are outside the control of the teacher,  such as time—tabling and  teaching only a specific subject specialty, would not be a factor.  Also, the intermediate grades are traditionally a  transitional one in curricula, particularly in the language arts. Early grades,  especially with the advent of movements such as  whole language, tend to focus on children and their learning of the procedures and skills involved in reading and writing.  There  is also a growing tendency to advocate child-centered learning in  67 the primary grades, Education,  as is evidenced by new curricula (Ministry of  1991), with content mostly serving as a motivator and  a prop for learning to read and write. The intermediate grades usually bring a shift in emphasis away from procedures and skills and  toward content.  Once  students have these language skills they can then apply them to different content areas.  Increasingly, schools are more content—  driven as students get older (kmdur,  1993).  Therefore,  integration may have a more delineated content—oriented focus in the intermediate grades involving more of the content from different subjects,  like art.  So how teachers’ beliefs about  integration may be affected by a traditionally more contentfocused curriculum will be addressed. The selection of the two teachers involved in the case studies was on the basis of a number of criteria.  Willingness to  participate was a major factor in case selection.  It involved  finding teachers who have enough confidence and reflectiveness to examine their belief systems.  It also required elements of trust  and reciprocity to exist in the researcher/researchee relationship; since I was approaching teachers that I had not previously met,  initial interviews were used to establish rapport  on both sides.  The professed beliefs of the teacher also had an  influence on case selection; because the integration of art and language are the focus of this study, this integration was necessary.  a professed commitment to  This involved case selection on  the basis of interest and experience.  I wished to study one  68 teacher with. interest and experience in integrating art and another teacher with interest and experience in integrating language.  This provided perspectives from the two content areas.  This study took place in the çDranbrook School District in southeast British Columbia. 16,000 residents.  Cranbrook is a city of approximately  The main industries are forestry and mining.  There is also a large contingent of provincial civil servants since the city serves as the center of the East Kootenay region. The population is very homogeneous in ancestry; 96% of people who live here are of western European descent 1993).  (McCreary Commission,  There are approximately 30 intermediate grade teachers in  this district. Locating teachers for my study took place using a snow-ball sampling technique.  I did not know any teachers in the district,  so I relied on “word of mouth”.  I started at the school  district office, where, after agreeing to allow me to proceed with my study in their school district, the Director of Instruction and the Director of Curriculum offered several suggestions.  After contacting the teachers and requesting an  initial interview,  I went out to the teachers’ schools and  explained my study and the commitment involved.  Often the  teachers offered names of other teachers that they felt fit my criteria.  I contacted all the teachers suggested to me, a total  of eleven, and all together I completed seven initial interviews. These interviews consisted of an introduction to myself and my study.  I explained the purpose of my study, and the criteria  69 that I was looking for in the teachers to be studied.  Most felt  that they lacked sufficient expertise in the area of art. felt that the time commitment was too much for them.  Some  Two  teachers had switched from intermediate to primary and therefore did not fit my criteria.  From the initial interviews I chose two  teachers that I felt best fit my criteria.  Both had some  reluctance about participating initially. The first teacher, whom I refer to as Paul, taught a class of 28 grade seven students.  The school where he taught was the  largest elementary school in Cranbrook, with approximately 450 students.  The school is located in an older area of Cranbrook  with mostly low- to middle-income housing. Initially, Paul felt that he did not match my criteria very well because he felt deficient in formal art training, having only taken one curriculum class in the subject.  Nevertheless his  name was the only one that came up consistently as a recommendation for an “art expert” for the intermediate grades. As well,  in the initial interview he indicated a lot of interest  in pursuing artistic activities himself.  He participated in many  in—services and conferences in the area of art education. classroom was also covered with students’ art. Action (Hubbard, posters.  1987)  series in his classroom,  His  He had the Art in including the  His was the only classroom I had visited in the initial  interviews that had any art curriculum materials visible, expressed my confidence in his meeting my criteria.  so I  However, he  was also having a difficult year and felt that my observations  70 may not yield “good” data because of discipline problems.  Again,  I explained that I would be interested in investigating how discipline problems may affect how he integrated art and language.  He agreed to participate, although he did not feel  completely reassured that I would be satisfied with the data I would collect. The second teacher, whom I refer to as Janice, taught a class of 23 grade five students.  The school where she taught was  in a new area of Cranbrook, where most of the housing was middle— to high-income.  She agreed to participate in my study after two  weeks of deliberation because she was not sure she could commit the time to the project.  However, her interest in art and  language integration, plus the fact that she was planning on beginning her master’s program in the fall and was very interested in the process,  convinced her to participate.  In the initial interview, both teachers were very approachable and easily and eloquently expressed their views on art and language education, which boded well for me both in terms of their self—confidence in their teaching style, and in terms of establishing a good rapport.  Both remained easy to approach,  even with difficult or threatening questions, and at ease with me observing in their classrooms.  Data Collection Strategies In order to provide the “thick description” Bilken,  1982)  (Bogdan &  characteristic of qualitative research, data was  71 collected from a number of sources using a number of different This also increased the validity of the data;  strategies.  a  focus on the combining of methods of investigation is known as triangulation (Burgess,  1984).  Data was collected from one integrated unit of study (of approximately eight weeks duration) grade teachers. 1)  from these two intermediate  Data collection strategies included:  Pre—unit Interviews:  semi—structured and open—ended  interviews (see Appendix A for the question guide)  focusing on  the teachers’ general principles and beliefs about a)  knowledge  structure, particularly in relation to art and language, b) the way students learn and the way they teach that knowledge, and c) integration,  especially the integration of art and language.  Notes were taken at the interviews.  As well, they were tape—  recorded with the teachers’ permission. 2)  Curriculum Documents:  an examination of the materials,  both commercial and personal, used in teaching that I was to Underlying beliefs inherent in the materials used were  observe. noted. 3)  Classroom Observation: observations from the classroom  during the unit of study.  Eight visits of approximately two  hours each were made to each classroom. 4)  Post—unit Interviews:  Field notes were kept.  “stimulated recall interviews  focusing on the teachers’ explanations of their teaching practices”  (Nespor,  1987, p.  317).  These interviews took the  form of explanations of the beliefs that I had inferred through  72 the the previous data collection procedures (see Appendix B for comments final interview guides), and the teachers’ reactions and to my inferences.  Notes were taken from these interviews.  Researcher Role is of Because the study of events as they occur naturally rcher needs great significance in qualitative research, the resea Moreover,  ng. a clearly understood role within this natural setti since all research is done by someone,  it is essential that that  for in the “someone” is identified in some way and accounted research (Kirby & McKenna,  1989, p.  49).  My role in this  es: research needs to be examined from three perspectiv collector and interpreter of data,  first as a  second as an interviewer and  third as a participant-observer. First,  field it was necessary for me as a researcher to keep  notes throughout the entire research process. separate components,  This involved two  content notes and process notes.  In content  interactions of notes I recorded information on the actions and conversations, the teacher and students, the material studied, etc.  my own Process notes were used to record information about  thoughts, reactions and ideas.  This was an important aspect of  arch self— data collection because it was in a sense “rese monitoring”  —  a continuous and rigorous questioning and  reevaluation of the research process p.  192).  (McMillan & Schumaker,  1989,  views writing process notes occurred not only for inter  73 and field note collection, but all the way through the research process. Second, because interviews were an important data collection procedure in this study, my position as an interviewer needs explanation.  I conducted three interviews for each case study.  Both teachers were unknown to me before I approached them to participate in my study,  so our relationships began on a  researcher/researchee basis.  Because both teachers were  considerably older than me and had considerably more teaching experience (22 years each compared to my three), there was no question of my “researching down”  (Kirby & McKenna,  1989, p.  67).  They felt no intimidation. In fact, because I am also a teacher, our discussions were very colleagial.  But in some ways, the fact  that I was not a colleague afforded me some “stranger value” (Burgess,  1984); since I had no relationship outside of the  researcher role, previous factors that might have affected the dynamics of the interviews were not present. Finally, most field researchers conducting observations take a position along a continuum from a full participant in the social setting to an unnoticed observer.  The degree of  involvement of the researcher is something that is negotiated between the researcher, the participants and the setting or context of the observations (Kirby & McKenna,  1989).  Full  participants have a role in the social setting apart from their research roles, that role.  and are totally immersed in the setting through  Full observers would have no involvement in the  74 social setting, although on some level, there is communication taking place between those who observe and those who participate (Bogdan & Bilken,  1982).  In both case studies, my role was closer to observer than to participant.  In the classrooms,  I was introduced to the students The  as a teacher doing some observations about art and language. students in both classes readily accepted this and never questioned my being present.  I made an effort not to interfere  in the way the teachers’ presented lessons by remaining still while the teacher was talking, by keeping quiet and by sitting off to the side.  During work periods I talked with students,  observed their work,  listened to the students interacting, and  listened to the teachers as they interacted individually with students. My role was slightly different in the two classes. Paul’s class,  In  I never interacted in class activities, and he  never referred to me in class after introducing me.  I talked to  students directly during work periods, although students often seemed surprised when I did this.  I felt that I was present as  an observer mostly as I participated very little. class,  In Janice’s  she made a point of including me in class discussions and  in some activities. work periods,  I also talked to students directly during  and they seemed quite comfortable with this.  Janice and I also conversed frequently during work periods.  So I  had more opportunities to participate in her class; yet my role was still mostly that of an observer.  It is important that in  75 both cases, my degree of participation was determined by the teacher, and I followed their lead.  Because having a good  working relationship with the teachers was of prime importance to me as a researcher, I felt it was necessary that the observations should be on their terms. With both teachers I had conversations before and after classes.  Fortunately, both seemed comfortable with me observing  in their classes and asking them questions about their teaching.  Data Analysis Strategies Following the methodology of qualitative research, this study had an emergent design.  Because the teachers’ beliefs were  the unit of study, establishing what these were and how they were utilized in teaching integrated art and language was key. From pre—unit interviews, data about each teacher’s professed beliefs was analyzed along three broad concept areas. The first is the teachers’ professed beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how it is organized.  Also included in this area is  the place of art and the place of language within the teachers’ beliefs about knowledge.  Careful attention was paid to what  traditional views of art and language are, and what traditional classroom practices are, so that unreflected assumptions about these issues were examined. The next concept area was the teachers’ professed beliefs on the way students best learn knowledge, and the way teachers can best facilitate this learning.  Understanding where the teachers place themselves  76 along the continuum from child—centered to knowledge—centered learning was key in this concept area.  Obviously there are many  overlappings of these concepts with concepts about the nature of• knowledge.  Consistencies and contrasts were examined.  The final  concept area was the teachers’ beliefs about integration, especially as it related to the previous two concept areas.  A  working definition of what integration means for each teacher was formed. The concepts that have emerged from this initial analysis had an important impact on how the examination of curriculum documents, the classroom observations and the post—unit interviews were undertaken and analyzed.  I attempted to follow  the teachers’ professed beliefs through the processes of planning and delivering lessons,  looking for consistencies and contrasts,  in order to understand how their professed beliefs were put into practice. process.  Thus an ongoing analysis was an element in this Process notes taken from the interviews and the field  observations were an integral part of this analysis. At the end of data collection, the data was reviewed and then coded according to concepts that emerged from data collection and from the review of the data.  The coding process  took the form of placing “bibbits” of information from the data into appropriate concept files  (Kirby & McKenna,  1989).  Each  bibbit was cross—referenced if placed in more than one file; the cross—referencing allowed me to see broader patterns of relationships in the data.  This was not a direct and smooth  77 process; considerable reflection, renaming, shifting and reorganizing occurred.  The results of the process of developing  concepts and concept groups and examining the interrelationships among these groups formed the basis for the data analysis, summarized in the following chapter.  78 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS  Introduction This summary deals with each of the case studies separately. First, there will be an introduction for each case study.  Then  the major concept areas that arose from data analysis will be outlined.  This analysis was ongoing throughout the research  process; while initial interviews provided a framework for the teachers’ beliefs, this summary encompasses the understanding of these beliefs from the entire research process.  Understanding of  the beliefs of these two teachers changed and grew as I gained an understanding of how their beliefs were put into practice in their classrooms. The interviews, curriculum documents and the observations are cited and noted in this analysis.  To aid the reader in  understanding these, an explanation of the notes is in order. Interviews begin with the letters “Int”. 1 or a 2,  This is followed by a  indicating the first and the second interviews.  is followed by a letter: Janice’s interviews.  “p” for Paul’s interviews or a  This  “j”  for  Next there appears two numbers, the page  number and the line number from the interview transcript. Curriculum documents are noted by the letters “Curdoc”, followed by a number, letters “Ob”,  the page number.  Observations are noted by the  followed by a “p” for observations in Paul’s  79 classroom or a  “j”  for observations in Janice’s classroom.  Next  are the page number and line number of the field notes.  Case Study 1: Paul After agreeing to participate in my study, in early February,  1994 for the initial interview.  teacher with 22 years of experience. high school math teacher. “to get a job”  I met with Paul  (Intlp 1,  He began his career as a  He switched to the elementary grades 3).  He has remained at the upper  intermediate grade level ever since. about this grade level.  Paul is a  He likes several things  He likes the freedom of the timetable.  Moreover, he finds the elementary classroom “more of a social existence,  in the same room with the same kids all day.  more interesting, more work”  (Intip 1,  It’s  10).  He holds a Bachelor of Education degree with a major in mathematics as well as a Masters of Education degree in Curriculum Studies andAdministration, that he completed in 1987 through a distance education program from Gonzaga University in Washington State.  His only formal art education training was a  course he took when he first started teaching elementary school. In the month following the first interview he was beginning a student—directed unit in social studies on Ancient Egypt, decided I would observe some of these classes.  so we  He often used  activities in language arts and art that were integrated, although all of these activities were not thematically linked.  80 So we also agreed that I would be present when integrated language and art activities were planned. I made a total of seven visits for observations to his class, each lasting approximately two hours, May,  1994.  from February to  The curricular materials used were all of Paul’s own;  none included any formal statement of intent, objectives or purposes for the lessons; therefore data collected from these materials are very limited.  The following summary of data  analysis incorporates the data collected from the initial interview, the observations, and the final interview along three broad concept areas:  1) beliefs about knowledge,  2) beliefs about  the role of the teacher and the role of the students in knowledge acquisition,  and 3) beliefs about the integration.  Beliefs about Knowledge The purpose of this analysis was to gain some understanding of what Paul believed about the nature of knowledge and how it is organized.  Important to this analysis is the organization that  Paul did for his work that I observed in the classroom.  This  analysis challenged an assumption that I did not know I held  -  the assumption that knowledge and its organization are content— based.  I thought that processes were integral to the content  upon which they operate.  Paul believed differently.  Processes  played a prominent role in what he believed knowledge was, and content a supporting role.  81 This became apparent in several ways; the most prominent were in the ways he organized lessons and units.  He did not  organize the content of the lessons I observed into a recognizable unit structure. Ancient Egypt, this unit.  Because I was observing a unit on  I asked to see the materials that he used to teach  He had it in a box,. which contained exclusively  content material about Egypt: maps, booklets xeroxed from books, pictures.  He also gave me the student contract,  next page (Figure 2).  included on the  The assignment rules provide the only  written organizing structure of this unit.  The curricular  materials for the art/language arts lessons that I observed consisted of worksheets with boxes for the drawings that Paul had developed.  I had no concrete evidence of the purposes,  objectives and rationale for what Paul taught or how he taught it from examining these. His room contained five bulletin boards; all of these contained student art work. assignment was displayed.  These changed weekly; every Examination of this work showed  attention to technical aspects of art in the assignments; one obviously related to analogous colour schemes. with form and movement.  Another had to do  While these aspects of what was taught  showed in the art work, no specific content area could be discerned  (Obp 1,  3).  Beliefs that Paul held about the nature of knowledge itself and how knowledge was organized for presentation in the classroom were inferred mainly from the interviews and observations.  I was  I  i  !  I  (A:  F IL L lb  Ct ‘1 0’ C) Ct  C) 0  Ct  0 (U  U) Ct  UI  j2  0’  t%)  CD  1xj  t%)  OZ  83 challenged by the lack of content focus in Paul’s way of teaching (Obp 4,  17).  Procedural Knowledge:  The nature of knowledge,  for Paul,  was centrally based around the processes for achieving thought than for the content of those thoughts.  His own thought  processes had a prominent position in what he presented in the classroom.  Paul’s teaching was a very personal activity.  His  main interest was how the students used the knowledge; thus his focus was on procedural knowledge.  