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


831-ubc_1994-0589.pdf [ 3.1MB ]
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

Full Text

THE INTEGRATION OF ART AND LANGUAGE ARTSIN THE INTERMEDIATE GRADES: TWO CASE STUDIESbyT. JEANNE PARKERB.Ed., University of Saskatchewan, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Curriculum Studies)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAugust 1994© T. Jeanne Parker, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of C’c/’r’ fr-Ld’ 5The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate %J) /,/ q’-/DE-6 (2188)iiABSTRACTThis study is comprised of two case studies that examine twointermediate—grade teachers’ beliefs about knowledge and the placeof art and language arts in their beliefs about knowledge, theteacher’s role and the students’ role in knowledge acquisition, andthe relationship of these beliefs to the integration of art andlanguage in their classrooms. To this end, data was collected frominterviews, curriculum documents, and observations in theclassrooms of the two teachers over one integrated unit of work ofapproximately eight weeks duration.The findings of this study suggest that the way in which theseteachers defined art and language arts within their beliefs aboutknowledge had a great effect on what and how they integrated artand language arts. Particularly influential were the ways in whicheach of these teachers perceived linguistic and visual thinking intheir own learning. These beliefs of knowledge were alsointegrated with their beliefs about their role as a teacher and thestudents roles as learners. Important to the definition of roleswas whether or not knowledge was perceived as internal or externalto the learners. Roles defined around external knowledge excludedthe students’ personal and idiosyncratic ways of knowing, thusdisallowing much potential for integrated arts and language artsactivities. Roles defined around an idiosyncratic perception ofknowledge allowed for child—centered integrations to take place,thus redistributing the power over knowledge toward a moreequitable state.TABLE OF CONTENTSPage1)].AbstractTable of ContentsList of FiguresAcknowledgements..11iiivi.viiChapter I. Introduction 1Introduction to the Study 1Assumptions 2Issues of Concern to this Study 2Current Research 8Personal Ground 9Research Questions 10ClarificationofTerms 11Research PlanResearch MethodologyData Collection and AnalysisSignificance of the Study13131415Chapter II. The Literature Review 17Introduction 17The Teacher 17Teachers’Beliefs 18CultureoftheClassroom 20Changing Beliefs 24The Nature of Art and Language asEducationalEnterprises 26Curricular Integration 38HowDoWeIntegrate 39What Is Integrated and By Whom’ 40Current Theories in Language ArtsandArtEducation 49Summary 56Chapter III. The Design of the Study 61Theoretical Approach of the Study 61Qualitative Research Approaches 62Validity and Reliability in QualitativeApproaches 64ivDesign and Methodology of This Study 66Informant Selection 66Data Collection Strategies 70Researcher Role 72Data Analysis Strategies 75Chapter IV. Summary of Data Analysis 78Introduction 78CaseStudyl:Paul 79BeliefsaboutKnowledge 80ProceduralKnowledge .83Beliefs about the Role of the Teacherand the Role of the Students inKnowledge Acquisition 84Standard.s 85Students’ Motivation to Learn 87Trust 89Beliefs about the Integration 90Integration of School and Self 90Sociallnteraction 91Vertical Integration 92Integration of Art and Language 93Suiuiuary 97CaseStudy2:Janice 99Beliefs about Knowledge 100The Integrated Unit 101Framework for Learning 1031) Content Organization 1032) Overriding Objectives 105Beliefs about the Role of the Teacherand the Role of the Students inKnowledgeAcquisition 107Relevance to the Students 108Metacognition 109Acceptance of IndividualDifferences illSocial Mediations of Learning 114Trust 1 15Beliefs about Integration 118Integration of Art and Language:Content 118VIntegration of Art and Language:School and Self 120Integration of School and Self:Social Mediations 121Sianmarr 127Conclusion 128ChapterV. Discussion 129The Research Questions Revisited 129TheLiteratureRevisited 131Traditional Classroom Culture 131Theories of Art and Language Education....l36Theories of Integration 142Social Relationships 147Trust 148Social Mediations of Thought 152Sununary 155Chapter VI: Teachers’ Beliefs About Art and LanguageIntegration: Conclusions and Implications 163Introduction . . 163Reflections on the Research Process 163Conclusions 165Implications 174Suggestions for Further Research 178References 180Appendices 186Appendix A: Question Guide forFirst Interviews 186Appendix B: Question Guides forFinal Interviews 188viLIST OF FIGURESPageFigure 1: The Two Dimensions of Integration 58Figure 2: Paul’s Student Contract 82Figure 3: Michelle’s “Snippet” of Time 95Figure 4: Jennifer’s Chapter 7 122Figure5:Ryan’sChapter7 123Figure6:Ryan’sGroup’sMural 125Figure 7: Jennifer’s Group’s Mural 125Figure8:Austin’sGroup’sMural 126Figure 9: Leonard’s Group’s Mural 126viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to express my gratitude to my faculty advisor andthe chairperson of my thesis committee, Dr. Rita Irwin. She hasbeen extremely positive and supportive throughout my researchexperience, and her guidance has made a definite difference to me.I have been a particularly difficult student, living so far awayfrom the campus at the University of British Columbia, but Dr.Irwin has helped enormously to minimize the hardships Iencountered.I would also like to thank the other members of my thesiscommittee, Professor Kit Grauer and Dr. Marilyn Chapman. Again,they took on the responsibility for a long-distance student and allthe inherent difficulties. Their suggestions and insights havebeen invaluable.The two teachers who were my case studies also require aspecial thanks. Both allowed me to investigate their teaching,which I consider a very generous thing.Finally, I need to thank my family. My husband, Rob, hastaken much of the burden from my shoulders while I worked on thisthesis. This study would never have been completed without hissupport.1CHAPTER IINTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the StudyCurricular integration is a concept that creeps in and outof educational vogue. Currently, the idea is driving curricularchange in many parts of Canada, including British Columbia(Ministry of Education, 1991). Integration is defined as “themaking up of a whole, made up of parts which constitute a unity”(Oxford English Dictionary, 1966, p. 479). Two very importantpoints that affect the educational context come from thisdefinition. First, someone or something does the “making up.”The formal curriculum makers, formal documents, textbooks,teachers, students, organization of time and space all can beseen as involved in this integrating process. Second, there areseparate parts involved which, when put together, constitute aunity. Currently within the educational context of integrationthere is no clear delineation of what is the exact nature ofthese parts and what unities can or should be formed.Traditional parts of curricula have been subjects, so mosttheories of curricular integration deal with forming unities ofparts from different subject areas.This study seeks to examine how two particular integrators,both intermediate grade teachers, seek to make unities betweenthe subject areas of art and language. There are a number ofcomplex issues that surround the integration of content areas of2art and language arts. Each issue connects to other issues; thepurpose of this study is, if you will, to understand how twoteachers integrate these issues through an examination of theirbelief systems of integration.AssumptionsThe teacher, as an integrator, does not arrive at this taska neutral party or a blank slate to be written upon by formalcurriculum 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” (Gray & MacGregor,1990, p. 11). An assumption of this study is that teachers arethe single most important determiners of what curriculum ispresented in classrooms.A second assumption is that teachers’ beliefs illuminate andguide what they practice. This study examines teachers’ beliefsabout the nature of knowledge, especially in art and language,how students learn knowledge, how these two areas of knowledgeare integrated and how these beliefs affect what they teach andhow they teach it.Issues of Concern to this StudyOne influential and complex issue is the traditionalclassroom culture in which most teachers were educated. Beliefsystems pertaining to education are influenced by traditionalclassroom culture, where a knowledge—centered, teacher—controlled3model of learning through conventional modes is the norm. Thismodel has roots in industrial revolution ideology (Monson & Pahi,1991), where efficient production is key. In contrast, mostcurrent integrative theories are grounded in the belief thatlearning in classrooms should be child—centered; that is, what islearned 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 changingthe classroom culture, is an important component of manyintegrated curricula. These changes are difficult, for a numberof convincing reasons. Teachers’ beliefs are difficult tochange, especially those that they have obtained early, asteachers have through their own education (Hollingsworth, 1992;Pajares, 1992). changing to child-centered modes of learningmeans redefining the role of the students and the teachers in theclassroom, which also means a change in how order is created andmaintained (Werner, 1991).There are parallels and overlappings of this issue with thetraditional ways in which language and art endeavors areperceived. Language has always been accorded much status. Infact it has been equated with human thought (McGuire, 1984).Positive value—loaded terms such as “analytic” “logical,” and“intellectual” have been traditionally connected with language(Hamblen, 1988; Youngblood, 1983).4When values associated with language are contrasted withvalues held in traditional classroom culture, there is not muchsurprise in the mutual support.’ Language’s intellectual characteris extensively rule—governed, and, since it uses arbitrarysymbols to represent abstract thoughts it is what Eisner terms a“conventional mode of thinking” (Eisner, 1982, p. 51). Educationhas traditionally focused on transmitting the symbols and rulesof verbal communication. Language education remains a centraleducational obj ective.In contrast, art has traditionally been an outcast from theboundaries of cognitive thought; art is perceived as creative andidiosyncratic, in the affective domain (McGuire, 1984). While‘the idea that art is not an intellectual pursuit has beentheoretically laid to rest (Eisner, 1981; Gardner, 1985; Hamblen,1983), it is not a great surprise that art remains on the fringeas an educational enterprise. Art is not as highly rule—governedas language; rather, its strengths lay in its more idiosyncraticsyntax which allows for more novelty of form (Eisner, 1982). Arttraditionally has a stronghold in “expressive modes” ofrepresenting thoughts (Eisner, 1982, p. 52). But these strengthsdo not support the values held in traditional classroom culture.Because the change to child—centered learning involves agreater belief in what children bring to the educational setting,there needs to be a greater belief in affective, idiosyncraticthought and creative expression. It follows that there will be agreater belief in ways of knowing traditionally attributed to5artistic endeavors. •Because these have not traditionally heldvalue as cognitive or educational enterprises there is a greatpotential for teachers to have conflicting beliefs aboutintegrating art and language, at least in so far as theintegration pertains to child—centered learning.Yet this is just one issue that surrounds the concept ofcurricular integration — the issue of child—centered versusknowledge—centered learning. Teachers, to some extent, do directthe knowledge presented in the classroom (Cooiubs, 1991), soknowledge and how it is organized for educational purposes isanother major issue surrounding curricular integration. Apolarization of integrated knowledge versus differentiatedknowledge in traditional subject—oriented curricula is quite easyto envision but again a number of factors compound this debate.Integration of knowledge cannot be defined on a singleplane; it is a multi-faceted concept. Roland Case (1991a)identifies four forms of integration: 1) integration of content,2) integration of skills and processes, 3) integration of schooland self and 4) holistic integration. Integration of elementsexternal to children, such as content, skills and processes, canbe done in any number of ways for many purposes, some of whichoverlap with child—centered integrations, such as integration ofschool and self and holistic integration. How a teacherorganizes knowledge for presentation in the classroom isintertwined with beliefs that he/she holds about the nature ofthe knowledge itself.6Pring (1973) identifies four epistemological beliefs aboutthe integration of knowledge. First is the view of all knowledgeas a unity. Next is the view of knowledge as existing in broadorganizational categories with complex connections among them.Third is the view that knowledge forms unities in the quest tosolve specific problems. Finally, there is the view thatknowledge exists within discrete organizational boundaries withlittle or no connections among them. How a teacher understandsknowledge will affect how they organize that knowledge forpresentation in the classroom.As well, the dimensions of curricular integration,horizontal integration and vertical integration (Case, 199la),bring into play the confounding variable of time. Whilehorizontal integration, the integration of elements at any giventime, may promote current interest and child—centered learning,the relevance of such learning over time, known as verticalintegration, has been questioned (Case, l99lb). Theme teachingis a current popular method of integrating that is criticized foremphasizing horizontal aspects of integration while ignoringvertical aspects (Case, l991b; Court, 1991; Hirst, 1976).When looking at what is proposed in current theories oflanguage and art education the issues surrounding integration areeven more complex. Current trends in language education seek tomake it more like traditional art education. A movement inlanguage education known as whole language began in the mid—1980s. This integrative philosophy is based on the beliefs that71) 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 contrastsgreatly with traditional ways to teach language, which areteacher—directed and knowledge-centered (Monson & Pahi, 1991);The philosophical base of child—centered learning, and a moreholistic view of knowledge give more credence to individualexperience, interest and expression, which traditionally havebeen the strong points of art education within the curriculum.Art education, in contrast, currently is pursuing a formsimilar to traditional language education. A movement known asDiscipline-based Art Education (DBAE) gained momentum in the mid19805. This philosophy is based on the belief that art is bestlearned through discrete, organized and sequential content infour disciplines: art history, art criticism, art production andaesthetics (Greer, 1984). This contrasts with traditional waysto teach art, which are bound to a philosophy of art as creativeexpression of the students (Lowenfeld, 1947), a definite child-centered approach. DBAE obviously supports a knowledge—centeredapproach, with strong support for an differentiated philosophy ofknowledge. These elements have traditionally been emphasized inlanguage education.For teachers, current trends in art and language educationpull in opposite philosophical directions involving substantiallydifferent beliefs about how knowledge is organized and howstudents learn. Now add the task of forming unities between8knowledge in language and knowledge in art, and the task ofintegrating art and language is a complex endeavor.Current ResearchTeachers’ beliefs about integration, therefore, will involvemany issues. To understand what integration means to eachteacher, an understanding of what the teacher believes about thenature of knowledge, how students learn knowledge, and the natureof art and language as educational enterprises are needed.Research indicates that there is confusion about integrationamong teachers. A study on preservice teachers’ beliefs aboutintegration (Young, 199 1-92) suggests that education students hada weak knowledge of both subject matter and integration, and thatthey did remarkably little reflection about what they taught andhow they taught it.Virginia Richardson, Patricia Anders, Deborah Tidwell andCarol Lloyd (1991) studied the relationship between teachers’beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. Theyfound that teachers’ theories of reading fell along twocontinuums: a continuum of PURPOSES OF READING from (meaning inthe text) to (construction of meaning), and a continuum ofTEACHING READING/LEARNING TO READ from (skills/the word) to(literature). One should note that the divisions made byRichardson and others in this study are equivalent to divisionsalong a continuum of knowledge—centered to child—centeredlearning, and along a continuum of differentiated knowledge to9integrated knowledge. Also, the majority of the teachers studiedfall in the quadrant of separated knowledge and knowledge-centered approaches to reading instruction, as is described intraditional classroom culture.While these studies indicate the role of beliefs in theclassroom practices in relation to integration and readinginstruction, there is as yet no study of teacher beliefs aboutthe integration across curricular subjects, particularly thesubjects of art and language. However, personal advocacy of anintegrated approach to language arts and art is especiallyprevalent in the literature using creative expression (creativewriting and art production) and aesthetics as components in theintegration (Aiudur, 1993: Bates, 1993; Jones, 1991; Thoms, 1985).One article by Mitchell (1990) spoke of teaching art historyusing pictures from children’s literature, but little elseintegrating other aspects of language, such as drama andliterature itself, and art, for example, art history and artcriticism. An examination of the beliefs of teachers about theseintegrations in a qualitative research design has yet to be done.Personal GroundIntegration is an issue that touches every classroom teacherthese days, including myself, although my experiences withintegration are probably not the same as most teachers becauseall my teaching experience has been at a fine arts school. Itaught for three years at Georges Vanier School in Saskatoon,10Saskatchewan, both as a grade five classroom teacher and as anart resource teacher. I much preferred the role of classroomteacher, and this was mostly because of the flexibility itprovided me to integrate art with other subjects, particularlythe language arts.At first, as an inexperienced teacher, I saw integrationbasically as a uniting of knowledge from art and language; I hadnot yet truly understood the issue of child-centered learning.But child-centered learning gained my attention increasingly as Ibecame more involved in integrating. What I found was thatpresenting knowledge in an integrated form made sense to thestudents and motivated them to learn. But this interest andmotivation also brought the students themselves into the learningprocess in a way that I could not foresee or control. Theiremotions, interests,’ thought and organizational patterns allplayed a major role in their learning. The way I viewed myselfas a teacher and the students as learners underwent atransformation. Trying to understand integration personally hasprompted my interest in studying the teacher’s role in curricularintegration of art and’ language.Research QuestionsThe classroom teacher has the task of creating anenvironment for the students to learn language and art. His/herbelief system has a fundamental role in selecting and definingtasks (Pajares, 1992). The purpose of this study is to11understand the teachers’ beliefs about the integration of art andlanguage by examining the following:1) What does the teacher believe about knowledge and itsorganization? Specifically how are art and language perceived inthese beliefs about knowledge?2) What does the teacher believe about how children learn? Whatdoes he/she believe about the role of the students and the roleof the teacher in learning?3) What is the relationship of these beliefs to the integrationof art and language?4) How are these beliefs about the integration of art andlanguage translated into classroom practice?Clarification of TermsArt and language arts are two terms that are central to theinvestigations of this study. Specific definitions of these twoterms are not desired for this study because they are seen asintegral to beliefs about knowledge. These beliefs are what thisstudy seeks to understand, so defining art and language may belimiting to this understanding. In general terms, art, in thisstudy, refers to both perception and production of visual imageswith aesthetic qualities. Language arts refer to linguisticperception and production in the forms, of reading, writing,listening and speaking. For the purposes of this study, languagearts refer to the English language.12The following terms are defined for the purposes of thisstudy as follows:Beliefs: Ways of thinking that have four characteristicfeatures: 1) existential presumptions — incontrovertible,personal truths, 2) alternativity - an attempt to create theideal, 3) affective and evaluative loading - feelings that areseparated from, but relate to knowledge, 4) an episodic nature —“guiding images of past events that create intuitive screensthrough which new information is filtered” (Pajares, 1992, p.310).Knowledge: Ways of thinking about something that haveconsensuality and bounds determined by relatively well-established canons of argument, with consensus about ways inwhich these things are evaluated or judged. Knowledge hasrelatively well-defined domains of application (Nespor, 1987).Integration: The putting together of diverse parts to forma new unity that has a character that is different from thecollection of parts. “The parts of an integrated entitythemselves have increased significance and intelligibilitybecause they are seen to be parts of a meaningful whole” (Cooinbs,1991, p. 2).Child-centered Learning: Child-centered learning is aphilosophy that places construction of meaning in the domain ofthe individual (Young, 1991—1992).Knowledge—centered Learning: Knowledge—centered learningplaces the construction of meaning external to those learning it;13meaning exists in textbooks, teachers, written texts, experts