31),  Paul stated:  “What I do has grown from thieving”  (Intip 1,  from courses,  inservices and from other teachers.  He liked I see the  to mentally organize, or “see how things fit together. end—product and then visualize or draw out the steps” 2).  (Intip 2,  Thus the way he personally organized and understood things  was very important in determining what he taught.  Paul’s sense  of himself as a learner had a great impact on what he taught.  An  important example for this study was his use of visualization. He saw visualization as important when he learnt something, and visual learning held a prominent place in his teaching (Intip 2, 5).  This was particularly influential in his way of integrating  art and language, which will be discussed later. He followed no formal curricula in either art or language arts.  What was important, as far as teaching was concerned, was  to “follow processes for learning”  (Intip 2,  9).  These  processes, as he defined them, were the basis of what he presented in the classroom.  • This emphasis on process posed  84 somewhat of a problem in deciding what content I would observe in his class.  He did not teach thematically organized units, nor  did his units have a pre-defined beginning, middle and end. him “content fills in to meaningful work”  (Intip 2,  31).  For  What  the students learned was not so important as the ways of learning.  He stated that “content gets learned in this form; but  more importantly, they learn to think for themselves”  (Intip 2,  17).  Beliefs about the Role of the Teacher and the Role of the Student in Knowledge Acquisition This concept area is aimed at understanding where Paul would fall along a continuum from child—centered learning to knowledge— centered learning.  This was influenced greatly by Paul’s sense  of knowledge as being process—based rather than content—based. Paul paid attention to individual differences in learning styles,  although his process-directed method of teaching did not  always address these individual needs.  He spoke of one student  who “froze” every time he was asked to do visual work: a physical There’s some kind of block there He just cannot think in block in the brain. When he’s asked to draw, he visual terms. will do anything but becomes disruptive And normally what he’s been asked to do. that’s not a problem (Int2p 4,7). —  -  Providing opportunities to work in their own learning styles was an important goal of his self-directed unit on Ancient Egypt. Also important to his method of teaching is being explicit about the standards for work:  85 I like using ways of learning that let the students choose and structure their own I want them to think for themselves, units. all working in their own learning styles. But I do have some expectations set up in For instance, I could not minimum standards. I have to allow that no writing takes place. have standards that I am happy with (Intlp 2, 14). Standards:  His use of standards is integrally related to  teaching that is very procedurally directed.  22).  “I do have very specific criteria.  adopt these criteria”  (Intip 10,  28).  I did note several instances of  In observing him teach,  5; Obp 12,  (Obp 9,  I can’t mark  Poor attempts led me to  it if I don’t lay down criteria....  Paul’s standards  “I  I explain it so there are no loopholes”  feel very directed. (Intip 7,  Paul states,  29; Obp 14,  14).  An example  is his standards for booklets that the students were making on the novel A Wrinkle in Time, written by Madeleine L’Engle.  He  wanted them to “imagine a snippet in time” from each chapter and capture it in a picture, with a sentence for a caption (Intip 10, 17).  The following are the criteria he had the students place on  the inside cover of their booklets: spelling and capitals Titles at the top full, written with liner Sentence Spelling, punctuation and capitals large, full—body, front views, People realistic top to bottom Colour all page 5) details drawn in and Background 6) colored title, your name and picture Cover 7) all your best (Obp 12, 29) Handwriting 8) 1) 2) 3) 4)  -  -  —  -  -  —  -  86 When asked if he felt that these standards may limit the students’ responses, he replied: I try to leave them a lot of freedom to do what they can do, but if I don’t have anything to base marks on, it’s not fair to me. There is still room for interpretation I feel it encourages them to and creativity. do better work ... I must hold some kind of I give the expectation that they standard I start with the reach for a quality. assumption that they are being as creative as Sometimes I’ll practically do. they can be. it for them to give them guidance and allow them some feeling of success” (Intip 10, 34). -  There appeared to be some conflict between his goal of having students think for themselves and the procedurally directed way in which he taught.  He believed that the process he  outlined would lead to student understanding at an advanced level -  that they would synthesize,  learning activity.  interpret and evaluate through the  Moreover, he felt that these learning  experiences would lead to creative expression.  He stated,  feel the standards encourage them to do better work.  “I  I give  every chance to be creative, and the benefit of the doubt is always toward creative aspects”  (Intip 11,  6).  But what he  expected standards to do and what the students actually used them for was at odds. frustration  This, he admitted, causes him a lot of  (Int2p 1,  26).  Students often got caught up in the  standards and saw them as the goals of the activity.  In effect,  they saw the standards as the content to be learned rather than a part of the process that would lead to learning, which was what Paul intended.  87 For example, while observing the students working on their Wrinkle in Time booklets,  I noted:  It seems that students are very concerned about details: ‘Should this be written or printed?’ ‘Should this paper be stapled or glued?’ (Obp 9, 5). A number of students comment on their lack of drawing ability most have traced their illustrations. As I walk around I hear the following comments: ‘Can I photocopy this?’ ‘I can’t draw people!’ ‘Help! I can’t draw!’ (Obp 8, 12). -  In the final interview, Paul and. I discussed this discrepancy between what he expected the standards to do and how his students appeared to use them. concept.  This brought into play another major  We discussed at length the students’ motivation to  learn. Students’ Motivation to Learn: Paul found the group of students that he had this year a disciplinary challenge.  Much of  the frustration that he experienced over their preoccupation with the standards were attributed to the students’ lack of desire to learn.  For Paul, this was a quality of the students; they  arrived in his class with a lack of willingness and it was difficult for him to influence it (Int2p 1,  19).  He felt that  the responsibility for learning clearly belonged to the students: “They can all develop the personal discipline to follow my directions”  (Intip 11,  10).  Because in past years he had taught students that were open to learning, he felt strongly that it was not him or his way of  88 teaching, but the students that made the difference: (In past years) the kids loved having control over what they learned. Mostly they did much more work. But some kids would do nothing. Kids who like working really like the individualization but some kids just do not want to think. This year I don’t do as much. For them, picking and choosing is like declaring a holiday” (Intip 3, 4). The discipline problems that he was experiencing had an effect on what he taught and the way he taught it.  Providing a  very process—organized structure was necessary for Paul inorder to maintain control.  He found this very draining on his energy,  because he felt that he was constantly “policing” He stated, (Intip 3,  15).  “Students expect things to be handed to them”  This implied that,  8).  (Intlp 3,  in trying to maintain order  through explicit directions, he did more of the work.  Work,  in  this instance, meant the thinking and organizing that Paul intended the students to do through the activities that he presented.  Paul  this thinking.  ended up spending his time and energy doing  On top of that burden, he then had to “police” to  bring this externalized thinking to the students.  It was  understandable that this was tiring, as Paul professed it to be (Intip 8,  6).  It is also understandable that students perceived the standards as the goals of the activity.  Paul did in effect do  the thinking for them and then hand it to them, as he felt forced to do because he felt the students would not do any work if he  89 did not.  But providing work to the standards’ specifications  became the only work that he asked of the students. Trust:  Paul did not trust that the students would do the  thinking on their own, and felt a duty to have them achieve to a certain overall standard. “hand things to them.”  So he really worked hard, and did  He did not trust the students to do the  work without his very directed and explicit lessons. I observed that Paul’s approach to his discipline problems worked for him.  The students in his class were “under control”  there was no evidence of serious discipline problems when I observed in his classroom.  seven work  -  Paul stated:  “They’ll all do grade  we’ll get through the year and they’ll all pass.  It’s just that we’ll go about it this way”  (Intip 17,  6).  Paul  maintained that they could get through the work because he chose carefully what he felt these students could handle. instance, he stated:  For  “I would never bring paint into this class.  I’m sure all they would do would be to fling it at each other” (Int2p 1, 14). Trust was a concept that had implications for Paul’s teaching.  Having a good working relationship was important to  “I like teaching the students, rather than the subject  Paul: matter”  (Intlp 1,  14).  To teach the way he would like to, trust  in the working relationship with the students was an absolute necessity. He worked to build trust in that relationship in two ways. Having standards,  for him, built trust.  The students know what  —  90 he expected of them, because he told them explicitly. not going to be surprisedby any marks they receive” 33).  “They are (Int2p 1,  The second way that he built trust was integrally related  to the integration of school and self; he actively encouraged his students to bring their own ideas for content into the classroom. This overlap leads into the analysis on Paul’s beliefs about integration.  Beliefs about Integration Integration of School and Self: students’  ideas.  Paul was very accepting of  He elicited their ideas and experiences in  classroom work, so that the students used their own interests and experiences to “fill in to learning processes” that Paul prescribed.  He showed that he valued what they brought to the  classroom, as I noted during observing: Five or six students are actively involved when Paul asks them to make connections of articles and information in A Wrinkle in Time to their own experiences and to make predictions about what is going to happen in the story (Obp 11, 30). One boy, Jon, refers to his Calvin and Hobbes cartoon book to get words for his noises of This seems to help the walking through mud. kids who could make the noises but had no Now three or four idea how to spell them. boys are eagerly searching through their own cartoon books. Paul finally takes a book and writes examples on the board (Obp 6, 4). In these examples, Paul actively encouraged their input.  He was  very animated when eliciting their ideas and accepted them without qualification (Obp 6,  7),  except on one occasion, when I  91 noted that he did not accept the content of a student’s idea. But he encouraged the idea itself: Two girls are creating an Egyptian newspaper. They bring it to Paul, telling him excitedly that they are including comics and showing him the Calvin and Hobbes strip that they have glued on their paper. ‘Is it about Egypt?’ he asks. ‘What?’ asks the girl, uncomprehending. ‘Well, if it is an Egyptian paper, the comics should reflect that theme. There, look at this Far Side cartoon. It’s about a mummy. Now that would be appropriate.’ The girls look slightly chastised (Obp 9, 16).  When the trust in the working relationship between student and teacher was not there, Paul felt compelled to change his teaching toward a more directed approach. frustrating.  And this change was  When asked why he thought that he was having a  problem with these students,  Paul stated that the students that  he had this year did not seem to trust themselves to learn. of the 28,  13 came from broken homes.  Out  He had three students who  had been convicted under the Young Offenders Act.  Paul believed  these factors “seriously undermined confidence in their ability to learn”  (Int2p 2,  16).  Social Interaction:  He also saw the social interactions in  the class as having a detrimental effect on learning for the whole class.  Because a few of the students with “a terrible  attitude toward learning” also were socially dominant, kids are dragged down. (Iritip 9,  24).  “the other  They just follow, or they are just there”  92 While observing,  I noted that students were not asked to  work together, except on one occasion.  During this lesson, I saw  one glaring example of peer influence that was detrimental to the work of the students involved: The students have just been placed into groups of five or six according to proximity. One group that I am standing near has not started their task. Sean has placed his back to Christina, effectively blocking her out of the group. When Paul comes over, he asks the group to shift to accommodate Christina. Sean studiously ignores this, and continues to talk to the other group members while keeping his back to Christina. Paul quietly asks Christina to join another group. Sean’s group, subsequently, does not complete the task they are given. Christina does not participate in her new group’s discussion, either” (Obp 17, 9). There appeared to be a lack of trust on Paul’s part over the issue of learning through peer interactions.  Paul saw these  interactions as being detrimental to learning in his class, and this example supports this claim.  Again, he did not trust that  they would learn. Vertical Integration:  The students’ ability to use.  procedures that were previously presented in Paul’s class was impaired by the students’ perception of the standards as the content of the lesson. again”  (Int2p 1,  42).  “Each day we seem to start from scratch This clearly was a root cause of Paul’s  frustration as this outcome was almost opposite to his intentions.  I pointed to the following example of the students’  using previously learned procedures that I had observed during the students’ work on Ancient Egypt:  93 About half the students are writing. They’re writing notes into squared paper, cutting out the squares and then organizing their notes into a ‘mind map.’ Obviously this is a procedure that they have used before (Obp 8, 21) But Paul felt that they just followed the procedure without actually doing any thinking, as their mind-maps “just stuck information in any place without any sense of organization. just don’t understand the purpose” In one observatIon period, posters for Earth Day.  (Int2p 2,  They  1).  I watched the students create  This was the only time that I observed in  Paul’s class where he had not procedurally directed what they should do.  They had a great deal of difficulty:  All the students start with lettering. Despite the fact that they had done block lettering using a grid in a lesson the week before (and Paul had just reminded them of this), the students were having a lot of difficulty with centering and spaces (Obp 16, 1) Integration of Art and Language:  Paul had a very definite  idea that visual and verbal learning go together. a learner, he was very visual  (Intlp 2,  This visuality was  4).  very influential on the way he integrated.  Personally, as  When paired with his  belief in the prominence of process in the nature of knowledge, his beliefs about the integration of art and language were based in how art and language are used in thinking. An example of this is the booklets that the students made on the novel A Wrinkle in Time, mentioned previously.  Here the  students were asked to translate visually the language that they heard.  Involved in this assignment was the idea of “a snippet in  94 time” that the students were to visualize (Intip,  10,  18).  I was  struck by the use of time as an element in the assignment for two reasons.  First, visual images have a different means of  conveying time that does language; visual images do not move through time, but are,  in a sense,  static.  So it seemed that  having the students use visual images was particularly appropriate to capture “snippets”.  The second reason that the  use of time struck me related to the theme of the book.  It  seemed an interesting dimension content—wise. It was interesting to note that when I expressed my appreciation of the relationship of this assignment to the theme of time, Paul was quite dismissive of this.  “Yes,  I see, but  what is important is the translation of the words, the visualization”  (Int2p 1,  3).  While the content integration had  interested me, this was secondary to the processes for Paul. An example of a student’s visual “snippet” from a chapter has been included on the following page  (Figure 3).  Paul taught four lessons that integrated art with various aspects of English grammar.  One of these lessons was on the  topic of misplaced modifiers: The class is studying misplaced modifiers. Paul asks the students to write them and then share them with the class. Then, after ten minutes Paul introduces the idea of visual equivalents to misplaced modifiers. He instructs them to ‘visualize the problem’ and to ‘cartoonize it’ (Obp 8, 1).  95 FIGURE 3: Michelle’s Visual Translation of a “Snippet of Time”  4  ‘1  /  I  I,  ii  q: 1(1  jjI  r&  1  96 The students had a great time drawing such oddities as “The woman sat on the chair with the red dress on.”  The drawing aided the  students in understanding that the modifier is misplaced in a very graphic sense. Another lesson involved onomatopoeia: Paul introduces the work ‘onomatopoeia’. Students are writing down examples and Paul is writing their suggestions on the board. Several students are making the noises they are writing down and are enjoying their investigations immensely. Kids seem fairly uncertain about the writing ‘How can I spell a whistle?’ ... Then he directs the students to picture ‘just the words.’ He asks for colours, outlines, bubbles, etc. No characters (Obp 13, 20). -  This exercise involved complex integration of listening, writing and drawing.  The students had to imagine a sound, translate it  into phonemes to write down in a word, and then take that word and draw it as a picture.  The meaning of the picture would be  heavily involved with the meaning of the sound and the meaning in the word. Several assignments involved using words to make visual statements,  including a lesson on positive and negative space:  This time they are taking two three-letter words and blocking them in, one on top of the other using a grid. Paul has been very directed in the procedure they are to follow. They are then to colour in the negative spaces between the letters. At first the students aren’t sure what they’re doing. When Paul asks them to erase the lines of the letters they are amazed at their visual puzzles (Obp 14, 14). Another lesson involved using a word to make a picture that portrayed the shape,  texture,  and colours of the word:  97 The students drew their words. One girl is working on ‘tree’ in the shape of a palm tree. She has put the word ‘leaves’ for each of the leaves; Paul comments to me that she does not really have the idea. One picture that really intrigues me is ‘water.’ I wonder what motivated Annie to pick a word that has no definite shape; she has to rely on colour, texture and other qualities (Obp 17, 6).  -  These two lessons connect the thought processes involved in art and language. art  —  They deal with more formal technical aspects of  positive and negative space and form, texture and colour in  a way that relies on the use of language.  Here language becomes  the content of visual expression. More generalized understandings, such as the structures in language  —  misplaced modifiers and onomatopoeia, and the  structures in art  —  positive and negative space, were featured in  these lessons, but these were not tied to any specific theme. For the most part,  content was the students own choice.  In the initial interview Paul claimed that “I really don’t do that much integrating”  (Intlp 12,  13), but in observation this  was clearly meant in terms of content.  The processes involved in  art and language were united by their role in student thinking. The prominent view of visual learning is also apparent; he says, “Every teacher should teach their own art. of knowing your students”  (Intlp 7,  It’s a different way  9).  Summary Central to Paul’s beliefs about the integration of art and language was his view of knowledge as primarily process—based.  98 Content was secondary, and it filled in to the processes of thought. While he wanted the students to achieve deeper understandings through these thought processes, his lessons were organized around strict standards.  Paul outlined specifically  the procedure his students were to follow in lessons.  He saw  these standards as providing a minimum level of acceptable work, but that the real goals of the activities were the understandings that came from following the process.  He also saw the standards  as building security and trust in the teacher/student relationship.  Often the opposite of his intentions were noted.  Students treated the standards as the content to be learned; thus they gained very little procedural knowledge from following them. Also Paul’s lack of trust in the students’ abilities to learn seemed to be reinforced through strict standards. What standards did for Paul was allow him to satisfy what he felt were the requirements of his job; he was going to have these students achieve to a minimum standard, and he was going to have his class in control. In terms of integration, his beliefs about knowledge showed an understanding of thought processes that were visual, and that these thought processes were integrally involved with language. Visual procedures were very strong in his lesson planning, echoing a personal bias toward visual learning.  99 Case Study 2: Janice  After agreeing to participate in my study, Janice and I met for the initial interview in March of 1994.  Janice has 22 years  of experience in the field of teaching: 20 years of classroom teaching at the elementary school level and two years as the local teachers’ association president.  She began teaching in  1966 after obtaining a three-year diploma from the University of Victoria.  She returned to university through part-time distance  education from the University of Victoria after many years of teaching.  Her areas of specialization are language arts and art.  She completed the final two years for her five-year Bachelor of Education degree in 1986.  She plans to begin studying for a  Master’s degree in Educational Counselling in the fall of 1994. She had just begun an integrated unit on horses.  She had  taught this theme several times before; it was one of her favorites: This unit on horses is good. It is really easy to do in that is easy to set up the literature base there is such a multiplicity of books on the subject (Intlj 4, 8). —  Because it involved a strong language arts base and Janice also felt that there was a lot of art potential in the unit, we decided that I would observe in her class for the duration.  I  made a total of ten visits to her classroom for observations from March,  1994 until May,  and a half.  1994,  each lasting approximately an hour  100 The curricular materials that she used during this unit she kept in two binders: one was a pre—packaged collection of materials produced by the school board on the novel KIng of the Wind, written by Marguerite Henry,  and the second was a  collection that Janice had amassed herself on the theme of horses.  Also examined was a chapter on an learning strategy  called “Listen, Sketch and Draft” that she used during the unit. The students worked in separate notebooks for their horse theme, and Janice also allowed me access to their work. The two interviews, the pre-unit interview and the final interview were also conducted.  The final interview took place  after the observations were completed,  in June of 1994.  The summary of the data analysis that follows incorporates the understandings of the beliefs gained from these sources that Janice holds in three broad concept areas: knowledge,  2)  1)  beliefs about  beliefs about the role of the teacher and the role  of the student in knowledge acquisition and 3) beliefs about integration.  Beliefs about Knowledge In order to understand Janice’s beliefs about knowledge,  it  was important first to outline exactly what she presented as knowledge in the classroom; so the integrated unit on horses is described first.  Then the framework that underlies this unit is  analyzed, with particular attention being paid to her beliefs about art and language.  101 The Integrated Unit:  Janice’s approach to presentation of  knowledge in the classroom displayed a fair amount of organization of content materials, which was apparent from the moment that I entered her classroom.  Four bulletin boards were  covered with pictures and information about horses.  She had a  bookshelf full of factual and fiction books relating to horses. She had several “How to Draw Horses” books as well.  Propped on  the blackboard were posters of the anatomy of horses, dealing with the musculo—skeletal system.  One wall contained a work  station on topics to do with horses. were vocabulary cards.  Hanging from the ceiling  She had a saddle for a horse, a sculpture  of a horse and rider, a needle—point picture,  some paint—by—  number and some photographs of horses on display as well  (Obj 1,  1). The central activities of this unit focused on the novel Kinc of the Wind by Marguerite Henry.  Janice read the book out  loud to the students; they also each had their own copy.  Most  read ahead of the activities that they did in the class.  The  activities included the following: -  Students used the technique “Listen, Sketch and Draft” on  four of the chapters. —  -  They wrote predictions on another chapter. They wrote an opinion piece about why or why they wouldn’t  like to be one of the characters. —  In groups of six they translated one chapter into a mural.  -  Individually they visually represented another chapter.  102 —  In groups of four to six they translated a scene from the  book into a drama presentation, complete with props and costumes. —  They made lists of good events and bad events and drew  lines to show how these events were connected. —  They wrote about good—luck and bad—luck charms, a theme of  the book. Also included in this unit were several worksheets.  These  were: -  A map of Europe, explaining the route traveled in the  book. —  —  A diagram of the anatomy of the horse. Several vocabulary exercises.  The unit involved many other lessons: —  A lesson on drawing horse faces, looking at anatomy and  proportion. —  A guest speaker: a veterinarian who came to speak on horse  diseases. -  A videotaped documentary about a man who lost his ability  to walk, but felt equal when riding on a horse. —  -  A field trip to a local Arabian horse farm. A field trip to a riding stable, where they learned how to  saddle the horses and then took their horses on a trail ride. —  Writing a research report on a breed of horse and  presenting it to the class. —  Writing an adventure story with a horse as a hero or  heroine (illustrations optional) and presenting it to the class.  103 Framework for Learning: The unit that Janice taught on horses had a definite framework that provided insights into her beliefs about knowledge. framework.  First,  Two components are involved in this  she organized materials thematically;  therefore content organization was fairly prominent in her approach.  This content organization provided insight into her  beliefs about how knowledge is organized.  Second, she was guided  by overriding objectives that are developmentally appropriate for her students.  These two components of her framework for  developing her units are interwoven,  as the following statement  suggests: I never say to myself, ‘That’s a social studies component’ because I’ve moved way beyond setting things up by looking at discrete subjects. Now I tend to look at the whole, and I tend to say to myself, ‘All right, here’s the overriding principles I want to address. Are they in fact being addressed? And I’m looking at the intellectual, the aesthetic, and the social development of the students. Am I really providing learning opportunities that allow them to use their strengths?’ (Intlj 6, 9). Content Organization:  Janice recognized that language arts  were primary in her consideration: Something like horses, if you really want to be specific about it, would be more of a scientific subject. But it’s organized around the language arts area so our expressions of our learning the content are a lot of them language arts based (Intlj 12, 12). The language arts  -  reading, writing,  speaking and listening,  were “at the heart and center” of her curriculum planning. saw them as “a set of skills that absolutely have to be  She  104 interwoven into just about everything we do”  (Intlj  Language arts were “the mode of communication”  12,  23).  (Intlj 12,  6),  indicating her belief in the central role of language in her conceptions of knowledge.  It was her perception of language as  the main vehicle of thought that underlay her ideas about integration:  “What happens is the very processes that are the  language arts allow you to integrate with other subjects” 12,  (Intlj  8).  While the processing of thought was dominated by language, Janice was accepting of the idea of other modes of thought, particularly in expressions of thought: If we recognize that children learn in different ways and at different rates and have different styles, then we also have to recognize that they can represent themselves differently. Then we need to recognize and accept and celebrate! (Intlj 12, 18). Janice had developed a sense of the expression of thought as having many other realms.  This she incorporated into her  classroom practice: What I attempt to do is have them express their learning in an art form, or a drama form. So representation of their learning can be extended into recognition of the fact that it can be pictorial, or threedimensional, or it can be expressed in non verbal forms like dance and so on (Intlj 4, 33) Art is an area in which Janice had a personal interest. also saw it as having its own place in the curriculum: In education, I think, we have tended to feed the mind and forget about the spirit. And art, to me, is putting spirit back into the curriculum (Intlj 11, 28).  She  105 She characterized an intellectual side of art: There is an intellectual component, say in art history, or in researching the developmental techniques that have developed over the centuries. I don’t believe it has been recognized for its true value (Intlj 11, 16). It is noteworthy that her ideas pointed to art’s intellectual character as being interwoven into areas where it relies on language for thought development,  such as research,  a further  indication of her belief in language’s primacy in thought.  But  what interested her about art is not its “intellectual” possibilities: There is something about just being able to not be challenged by something other than by the self-initiated challenge in art (Intlj 11, 35). Essentially,  -  she did not characterize art as being an  intellectual challenge; rather it was more idiosyncratic and expressive in nature. For Janice, organizing knowledge for the curriculum involved a central language arts component,  as the language arts were  viewed as the primary processes involved in thought.  Art, as  well as other content areas, provided means of expressing thought.  Art particularly provided room for the students’  “spirit”, an opportunity to explore idiosyncratic challenges. Overriding Objectives:  The second component in Janice’s  framework for developing units were overriding objectives that reflected the developmental appropriateness of activities for her students.  They involved a dynamic,  interactive process between  106 what she knew about children from her experience and what they brought into the classroom.  The content that she structured was  a reflection of this process: There’s a cut, a nice cut between providing relevant experiences and drawing kids into the learning and having them participate in the learning process, and having them direct that process to the role that I assume not so much the role of the director of the learning process, but the facilitator. Basically we make a locally developed curricular unit. It is being developed, in my mind, by myself and the children as we go through, under some fairly broad statements about what is appropriate for kids to learn (Intlj 8, 27). —  These overriding objectives provided structure and purpose for what they did.  She stated:  I still use and still pay attention to curricular objectives, but not in their prescriptive form. So I’m saying that I recognize curricular objectives for the majority of things. I don’t depart from curriculum in its broadest sense from the overriding objectives that are appropriate for kids to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes that are appropriate in writing, or in reading or in mathematics ... (Intlj 9, 29) —  These objectives involved having specified content: Given a direction coming from the kids as to an area of interest, I can build on and use the resources that A) are accessible to me and B) using what they bring in, all under the guidance of what are the appropriate learning objectives for this group of kids (Intlj 8, 21). Janice had no conflict in directing her students to content areas in learning: I’m willing to share with students my choices, my reasons for having chosen  107 something and to be really clear about this being part of the curriculum and showing them how•the parts fit together (Intlj 6, 48). -  Overriding objectives, through the interaction with student interests and ideas and her experience and expertise, translated into providing relevant learning experiences for the students: What I am attempting to do is to set up experiences that are going to cater to their interest level, to set up connections for them, to allow them to work from the point where they are. I have to recognize clearly that not all kids have the same set of skills at the same point in time. There is a spectrum of abilities and experiences that come to you at the beginning of September (Intlj 13, 3). The interactive process between these overriding objectives, the interests and abilities of the students and the material that she presented in class made it difficult for Janice to tell me explicitly what these objectives were.  In observing the process  in action, it became apparent that many of these objectives not only defined what she believed about knowledge, but what she believed about her role and the role of the students in knowledge acquisition.  The Role of the Teacher and the Role of the Students in Knowledge Acquisition The purpose of this analysis was to gain some understanding of where Janice fell on a continuum of child—centered learning to knowledge—centered learning.  This was not a simple task; it was  confounded by a confusion between child—centered learning and child—centered expectations for outcomes.  Also, Janice was  108 making transitions into more child-centered work,  indicating that  her beliefs were changing in this area. Relevance to Students:  It was important to Janice is that  her overriding objectives were addressed through the learning experiences that she set up.  One very clear objective was that  these experiences be relevant to the students, as the following statement professed:  “I have a really strong belief that you  can’t just decide to do this and that it is going to be relevant to kids”  (Intlj 4,  18).  Through her mediating process,  she believed that the  interests of the students would be addressed in the experiences she provided in the class:  “Themes are something that are going  to put the little hook in and get them engaged in the learning process.  What sort of ownership are they going to take as we go  through it?”  (Intlj 6,  21).  Because these overriding objectives overlay an interactive process between the experiences she provided and what her students brought to the class, they took on a fluid, to a static nature. fact,  as opposed  They were not written in stone, but,  reflected the changes in her beliefs over time: I guess what comforts me in this whole thing is that my understanding of what is appropriate for kids to learn has changed dramatically over the years. We used to really hold ourselves in high regard to be filled with knowledge like a mother bird just passing this chewed up worm into these little birds’ mouths... My feelings have changed. Part of it is that I recognize that knowledge is so much bigger than myself and I recognize that there are so many things that -  -  in  109 are changing while you and I are sitting here (Intlj 9, 35). This pointed to a belief in the fluidity of knowledge and Janice had, as an overriding objective, a desire for her students to gain some sense of this: I see that some of the best understandings that I have as a student and as an adult learner too is that somebody else’s knowledge has to be questioned and viewed in light of my past experiences before it becomes my And so what I want to do is allow knowledge. for that same process to happen with kids in terms of knowledge so that they are free to question it (Intlj 10, 8). Active in her teaching was having students examine and question what they learned.  For instance,  some of the boys in  her class were working on a unit on the theme of space after the horse theme had been completed.  Janice had a poster of the  astronauts from the first lunar landing, where they were posed on the moon with their helmets off.  Janice told me:  They had They were horrified by this poster. to make it explicitly clear to me and the rest of the class that this poster was not realistic, since they wouldn’t be able to breathe without their helmets on (Int2j 3, 17). Metacognition: Moreover, this questioning was not only directed at what they learned, but how they learned it.  Janice  strove for a sense of metacognition for her students. A tool that Janice used to establish some sense of metacognition was called “Listen, Sketch and Draft”.  This  strategy involved listening to oral reading, drawing while listening, discussing what has been drawn with a partner,  and  110 drafting key points.  Because there is a strong integrative  component, this strategy is discussed under the heading of integration.  But it also provided opportunity for the. students  to examine how they best learn,  as Janice’s students pointed out:  Janice pulls the whole class together and asks the class what they thought of doing ‘Listen, Sketch ‘and Draft.’ One girl stated, ‘It helps to draw, because then I can remember details.’ Another said she wished she could use Janice said, ‘That is a good point, colour. and the-re is no reason why you can’t go back She added, to your drawings and add colour.’ ‘A lot of the description in the book referred to colour.’ When asked A boy said he liked to draw. by Janice to elaborate, he said, ‘Drawing helps me to say things.’ A girl raised her hand and stated very eloquently, ‘I find this book very difficult A lot of for “Listen, Sketch and Draft.” images don’t come to my mind, but there is so I keep having to much detail in the book. add to what I’ve already put down!’ Janice comments, ‘You certainly have thought about the process!’ (Obj 3, 21). Asking students what they thought about learning was an almost During their group work on murals, Janice and  daily occurrence.  I had discussed the various working styles of the groups. Janice asked them how their groups worked together,  When  I noted:  Amazingly, the kids assessed their working situations to be very much as Janice and I did, only their vocabulary was a little less stereotyping. While we had characterized Ryan as being the leader of his group, Brett he just sort of told us what to said, ‘No do’ (Obj 12, 10). -  During another work session on the murals, many of the students were attempting to draw horses. horses from a book.  Two girls were tracing  When Janice asked at the end of the session  111 if they had learned anything new in terms or art that day, one of the girls raised her hand and said,  “I learned that you can  trace something, then change it in small ways to make it the way you want it.”  Janice congratulated her on her discovery.  Part of this emphasis on metacognition was directed towards how students’ prior knowledge fit into the knowledge presented in the classroom.  While the students were working on their murals,  I noted this conversation between Janice and a group of boys: A group had drawn a muscle man as a Aside from central figure in the procession. his lovely, aesthetically pleasing abdominals, Janice questioned where he fit The boys into King of the Wind thematically. asked her if she had seen the movie Alladin. ‘In the movie, ‘ they responded, ‘There was a strongman who was doing an act.’ ‘So he’s an entertainer?’ Janice asks. ‘Yes,’ the boys reply, ‘And he’s also, In case things get you know, a bouncer. rough at the procession.’ ‘Oh,’ says Janice, ‘I just wondered where he fit in’ (Obj 15, 16). Acceptance of Individual Differences:  Integrally involved  in Janice’s perception of her role as a teacher and the students’ roles as learners was Janice’s acceptance of her students as they were.  In relation to knowledge acquisition,  it meant that her  conceptions of developmentally appropriate overriding objectives may have had a content base, but the outcomes of learning were individually perceived;  they were not perceived strictly in  relation to the content presented in the class. The way that Janice set up the curriculum in her classroom reflected individual differences because she has paid attention to their interests and their needs when structuring her units. I  112 asked her if her approach to integration served all the learners in her class: Because what it does Yes, I think it does. it gives are fractured lives their if is from a to something do an opportunity them And integration of whole perspective. subject matter is where they see those It is not a difficult thing for connections. In a matter of fact, it is probably a them. pretty warm and welcoming environment (Intlj 7, 23). —  -  However, Janice did not support whole—heartedly the concept of child-centered learning.  She stated:  I couldn’t, in all reality, suggest to you that this is a fully child-centered classroom While I because it is a balanced classroom. ascribe to the philosophies of child-centered learning, I also understand that some of the developmentally appropriate learnings for students are not something that they would dream up themselves (Intlj 8, 10). As noted, her units did have a strong content component. However, she did support child—centered expectations for learning outcomes.  It was always in the forefront of her mind just what  the individual styles and capabilities of each student were, and his/her work was perceived accordingly. This did not mean that any work the students do was necessarily acceptable to Janice.  She did have a standard that  she expected, but this standard was not set in absolutes that were the same for everyone in the class.  Although, for the most  part, Janice did not seem to need to do any prodding to get her students to work to the best of their abilities, one student raised the issue of how Janice would deal with someone trying to get out of work:  113 Janice says she will place no limitation on ‘You can length for their adventure stories. Stuart write as much as you like,’ she says. raises the possibility that they could then only write one sentence, if they liked. Janice thanks him for the opportunity to explain that she would expect a page minimum from most of the writers il-i the room, but if they have told a good story in less than a page, then she would accept that (Obj 19, 27). An example of Janice’s acceptance of individual differences came up when the students were working on their murals.  