inthe field, etc. (Young, 1991—1992).Research PlanBecause the focus of this study is the understanding ofteachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language atthe intermediate level, it calls for a qualitative researchdesign that allows for in-depth description. The study iscomprised of two case studies: one of a grade seven teacher withbackground and experience in integrating art and one of a gradefive teacher with background and experience in integratinglanguage. These case studies focus on the integration of art andlanguage over one unit of study, in each case lastingapproximately eight weeks.Research MethodoloqyThis thesis is comprised of two case studies, where“integration” is the focus, and the teacher’s beliefs are theunits of study. It is important to this study to examine in depthhow teachers’ professed beliefs actually transform into classroompractice. More data than a single interview can yield isnecessary to get a full picture of teachers’ beliefs because“much practical knowledge is implicit; teachers’ reasons forselecting certain strategies may not be clearly understood untilteachers try to explain their actions” (Isenberg, 1991, p. 324).14Sometimes what teachers do requires explanation; beliefsare often stated in ideals and do not necessarily explain whatactually goes on in classrooms. So, as a researcher 1 must gainan understanding of what a teacher believes about the integrationof art and language in the ideal using interviews. But furtherdata is necessary to understand how these beliefs work in realsituations. “It is more reasonable not to relinquish ideals butto moderate them by considering the context in which the teachingoccurs and the aims the teacher embraces. Teaching, like life,is filled with trade—offs” (Eisner, 1991, p. 77-78). So datafrom “real—life” teaching is important to the understanding ofteachers’ beliefs about the integration of art and language.Data Collection and AnalysisTo this end, data for each case study was collected in thefollowing forms:1) Initial interview to select cases.2) Pre-unit interview to establish expressed beliefs.2) Examination of curricular materials3) Observations in the classroom over an integrated unit ofstudy.4) Post—unit interview to question and comment on previouslycollected data.Initial interviews of teachers formed the basis for caseselection. When the two case study teachers were selected, thepre-unit interviews established their professed beliefs about the15nature of knowledge, about how students learn that knowledge, theteacher’s role in this knowledge acquisition, and finally aboutintegration, particularly of art and language. Next the studysought to follow these professed beliefs through the process ofplanning and teaching lessons. The final interview allowed theteachers to explain their actions. It also allowed me to verifymy findings with the participants.Analysis of the data followed an emerging format. Interviewtranscriptions, notes on curricular documents, field notes andfinal interview notes were coded to identify emerging concepts.Significance of the StudyGaining understanding of teachers’ beliefs about theintegration of art and language will address several issues aboutintegration. First of all, the study helps us to understand howteachers subjectively define what integration is and how thisdefinition is put into practice.Second, the study also adds to the growing body of knowledgedealing with teachers’ beliefs by identifying the beliefs aboutintegration and knowledge, especially those pertaining to art andlanguage, upon which teachers build integrated curricula. Andbecause these case studies deal with how professed beliefs areutilized in the classroom, the study addresses the translating oftheory into practice. This occurs on two levels. First,teachers’ beliefs are in a sense personal theories that theytranslate into practice; these case studies are an examination of16this micro—level of theory—into—practice. Second, theoriespropose that teachers’ beliefs have a great effect on what theyteach; the case studies address theory—into—practice on a macro—level.As well, it addresses concerns of art educators about theposition of art education in an integrated curriculum. While notaimed at this issue per Se, understanding what teachers believeabout art and language in an integrated curriculum providesinsight into the role of teachers’ beliefs about subject matterand subject status in an integrated setting.17CHAPTER IITHE LITERATURE REVIEWIntroductionThe task of describing and analyzing teachers’ beliefs aboutthe integration of art and language in intermediate gradeclassrooms demands information in many diverse areas. First, Iwill examine teacher beliefs as a vehicle for understanding whatgoes on in classrooms. Next I will examine in philosophical andhistorical terms the nature of art and the nature of language aseducational enterprises. Finally, I will examine literature onthe concept of integration, particularly as it relates to art andlanguage education.The TeacherContext is of particular importance when we focus oneducation, because teachers and others involved in education haveno direct access to the internal conditions of individualstudents except through qualities they create in the environment(Eisner, 1982, p. 55). The context for the integration oflanguage and art created by the classroom teacher is of interesthere. While this involves many dimensions, the one I have chosento investigate in this study is teacher beliefs. First, I willexamine the nature of teacher beliefs, and why teacher beliefswere chosen as the vehicle for understanding integration. Next,I will look at the culture of the classroom, since it is an18integral part of beliefs about teaching in our society.Integration and the effects that it has on classroom culture willalso be examined. Then I will explore the role of teacherbeliefs specifically in content areas, particularly languagearts. A move toward an integrated approach known as wholelanguage has stimulated some research into teacher beliefs. Someof this research focuses on changes in teachers’ belief systemsfrom those associated with traditional classroom culture, sochanges in belief systems are also briefly examined.Teachers’ BeliefsTeachers’ beliefs are increasingly seen as key inunderstanding what goes on in classrooms (Isenberg, 1990; Nespor,1987; Pajares, 1992). This is a perspective in research thatassumes that teachers’ ways of knowing affect classroom actions(Richardson, et. al., 1991). In order to understand how beliefsaffect classroom practice, it is first necessary to have anunderstanding 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 bypersuasion, 2) alternativity — the attempt to create an ideal oralternative situation that differs from reality, 3) affective andevaluative loading - feelings involved with a body of knowledgebut operating independently from the cognition associated with19that knowledge, and 4) episodic structure - guiding images frompast events that create intuitive screens through which newinformation is filtered (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992).One confusion that necessitates clarification is thedistinction between belief systems and knowledge systems, and therelationship between them. Beliefs are distinguished fromknowledge in a number of ways. One theory is that knowledge isthe cognitive outcome of thought and belief the affectiveoutcome, but the •separation of cognition from affect has seriousproblems (Pajares, 1992). Belief clearly has a cognitivecomponent; knowledge, likewise, has an affective component.Yet differences between beliefs and knowledge stem from theemotional and affective loading and the episodic nature ofbeliefs. They are very difficult to change. They are not opento evaluation and critical examination, as knowledge systems are(Pajares, 1992). Also, beliefs have no clear logical rules fordetermining the relevance of beliefs to real—world events andsituations. 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 throughwhich we view new information. Beliefs ultimately screen,redefine, distort or reshape subsequent thinking (Pajares, 1992).Beliefs are conceptual systems which are functional or useful forexplaining some domain of activity, and play a major role indefining tasks (Nespor, 1987).20I will be examining the integration of art and language as atask of teachers. Teacher beliefs will provide insight becauseof the role that beliefs play in defining tasks. What teachersbelieve about classrooms, teachers, students, knowledge, the waystudents learn, and the subj ects of art and language will be apart of their conceptualization of integration.The Culture of the ClassroomAn important component of what teachers believe involves theculture of the classroom. The way in which teachers run theirclassrooms is affected by strong cultural antecedents. Classroomculture provides “constraints and opportunities for teachers’work and shapes their beliefs about what they do” (Werner, 1991,p. 4). Monson and Pahl see traditional school cultures as havingdeveloped operating principles closely resembling those offactories, “where skills in reading, writing and arithmetic wereacquired with the pragniatics of the workplace in mind” (1991, p.51). Emphasis on basic skills, drill and practice, presented inan efficient and cost effective manner according to industrialrevolution ideology, has remained the norm.Moving to a whole language perspective involves afundamental change in a teacher’s belief system about the cultureof the classroom. It moves from a historical model of teachingin which teachers dispense knowledge to the students to anapproach through which students actively construct meaning(Monson & Pahl, 1991). This is a switch from a knowledge-21centered 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—centered learning. Hollingsworth (1989) labeled child-centeredlearning constructivist or participatory learning, a majorprogram concept for the pre—service teachers -in her study. Shefound that while all the participants professed belief inconstructivist learning, preprogram beliefs affected how teachersconceived this term. Their thinking about constructivistlearning corresponded to their preprogram notions of how studentslearned in classroom settings.Another problem is that changing to child-centered learninginvolves changes to other values that we hold in traditionalknowledge—centered classrooms. These values shape views ofknowledge and learning. For example, one of the values commonlyheld is the value for orderliness. In traditional classrooms,orderliness is maintained through specified, limited pieces ofinformation matched to discrete behavioral objectives,transmitted by worksheets, short—answer quizzes and end—of—the—chapter questions (Popkewitz, 1978). However, when teachers planintegrated units of study, they have the opportunity to reflecton their views of knowledge selection and organization.They can move beyond the mechanistic, order—driven transmission of knowledge that ismolded to satisfy values compatible withorganizational controls and institutionalefficiencies. This involves changing to22modes of teaching that include discussion ofcontroversial topics and development ofcritical and independent reasoning. If thelocus of integration is seen as the student,rather than the curriculum, thoroughdiscussions are necessary in order to forgeconnections. (Werner, 1991, p. 15).However, subject