Two  girls were working from the “How to Draw Horses” books that Janice had in the classroom.  Jennifer was having a lot of on the other hand,  Kim,  success with the step-by-step approach.  was frustrated and soon gave up the technique.  I sat down with I got extremely  her, trying out the steps in the book myself.  frustrated, so I sympathized with Kim completely.  Janice came  by, and I explained that I had just discovered that I could not follow the steps in the book,  just as Kim could not.  She pointed  “Kids who learn holistically will have a lot of trouble  out:  with the step-by-step approach.  Others,  like Jennifer, well  this is tailor-made for her learning style”  (Obj 14,  -  2).  Another case of Jennifer’s learning style presented itself in the adventure stories.  Jennifer’s story was basically a  retelling of King of the Wind.  Janice commented,  consistent with her need for patterns”  (Obj 37,  “It is very  19).  Janice’s acceptance of individual differences was very noticeable in the case of Leonard, a special needs student in her class.  Leonard had numerous learning deficits; his work was at a  114 pre—school level.  He often made comments in class that were  inappropriate or off—topic.  Janice always remained patient.  An  example of this was during a class discussion on what they had learned during “Listen, Sketch and Draft”: Leonard says, ‘I don’t know if it matters whose is the biggest castle, but I drew the Janice replied, ‘It is biggest castle.’ important to draw what you are thinking, just as it is important for everyone else to draw Good job on your what they are thinking. 34). castle’ (Obj 3, Another day,  Leonard had had a particularly bad day. After class,  I talked with the child care worker assigned to Leonard: Anna comments on what a rough day Leonard has But she says, ‘In general he’s come so had. I He’s really bloomed this year.’ far. he support the at amazement comment on my Anna says, receives from his classmates. acceptance’ of example Janice’s follow ‘They 23). 17, (Obj Social Mediations of Student Learning:  Janice’s students  also seemed to have an incredible level of acceptance of individual differences, which Janice fostered in several ways. First, as noted, her example appeared to have an effect.  Second,  she actively encouraged the students to work together: I have always set up my kids in room buddies, so the peer tutoring aspect is really important ... and I have found that there is less stigma attached to that set of circumstances (Intlj 14, 5). The major group project that the students did while I observed were the murals.  I was struck at how the girls in Leonard’s  group patiently dealt with his behavior: They spent a lot of time trying to convince Leonard of their ideas and trying to find  115 something that he was happy doing (with, of course, the catch that it met the rest of the They arrived at a group’s standards). solution by preparing him a tracer for making Leonard was happy to windows on the castle. The girls heaved a be working on the castle. collective sigh of relief (Obj 14, 18).  -  The students shared their work often, with little or no direction from Janice.  I noticed a lot of sharing while they  were writing their adventure stories: The students quite enthusiastically share their stories as they proofread each other’s I’m not sure how effectively they edit work. and proofread, but the sharing goes well. They are amazingly supportive of each other (Obj 25, 31). Trust:  The acceptance that Janice demonstrated for her  students’ learning styles provided an atmosphere that supported their learning.  Her students had trust in themselves as learners  because their styles were dealt with as worthy and important of consideration. Interestingly, Janice’s development of self—trust in her students has lead to Janice’s trusting them to do more of the content structuring; the direction that the class was taking was toward a child-centered approach. horse units.  They had just completed their  In asking them what they learned, the discussion  turned to what they would be doing next. don’t you let us study whatever we want, know,  surprise you”  (Obj 41,  24).  One student said,  “Why  and then we could, you  The rest of the class  enthusiastically endorsed her idea. Janice was enthused by their suggestion.  She was  -exhilarated by the success of her horse unit and by the desire to  116 learn that her students were expressing. class,  “You know,  unit on their own.  She told me after  I think this group is quite capable of doing a I’m sure they can ‘surprise’ me”  (Obj 42,  10). At the time of the final interview, the class had begun working on their own units.  Janice had opened up her teaching  stores, and students were using her materials to create bulletin boards, reports, drama presentations and many other activities. Janice was very comfortable in sharing her teacher resources: “They are really looking after and respecting my stuff.  They’re  sorting it out and questioning the material that I have”  (Int2j  3, 7). I commented:  “There is so much trust going on.  It takes a  lot of trust to hand over your possessions and trust that they will learn from them”  (Int2j 3,  9).  I asked her if she thought that the level of trust that they had then in June was a result of the relationships that they had built over the school year.  Would she feel comfortable using  this approach in September?  Janice replied:  I really don’t know. I find the way that things are going gratifying for myself and exciting for the students I’m excited by all the learning that is going on. I worry sometimes because I know that this is not what they are going to be doing next year I don’t know. Next year I’ll be teaching grade seven to a group that I’ve had for two years; this will be our third year together. It will be interesting to see how things develop (Int2j 3, 12). -  117 Exciting ideas were happening for Janice in her teaching. While overriding objectives were stated repeatedly as being of great importance in her content structuring, some of these objectives led to Janice having less control over the structure; more of that control had been handed to her students.  Thus, her  teaching had shifted to a more child-centered approach. The development of this shift was new, and Janice was still sorting out her beliefs about it.  Trust in the students’ ability  to learn appeared to be a prerequisite, and integral to this trust was the acceptance of students’ abilities and fostering a sense of acceptance in the students.  During the final interview  Janice commented while sketching: It seems to me that education has always been focused on bringing students to the same point,like this:  September  June  whereas I see it now as more like this:  September June  (Int2j 2, 7).  118 Beliefs about Integration Integration,  for Janice,  revolved around her belief in the  centrality of language arts to thought processes.  Her  organization of the horse unit centered on a language base  —  the  novel King of the Wind; other content matched and supported this central focus: The language arts, those are a set of skills that, in my view, absolutely have to be interwoven into just about everything we do (Intlj 12, 23). Janice read my research proposal before agreeing to participate in my study.  During the initial interview,  she  questioned my criticism of theme teaching; she felt that the learning experiences she provided were more than merely organized according to theme because student interest was an integral factor in the development of her units: Integration to me is more that organization around a theme. I do that but I do more than that because I really try to look at the relevance for each of the individual learners (Intlj, 6, 17). Beliefs about the centrality of language to thought and about the consideration of individual differences were,  not surprisingly,  quite evident in the way Janice integrated in the horse unit. Integration of Art and Language:  Content:  All of the work  that was asked of the students involved using language primarily to express learning.  The major assignments were the writing of  an adventure story and the research report on a breed of horses, both primarily writing assignments, although both did contain  119 visual elements as support material to the main ideas that language provided. The adventure stories that the students wrote near the end of the unit provided some insight into how the students viewed art and language.  This activity was the least content-directed  that they did in the unit; Janice specified only that it must be an adventure story and that the hero or heroine must be a horse (Obj  19,  8).  She stressed that illustrations were optional.  None of the students chose to illustrate their stories, except to do an illustration for the title page.  In the final interview, I  made this comment to Janice: Their illustrations were props to the writing, and did not appear to be involved in the process of developing ideas for the story at all” (Int2j 2, 32). She agreed; she could not think of a case where a student used drawing in the “thinking” part of the assignment.  She said:  “I  guess it is that they do pick up on what I think is important, and what my interests are”  (Int2j 2,  35).  While language was the primary mode of expressing learning for the majority of assignments, there was the notable exception of the strategy “Listen,  Sketch and Draft.”  While listening to a  chapter of the book, the students were asked to draw. that, they discussed their drawings with a partner.  After Then they  were asked to draft key points, make predictions or ask questions about what went on in the chapter.  Important integrative  components involve the visual representations of words that are heard,  talking about these with others and then translating key  120 ideas into writing.  Visual images have a prominent role in the  development of ideas; therefore it is given status as a thought process. The Integration of Art and Language: School and Self:  Many  of the integrative strategies that Janice employed had an important function for Janice in that they provided opportunity and insight into the students’ integrations of schoolwork with their previous knowledge.  “Listen, Sketch and Draft” was also  seen as useful by Janice because it provided an excellent experience in understanding how students’ past experiences influence present understandings. this strategy.  Janice provided her guide for  It was a chapter from a book that describes the  process, which she highlighted for me. highlighted was:  One of the quotes  “It is interesting to not how movies we make in  our minds are also made from our prior experiences” 81).  (Curdoc 1,  She describes the strategy as doing the following: This strategy allows students to integrate past learning experiences with present understandings of what is happening... and they’re drawing on prior knowledge, I think. And I’ve seen it happen here in the class, where they draw on prior understandings to create the pictures but they build new understandings as they go ahead. So it is helping them in terms of their recall and thought processes (Intlj 5, 14). In observing the class at work doing “Listen, Sketch and  Draft” I noted that the class was very focused; none seemed to have any problems drawing and listening.  In the discussion that  followed I noticed with amazement the details that they remembered:  121 As I wonder around and look at the student’s books, I wonder why so many of them have predicted that the foal’s mother will die. This has not occurred to me. Then, in the discussion that follows, the students point out the ‘omens’ of death. Suddenly it seems quite clear! (Obj 3, 3). She asked after a “Listen, Sketch and Draft” session, do you know what a stable looks like?”  (Obj 4,  12).  “How  The  discussion that followed involved the students’ enthusiastic accounts of their personal visits to stables. Another chapter from the book was translated into a picture. As Janice read the chapter, the students drew. interesting about this assignment was that,  What was  for Janice,  it  pointed out very clearly some of the learning styles in the classroom.  She was continually analyzing student abilities.  The  following two examples were ones that she pointed out to me. One student, Jennifer, whose work appears on the next page (Figure 4), had a very literal and step-by-step approach to things.  Her picture was very graphic; it involved the use of  language and a left to right time progression.  On the following  page (Figure 5), there is a picture by Ryan, who, according to Janice, thought quite visually.  He has pictured a single scene  from the chapter, with details to objects rather than to characters.. Integration of School and Self: Social Mediations:  The  students also translated a chapter from the book into murals. This work was done in groups of five or six; it was the social  CsJ  ‘-I  a)  4) C) 4-I 0  0 4.) I-I U) 4.) r1  U) U)  a)  (44 .11  a)  /  /  123 FIGURE 5:  Ryan’s visual translation of Chapter 7  th 7 4 C4  /  ,1• N  124 mediations of thought that were interesting for Janice to observe in this activity.  I noted:  Each student has their own vision; what ends up on the paper is the result of their interactions with each other. This is really an integration of personal visual thought processes through social mediations” (Obj 8, 16) The groups approached the problem of combining their visions in different ways: The group of boys in the hall are off to a quick start. One boy, Ryan, takes the lead and sketches out his vision of the procession. The other boys stand back as he says, ‘Just wait a minute, then you’ll see what I mean.’ Then the other boys start drawing in their assigned parts around Ryan’s vision (Obj 8, 19). This group of girls started out arguing and they are still arguing. No one’s will is winning. One girl, Chelsea, quietly starts sketching how she sees the mural looking. The other girls continue to argue. Eventually they too decide to do their own sketches. They all look like Chelsea’s, except Jennifer’s. Her’s is practically a mirror image. But since she has been assigned the task of drawing the castle, she decides where to place it on the paper (Obj 9, 1). The members of this group each enthusiastically started working on their assigned tasks although they had not discussed well issues such as which side was up! Austin started drawing sand on what the rest believed to be the sky. He quickly got turned around ... Their drawings were not on the same scale and their ground was a different heights. They weren’t disturbed by this. I wonder if they will resolve it (Obj 9, 33). The following pages are photographs of the student’s murals (Figures 6-9).  0  ‘1  ID  I-I.  c-I CD  H  0  L0  Li  H  vi  L’J  126 FIGURE 8: Austin’s group  k FIGURE 9:  Leonard’s group  127 Summary  Janice structured units thematically.  This involved a fair  amount of content direction, but this was mediated by overriding objectives that Janice has arrived at as a teacher through a dynamic interactive process between her experiences and the interests and needs of her students.  Janice planned many  activities that focused on the students self—expression and on metacognition.  However, the importance of individual  considerations showed more in the acceptance of individual outcomes for learning than in the planned experiences. Janice’s ability to accurately assess and accept individual differences built an atmosphere of trust in her classroom; the students trusted in their own individual capabilities. result of this was that,  One  at the end of the horse unit, Janice  increasingly trusted her students with the structuring of content. Having the students understand themselves just what and how they were learning were also featured prominently.  Developing a  sense of metacognition in the students clearly was an objective of Janice’s; this also aided in the trust the students developed in their learning. In structuring this integrated unit, Janice showed her bias toward language arts.  She professed a belief in the centrality  of language in thought processing and expression; subsequently, the unit on horses was dominated by language arts activities. However,  a strong integrative component with art showed in the  128 technique of “Listen, Sketch and Draft.” demonstrated visual thinking.  Here students  Interestingly, Janice found the  demonstration of individual learning styles through the use of visual modes of primary interest. Social aspects in Janice’s classroom was featured in Janice’s ideas about integration.  Acceptance of individual  differences was also a prominent feature in the social interactions in her class.  As well, Janice noted with interest  the effect that social mediation had on the expression of ideas in the group work on the mural.  This integration of ideas was  socially based; it also pointed out important factors for Janice in the students’ learning.  Conclusion These two case studies have yielded data about the beliefs about knowledge, particularly in the areas of art and language arts,  for these two teachers.  The role of these two teachers and  their students in knowledge acquisition was also summarized. These gave understanding to how language and art were integrated in their classrooms.  Next, these understandings will be  discussed in relation to current theories and research.  129 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION  Research Questions Revisited The research questions with which I began this study were the following: 1)  What does the teacher believe about knowledge and its  organization?  Specifically, how are art and language perceived  in these beliefs about knowledge? 2)  What does the teacher believe about how children learn?  What  does the teacher believe about the role of the students and the role of the teacher in learning? 3) What is the relationship of these beliefs to the integration of art and language? 4)  How are these beliefs about the integration of art and  language translated into practice? In keeping with the tradition of qualitative research, this study has followed an emergent design.  Redefinition of the  research questions occur through the process of research (McMillan & Schumaker,  1989).  first three of these questions,  This study is no exception. in their initial words,  the basis for the analysis of the data.  The  formed  The fourth question was  interesting for me to examine after going through the research process.  I found that beliefs and practices were not separate  entities: I could not observe how beliefs were put into practice. Rather,  I came upon the realization that I did not understand  130  even theoretically what their beliefs were until I saw the practice of these beliefs. This realization needs clarification in understanding how the first three questions were examined in the data analysis. The understandings needed to infer the beliefs of these teachers for the first three questions necessitated seeing the teachers in action, and in having the teachers explain their actions.  So  analysis of how these beliefs were related to their practice took place throughout the research process.  It was therefore not a  question of how their beliefs were put into action, but rather a question of how their actions in the classroom revealed their beliefs. The first three questions also have ties to the bodies of literature reviewed in Chapter Two.  Beliefs that were inferred  during data analysis about the nature of knowledge, the role of the students and the role of the teacher in knowledge acquisition and integration all have ties to the dominant classroom culture, theories of art and language education and theories of integration.  This discussion will explore these ties.  I also found that for both case studies, social relationships in the class had an integral effect on the way art and language were integrated in the classroom.  So another  research focus emerged: how do the social relationships in the classroom affect the integration of art and language? Accordingly, this discussion will include these areas and follows this format:  I will discuss the analysis of the data in  131 relationship to the different theories proposed in the literature review:  1)  traditional classroom culture,  language education, address 4)  2)  theories of art and  3) theories of integration.  I will also  social relationships, an area that appeared in both  case studies that was not addressed in the original research questions or in the literature review.  The Literature Revisited Traditional Classroom Culture I was lucky to find two very experienced teachers who were able to state what they believed quite succinctly, with little conflict or doubt in their own minds about the way they perceived the enterprise of teaching.  I expected traditional classroom  culture to have a noticeable bearing on each teacher’s beliefs. This was the case.  But instead of finding that traditional  classroom culture values were unreflected, both teachers had definitely demonstrated a reflected internalized state about these values.  They did not agree with these values because they  assumed them to be valid; they had both practiced them and understood them to be valid or invalid based on their experience and reflection.  Each teacher supported and differed from  traditional classroom culture values in reflected and practiced ways. Paul had a very different perception of knowledge from traditional classroom culture in that content was not a focus. The transmission of knowledge was not. in the form of isolated  132 bits of information to be digested and regurgitated by the students, 1991).  as dominant classroom culture supports  (Monson & Pahi,  Instead he focused on processes for learning, which  acknowledged many of Gardner’s ways of knowing (1983) besides the verbal and numerical, most notably the visual. This difference from the way that knowledge is perceived in traditional classroom culture caused me to examine my unreflected assumptions about the nature of knowledge. difference.  It is a powerful  The focus on process knowledge makes all content in  a manner generic;  if one knows the procedure to follow any  content can lead to learning.  His focus on process,  in theory,  solves a common problem seen with knowledge—based approaches to learning.  Because content knowledge is currently viewed in  integrative philosophies as being vast and ever-changing (Court, 1991),  a focus on content that is relevant and “true” today may  not serve the needs of the students tomorrow. other hand,  Processes, on the  focus on the ways content knowledge are attained, and  have potential for far greater range in terms of long—term relevance of education (Case,  199la).  In practice, Paul’s focus on process did not have this effect.  I have speculated that Paul’s background as a  mathematics teacher may have had an influence on his beliefs about knowledge.  Mathematics is integrally related to learning  specific procedures that lead to the correct answers.  In  traditional classroom culture, pages and pages of drill, in mathematics are drills on the procedures; the specific content of  133 the numbers does not matter. But an interesting parallel arises here that may explain why Paul’s processes did not have the desired effect.  A common criticism of the traditional methods of  teaching mathematics is that the students follow the procedure without having any real understanding of how or why they are manipulating the numbers  (Case,  l99la).  They cannot use the  procedural knowledge to solve everyday mathematical dilemmas. Paul found a very similar problem with his students this year; they did not internalize the procedural knowledge he presented in art (Obp 15,  24)  and language arts  (Int2p 2,  6)  and then use it  in all applicable situations. The root of the problem for Paul revolved around how he conceptualized “processes for learning.”  The procedural  knowledge presented in Paul’s classroom supported values held in traditional classroom culture because the knowledge presented was definitely knowledge external to the students.  He relied widely  on large group instruction, seatwork assignments and teacher talk, which according to Werner (1991)  touches on the core  pedagogical strategies of the dominant classroom culture.  The  choice of procedures were not informed by student experiences or interests and they were not.directed by the students; Paul performed these tasks. The very teacher—directed method was used, at least in part, as a method for control, and this method of control has the backing of traditional classroom culture (Werner,  1991).  Because  Paul retained strict control over the procedural knowledge base,  134 he felt a control over the students.  Part of his job as a  teacher was to have the students achieve to certain standards which were external and predefined.  Although content was not as  controlled, and Paul did actively encourage input in this area, the procedures were the focus for the students, most probably because the marks that they were rewarded depended on their adherence to the standards (Intip 10, 25), and not on the content of their work. Paul’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge had important philosophical differences to what is generally thought of as knowledge.  The definition of knowledge that was used in this  study was written by Nespor (1987):  “ways of thinking about  something that have consensuality and bounds determined by relatively well—established canons of argument, with consensus about the ways in which these things are evaluated or judged. Knowledge has relatively well—defined domains of application” 319).  (p.  But Paul’s beliefs about knowledge in art and knowledge in  language arts largely ignored consensuality and bounds determined by these two disciplines.  The lack of adherence to curriculum in  either discipline is an indication of his very different perception of knowledge.  Paul’s beliefs about art and language  as educational enterprises largely defined what he presented as knowledge in these two disciplines, and these beliefs did not support what would be commonly held as knowledge.  This will be  discussed in more detail in relation to current theories of art and language education.  135  Janice had a more traditional approach to knowledge.  Her  views of knowledge had a content base; the materials she presented in class were highly organized according to content, and processes such as “Listen, Sketch and Draft” were used on that content where applicable.  Janice was the director of both  content and processes in integrating, so the knowledge in her horse unit was mostly organized and presented externally to the students.  This was a support to traditional classroom culture.  However, she did differ radically from traditional classroom culture in that she did not present knowledge as absolute; Popkewitz  (1978)  of knowledge:  describes the popular, narrow conceptualization  “There exists a specified, limited body of  knowledge to be imparted to students”  (p. 430). Janice did not  set standards for knowledge acquisition that reflected the philosophy that all knowledge is the same for everyone.  In  Janice’s classroom, she acknowledged the students’ different perceptions of knowledge in the expression of their work.  So  while the students did not control the content or the processes that they undertook, the outcomes of learning were accepted as theirs to control. In terms of integration, knowledge in art and knowledge in language had definite role and status for Janice.  Her beliefs  about the nature of knowledge reflected a strong belief in language as being central to thought, which again reflects bias toward traditional classroom culture.  Art played a supporting  role to language arts, making knowledge within the discipline of  136 art to a great degree subservient to knowledge within the disciplines of language.  This view of knowledge brings into  question whether these two disciplines were actually integrated in Janice’s teaching. Integration as defined for this study means that “the parts of an integrated entity themselves have increased significance and intelligibility because they are seen to be parts of a meaningful whole”  (Coombs,  1991, p.  2).  While art’s expressive  capabilities were seen as aiding in thought and understanding of content presented in language,  language activities in Janice’s  class did not support art’s unique characteristics at all.  Theories of Art and Language Education Paul’s views of art and language arts were also quite different from the way these pursuits are perceived in traditional classroom culture.  Although there certainly was  emphasis on verbal skills, Paul also had a very strong emphasis on visual skills.  However, he did not support current theories  in language and art education in some key ways.  First, he did  not pay attention to the expressive modes as defined by Eisner These were not in evidence in either language arts or  (1981). art.  Because of the procedurally directed method employed by  Paul, the skills became the focus, ideas.  rather than the expression of  For me, this was particularly noticeable in art.  The art  displayed on the walls showed very clearly the focus of the lesson  -  individual pictures did not differ much (Obp 1,  3).  137 Also, no language arts activity that I observed involved using words for creative expression, visual images (Obp 18,  except ironically as content for  20).  The integrated language arts activities that I observed in Paul’s classroom lacked some of the “whole” that whole language philosophies endorse.  Specifically, whole language takes the  perspective that experiences with language should arise from children’s own experiences (Froese,  Paul’s very teacher—  1990).  And because he taught to  directed methods made this difficult.  procedures more than to content, creative expression in choices of content were not rewarded (Intip 7, language theory,  29).  In support of whole  response to literature was a major component of  the work on the novel A Wrinkle in Time.  As well, the responses  requested by Paul gave credence to integrated visual and verbal ways of knowing,  involving complexities in the students’  perception of the literature. Still,  it is evident that the beliefs that Paul held about  the nature of knowledge in the area of language arts held large and gaping holes in comparison to what is commonly perceived as knowledge.  Even if knowledge in language arts is thought of  simply in terms of reading, writing,  listening and speaking, the  activities that Paul’s students engaged in during my observations did not adequately cover these areas;  activities in writing and  speaking were extremely limited. Paul’s approach to teaching art revealed much attention to student production,  as Harvard’s Project Zero  (Gardner,  1989)  138 advocates.  However, the major focus was on technical knowledge,  which is not the major emphasis of Project Zero.  Gardner  stressed expression, with critical and aesthetic understandings in art emerging from the student’s own work.  No personal  expression and subsequent reflection, discussion or analysis of the students’ work in art took place in Paul’s classroom. Disciplines within art proposed by DBAE criticism and aesthetics  (Greer,  -  art history, art  1984), which would require  reflection, discussion and analysis, therefore did not play a role in Paul’s class.  His focus on materials and processes  neglects the other three content areas defined in the Elementary Fine Arts Resource Book, the curriculum guide for the province of British Columbia (Ministry of Education,  1985): developing  images, elements and principles of design, and responding to art. Again, what Paul presented as art knowledge in his class did not match what is commonly considered knowledge in this area. In terms of the integration, his approach to language arts and art affected work in his classroom in two ways.  First,  because creative expression was not at all the focus in either language arts activities or art activities, the students were not given an opportunity to externalize their internal knowledge. Having no avenue for expression effectively blocked of f much child—centered learning that could have taken place.  Second,  having no procedures for reflecting, discussing and analyzing the work of the students and having no expressive language activities disallowed the most advocated areas for integration of art and  139 language.  For example, art criticism and aesthetics are  intricately linked by Thorns expressing ideas.  (1985)  to the use of language for  Paul’s class had many activities that involved  the visual and linguistic processing of information in an integrated form.  However, having no discussions, either orally  or in written form, that focus on the students’ understandings gave Paul less potential for integration in terms of art and language.  It also did nota11ow for the students to enter into  the learning actively; they basically were the passive receptacles of procedural knowledge. Janice’s beliefs placed language arts education at the core of the curriculum as she believed in the centrality of language to thought.  Artistic ways of knowing played a supporting role,  noted especially as a means of creative expression and self— initiated challenge.  Language as central to thought and  therefore to educational goals has traditionally had a great deal of support (Hamblen,  1983).  This support perhaps made Janice  less reflective of the need to address knowledge within the area of art; there was a lack of art knowledge integrated in Janice’s horse unit. Most of the content of Janice’s horse unit was organized externally to the students around language activities.  But  Janice had a strong emphasis on assignments in the expressive mode  (Eisner,  1981),  both in language arts and art.  Many of  these assignments showed a belief on Janice’s part of the complimentary nature of expressive art and language activities.  140 Examples of these assignments include “Listen, Sketch and Draft” activities, visual translation of a chapter from King of the Wind,  the murals, the adventure stories, and the reports on the  horses.  Expressive assignments in both language arts and art had  the effect of bringing the students’ own ideas into the learning process.  In fact, there was evidence that Janice was moving  toward a more child—centered approach to dealing with the content knowledge in the classroom,  indicating that her beliefs in this  area were evolving. Janice did not have a major focus on skills in language or in art in this unit. So the work that she asked students to do did not focus on transmitting the rules and regulations of language’s more formalized syntax, the traditional content emphasis in schools  (Eisner,  1981). This is partly because she  had done alot of work on writing skills previously, and was pleased to hote that the students transferred those skills to the assignments in the horse unit  (Obj 28,  vertical integration (Case l991a) classroom.  13).  This validates  taking place within her  -  Janice had a very strong focus on metacognition,  or the  understandings of their own learnings that students gained from their assignments  (Obj 3,  24;  Obj  12,  9; Obj 32,  21; Obj 33, 9).  Giving this aspect of learning credence in her classroom allowed the students to focus on the internalization of knowledge. noticeably, however,  Very  the fostering of metacognition was centered  in language activities.  The students presented their reports on  141 a horse breed and their adventure stories to the class.  This  sharing allowed for discussion of their written work and consequently the development of critical and aesthetic understandings  (Obj 14,  28).  Her views of knowledge support the  theories of whole language, which emphasize student expression, sharing and understanding (Goodman,  1986).  In contrast, the students’ own productions of art were not discussed separately from these two written assignments.  The  only formal discussion of their artwork took place within the process of “Listen,  Sketch and Draft,” and this procedure used  drawing as a way to understand and interpret oral language. There was more formalized sharing and criticism of the written work as opposed to the artistic work (Obj 38,  12).  33,  19; Obj 35,  23; Obj  Because the aesthetic and critical understandings that  the students reached in this unit were all essentially language based, the comprehensive understandings that could have been achieved through integrated art activities were not utilized. Art skills were taught in production—focused lessons in the unit  —  the students did one lesson on the anatomy of a horse’s  head and one lesson on perspective. one.  Use of these skills, however,  I was not present for either did translate into work on  the murals and in the illustration of the horse adventure stories, providing more evidence of vertical integration of knowledge.  But clearly the focus was on the expressive nature of  these art assignments as opposed to the technical aspects 12,  23).  As well,  (Ob  some historical understandings of the theme of  142 horses came from language activities, specifically the research on horse breeds history.  (Obj,  33, 20), while none came from art  So while aesthetics as a component of DBAE (Creer,  1984) was addressed casually and briefly,  studio production had .a  major emphasis in Janice’s class. In terms used in The Elementary Fine Arts Resource Book (Ministry of Education, developing images events,  —  1985), Janice’s unit had a focus on  “a way of recording observations, past  feelings and fantasies  ...  a way of knowing”  (p.  28).  The elements and principles of design were also addressed through work on horse anatomy and perspective.  Materials and processes  were not an emphasis, and neither was responding to art. Janice’s unit,  therefore,  showed a central belief in the  prime importance of language in education, while the art activities did show belief in artistic ways of knowing that were integrated to support the language arts core.  She also  emphasized expressive activities and metacognition,  allowing for  the students to first of all express their own ideas and then understand the processes involved in that expression, making their role in learning an active one.  But the fostering of  metacognition particularly was language—based; understanding about their own learning was not promoted through art activities.  Theories of Intecration The literature review revealed two dimensions involved in integration (see Figure 1).  One had to do with the nature of  143 knowledge itself.  It fell on a continuum from a basic unity of  all knowledge to knowledge existing in discrete isolated bits. The second was based on the locus of integration.  This dimension  fell on a continuum of child—centered learning to knowledge— centered learning.  In the initial literature review, the four  forms of integration that Case (l991a) defined were used as a differentiating factor for these two dimensions.  The first two,  content and processes, had to do with the teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge.  These were characterized as knowledge  external to the students that education seeks to make internal. The other two,  integration of school and self and holistic  integration, were characterized as being knowledge that is internal, to the students that education seeks to make external. Thus they had more to do with the locus of integration.  Both  teachers demonstrated that this was a simple conceptualization. Content and processes in integration are forms of integration over which the teachers have control in their curriculum planning; they can decide what and how these aspects of knowledge are presented in their classrooms.  Teachers do not  have the same control over the forms of integration of school and’ self and holistic integration; these primarily belong to the students.  However, both of the teachers in this study  demonstrated that they sought to bring the students into learning by allowing them some autonomy over either content or process. So,  in structuring integrated work, these teachers facilitated  child-centered learning  -  the integration of school and self and  144 holistic learning, by allowing them to bring their own content in Paul’s case,  or their own processes in Janice’s case, to the  learning context.  The organizing of content and processes that  these teachers performed was integral to bringing the students into the learning process; thus, they demonstrated a great connection of these two dimensions of integration outlined in the literature review. What seems to be missing from the initial conceptualization of integration is the dialectic that takes place for the students between internal knowledge and external knowledge, and how teachers seek to foster this dialectic through the activities that they provide.  Important to beliefs about integration .are  the beliefs about this dialectic, which I have called “the learning process.”  The views that-these two teachers have about  the learning process involve essentially different epistemological positions that are interwoven with their understanding of their roles as teachers. My understanding of Paul’s beliefs about integration in terms of the nature of knowledge pointed towards a more united view of knowledge.  The unifying forces were the processes that  he emphasized so much in his teaching.  It was evident that he  wanted the students to form unities in the content.  But he did  not focus on what content formed unities; rather, his emphasis was on processes that could act on any content.  The purposes for  forming unities of content were the understandings gained from the processes that the students underwent.  Paul did not  145 emphasize the unity of content in his students’ work (Obp 17, 6). Rather, roads and pathways which traveled through the content were the emphasis.  Paul had a strong belief in visual elements  in these roads and pathways, which interconnected with verbal elements in learning activities; he believed in integrated ways of knowing.  But it was like these ways of knowing were  interwoven to form strong roads almost to the exclusion of what passed by on the roadside. Paul’s views of processes were influenced greatly by his beliefs about knowledge as being external to the students, that he, through educational processes he presented, sought to make internal.  The students’ own internal knowledge did not have much  emphasis, as is evidenced by the lack of expressive modes in his assignments.  While he did encourage their content input, this  was not what he showed value for in rewarding marks (Intip 7, 30). This had a great influence on what happened in the process of learning in his class.  There was not much that Paul did as a  teacher that encouraged a dialogue between internal and external knowledge for his students. external knowledge. were process—based, conclusions.  Processes were strictly defined  He taught towards forgone conclusions which rather than the traditional content—based  Clearly, having the external knowledge of the  procedures to follow for learning was to lead to internalization of this knowledge, to then be used on all appropriate càntent.  146 There was evidence that this did not occur in Paul’s class 8,  (Obp  21). Janice’s practices pointed to an external and content—based  perception of knowledge.  Content knowledge had some organizing  principles; it was evident that the content Janice presented in her class had some organizing force which involved placing it into categories.  It was also evident that Janice had beliefs in  the interconnections of these categories.  In her planning she  asked students to explore the content of her horse unit in a number of predefined ways.  These included vocabulary sheets, a  prescribed novel of study,  and the use of “Listen, Sketch and  Draft” strategies. On the other hand, processes that acted upon the content were quite fluid, and reflected individual learning styles and experiences.  Process knowledge for Janice involved the  presentation of external knowledge in the form of strategies such as “Listen, Sketch and Draft.”  But is also involved the way that  students individually structured the organization of knowledge; thus her understanding of process knowledge reflects a dialectic between knowledge that is external and knowledge that is internal to students. An understanding that Janice had a belief of this dialectic in the process of learning comes from the great acceptance that Janice had for her students’ individual learning styles and experiences.  