matters such as these may be avoidedbecause it is seen to detract from orderliness. Orderliness is avalue that is deepseated and difficult to question (Werner,1991). Attention to management concerns are so pervasive thatthey tend to drive what subject matter is presented and whatstudents learn (Hollingsworth, 1989). The values on whichclassrooms are administered, such as orderliness, thereby have abearing on what counts as desirable content and how it is taught.The process of child—centered learning requires thattraditional roles for teachers and learners be reconfigured(Monson & Pahl, 1991). One obvious and difficult change forteachers to make is that they no longer have control of theknowledge base in the same manner that they do in traditionalclassrooms. But another problem emerges for teachers in anintegrated setting because of the change in their role.Dismantling subject boundaries in attempts to integrateinterferes with ways teachers define themselves; professionalidentities are largely maintained around subjects (Werner, 1991).Integration can also affect teachers’ roles because of perceivedstatus of their subject. Not all subjects are believed to beequally important. Certainly language education and arteducation are not viewed equally; As Werner (1991) states,23“Courses like mathematics and the language arts have privilegedpositions whose legitimacy is rarely questioned in comparison tothe fine arts...” (p. 7).Changing classroom cultures, as integration theories demand,is difficult because classroom cultures are set up to perpetuatethemselves. Teacher education programs are designed tocapitalize on the students’ preexisting knowledge, therebyensuring that new teachers turn out to be very much like theteachers who taught them (Hollingsworth, 1989).Teachers react to theories of integration in different ways.There is a pervasive notion in education today that integrationis inherently good (Daniels, 1991; Young, 1991—1992); who wouldadvocate dis—integrated knowledge? Professed support forintegration is common. In Jean Young’s (1991-1992) study of preservice teachers perceptions of curricular integration, althoughall 43 participants thought integration was a good thing and wereplanning to integrate, what they meant by integration differedgreatly. Young described three degrees of integration. First, alow degree of integration, was characterized by separate subjectboundaries with a common theme linking a unit of study together.A great deal of pre-planning of the knowledge characterized thisapproach, so that in a sense “the teacher acts as if he or sheowns the knowledge” (p. 4). Second, Young described anintermediate degree of integration. This approach involved theteachers being aware of subject boundaries, but their units werepresented in a holistic manner in which subjects lose their24identity. Knowledge is still “public” but the focus is on thechildren acquiring the knowledge, rather than the transmission ofknowledge (p. 5). The final approach was a high degree ofintegration, where students become the starting point ofplanning, and the units were not oriented toward subjects; theywere drawn upon as needed. Only two of the 43 participants inthis study subscribed to the third approach.In a study by William Schmidt, Laura Roehler, JacquelineCaul, Margret Buchinan, Barbara Diamond, David Solomon and PatCianciolo (1985) of curricular integration of language artsinstruction, the six teachers studied generally favoredintegrating language arts instruction but only minimal amounts ofintegration could be documented in their classrooms, accountingfor less than 10% of instructional time.Changing BeliefsWerner (1991) believes that when integration is attempted“the web of implications for the school’s culture starts toemerge” (p. 23), making change difficult. Many teachers willimplement some aspects of integration, such as organizingknowledge around themes, because this is relatively easy to do.Others will present a false front; they will claim to subscribeto integration but not practice it. This may not be conscious;teachers may exhibit “false clarity” - “when people think theyhave changed but have only assimilated the superficial trappingsof the new practice” (Fullan, 1982, p. 28).25Because integration involves for most teachers a change fromtraditional classroom culture, it will be illuminating to addresshow changes in classroom practices occur. Prevailing theoriessuggest that practices must change first; then beliefs change(Guskey, 1986). Teachers have a “gestalt” transformation oftheir belief systems, commonly converting from one authority toanother. But changes are relatively rare; people perform allsorts of mental gymnastics, including denying what is logicallypresented to them, if the information contradicts their beliefsystems (Pajares, 1992). The earlier belief systems areacquired, the more difficult they are to change (Pajares, 1992),making beliefs teachers acquire during their own schooling asignificant factor.Nespor (1987) proposes that changing teachers beliefsinvolves helping teachers become reflexive and self—conscious oftheir beliefs as well as presenting objective data on theadequacy or validity of these beliefs. But a new system ofbeliefs must be available. Monson and Pahl (1991) advocate alearner—centered model of teacher education, as traditional“corrective orientations do not reflect the changes that newintegrative theories, like whole language, endorse about thelearning process” (p. 53). This perspective acknowledgesteachers as learners. Several case studies provide evidence thatchanging to a whole language approach to teaching language is agradual process, and that, contrary to current theories, beliefs26often change before instructional practices do (Richardson, etal, 1991; Sierra and Combs, 1990).Changing from a traditional classroom to a child—centered,integrated approach to teaching is a very complex task involvingthe teachers’ beliefs about the culture of the classroom, theteachers’ role, the students’ role, and values that teachers holdfor subject matter. These are all factors that aid in theunderstanding of the integration of language and art in theelementary school classroom. But because I am looking at thecontent areas of language and art specifically, and becauseteacher beliefs are tied to the dominant ideas of classroomculture, an examination of art and language as educationalenterprises will help to further define issues surrounding artand language integration.The Nature of Art and Language as Educational EnterprisesLanguage and art as ‘educational enterprises have contrastinghistories. Language has been historically and philosophicallycharacterized as logical, analytical and integrally related tocognition. Art, on the other hand, has been historically andphilosophically distanced from the idea of cognition; it ischaracterized as affective and intuitive, in a separate domainfrom cognition (McGuire, 1984). Here I present a briefexamination of this contrast and its relation to the currenteducational context.27Western philosophy is credited with creating a dichotomybetween verbal, logical forms and artistic, affective forms ofknowledge (Eisner, 1981; Hamblen, 1983; Youngblood, 1983). Ifthe study of cognition is labeled a science, then it aligns theconcept of cognition with the verbal logical side of thishistorically created dichotomy. This is evident in Gardner’sdefinition of cognition in The Mind’s New Science (1985). Heindicates the desirability of the exclusion of affective factorsor emotions, the contribution of historical and cultural factorsand the role of background context in defining cognitive-scientific enterprise. This idea of the separation affects thefield of art education. This historically created dichotomy haslead to attitudes which have legitimated certain types ofeducational practices while withholding legitimacy from others,particularly in areas of artistic endeavor. Hamblen (1983)believes that “Statements in which the non—verbal is separatedfrom the cognitive are powerful, blatant notices that the formerdoes not constitute knowing and, by inference, that non—verbalapprehensions of the world are inferior to verbal knowledge” (pp.177—178). Youngblood (1983) characterizes the dichotomy as thedifference between classic and romantic modes of thought. Hesees schools as rewarding the classic mode; romantic modes oflearning are accorded little value in the schools.Some credit the dichotomy between verbal, logical thinkingand artistic, intuitive thinking to a physiological cause. Oneargument centers on the premise that language and logical thought28are centered in the left hemisphere of the brain and artistic andintuitive thought are located in the right hemisphere. Healy(1990) has used the separate halves of the brain to formulate anargument for the growing state of illiteracy in the UnitedStates. She argues that the plasticity of a child’s growingbrain allows for the environment to shape the way the brain isstructured. There are certain critical periods where the brainneeds specific stimuli in order for certain abilities to develop.Because the brain is involved in a condition of “neuraldarwinism”, different areas of the brain try to take over neuronsfrom other areas. Children today are so immersed in the massmedia, specifically television, whose fast pace and excitingvisuals stimulate the right hemisphere. Therefore, righthemisphere functions are taking over the neurons in the lefthemisphere targeted for language. Hence,.the children of todayare losing biologically their ability to process verbalinformation because the right side of the brain is taking over!Healy is not alone in her ideas of physiological separationof artistic and language processing. Edwards’s book Drawinc withthe Right Side of the Brain (1986), postulates that the symbolic,logical and analytical left side of the brain must be relieved ofits dominance in order for the right side of the brain tofunction in the creation of visual images.However, these theories are extreme. Currently, there isinterest in the understanding of how specific areas of the brainfunction together rather than in the idea of physiological29distinction of the brain’s two hemispheres. Gardner (1985), inreviewing work of the characterization of the functions of thetwo hemispheres, found no clear dichotomization. He goes on tostress the more important dynamic interaction between the twohemispheres. Youngblood (1983) argues that even if visual andverbal cognition are lateralized in the brain, it does not meanthat the work of the each hemisphere is carried out in isolation.He credits humans as having a propensity for dichotomizing ourworld that has arisen from our philosophical history rather thanfrom the organization of the brain.Instead of limiting the concept of cognition to strictlyverbal logical activity, several people have proposed a unitednotion of cognition that encompasses all forms of knowing.Eisner (1981) claims that thought is not separate from non-verbalcomprehension. He argues that no concepts can be formed withoutsensory information. Without concepts formed as images that aresensory in form, image surrogates like words would bemeaningless. So “in the beginning there was the image, not theword” (p. 49). Further, he argues that feeling constitutes onetype of thought process and that thought should not be limited toverbal operations. Hamblen (1983) coins the term “cognitiveumbrella” to indicate this