Janice paid great attention to the ways students  demonstrated these connections through their work,  and also  147 emphasized the students’ own understandings of these connections through metacognitive activities.  There was a balance between  the external knowledge in the presentation with the internal knowledge emphasized through “expressive mode” assignments and the acceptance of individual differences.  Social Relationships Perhaps the most overlooked area in my original research questions was the role that social relationships in the classrooms played in beliefs about the integration of art and language.  These social influences were both in terms of  teacher/student relationships and peer relationships.  Issues  such as trust and social mediations in learning came up for both teachers.  Perhaps they were pointed out so clearly to me because  these two teachers had very different experiences in the social relationships in their respective classes. Good teacher/student relationships and peer relationships can no doubt be seen as a benefit to student learning in any classroom situation.  McEwan (1993)  found trust to be integral to  developing a “sojourning community” at the graduate school level. She found that, for trust to develop within the context of student/teacher/peer relationships, the teacher must communicate warmth and trust to the students, and the students should receive strength from the teacher and each other. But these relationships become critical in terms of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how students  148 and teachers function in knowledge acquisition in more integrated and child—centered classrooms. This is because the power relationships in the classroom change in relation to the knowledge base as teachers move toward more child—centered learning.  More equity in relation to knowledge provides students  with more power but also requires that the students take more responsibility.  In order to do this,  students need support.  These ideas are discussed here in terms of teacher/student trust and social mediations of learning. Teacher/Student Trust:  In traditional classroom culture,  there is a clear power differential between the teachers and the students in terms of knowledge; the idea is that the teacher has knowledge and the students do not.  This is one issue that  underlies order in traditional classrooms.  Control over the  knowledge base defines and maintains the teachers’ power (Werner, 1991). Shifting to a more child-centered philosophy of learning not only changes the role of the teacher and of the students,  it also  shifts this power relationship in terms of knowledge toward one of greater equality.  If a dialectic between external and  internal knowledge is sought, then there is a greater equality over the control of the knowledge base.  This makes the  teacher/student relationship much more complex. this complexity is the issue of trust.  But underlying  There needs to be trust  in the teacher/student relationships in order for child—centered  149 learning to take place.  This involves trust on a number of  levels. First, the teacher must trust the students to learn.  While  certainly it can be argued that this is necessary in all classrooms,  in traditional classroom culture, this trust does not  have the dimensions that it does in child-centered classrooms. The knowledge can no longer be controlled by the teacher in the same autocratic mode; order cannot be maintained through the presentation of “absolute knowledge.”  Because child—centered  learning relies on what the students bring to the classroom in terms of interest and past experience, the teachers have to trust the students to indeed bring these elements into their learning. As well teachers have to trust in the idiosyncratic abilities of each student; so, process knowledge as well as content knowledge to a great extent shift to the hands of the learners. This involves greater power for the students.  But this also  entails greater responsibility on the part of the students. McEwan  (1993)  found that her graduate school class, having  established trust as a foundation,  then began “to venture into  the areas of the intellectual unknown”  (p.  6).  In Paul’s class, there was not a lot of trust on his part in his students’ abilities to learn (Int2p 1, like any other relationship,  16).  is not single-sided,  Because this, I do not mean  to suggest that he did not have valid reasons for this lack of trust.  Clearly he did (Int2p 1,  35).  But what was interesting  was his reaction to the challenges that a lack of trust posed in  150 the teacher/student relationship. Paul retreated behind an “absolute knowledge” approach, where he presented methods for learning that he made as fool—proof as he was able, and then expected the responsibility for learning to be solely the students from that point.  This demonstrated a simplification of  the teacher/student relationship to the knowledge base; the acquisition of knowledge enforces a more linear relationship between teacher and student roles.  Control over the presentation  of knowledge was how he answered the lack of trust that he felt in his students’ ability to learn.  This involved control over  teacher and student roles and a simple definition of the learning process: the teacher teaches and the student learns. Students also have to trust their teacher.  It is an act of  faith to bring yourself into the learning process. needs to feel safe in order to do this  (McEwan,  Acceptance is the key to this feeling of safety.  A student  1993). Obviously, this  acceptance comes from more sources than the relationship with the teacher.  It is clear that what the students bring to the  learning situation involves all of what goes on in their lives, and the ability to trust is no exception.  Paul understood that  students’ backgrounds may impair their ability to trust anyone, including teachers  (Int2p 1,  32).  When students do not trust their teachers,  it makes it very  difficult for teachers to trust their students.  However, having  the teacher trust the students to learn,  and the students trust  the teachers to accept what they bring to the classroom is an  151 essential element in students learning to trust themselves as learners.  When students have this internal sense of trust, then  they have the power to act on the knowledge base.  Integrative  theories propose that they will help students become independent, critical and creative thinkers (Werner,  1991; Court,  1991).  The  students need to have this sense of power before this can happen; thus for integrative philosophies to work their must be a strong interconnected trust between teachers and students. When students do not take the power, as they cannot do if they do not trust themselves to learn, many teachers may feel the onus to take that power and control it for the students. Certainly Paul felt it was his responsibility as a teacher to have the students achieve to a certain level  (Intlp 2,  17), and  retaining control over knowledge was how he met this responsibility. Janice had a different belief structure in terms of trust in the teacher/student relationship.  While she did retain much  control over the content knowledge in her classroom,  she gave the  students power in terms of processes by allowing them much avenue for expression,  and by accepting the work as the results of their  experience and learning styles. of her students’ learning (Obj 16,  9; Obj 19,  31; Obj 29,  Janice focused on the acceptance 3,  31; Obj 5,  23; Obj 31,  11).  3; Obj  14,  14; Obj  This took place both  in terms of her understandings of their learning styles and abilities,  as well as a fostering of the students’ own  understandings.  As a result, her students had a greater ability  152 to trust themselves to learn and a greater sense of power.  In  fact, they had so much trust in their own abilities to learn that they were eager to take over the content structuring by the end of the school year (Obj 41, 25).  Janice’s relationships that she  had built over the school year allowed the students to gain this power. Janice’s definition of the teacher’s role and the students’ role in learning had a dynamic and in interactive element that was integrated with the teacher/student relationship.  She  achieved a greater equality in this relationship in terms of power over the knowledge base through a dialectic view of the learning process.  Although she was actively presenting  knowledge, her emphasis on the acceptance of the many different ways her students internalized that knowledge allowed the students to build more trust in their learning.  This emphasis,  paired with students who trusted in their abilities, the way she organized and presented knowledge.  influenced  So students’  perceptions of knowledge and Janice’s perceptions of the knowledge become integrated in planning the curriculum. Social Mediations of Thought:  Knowledge—centered approaches  to learning show an underlying philosophy about knowledge; knowledge in schooling is viewed as absolute, true and the same for everyone  (Popkewitz,  1978).  How students interact in  knowledge—based classes, therefore, does not affect the knowledge itself because they were separate entities. approaches to learning,  in contrast,  Child—centered  acknowledge idiosyncratic  153 understandings of knowledge.  They necessitate an understanding  of the interrelationship between knowledge and person. Peer relationships are important in child—centered learning because they allow for the social mediations of thought. Involved in the dialectic of the learning process is an understanding of knowledge as having external or “universal” characteristics that allow for communication.  This external  knowledge provides a means for the expression of ideas in terms that are understandable to others.  But also extremely important  to understandings of others’ thoughts is that these understanding evolve our own (McEwan,  1993).  Dis—allowing peer relationships  in learning denies the interrelationship between knowledge and person, and keeps knowledge bound to the philosophy of externality.  These two case studies showed very clear  differences in beliefs about the influence of peers on learning, so very different contexts for peer learning were fostered by each of the teachers. Janice had a strong belief in peer learning; she felt that individual differences were less stigmatized when the learning was a shared experience (Intlj  14,  5).  She paid careful  attention to how her students interacted; problem-solving within and among groups of students was a focus  (Obj 26,  1).  This was  especially noticeable in watching her responses to the students’ mural assignment (Obj  6,  24).  “Listen,  Sketch and Draft” also  involved the students sharing their ideas with each other, and  154 then recording new understandings. Janice reflected belief in the students’ individual knowledge as credible learning material. Paul’s belief in knowledge being more external to students and the power that he retained over this knowledge in his classroom did not leave much room for students’ understandings of the knowledge to be shared.  Students did not work together in  any of the assignments that I observed except one (Obp 17,  6).  Classroom control was definitely an issue in the lack of peer interactions in learning in Paul’s class  (Int2p 3,  21).  When  knowledge as an external, pre—defined entity is used as a means of control, there is no need for peer interaction in order to gain understanding of the knowledge.  Knowledge is not mediated  through people, so working together is superfluous. students viewed it as a time for fun (Intip 3,  14),  Perhaps the rather than  for learning and this was why control was difficult to maintain. There is a strong tie between the teacher’s conception of knowledge and how relationships are supported within the context of the classroom.  Janice believed knowledge to have an internal  component and that greater understanding is achieved through social mediations of those understandings.  Consequently, she  fostered peer interactions as being an essential part of learning.  Paul believed knowledge to exist as an entity more  external to individuals. the students.  His job was to bring the knowledge to  Therefore student interactions in the classroom  did not relate to the knowledge presented, and a subsequent lack of peer interaction was noted in Paul’s teaching style.  155 Summary  In order to understand the findings of this study in terms of theories proposed in the relevant literature, this discussion has reviewed the results of the two case studies in terms of traditional classroom culture, theories of art and language education, theories of integration and social relationships. summarize,  To  I will now restate the research questions, as they  were reformulated through the research process, with a brief summary of the findings from analysis of the data,  in light of  the discussion of the relevant literature.  1)  What beliefs about knowledge and its organization does the  teacher describe and practice in his/her classroom? Specifically, how does the teacher describe and practice beliefs about art and language knowledge?  Most of what Paul presented in the classroom involved specific and rigid standards for learning.  These were pre  existing and external to the students, thereby supporting beliefs about knowledge held in traditional classroom culture. in contrast to traditional classroom culture,  However,  Paul’s beliefs  about knowledge focus on the processes as opposed to the content for learning.  His standards were based on processes.  Paul did very little organizing around content.  In fact,  Knowledge for  Paul did not have strong categorical boundaries; rather the  156 processes that he presented in the classroom formed the foundation of a belief in the unity of knowledge. The processes that Paul presented showed a strong integration between visual and linguistic processes, which formed the basis for the integrated art and language activities in Paul’s classroom.  These activities focused on production, with  the major emphases being skills acquisition as opposed to expression.  Paul’s beliefs about art and language knowledge had  deviations from the commonly held bounds and consensus of the disciplines involved. Janice had a strong content base to the knowledge that she presented in the classroom, and this content revealed organization into categories with connections made among them; her unit was organized thematically. presented as absolute.  However, knowledge was not  It was mediated through students’  interests, abilities and styles of learning.  These aspects of  Janice’s organization were informed by her experience with the students’ methods for processing knowledge.  She emphasized these  by assigning expressive mode learning tasks and providing opportunity for students to explore and understand their own learning. Language arts formed the core of her unit, supporting a belief in the centrality of language to thought. subjects played a supporting role.  Art and other  Art activities in particular  provided a means of expression, and they also provided for Janice  157 insight into children’s idiosyncratic ways of processing knowledge.  2) What is the role of the teacher and the role of the students in knowledge acquisition in this classroom?  Paul believed that his role was to have students achieve to a certain pre—defined level, and the presentation of strict procedural methods existing externally to the students was the means that he used, again showing support for the values of traditional classroom culture.  Paul also used a teacher—directed  presentation of knowledge as a means for retaining order in his classroom.  Students were given the responsibility for learning  to his expectations.  His goal was to have the students  internalize the procedures he presented, and then use them in all applicable situations.  Frustrations developed for Paul because  this did not happen; the students showed very little transfer of procedures because they treated the processes as the content to be learned. Essentially, the learning process was linearly defined by the activities that Paul directed in his classroom.  He presented  external procedures for the students to follow; by following them, the students would acquire the external knowledge. was no dialectic fostered between internal and external knowledge.  There  158 Although Janice’s role in her class did involve the organization and presentation of knowledge as it exists outside of the students, she was able to bring the students into the learning process through her great acceptance of the students expressions of learning.  These expressions were treated as their  understandings of the knowledge she presented, so knowledge was not presented as absolute. The knowledge—centered presentations by Janice were dynamically related to child—centered.expectations for learning outcomes. A dialectic was thereby formed between internal knowledge and external knowledge in the learning process that Janice facilitated.  Students individual interests and capabilities  informed the activities that she planned.  She presented the  content material, but then focused on student expression, understanding and sharing of this knowledge.  So internal  knowledge again was considered in her perception of the learning process.  3)  What is the role of social relationships in the organization  and presentation of knowledge in this classroom?  Paul demonstrated a belief in a linear model of knowledge acquisition through the role that he assumed in the classroom and the role that he assigned the students.  A simple, direct course  was expected for knowledge acquisition:  he presented the  procedures which were to lead to learning; by following them, the  159 students would acquire the knowledge.  Important to this  conception of teacher/student relationships is that the knowledge exists externally to the people involved.  Social mediations of  thought do not need to exist because knowledge is presented as external to people; therefore peer interactions in learning were not encouraged or supported by Paul in his classroom. Janice’s interactive perception of her role in presenting knowledge and her students’ role in expressing their learning of that knowledge shows a more interactive model of teacher/student relationships.  The acceptance that Janice demonstrated toward  their learning and the fostering of a sense of metacognition in the students led to students forming a greater trust in their own unique abilities and interests in learning.  And because Janice  had a belief in internal perception of knowledge, she saw peer interactions as an important mediator in thought which lead to greater understanding.  Many of the activities that she planned  involved group work.  4)  What is the relationship of these beliefs to the integration  of art and language in this classroom?  The beliefs that Paul held about knowledge being united through strong integrated processes affected the way that he integrated art and language arts in this class. directed methods had an equal effect.  His very  He did not organize  around themes; integrated activities focused on unifying elements  160 of language and of art through the procedures he presented. These procedures showed a belief in the cognitive unity of art and language processes. His very directed method of teaching, and his focus on skills to the exclusion of individual expression disallowed many child—centered integrations to take place.  He also did not use  any discussions or critical explorations in either visual or linguistic activities.  So while integrated processes for  learning were prominent in his teaching, Paul’s exclusion of the students from his beliefs about knowledge did not allow for them to enter into the learning process actively.  This is a major  deviation from integrative philosophies such as whole language. His major focus on skills also left out creative expression.  As  well, the disciplines of art criticism, art history and aesthetics from the four proposed in DBAE were not addressed. These are also the areas that the literature viewed as having great potential for art and language integration. Janice presented knowledge in a categorically organized form in her horse unit, but important to her belief about knowledge is that it is not an external or absolute entity. idiosyncratic component.  Knowledge has an  This belief formed the basis for the  acceptance that she had for her students’ individual abilities, needs and interests.  She integrated content thematically and  externally to her students; however, this knowledge was mediated through students’ methods of processing that knowledge.  161 Janice organized her unit based on her belief that language is the prime instrument of thought.  Most of the activities in  the unit had a language arts base, and other areas, such as art, provided support.  However, many of the activities reflected  consideration of visual ways of knowing being integrated with language, specifically the activities involved in “Listen, Sketch and Draft”. Many of the assignments in this unit focused on the expressive mode, and Janice emphasized metacognition in most of the activities.  Thus students had opportunity to bring their  interests, their abilities and their learning styles into the learning process. writing,  This, as well as the emphasis on reading,  listening and speaking in the assignments, support whole  language philosophy. While there was potential for critical and aesthetic understandings in art to be developed in her classrooms, this did not happen formally as it did with written assignments; again enormous potential for integrated art and language activities was neglected because art was not perceived as having its own domain of knowledge.  The major focus in art was on production  emphasizing creative expression, the traditionally perceived strength of art education.  Art history, of DBAE’s four  disciplines, was not addressed at all. In summary, the beliefs that Paul and Janice held about the nature of knowledge, their roles in the students’ acquisition of knowledge,  integration and social relationships within the  162 classroom all had a powerful impact on the integrated language arts and art experiences that I observed in their classrooms. These findings will be discussed in detail in the following chapter.  163 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS  Introduction This final chapter attempts to tie together the understandings. of two teachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language gained through an entire research process. order to reach meaningful conclusions,  In  I first found it necessary  to reflect on the research process, and define issues in the process that for myself,  as a research instrument, affected the  conclusions that I reached.  Secondly,  I have outlined the  significant conclusions of the research.  Next,  I have considered  implications for theory and practice and finally, I make suggestions for further research.  Reflections on the Research Process I have found that examining others’ beliefs from a qualitative research perspective is also an examination of one’s own beliefs.  What I brought to the research process in terms of  knowledge and expertise gained from experience and research often contained unreflected assumptions.  In order to gain  understanding of these two teachers’ beliefs, sometimes I had a difficult time letting go of my own beliefs. very experiential way,  I felt that,  in a  I gained an understanding of how difficult  it is to examine and understand aspects of one’s own beliefs. a sense, belief systems are our own personal “cultures”; moving  In  164 in others’ cultures made me feel awkward, out—of—place, stupid or conversely superior in my greater understandings of this world. Understanding of others’ beliefs involved losing self centeredness and placing my own beliefs in a more objective perspective.  In order to understand, I needed to let go of the  data and let it do the talking.  I feel that the teachers’ voices  did come through. I felt that a limitation of the research process undertaken in this study was the number of case studies involved.  Each of  the teachers caused me to re—examine my assumptions in different areas.  Also, the differences in these teachers’ beliefs caused  me to understand elements in art and language integration from different perspectives.  If I had been able to study more  teachers, deeper and more rounded understandings of beliefs about the integration of art and language would have resulted.  The  length of data collection also placed limitations on the conclusions.  The relatively short data collection period was a  window on these teachers’ integration strategies.  It would have  been enlightening to see how integration of art and language was planned and undertaken over an entire school year.  This seems  especially true because the development of trust in teacher/student relationship emerged as an important element in integrated settings; it would have been interesting to examine of how this relationship is developed over a school year.  More time  would have revealed more depth in the understanding of their beliefs.  165 Another problem that I realized in hindsight was that I did not see a complete picture of the language arts teachin g of each of these teachers. visual arts work,  While I was present for virtually all of the I was not present for any language arts work  unless there was an art—integrated component.  This is telling in  that virtually all the art activities of these two teachers were presented in conjunction with language activities, while the language activities had a definite life of their own.  In  examining the beliefs of knowledge of these teachers, I felt this gap acutely.  I felt that I had adequate data to infer beliefs  about the place of art in these teachers views of knowledge.  The  place of language in their beliefs of knowledge required more data than I was able to collect.  So conclusions about language  arts integration need to be viewed with this qualification in mind.  Conclusions An understanding that came from this study is that there was a tremendous interrelationship among beliefs about knowledge, student and teacher roles in knowledge acquisition, the social relationships in the classroom and the integration of art and language.  While this was somewhat foreshadowed in the research  questions, the depth of these relationships was surprising.  In  each of the cases, the teacher’s beliefs could not be understood separately from his/her others; what emerged was an integrated sense of their belief systems about the integration of art and  166 language.  None of my understandings of these teachers’ beliefs  individually had the strength of my understandings of the sum of them together. Within these conclusions, many show relationships to others,  indicating an integrated nature of each  of these  teachers’ belief systems about the integration of art and language.  1)  Teacher’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge are extrem ely  influential in determining what and how they choose to integra te. Both of these teachers integrated art and language arts in their classrooms according to their beliefs and not accord ing to the knowledge base that they understood in each of these areas. This was evident in that neither of these teachers follow ed the provincial curriculum for art (Ministry of Education, 1985); rather, art was presented in their classrooms through activities that reflected their own beliefs about the nature of art as an educational enterprise. Paul’s beliefs about knowledge showed in the organization and presentation of pre-defined procedural knowledge in his classroom.  Activities in art and language integration showed a  great deal of emphasis on visual ways of knowing, and on the integration of these visual cognitive processes with linguis tic processes.  He fostered students own interests and ideas by  allowing much flexibility in content.  However, the emphasis in  learning outcomes was on skills attained from following the  167  V  procedures.  Thus his integrated teaching was teacher—struc tured  and teacher—delivered towards pre-defined proc edural outcomes; there was little room for expression of indiv idual learning styles. V  Janice’s beliefs about knowledge showed a cont ent orientation, where information was organized exter nally from the students and presented in an integrated manner.  She demonstrated  a strong belief in the primacy of language in thou ght through her integrated unit; art activities complemented and supported language activities, with their main function bein g in the expressive mode.  Also important to her conceptualization of  knowledge is that it is mediated through people.  She emphasized  expression both in language arts activities and art activities; as well, she presented a great number of metacogn itive activities.  Thus Janice’s integrated teaching in language arts  and art formed a dynamic process of presenting cont ent and process knowledge and accepting child—centered outc omes for learning that knowledge.  2)  Teachers’ personal learning experiences with art and language  had a great influence on how they integrated art and language in the classroom. V  Paul professed a very visual style of learning, whic h reflected in his teaching practices.  He also noted that is  visual style was very sequential, and this also was reflected in  168 the way he integrated art with language.  His lessons focused on  visual ways of knowing and interpreting language ideas in a very procedurally directed way. Janice’s prime interest in learning was language, and visual learning for her was based in the spirit rather than in the intellect.  The integrated assignments involved in her teaching  showed a much heavier cognitive emphasis in the language arts; critical and aesthetic understandings used language in the production and sharing of these ideas.  Visual images were used  mostly as supports and expressions of linguistic ideas.  3)  The teacher’s self-defined role in presenting knowledge in  the classroom supported his/her beliefs about the nature of knowledge and integration.  Paul’s belief in a more absolute nature of knowledge and in a procedural base to that knowledge made his teaching role that of a deliverer and enforcer.  Thus he told the students what they  had to do, and then “policed” to see that it was done.  Since he  focused on procedures that used integrated art and language processes,  his role in terms of art and language knowledge  valued both subjects equally.  He presented art and language  skills as having equal worth and policed procedures for both. Janice defined herself as a facilitator of knowledge. organized and presented knowledge thematically through the integrated unit.  But this knowledge was not external to the  She  169 students or absolute.  For Janice, knowledge must be understood  through the context of the learner.  Janice’s facilitation of a  dialectic between external and internal knowledge took place in the acceptance that she had for the students’ individual expressions of learning.  This also involved what she chose to  teach and how she chose to teach it.  She included opportunity  for learning and expressing learning in different ways, including visual and social ways. expressive value.  Art, particularly, was noted for its  But because her beliefs pointed to the primacy  of language in thought most of the activities that involved critical and aesthetic understandings were about language activities using language as the form of expression.  4)  The teacher’s role also plays a major part in defining the  students’ role in relation to the knowledge base in integrated curricula.  Paul’s role as the director and enforcer of knowledge placed the students in the role of learners of that external knowledge. While control over content knowledge was more in the hands of the students, this knowledge was not viewed with the same importance as the procedural knowledge.  Paul’s emphasis on procedural  knowledge and the tight control he maintained over this knowledge created a differential in the power over the knowledge base. Paul maintained control over knowledge in fairly absolute terms  -  170 which did not allow for many child-centered integrations to take place. Janice’s acceptance of individual learning differences allowed the students to have an interactive role in the knowledge presented in her classroom.  Because their ways of learning were  seen as credible, students were given some power over process knowledge.  And because students’ ways of learning also affected  the curriculum planning of Janice, there was a more dynamic power relationship to the knowledge base in terms of Janice’s role and her students’ role.  5)  Trust is integral to the teacher/student relationship in  integrated classroom contexts.  Trust of the teachers to have the students interact with the knowledge base and trust of the students to have these interactions accepted by the teachers form the basis of having students trust themselves to learn.  These two case studies point  out how differences in the trust affected child-centered integration.  Child-centered learning did not take place without  this interdependent trust. In Paul’s class, there was not a lot of trust in the teacher/student relationship.  Paul did not trust the students to  learn without presenting and enforcing knowledge in quite absolute terms.  This necessitated students placing their trust  in external knowledge via the medium of the teacher.  Trust in  171 themselves as learners was not fostered.  Students must have some  measure of trust in themselves before they can have power over the knowledge base.  If they cannot act on their own knowledge  because of lack of trust in themselves, teachers may feel pressured to organize the knowledge externally and present it to them, as Paul did. Janice’s class demonstrated much trust by the students in their abilities to learn.  Janice had a great emphasis on  understanding and accepting individual differences in her students’ learning.  During the horse unit, this was primarily  fostered through child—centered expectations in learning outcomes from expressive and metacognitive activities.  Janice still  maintained control over content and much process presentation of knowledge.  However, she was increasingly trusting her students’  abilities to act on the knowledge base.  In the next unit she  taught, her class moved to work with increasingly child—centered control over content and processes.  6)  Teacher’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge and teacher  roles and student roles in knowledge acquisition are related to how interactions are fostered in the classroom.  Paul’s presentation of external knowledge kept the students out of the learning process in some key ways.  What they brought  as individuals in terms of interests, abilities, needs and learning styles had no impact on what was presented as knowledge  172 in the classroom.  But this exclusion also eliminated the  desirability or need of the students’ own knowledge to be shared or understood by others.  If the teacher teaches to pre—defined  outcomes, then there is no room for idiosyncratic perceptions and expressions of knowledge.  This showed in the lack of expressive  assignments in Paul’s teaching, the absence of group assignments and in the lack of sharing activities. Janice actively encouraged peer interactions and sharing in her unit plan.  Her belief in the interaction between internal  and external knowledge in the learning process showed in her fostering of shared learning and shared learning experiences in her classroom.  7) Control issues in integrated classroom contexts are inseparable from the teacher’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the role of the teacher and the role of the students in knowledge acquisition.  Classroom control is clearly an issue that has immense implications in integrated settings.  Both of these teachers used  their control over content and procedural knowledge in their classrooms.  But the different ways that they did this was  integrally related to their beliefs about knowledge and their self—defined roles as teachers. Paul had a great emphasis on having his students achieve to pre—defined standards, so his beliefs about his role as a teacher  173 would not allow a great deal of flexibility in terms of processes to follow to achieve these standards.  The content upon which the  students acted was where he provided flexibility, allowing students to bring part of themselves into the learning process. However, power was clearly maintained through procedural knowledge; this is what he emphasized in presenting and marking. His role in terms of power over the knowledge base and the role that he assigned the students as powerless made personal content knowledge a minor factor in learning. Therefore, control in Paul’s class was maintained around knowledge and the exclusion of students’ personal knowledge from the knowledge that he presented created a linear model of the learning process. Janice, on the other hand, provided organized content and processes as a means to facilitate, rather than to prescript learning.  In accepting outcomes of learning that reflected the  students’ individual thought processes, her role as a classroom teacher was defined interactively with her presentation of knowledge and acceptance of learning outcomes. over the knowledge base was more equal.  Therefore power  The learning process was  characterized by a dialectic taking place between internal and external knowledge. Control in Janice’s classroom was not maintained through an absolutist view of knowledge.  Incorporating the dialectic  between external and internal knowledge in the learning process allOwed trust to develop.  She did have a control, but it was  maintained less through her control over knowledge and more  174 through trust in the teacher/student relationship.  Increasingly,  as trust was built between her students and herself,  students’  learning became more child—centered and less controlled externally by Janice.  Implications for Theory and Practice This research supports the theory that teachers’ beliefs have a very important bearing on what goes on in classrooms.  The  beliefs that these teachers described through interviews and through their actions provided a great deal of understanding of the integrated art and language curricula presented in their classrooms. An interdependence of beliefs pertaining to the integration of art and language arts was another key finding.  This has many  implications in terms of changing from traditional classroom culture practices to more integrated and child—centered practices, as proposed by whole language theories and Harvard’s Project Zero.  Curricular change towards integration involve many  complex beliefs of teachers.  The interrelationship of these  beliefs make change to a more integrated curricula a very involved process and one that needs to address many teacher beliefs as well as how these beliefs interact with each other in creating a learning context in the classroom. One of the most disturbing implications of this study was that beliefs of these teachers about art and language arts as educational enterprises superseded their knowledge in these two  175 areas in their presentations of integrated curricula.  Paul did  not adhere to well—established bounds and the generally accepted domains of application in either language arts or art.  So  knowledge in these two areas was not being addressed; rather he was addressing his personal beliefs in these two areas through his teaching.  Janice dealt with knowledge in language arts very  differently than she did with knowledge in art; activities reflected her belief in the primacy of language.  This brings  into question whether or not these two subjects were truly integrated,  or if art was used merely as a support to learning in  language. Both of these case studies indicate that belief, as opposed to knowledge, was the defining point in what they chose to integrate.  An understanding gained from this study is that  teachers’ beliefs affect the position of art and language in their integrated curricula.  This had less to do with what  knowledge the teacher had than how they perceived that knowledge, especially in their own learning.  In terms af changing to a more  integrated art and language curricula, this understanding has implications as to how this should be undertaken.  While both  teachers in this study acknowledged art as being an integral part of the work that they did in the classrooms, neither addressed the comprehensiveness of knowledge within the area of art.  Both  addressed art as functioning very much as it did in their own learning.  Therefore, as an implication for practice,  in order  to understand the potential of art in learning, teachers may have  176 to experience creation in art, art history, art criticism and aesthetics as being relative to their own cognition. This has serious implications for integration of arts and language arts specifically.  Art production and critical and  aesthetic understandings in art have a traditional and perhaps a fundamental internal component that has been ignored by traditional classroom culture and, more pointedly, by the teachers in this study.  However, developing critical and  aesthetic understandings through students’ own artwork has potential not only for establishing a dialectic between internal and external knowledge, but the integration of artistic and linguistic ways of knowing are integral to the learning processes involved.  This study implies that there is great potential to be  explored in the area of art and language arts integration, both in theory and in practice.  Beliefs about knowledge that support  a personal dimension have potential to increase the prevalence of artistic ways of knowing within classrooms, which in turn would provide a powerful avenue for students to have an interactive role in the learning process. The relationship of the practice of teaching to beliefs about the learning process also need to be considered in light of how the teacher defines his/her own role and the role of the students.  Both teachers studied here,  in planning integrated  curricula, made attempts to give the students power to enter into the learning process.  The beliefs of these teachers about the  nature of content and processes within knowledge was key.  Both  177 allowed the students to have control of either content or processes in order to draw them into the learning context.  This  implies a dynamic relationship with the knowledge that the teacher has the power to control and the knowledge that he/she does not. Important to the involvement of students in the learning process is this relinquishment by teachers of power over knowledge.  This study indicates that moving toward more child-  centered learning involves a redefinition of teacher and student roles in relation to power over the knowledge base.  Child—  centered learning presupposes a belief in knowledge as having an internal or personal component.  If knowledge is believed to be  external to students, then students’ own perceptions, experiences, needs, abilities and expressions do not have an influence over that knowledge.  There is no need to share  learning and interact with peers in learning.  In fact, even  teachers have a limited role as transmitters of knowledge.  But  this role is bound in the power it exerts over knowledge; the teacher has control over what passes to the students.  Power  maintained through absolute knowledge has been the norm.  Without  this power, teachers need a new way to create order. This study indicates that one way a new power relationship is defined in integrated settings is through trust in teacher/student relationships.  A learning process that involves  a dialectic between internal and external knowledge requires that teachers trust the students to bring internal knowledge into the  178 process.  It also involves the students’ trusting the teachers to  accept this knowledge.  This leads to students trusting in their  own abilities to learn and ultimately gives them power to act on external knowledge,  internalize it and express their learning.  