broadening of the concept. Thatindividuals have distinct and semi—autonomous intellectual realmshas been proposed by Gardner (1983). These “intelligences” are:1) language, 2) music, 3) logic and mathematics, 4) visualspacial conceptualization, 5) bodily-kinesthetic skills, 6)30knowledge of other persons and 7) knowledge of self. Gardnerdoes 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 approacheshave developed a notion of separateness between language and artthat has been challenged. Conversely, when art and language areexamined from the perspective of the, function they serve, art andlanguage have a history of being united. Because both languageand art function in communication of meaning, the notion of artas a language is a well-established metaphor (Osborne, 1984).However, there are areas where art and language differ in theirfunctioning. An examination of these similarities anddifferences is important when applied to the educational. contextof integration.Art and language as functions of communication of meaningmay differ because of the nature of the function. A usefulorganizing tool to delineate these functions is Eisner’s modes oftreating “forms of representation.” He saw humans as havingimaginative capacities that allow them to examine and explore thepossibilities of sensory information. This capacity is aspringboard for expression. Forms of representation are “devicesthat humans use to make public conceptions that are privatelyheld ... and might take the form of word, pictures, music,mathematics, dance and the like” (1981, p. 47). These forms canhave three functions, which Eisner (1981; 1982) terms “modes”: 1)31mimetic, an imitation of the sensory input, 2) expressive, arevelation of what an event expresses, rather than what it wasphysically like, and 3) conventional, an arbitrary sign. Thesemodes are not isolated within any particular form. Any one formof representation may perform all three of these functions.Art is clearly used for mimetic functions. Language is usedmimetically only in very limited cases of onomatopoeia. This tieof image-making to the physical world has led to cognitivetheories of art that begin with the premise that art is arepresentation of a physical reality. Arnheim (1974) explainsthe process of making art as an act of invention in that objectsin the world are observed, then abstract mental equivalences areinvented to represent these object, then a graphic configurationis reproduced from the mental equivalences to represent theoriginal perception of the object. Many. investigations havetaken place trying to determine the rules by which humans maketheir images “real” (Golomb & Farmer, 1983; Lansing, 1984;Willats, 1977). But these rules are limited to representationalwork.Because art has a direct link with the physical world, (ie.,there is a physical resemblance between what is portrayed in artand what actually exists), mimetic functions are used extensivelywithin the educational context. In the classroom art is oftenused predominantly for illustrative purposes (Mitchell, 1990), alimitation seen especially when art is integrated with othersubjects (Kindler, 1987).32The expressive mode reveals many instances of similaritiesbetween art and language. The standard model for the treatmentof perception and concept formation is the notion that we come toknow something outside ourselves. But in the arts, perception andconception are often centered on an interior world (Perry, 1984).Emery (1989) identifies belief as critical to the artistic makingand thinking process. She used belief to denote the ability tosuspend disbelief. In art, believing entails conceptualizingthat marks on a paper are real worlds, even though we know theyare not. To believe is to engage in complex cognitive andsensate processes transforming the artistic media intoexpressions of ideas. This is the mode that art and languagehave the most in common, as evidenced by the numbers of articlesadvocating the integration of art and language (Amdur, 1993;Bates, 1993; Jones, 1991; Meyer, 1988; Mitchell, 1990; Stout,1993; Thorns, 1985). Language arts share much common ground withvisual arts because both subjects concentrate on a means ofcreative expression.Creative expression is enhanced by integration of art andlanguage. Bates (1993) used T. S. Elliot’s words to describehow visual images trigger unconscious, deeply—felt responses,“The painting or sculpture acts as the objective correlative forthe writer’s emotions, the interaction often producing poetrythat is filled with strong language and vivid imagination” (pp.42-43). Jones (1991) found that different approaches enhanced33the end—product, allowing for complex exploration while avoidingredundancy.Aesthetic education, as well, is seen to necessitate anintegrated approach. It is difficult to imagine, for instance,any aesthetic or critical art education component not relying onlanguage to express ideas. Thoms (1985) asked students toexamine a painting and write a literary transformation. Hetheorized that aesthetic understanding is only achieved when itis transformed through the perception of the spectator. Thistransformation is enhanced by creative writing.The conventional mode involves the use of conventional signsystems to communicate meaning. Language is certainly defined inthis way. Art as a visual sign system has been a popularconcept. This has led to attempts to borrow a form for art fromthe form of language.The form of language, as outlined by Chomsky (1972), hassurface structure, a deep structure and mental processes calledtransformations that operate between the two. Surface structuresare the rules and interactions of rules of specific languages.The deep structure is the “universal grammar”; this is a highlyrestrictive innate schema present in all language users that isthe basis for human intellectual capacities. While language ishighly rule—governed, it is also creative. The transformationsallow for generation of an infinite number of pairings betweendeep and surface structures.34However, there is no equivalent in visual image—making tolanguage’s surface structure. Attempts to find pictorialstructures equivalent to grammatical rules has not been promising(Willats, 1979). Forrest (1984) states that art cannot bedefined as a language because there is no agreed syntacticalbasis for art and that the elements of art and the principles ofdesign have little in common with the rules of grammar. Osborne(1984) contends that fine art has no lexicon, a list ofexpressions that belong to a single syntactic category that haveat least one form and meaning. Rules of grammar operate onlexical entries. Since art does not have a lexicon, it has nogrammar. Whether or not language and art have similar forms atthe level of deep structure has not been ascertained, perhapsbecause the form of deep structure in language is now still at atheoretical level (Chomsky, 1972).That visual signs have some organized properties that allowfor communication is evident. “It is not that art has no rules,but that the rules are unaccompanied, as they are in language, bysystems of correct application” (Forrest, 1984, p. 28). Eisnersaw all forms of representation as having syntaxes, but he uses“syntax” as meaning arrangement of parts within a whole. Heplaces syntaxes as on a continuum between rule—governed andfigurative. The less rule—governed and the more figurative thesyntax, the more it permits idiosyncratic interpretation andnovelty of form (Eisner, 1982). Language is obviously more rule—governed than visual images.35Verbal language, written language and art each have uniquefunctions in the communication of meaning. Interesting work hasbeen done on the developmental interdependence of drawing,talking and writing as symbolic representations of thought.Dyson (1988, 1992) proposes a dynamic and interactive process inthe development of written language, which she labels “symbolicweaving” (1988, p. 355). The ability to express ideas throughdrawing 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 inthe creation of ideas and their expression. Talking becomes acollaboration in the meanings of drawings. Increasingly moredeliberate and planned activity follows. “Drawing becomes morecapable of mediating - shaping and being shaped by - the child’ssocial and representational intentions” (Dyson, 1992, p. 5).First writing is used as a “prop” to constructing meaning throughdramatic play and drawing. Written words generally are labels ordescriptions of drawings. But because drawings are static intime, and children need ways to express social interaction, theydevelop writing strategies to resolve these time/space dilemmas(Dyson, 1988). Writing develops into a “mediator” through whichmeaning is constructed interactively through the symbolicrepresentations in speech, drawing and writing.It is interesting to note that within our educational systemdrawing often appears to revert to being a “prop” once writing isa well-established skill. Drawings, instead of holding36credibility as creations of meaning, become illustrations ofstories, something extra. Kindler (1987) is concerned that artis included in an integrated curriculum with “extrinsic rationalethat points to the usefulness of the arts in other areas oflearning and claims that arts are instrumental in achievingbetter results in other areas of academic pursuit”(p.52). Thisis a continuation of the devaluing of artistic ways of knowingwithin our educational system because art is viewed as a “prop”to other subjects.What happens developmentally with the dynamic interaction ofspeech, writing and drawing is complex. Dyson’s work is based onstudies of young children. She states that, “Children’sinterweaving of media does pose developmental challenges as,eventually, children must differentiate and gain control over theunique powers of each medium” (1992, p. 16). What this means foreducation in artistic, verbal and written expression, especiallyas children move through to the intermediate grades, is notclear. Dyson advocates talking to children about their effortsto help them reflect upon their processes. This is echoedconvincingly by Stout (1993), who advocates a dialogue journal insecondary art classes, where “writing is a generative process forlearning, writing as a complement to studio activity”(p.40).The dialogue journal should have two delineated components: oneis the content of academic experiences and the second is thereflections on these experiences. Both Stout and Dyson arestrong advocates of child—centered learning, and reflection on37the processes of thoughts (metacognition) figure greatly in theirphilosophies of students creating their own meaning.However, it is conventional modes of thought using languageas a form of representation that are the primary focus in schoolstoday (Dixon & Chalmers, 1990; Eisner, 1982). Language is seenas the structural organizer, categorizer and manipulator ofcognition (McGuire, 1984). When this idea is paired withdominant classroom culture ideology, where efficiency of means isemphasized, it is hardly surprising that educational emphases hasbeen on transmitting language’s rule—governed syntax.Ironically, an elevation of the status of the expressivemode within art education during the progressive movement of thelate l920s and early 1930s was followed by a loss of emphasis onartistic skills and knowledge (Freyberger, 1985). In fact, acommon rationale for including art within the curriculum is thatart gives