Recommendations for Further Research Research that investigates teachers’ beliefs in creating integrated contexts for learning in all subject areas is needed. Particularly in the area of language arts and art, beliefs need further investigation to add to and support the investigations in this study.  Because theories in the literature express a great  potential for integrated learning experiences in these two areas, and a greater understanding of how and why art and language integration takes place in classrooms can illuminate this potential, particularly in the area of critical and aesthetic understanding. This study also opens the door to new understandings in how order in integrated classrooms may proceed.  Since maintaining  order through an absolute view of knowledge is a strong motivator for teachers to stay within the bounds of traditional classroom culture,  research on integration needs to consider order in  terms of relationship—based as opposed to knowledge—based order. The understandings of their own learning styles had an impact on how language arts and art were integrated by these two teachers.  Metacognition on the part of teachers in order to  understand their own teaching practices is an area of research  179 that is growing.  From this study, an understanding of how the  teacher’s metacognition affects art and language integration was gained.  Interesting research possibilities arise from this study  in the area of beliefs in the idiosyncratic nature of knowledge in relation to teachers themselves and their beliefs about students’ knowledge acquisition.  180 References Adolescent Health Survey: Report for the East Kootenay Region of British Columbia. (1993). Vancouver: The McCreary Centre Society. Amdur, D. (1993). Arts and Cultural Context; A Curriculum Integrating DBAE with other Humanities Subjects on a Secondary Level. Art Education, j(3), 12-19. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eve. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bates, M. (1993). Imitating the Greats: Art as the Catalyst in Student Poetry. Art Education, j(4), 41-45. Bogdan, R. C. & Bilken, S. K. (1982). qualitative Research for Education. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: George Allen and Unwin. Case,  R. (l991a). The Anatomy of Curricular Integration (Tn-University Integration Project, Occasional paper #2). Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia & University of Victoria.  Case, R. (1991b). Integrating AroundThemes: An Overemphaisized Tool? (Tn-University Integration Project, Occasional Paper British #7). Simon Fraser University, University of University of Victoria. Columbia & Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind, Jovanovich, Inc.  New York: Harcourt Brace  Colbert, C. (1984). The Relationship of Language and Drawing in Description and Memory Tasks. Studies in Art Education, (2), 84—91. Coombs, 3. (1991). Thinking Seriously About Integration (TnUniversity Integration Project, Occasional Paper #4). Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia & University of Victoria. Court, D. (1991). Curricular Integration and Personal Practical Knowledge (Tn-University Integration Project, Occasional Paper #5). Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia & University of Victoria.  181 Daniels, L. (1991). Integration and Relevance (Tn-University Integration Project, Occasional Paper #3). Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia & University of Victoria. Dearden, R. (1976). Theory and Practice in Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, j(l), 17-29. Dixon, G. T. & Chalmers, F. G. (1990). The Expressive Arts in Education. Childhood Education, 67(1), 12-17. Dyson, A. H. (1988). Negotiating Among Multiple Worlds. Research in the Teaching of English, (4), 355-390. Dyson, A. H. (1992). From Prop to Mediator: The Changing Role of Written Language in Children’s Symbolic Repertoires (Occasional Paper #32). Berkeley, CA: National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy. Edwards, B. (1986). Drawing on the Right Side of The Brain. New York: Simon and Schuster. Efland, A. (1990). The History of Art Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. (1981). The Role of the Arts in Cognition and Curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(1), 48-52. Eisner, E. (1982). The Role of Cognition and Curriculum: A Basis for Deciding What to Teach. New York: Longman. Eisner, E. (1988). The Role of Discipline—Based Art Education in America’s Schools. Los Angeles, Calif: Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Eisner, E. (1991). The Enlightend Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practise. Toronto: Collier McMillan. Elementary Fine Arts Resource Book. (1985). Victoria: Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. Emery, L. (1989). Believing in Artistic Making and Thinking. Studies in Art Education, aQ(4), 237—248. Freyberger, R. N. (1985). Integration: Education. Art Education, (6),  Friend or Foe of Art 6-9.  Froese, V., Ed. (1990). Whole Language Practice and Theory. Scarborough Ont.: Prentice—Hall Canada, Inc.  182 Forrest, E. (1984). Art Education and the Language of Art. Studies in Art Education, (l), 27-33. Fullan, M. (1982). OISE Press.  The Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto:  Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Gardner, H. (1989). Zero—based Arts Education: An Introduction to ARTS PROPEL. Studies in Art Education, Q(2), 71-83. Golonib, C. & Farmer, D. (1983). Children’s Graphic Planning Strategies and Early Principles of Spacial Organization in Drawing. Studies in Art Education, (2), 23-34. Goodman, K. (1986). What’s Whole in Whole Lanquage? Toronto: Scholastic. Grauer, K. (1991). (l), 23—26.  Integration.  BCTATA Journal for Art Teachers,  Gray, J. U. & MacGregor, R. N. (1990). A Report on the Status of Art Teaching: PROACTA Plus. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational Researcher, , 5—12. Hamblen, K. (1983). The Cognitive Umbrella. Studies in Art Education, 2..4.(3), 177—183. Hamblen, K. (1987). An Examination of Discipline-Based Art Education Issues. Studies in Art Education, (2), 66-78. Hamblen, K. 23—35.  (1988). What Does DBAE Teach? Art Education, March,  Hayes Jacob, H. (1991). Planning for Curriculum Integration. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 27-28. Healy, J. (1990). Endangered Minds: Why Our Children Don’t Think. Toronto: Simon and Schuster. Henry, M.  (1948).  Hirst, P. (1974). Kegan Paul.  King of the Wind.  Toronto: Alladin Books.  Knowledge and Curriculum.  London; Routledge &  183 Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change in Learning to Teach. American Educational Research Journal, (2), 160—189. Hubbard, G. (1987). Publishers.  Art in Action.  San Diego,  CA.:  Coronado  Isenberg, J. P. (1990). Teachers’ Thinking and Beliefs and Classroom Practice. Childhood Education, (5), 332-337. Jones, V. (1991). Collaborative Teaching: Writers and Artists. Teachers and Writers, (3), 3-9.  Visual  Kindler, A. (1987). A Review of Rationales for Integrated Arts Programs. Studies in Art Education, (1), 52-60. Kindler, A. (1991). Integrated Curriculum and the Visual Arts. BCATA Journal for Art Teachers, 31(1), 5-7. Lansing, K. (1984). The Effect of Drawing on Mental Representations: A Continuing Study. Studies in Art Education, 2.(3), 167—175. L’Engle, M.  (1962). A Wrinkle in Time. New York:  Lowenfeld, V. (1947). MacMillan.  Creative and Mental Growth.  Dell Publishing. New York:  McEwan, A. E. (1993). On Becoming A Solourning Community. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Atlanta, GA. McGuire, G. N. (1984). How Arts Instruction Affects Reading and Language: Theory and Research. The Reading Teacher, fl(9), 835—839. McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction. Glenview, Ill.: , Foresman & Co. Mitchell, F. S. (1990). Introducing Art History Through Children’s Literature. Language Arts, (8), 839-46. Year 2000lntermediate Program: Response Draft. (1990). Victoria: Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. Monson, R. J. & Pahl, N. M. (1991). Charting an New Course With Whole Language. Educational Leadership, (6), 51-53. Neill, A.  (1960).  Summerhill. New York:  Hart Publishing.  Nespor, J. (1987). The Role of Beliefs in the Practice of Teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, (4), 317-328.  184 Nessel, D. (1989). Thinking Through the Language Arts. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Osborne, H. (1984). The Language Metaphor in Art. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, j(1), 9-20. Oxford English Dictionary.  (1966). Oxford: Clarendon Press.  Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 2.(3), 307—332. Pappas, C., Kiefer, B. & Levstik, L. (1990). An Integrated Language Perspective in the Elementary School: Theory into Action. New York: Longman. Perkins, D. N. (1988). Art as Understanding. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, (l), 111-132. Perry, L. (1984). Arts Judgment and Language. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, j(1), 21-33. Pring, R. (1973). Curriculum Integration. The Philosophy of Education. London: Oxford University Press. Popkewitz, T. (1978). The Social Structure of Schools and Reform. in G.Willis (ed.) qualitative Evaluation: Concepts and Cases in Curriculum Criticism. Berkeley: McCutchan. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D. & Lloyd, C. (1991). The Relationship Between Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Reading Comprehension Instruction. AitLerican Educational Research Journal, (3), 559-586. Schmidt, W. & Buchmann, M. (1983). Six Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes and Their Curricular Time Allocations. Th Elementary School Journal, (2), 162-171. Schmidt, W., Roehler, L., Caul, J. L., Buchman, M., Diamond, B., Solomon, D. & Cianciolo, P. (1985). The Uses of Curriculum Integration in Language Arts Instruction: a Study of Six Classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, J(3), 305-320. Siera, M. & Combs, M. (1990). Transitions in Reading Instruction: Handling Contradictions in Beliefs and Practice. Reading Horizons, (2), 113—121. Temple, C. & Gillet. J. W. (1989). Language Arts: Learning Processes and Teaching Practices, Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co.  185 Thorns, H. (1985). Creative writing as dialectical interplay: Multiple Views of a Painting. Art Education, (6), 1821. Walker, D. & Soltis, J. (1986). Teacher’s College Press.  Curriculum and Aims. New York:  Werner, W. (1991). Curriculum Integration and School Cultures. (Tn—University Integration Project, Occasional Paper #6). Simon Fraser University, University of British Coluiiibia & University of Victoria. Willats, J. (1979). Implicit Rules: Some Truth About Children’s Drawings. Unpublished manuscript, University of British ColuiTibia. Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools: Ethnography in Educational Research. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Young, J. H. (1991—92). Curriculum Integration: Perceptions of Preservice Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, ja(4), 1— 9. Youngblood, N. (1983). The Dichotomous Man: The Message of Phaedrus. Studies in Art Education, (1), 6-13.  186 APPEND I CES Appendix A: Pre-unit Interview Question Guide Question Guide 1) General Background Information: rn/f, number of years teaching, what grades, subject specialization (?). 2) Introduction to the topic of integration: What do you think about curricular integration? Can you think of examples in your teaching experience where integration worked (did not work)? Describe the situation. (The purpose of this questioning is to gain a working definition of integration. What are we talking about from the teacher’s perspective?). 3) Focus on the students: What do you think students gain (and/or lose) in integrated experiences? Can you give specific examples? Can the benefits or losses be described for individual students? How does integration address how students learn? (The purpose of these questions is tä gain understanding of beliefs that the teacher holds about the way students learn and/or do not learn in integrated settings). 4) Focus on the teacher and the teacher’s role in curricular integration: How does integration affect you? Does it alter planning? Example? Does it alter your role in the classroom? Example? Does it affect order? Example? (The purpose of these questions is to gain an understanding of beliefs about teaching in an integrated setting, specifically the perceived role of the teacher). 5) Review of beliefs understood about integration, student learning and teacher’s role: How do these professed beliefs fit together? (The purpose of these questions is to check with the teacher as to whether or not the responses were understood correctly, especially if their views or examples seem to display inconsistencies). 6) Focus on teaching art: How do you feel about teaching art? Is it different from other subjects? How? How do your students feel about learning art? Does integration affect your feelings about art? Example? Does integration affect the way students feel about art? Example? (The purpose of these questions is to determine beliefs about art as a subject, as an element in integration and how the teacher believes students react to it). 7) Focus on teaching language: How do you feel about teaching language arts? Is it different from other subjects? How do your students feel about learning language arts? Does integration affect your feeling about language arts? Example? Does integration affect the way students feel about language arts?  187 Example? (The purpose of this question is to determine beliefs about language as a subject, and beliefs about the perceived views of students towards language arts in an integrated setting). 8) Focus on the integration of language and art: Do you integrate language and art? Why or why not? Does the previous answer reflect views previously stated about language and art as subjects? Does this answer reflect views on how students learn? Does this answer reflect views on the teacher’s role? (The purpose of this question is to gain understanding of why this teacher would or would not teach language and art together, and how beliefs about art and language as subjects, beliefs about the way students learn and beliefs about the way teachers teach relate to the notion of integration).  188 Appendix B: Post-unit Interview Guide Themes for Final Interview With Paul May 3, 1994 Integration: 1) While observing in your class, I have noted that you do not integrate thematically. But you have a very definite idea that visual and verbal learning go together. This seems to be more of a “process” integration. Visual learning certainly does have a prominent position in your class. 2) Discipline: We talked quite a bit in our initial interview about discipline because you were finding this class difficult. A number of ideas relating to this theme came from my observations: -Standards: You are very explicit about the standards that you expect for each assignment. But what you expect standards to do and what the students actually use them for seem to be at odds. You are very clear, for the most part, about how your expectations relate to what you expect them to get out of an activity. But some of the students seem to get hung up on the standards themselves, rather than any learning that they are supposed to get out of the activity. Some especially seem to be hung up on “neatness” standards. —Standards and Creativity: I know that you are very accepting of students ideas, ones that show critical thinking and creativity. You ask for their opinions, predictions, etc. And some students really enjoy these interchanges (I am thinking particularly of your reading of A Wrinkle in Time). But in some activities I wonder if students get hung up in the standards and don’t work on creative aspects of their work. They see the standards as the goals of the activity; whereas I had understood that you see these as minimum standards. 3) Trust: This theme has a lot to do with the teacher’s working relationship with the students. It also has to do with what the students believe themselves capable of doing. I think that, for you trust is a very important part of teaching. Your standards are a way that you establish trust the students are not going to be surprised about their marks because you are so explicit about what they need to get a good grade. But you also establish trust by your acceptance of their ideas. I can see this normally building into a fine learning relationship. This year, because you have expressed some problems with this class, I was seeing some of the problems as relating to a trust theme. The students don’t seem to trust their own ideas or their own abilities to go beyond your standards into creative and critical thinking activities. —  4) Drawing on Previous Learning: Of course, as teachers, we want what we teach to be useful and relevant in future situations. Obviously, some of what you had done before I began  189 observing extended into my observation period. The individual projects on Egypt, for example, used the mind—mapping and an organizational sheet for writing essays. Some had trouble, though, with the lettering for the Earth Day posters and you had even reminded them of the lettering that they had done in the previous week’s art lesson. This was a more open assignment, and some of them really had trouble with the freedom of it. -  Relationship of order to learning: S) This is a very complex chain, and obviously not easily observable. But it is the basis of what we do as teachers. When we create order out of all the knowledge that we have and present it in the classroom, we have certain goals in mind of what we want students to receive. What they actually receive is the final link in this chain. 6) The teacher as a learner: From our initial interview, I was strongly impressed with your insight into yourself as a learner. Visual components of the way that you learn seem to affect the way you teach, and why visual learning has a high status in your classroom.  190 Final Interview With Janice Discussion Guide June 1st,  1994  1) Child—centered presentation/exploration of knowledge versus child—centered expectations for outcomes: Child-centered learning: A) In the initial interview, you stated that you could not truly define your classroom as child— centered. I found this to be true in many assignments in the dimension of knowledge the students in this unit weren’t to an enormous extent directing the knowledge that entered into the classroom. This did not seem to affect their interest level, however. Child—centered expectations for outcomes: B) But what I did find was a very interesting complication of your having very I felt that child—centered expectations of learning outcomes. each student’s abilities and needs were taken into account in all classroom activities, including the acceptance of different ability levels, different learning styles and the influence of socialization on those learning styles. This gave the students such a sense of trust in themselves to internalize and use the presented knowledge base. They seemed to exercise a lot of control of the knowledge presented as a result of support from you. This allowed them to personalize the knowledge and integrate it with knowledge they had already acquired. C) Trust in the working relationship: The students then had more trust in themselves, which showed especially in the more self-directed assignments like the creative writing story. Creative assignments necessitate children drawing on themselves and they did this with utter confidence. I have called this child—supported learning, where the children have a sense of control and trust in their learning as a result of the support that you provide. A supporting and trusting relationship seems to be key to integrated learning in your classroom. —  2)  Vertical Integration:  Many times you commented on how well the students applied previously learned knowledge. For instance, you mentioned how well the students used writing skills such as quotation marks and paragraphing that you had spent some time teaching in a writing unit. The research reports, as well, drew on previously learned processes for writing. Interesting to me is the fact that this previous learning of processes has been applied so well in the least directed activities in this unit. Do you move from more teacher—directed to more independent work as students acquire a Or is this just an example of how this repertoire of processes? worked?  191 3)  Metacognition:  You were constantly asking students to consider what and how they were learning. I think that this builds metacognition, important to reflectiveness and trust in themselves as learners. Because you deal with them as individuals, not generic learners, they deal with themselves and the way they learn as worthy and important of consideration. This, of course, ties in with supporting them, or teaching them to trust themselves as learners. 4)  Personal Metacognition:  Recognition of yourself as a learner is important to the way You are a learner to your students, albeit a more you teach. experienced and knowledgeable one. 5)  Art and Language Integration:  Listen, sketch and draw: A) This is a marvelous process that really brought the student’s thinking in visual terms and their thinking in verbal terms together. From the enthusiasm that the students showed for these activities, it did aid in their learning. As such, it is and integrative process. Murals: These displayed many kinds of integration. B) First, the ideas from the book were interpreted in visual form. They also had to integrate their ideas with others. Also known as cooperative or social learning, this involves complex thought that involves visual and language learning. They also involved the integration of art techniques that they had learned, such as the drawing of horses and perspective. C) Illustrations of their stories: These I found really interesting because they were the least directed and they occurred in the culminating work piece for the unit. For the most part, these were “props” the thought processes were mostly through writing, and sharing with their friends while they “edited”. The drawings then reflected these thoughts. —  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054769/manifest

Comment

Related Items