insight into the students feelings and emotions. Whilethis lends credibility to art’s expressive function, it deniesthe importance of “the uniqueness and comprehensiveness ofknowledge within the area of art” (Kindler, 1987, p. 57).In summary, language and art have distinct histories whenconsidered as cognitive enterprises. While language andcognition have been inexorably linked, art has only recentlygained theoretical acceptance as a cognitive enterprise. Thisdichotomy has had implications for education; while language isconsidered core to any educational program, art fights forlegitimacy. Yet when they are examined in terms of the functions38that they serve, there is a great deal of overlap, providing thepossibility for the integration of art and language ineducational settings. Eisner’s modes of expression — themimetic, the expressive and the conventional — provide aframework for examining how language and art are used. While arthas more mimetic functions, both art and language have many usesin the expressive mode, providing support and opportunity forintegration. In the conventional mode, language has a moreformal syntax, while art’s more figurative syntax allows forgreater flexibility of form. But the greater structure oflanguage in the conventional mode has been the major focus ineducation.These differences and similarities between art and languageare yet another of the dimensions affecting what teachers believeabout the integration of the two subjects. Next I will examinethe dimension of curricular integration itself.Curricular IntegrationTraditionally within the context of the elementary school,the mastery of the three R’s has had primary emphasis (Eisner,1982). Content areas have been limited to a few of Eisner’sforms of representation, most notably words and numbers. Interms of Gardner’s intelligences, heavier emphasis has been givento the language and the mathematics intelligences rather thanspacial, musical, kinesthetic, personal or interpersonalintelligences. Because these content areas of reading, writing39and arithmetic are taught with an emphasis on conventional modesof treatment, wider aspects of cognition are not being addressed(Eisner, 1982).The predominance teaching of rules, deductive logicpatterns, “building block” approaches and the notion that thereis one correct solution to all problems (and the teacher knowswhat it is) are educational practices that are questioned (Eisner1981; Healy, 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 movementtowards curricular integration is being instigated in many NorthAmerican elementary school systems, including British Columbia.There is a great deal of confusion about the term“integration.” This arises from determining exactly what is tobe integrated, how these integrations take place and whoorchestrates the integration. A necessary and mostly overlookedaspect of integration is that it presupposes differentiation.There must be discreet tlthingsll that are brought together in somemanner by some force. Determining what these things are, howthey are brought together and by whom define the integratedcurriculum.How Do We Integrate?I will deal briefly with the “how” question of integration,as this is the most readily addressed. Integration can takeplace in various ways. Some theories of integration are40basically definitions of space, time and use of personnel withinthe educational context. For example, Jacobs (1989) proposes acontinuum of options for content design. First there isdiscipline—based curriculum, where students learn separatesubjects from separate teachers within their own classrooms.Then there are parallel disciplines, where teachers examine thesame theme concurrently in their own classrooms. Next there is amultidisciplinary approach; teachers now co-plan their units, butstill teach them separately in their own classrooms. Then thereare interdisciplinary units, where teachers of different subjectsand students work in the same space over an extended period oftime. Then there is integrated day, where no subject boundariesexist. Finally there is the complete program — such as Neill(1960) describes in Summerhill.This conceptualization of integration deals with themechanics and logistics of integration, how integration can bedone. But this does not encompass the crucial issue of whatelements are to be integrated and by whom. This is intricatelyentwined 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 fourforms of integration: 1) integration of content, 2) integrationof skills/processes, 3) integration of school and self, and414) holistic integration (p. 2). These forms are distinct, butnot separate, from each other.Of these four forms, I have distinguished between the firsttwo, integration of content and integration of skills andprocesses, and the last two, the integration of school and selfand holistic integration. The major difference between theseforms is that the former are mostly centered on the integrationof knowledge external to the student that education seeks to makeinternal. I am calling these knowledge—centered integrationssince they deal with what is to be integrated. The latter arefocused on students’ internal knowledge that education seeks tomake external; thus I have labeled them child-centeredintegrations. “Who” questions about integration are generallycentered on questions of child—centered versus knowledge—centeredintegration.This difference is significant for two reasons. The firstis that knowledge—centered integration is often seen as beingchild—centered integration. I hope to clear up confusions aboutintegration by making the distinction. The second reason is thatwithin the educational context, the culture of the classroom hasdictated a knowledge-centered approach. Traditionally, languageeducation has focused on the knowledge base. In contrast, arteducation, which has for the most part been relegated to thefringes of core education, has focused mainly on the child’sself—expression and creativity. But current movements withinlanguage education are moving toward a child—centered approach;42in art education there are movements toward a knowledge—centeredapproach.The integration of curricular knowledge - the integration ofcontent, skills and processes, are elements under the domain ofcurriculum—makers, text books, teachers etc. This curricularknowledge is objectified; that is, it is knowledge that isconceived, organized and integrated without input from thoseattempting to gain the knowledge. It is knowledge that isexternal to the students. The learning process seeks tointernalize this knowledge.Content integration is the attempt to draw connections amongthe understandings promoted within and among discreet bodies ofknowledge. Processes and skills are generic proceduralknowledge, the methods and abilities educators hope to foster inall applicable contexts (Case, l991a). This knowledge must bebrought together to form a new unity that is more than acollection of its constituent parts; the whole and these partshave meaning or significance. Integration is more than anorganizational tool; it is a unifying principle (Coombs, 1991).The Year 2000 Intermediate Document (1990) from the Ministryof Education of British Columbia was until recently the guidingforce behind curricular change for this province. It showed someof the confusions about the term integration. It definedintegration as “an orientation that accepts the integrated natureof knowledge and the interconnected relationships that existbetween and among all things” (p. 89). This definition has an43underlying premise about the nature of knowledge - that there isan essential unity of all knowledge, which Pring (1973) as one ofhis four major epistemological positions on integration. Thesecond is the division of knowledge into broad fields ofexperience. Interestingly this is also a position also found inthe Year 2000 Intermediate Document (1990) in its division of thecurriculum into four strands: the humanities, sciences, fine artsand practical arts. The third epistemological position is thatproblems or issues must unify elements from different bodies ofknowledge. This is also known as instrumental integration(Coonths, 1991). The fourth of Pring’s positions is the beliefthat there are distinct and autonomous “forms of knowledge” butthat there are complex conceptual connections between them.A philosophy of a unity consisting of all knowledge createsa great deal of skepticism. Objectively, all knowledge does notfit the definition of a unity, where the sum of the parts isgreater than the whole (Coombs, 1991; Court, 1991; Daniels,1991). But this philosophical approach is more centered on thebelief that the student creates the unified whole of his/herknowledge. Because knowledge is defined subjectively,philosophically this definition is dealing primarily with thequestion of who does the integrating. Advocates of childcentered learning support this conception of knowledge in statingthat students are being educated to subjectively define theirworld (Goodman, 1986).44But major criticisms of this philosophy of knowledgequestion the interactions of the students with the knowledgebase. Must each student start creating a system of knowledgefrom scratch? Clearly this is not a useful educational goal.Child—centered learning “does not obviate the need for acquiringa clear conception of the unities to be formed by parts of thecurriculum” (Coombs, 1991, p. 6). It is the case that curriculummakers, teachers etc., form some unities in knowledge foreducational purposes.The remaining three perspectives of knowledge are viewswhere knowledge has discrete organizational categories. Thedifference between them is the boundaries of these categories,the purpose of making connections between them and the nature andstrength of these connections.Coherence of the elements united through curricularintegration is a key concept. It must be the case that thingsbeing integrated are logically, causally or pragmaticallyrelevant (Daniels, 1991). Ideas of what these elements arevary. For example, Coombs (1991) called these elements “objectsof study” — intellectual and aesthetic constructions such asconcepts, propositions, theories, arguments, judgments rules,procedures, techniques, artistic creations and expertperformances(p.9). His conception of curricular elementsallows much flexibility in constituting unities.However, most commonly in schools, knowledge is organizedinto subject categories. Traditionally, it is only these subject45categories that are treated as unities. Some see this as beingsound philosophically. Hirst (1975) saw human knowledge asexisting in basic forms. These basic forms are mathematics,physical science, knowledge of persons, literature and fine arts,morals, religion and philosophy. Each of these has its ownconcepts, theories, methodologies and standards of judgement.But each âf these distinct forms involves an integration orcohesiveness within its own boundaries. Each domain of knowledgehas a logical grammar, which consists of the rules for themeaningful use of the terms it employs. This logical grammarprovides the primary organization for this knowledge.However, subjects as unified entities are questioned(Coombs, 1991). One of the major arguments for curricularintegration is that subject boundaries are arbitrary, confiningand do not reflect the way students learn. Indeed, this argumentfor integration of subjects raises a common overlap of thedimensions 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: “Isolating one subject fromanother, and specifying discrete learnings within each subject,has given rise to disintegration of personal learning andfragmentation of school experiences” (p. 89). “Personallearning” is a term that connotes child—centered learning. So itis the students who are to perform these integrations. Unifyingexternal knowledge such as subjects, it is argued here, will46affect internal integration. This may not necessarily be so.Teaching through themes is a common example of a way to integrateknowledge that supersedes subject boundaries. But, themes as anintegration of knowledge external to the students do notnecessarily have personal relevance. “organizing all instructionaround theme—based units may not enhance students’ perceptions ofschool relevance; in fact it could exacerbate the problem if ourorganized themes hold little significance for students” (Case,1991b, p. 7). Integration of knowledge is often and mistakenlyseen as addressing issues that are really integrations of schooland self or holistic integration.Teaching through themes may not even be an effective way toorganize knowledge. Themes have been criticized because they maybe used only as a differentiating or organizing tool, not as onethat provides a principle for unity (Case, 1991b; Coombs, 1991;Court, 1991; Dearden, 1976).While integration of knowledge is an obviously importantelement of curricular integration, integration of school and selfis 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 oflearning and the students’ desire to stay in school (Court,1991). But the relevance of schooling itself is a complexeducational issue. Daniels sees the purposes of making relevantconnections in schools are enlightenment and empowerment.Enlightenment refers to the use of knowledge gained through47schooling that enables us to interpret our world in increasinglymore coherent and sophisticated ways. Empowerment is the use ofknowledge gained in schools for specific purposes, such asvocational training (Daniels, 1991). Major criticisms of child-centered approaches are that students do not know what is goodfor them; in other words, they cannot know what will enlighten orempower them (Coombs, 1991; Daniels, 1991).In fact, as students get older, knowledge—centered learningis seen as being more significant so that it “takes over” fromchild—centered learning. Aiudur (1993) speaks of integration ofart with other humanities at a secondary level. He states:The free-ranging ‘follow your bliss’orientation of whole language is well—suitedfor developing appetites for intellectualinquiry. However, once students arereceptive to learning, they are able to reachbeyond idiosyncratic interests and vernacularvocabulary to master the concepts, vocabularyand skills fundamental to a comprehensiveeducation (p. 14).Even if themes may provide interest and may be relevant tothe students at that particular time, this cannot guaranteerelevance over time. The dimensions of curricular integration,called vertical and horizontal, are also seen as contributing torelevance. Theme teaching is for the most part horizontal,because it is the integration of elements from different subjectsat a specific time. Vertical integration refers to theintegration of elements over time (Case, l991b). Traditionalsubject curricula have built knowledge vertically, albeit withinthe traditional subject boundaries. It is the vertical dimension48that may be lost through the teaching of themes. Hirst (1975)believed that organization around themes may enhance studentinterests, but he calls these second—order organizations ofknowledge because the student must first grasp the elements aslogically related to other elements in the primary divisions ofknowledge. It is argued that “putting together” requires someknowledge of the separate parts to be integrated into a whole(Court, 1991).This becomes a “chicken and egg” argument — one that isevident in debates about current integrative philosophies. Dostudents need the knowledge base in order act on their interests?Can integration take place internally without external directionabout its constituent parts? Or do students need interest inorder to act on the knowledge base? Does internal directionstimulate the need for external knowledge? Ultimately, there isa dynamic process between internal and external knowledge, buthow teachers view the relevance, importance and sequence of theseacquisitions of knowledge will affect what they present in theclassroom. -In summary, integration is a term that is ultimatelyconfusing. One confusion lies in the conception of knowledge.Philosophically, the nature of knowledge can be viewed on acontinuum from differentiated knowledge, where meaning existsonly in isolated bits, to integrated knowledge, where allknowledge is seen as a unity. Next, there is the confusion aboutwhere integration takes place. Integration may be seen as the49bringing together of content, skills and processes that areexternal to the students. Or, integration may be seen as aprocess internal to individuals. This is the difference betweenknowledge—centered integrations and child—centered integrations.These are not mutually exclusive; some integration of knowledgetakes place externally to students and students do bring theirown ideas to the knowledge base. Again, integration can beviewed as taking place on a continuum from knowledge—centered tochild—centered. Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledgeand the locus of integration will affect their teaching.Current Theories in Lanquage Arts and Art EducationIt is important here to examine curricula in the subjectareas of language and of art in their current state, as well asviews on uniting these bodies of knowledge. The “chicken andegg” argument will be discussed both in the phonics versus whole—language debate in language education and the scientific-rationalism versus creative expressionism debate within arteducation.Traditionally, language has been taught from small to largeunits; students learn specific skills like phonics, spelling,grammar, reading, creative writing, composition, literature,public speaking, and listening and the whole of language ispresumed to be learned. A whole language perspective integratesthese elements (Goodman, 1986). The major concern voiced againstthis integrated approach is that in the whole students lose the50parts. The most notable argument is that students do not learnphonics; hence they do not have the skills necessary for reading(Monson & Pahl, 1991). This is a heated debate, polarized in awhole language versus phonics war that currently rages.Traditional approaches to teaching language are sequential,knowledge—based and teacher-directed. For example, the phonicsapproach to teaching reading follows a traditional pattern;reading must be taught in an explicit way. Reading is learnedfrom the parts to the whole through a carefully worked-outsequential hierarchy of skills, and each skill must be taught,positively reinforced, mastered, and tested before the nextappropriate skill in the hierarchy is presented (Monson & Pahl,1991).Whole language, as the name implies, is about learning fromthe whole of language to the specific parts. There is a majorbody of developmental, phsycholinguistic and sociolinguisticresearch that supports whole language as the natural way to readand write (Monson & Pahl, 1991). A summary of these findingsupon 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 and3) experience is the best teacher (Froese, 1990, p. 270).The desirability of meaningful context and the importance ofpersonal experience are evident in the whole language approach.Context is very important in that it influences the functionalityand the motivation of what is being taught. Whole language51theorists often talk about “real” language, or the language thathas meaning to the students (Goodman, 1986). This learning isinternally directed. Because child—centered learning is integralto a whole language approach, intuitive, global and expressivethought, attributed historically to artistic endeavors andphysiologically to the right side of the brain, have a new andprominent role in the educational setting. The teaching ofconventional modes are directed from the outside, a sequence ofskills outlined by the teacher and directed toward a foregoneconclusion. In contrast, a whole language approach begins with abroad perspective that is not objectively but rather subjectivelydefined. So language education is moving from isolated content,skills and processes towards an integrated form, as well asemphasizing child—centered as opposed to curriculum—centeredknowledge.Art education does have similar debates. While there is astrong core of proponents of a child—centered creative expressionstream within art education, currently much emphasis has been onknowledge—centered approaches. Research into artistic endeavorsthat shows parallels to research in whole language has beenconducted by Harvard Project Zero since 1967 (Gardner, 1989).Over 100 researchers have investigated various aspects ofartistic activities in a cognitive framework. Part of theirresearch has been centered on determining a natural developmentaltrajectory of important artistic capacities. Their findingsdiffer from findings in natural language research in several52areas. In most areas of development, children simply improvewith age. But in several artistic spheres there is a high levelof competence in very young children followed by a decline in theyears of middle childhood. As well, in most spheres, likelanguage, an individual’s perceptual or comprehension capacitiesdevelop in advance of his/her productive capacities. But withartistic functions the reverse appears to be true, and thesedifferences have been noted in this paper earlier because theinteraction of producing art with speaking and writing activityprovides interesting educational implications.However, these differences in the natural development oflanguage and the natural development of art do not take on greatsignificance in relation to the similarities, especially in theeducational context. Howard Gardner makes a number ofrecommendations for involving students in the ways of thinkingexhibited by individuals involved in the arts. A summary ofrecommendations that reveal a similar philosophy to wholelanguage are: 1) particularly at the younger ages productionactivities out to be central to any art form; 2) perceptual,historical, critical and other “pen-artistic” activities shouldbe closely related to, and emerge from, the child’s ownproductions; 3) whenever possible, artistic learning should beorganized around meaningful projects, which are carried out overa significant period of time and allow ample opportunity forfeedback, discussion and reflection; 4) in most artistic areas,sequential curriculum will, not work because it “flies in the face53of the holistic, contextually—sensitive manner in whichindividuals customarily gain mastery;” 5) Artistic learning isnot the same as mastery of a set of skills or concepts becausethe arts are deeply personal areas; students need to see thatpersonal 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 ofschool and self and holistic integration.An emphasis on child—centered learning has powerfulantecedents in art education. A stream of art education calledcreative expressionism began after the second world war (Efland,1990), spearheaded by Lowenfeld (1947) and his book Creative andMental Growth, who saw the goal of art education as “a child whogràws up more creatively and sensitively and applies hisexperience in the arts to whatever life situations may beapplicable” (Lowenfeld, cited in Efland, 1990, p. 272).While Gardner’s approach and creative expressionism aresimilar to whole language philosophy in they both advocate child-centered learning and integrated approaches to knowledge, anotherprominent movement in art education seems to move away from thenotion of curricular integration. A stream in art education,labeled scientific rationalism, became increasingly evidentduring the late 1950s through to the 1960s. Programs referred tosuch attributes as “having an organized body of knowledge,specific methods of inquiry, and a community of scholars whogenerally agree on the fundamental ideas of their field” (Efland,541990, P. 241). Currently, this movement is represented by anapproach called Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE).DBAE divides art into four distinct elements: artproduction, art history, art criticism and aesthetics (Greer,1984). DBAE is clearly knowledge-centered. The emphasis is onthe content of the curriculum as it exists as a predefined entity(Hamblen, 1988). This “brings it in line” with traditionaleducational practices, where technocratic rationalism is thedominant rationale of curricular design: “efficiency of means isemphasized, behaviors are routinized and outcomes are predefined”(Hamblen, 1987, p. 69).But an interesting contrast arises if DBAE is viewedstrictly from a knowledge perspective, rather than from a child—centered philosophical position. Because DBAE emphasizestalking, reading and writing about art as a means of learningcritical, aesthetic and historical knowledge, it is quiteacceptable as an integrative philosophy. While seemingly atopposite philosophical stances when viewed on a child—centered toknowledge—centered continuum, DBAE and whole language may beviewed as basically in step with each other’s goals, if we aretalking about uniting knowledge that is external to the students.This issue then brings into play issues of content integrityand conflicting purposes of integrating art and language.DBAE recommends a curricular structure where the boundariesbetween the various subjects are well defined, with regularamounts of time and space for art instruction, because “visual55arts often suffer when they are taught exclusively in anintegrated form .... When the visual arts are integrated intoother subjects at the elementary school level, their distinctivecontributions are often neglected or underemphasized” (Eisner,1988, p. 23-24). Currently in British Columbia, art educatorshave concerns about art being lost in an integrated curriculuju(Grauer, 1991; Kindler, 1987, 1991).Teacher beliefs about subject matter may have an obviouseffect when applied to a high status subject like language and alow status subject like art. “Teachers often teach the contentof a course according to the values held of the contentitself...this combination of affect and evaluation can determinethe energy that teachers will expend on an activity and how theywill expend it” (Pajares, 1992, p. 310). As well, two teachersmay have similar subject knowledge but teach in different ways.Ernest (1989) studied two mathematics teachers and suggested thatbelief had a powerful effect on what and how mathematics wastaught. Teachers’ beliefs affect the content of what they teach.This may be of particular importance when applied to subjectswith greatly different perceived worth, such as language and art.Integration puts the status of different subjects inquestion and intensifies the struggle around issues of timeallocation and content integrity. Teachers vary widely in howthey distribute time to content. While this is partly dependenton institutional limitations, internal factors, such as teachers’sense of competence in teaching different areas of curriculum and56teacher beliefs regarding curricular subjects, have a significanteffect (Schmidt & Buchiuann, 1983). While integration may be seenas allocating more time for art, it may, in reality, cause art tolose legitimacy as a specialty and to lose time within thecurriculum (Werner, 1991).In suiiuuary then, within the areas of language education andart education there are proponents of each end of the continuumof child—centered to knowledge centered learning. A wholelanguage philosophy and Harvard’s Project Zero show similar viewsof knowledge and philosophies of knowledge acquisition in thatboth strongly support child-centered integration. Discipline-based Art Education and phonics approaches to reading valueisolated content, skills and processes; as well, they tend tosupport strong subject boundaries.SummaryThe review of literature relating to art and languageintegration as a task of the teacher reveals many complex andintegrated issues.Beliefs of teachers will be affected by strong culturalantecedents. First, the dominant culture of the classroom hasprovided a knowledge—centered, teacher—controlled transmission ofpre-defined and structured knowledge. Traditionally, thisculture has supported language education. Because languageeducation has a more defined syntax, is more highly rule—governedand less idiosyncratic in form, it is able to support values of57traditional classroom culture. Art, on the other hand, has beentraditionally excluded from the realm of intellect; its place inthe curriculum has not held much status. Justification for artwithin the curriculum generally center on its expressivecharacteristics, but within the traditional classroom culture,value for what the students- can bring to the learning setting hasnot been acknowledged.New theories of what constitutes thought have viewed artvery 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 knowingbesides reading, writing and arithmetic. This has brought aboutan interest in integrated curricula, where different ways ofknowing provide a strong educational motive. Integration is aterm that connotes a process for learning, but as a term itsdefinition is not clear. As a process, it involves many complexissues, which fall basically into two dimensions.One of these dimensions involves who is control of theknowledge base. Do students themselves construct knowledge, oris it constructed externally to the students? The otherdimension involves the question of what constitutes knowledge.Knowledge can be seen as forming a unity, or it can have variouscategories and concepts that have varying degrees ofinterrelationship. The following diagram is an illustration ofthese two dimensions:58FIGURE 1: THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF INTEGRATIONThe Nature of KnowledgeKnowledge as a Unity— art as self—expression — pre—packaged integratedunits— whole language— Harvard’s ProjectZeroChild—centered Learning Knowledge—centered Learning(creation of meaning (creation of meaningwithin the child) within the curriculum)- independent study - DBAEprograms— Phonics approaches toreadingKnowledge as Differentiated(separate subj ects)59These dimensions are not exclusive: there is obvious overlapbetween them. Many issues arise from this overlap, and from theunderstanding that integration is not an educational process thatcan be pin—pointed on either dimension.Certainly one of these issues is how curricular changesproposed through integration affect and are affected bytraditional classroom culture. Many integrative theories, mostnotably whole language, are based on the premise thatstudentslearn better when they can control the knowledge that they learn.Issues of control challenge a value held in traditionalclassroomculture: the value for order. Traditional classroomsmaintainorder through a knowledge-centered approach; the teacher has allthe answers, and directs learning toward these pre—ordainedconclusions. Highly directed learning prescribes knowledge to bebroken down into neatly packaged bits. What happens to orderwhen teachers no longer have control over this knowledge base?Another issue has to do with the relevance of schooling.Changing to a child—centered mode, it is argued, willincreasethe relevance of schooling because it will arise from thestudents’ own lives. But a strong counter—argumentsuggests thatstudents do not always have the foresight to know what knowledgethey will need to lead successful lives, and therefore somedirection is necessary.In terms of art and language education, their respectivebackgrounds as educational enterprises also may have an effect onteachers’ beliefs. Because art has not traditionallybeen60accorded the status of a way of knowing, the importance of art inthe curriculum is often questioned. Language, on the other hand,is seen as a central curricular component, often equated withthought. Integrating art and language, therefore, may makeart aservant of language education.In order to gain an understanding of teachers’ beliefs aboutthe integration of art and language, all of these issues must betaken into account. Specifically, understandings are soughtofteachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge, beliefs aboutthe role of the teacher and the role of the student in knowledgeacquisition and how these beliefs lead to the design andimplementation of integrated language arts and art curricula.61CHAPTER THREETHE DESIGN OF THE STUDYTheoretical Approach of This StudyThis study approaches the understanding of the integrationof art and language in intermediate grade classrooms through thevehicle of teachers’ beliefs. This is based on “theassumptionthat beliefs are the best indicators of the decisions individualsmake throughout their lives...” (Pajares, 1992, P. 307). This isparticularly true in the domain of teaching because the nature ofteaching is often ill—defined, as the example of integrationpoints out so clearly. It is this lack of claritythat disablescognitive and information processing strategies,“rendering theteacher uncertain of what information is needed orwhat behavioris appropriate” (Pajares, 1992, p. 316). The episodic core ofbeliefs that makes their use so likely in just suchcircumstances.“It is unavoidable that, for the purposes of investigation,beliefs must be inferred”, (Pajares, 1992, p. 316). Theseinferences need to take into account the ways that individualsgive evidence of belief, so “open—ended interviews, responses todilemmas and vignettes, and observation of behavior must beincluded of richer and more accurate inferencesare to be made”(Pajares, 1992, p. 327).62Qualitative Research ApproachesAs a vehicle of understanding art and language integration,teacher beliefs are most appropriately studied throughqualitative methods. These are methods that include“richdescription of people, places, and conversations, andare noteasily handled by statistical procedures. Researchquestions arenot framed by operationalizing variables; rather, theyareformulated to investigate in all their complexity, in context”,(Bogdan & Bilken, 1982, p. 2). Meaning, as the participantsascribe it, is of essential concern to the qualitative approach.Participants’ experiences, their interpretation oftheseexperiences and how they structure their social worldare whatqualitative researchers wish to discover (Bogdan & Bilken, 1982).There are a number of complementary terms which fit underthe umbrella of qualitative research that also maybe applied tothis study. One term that seems particularly applicable to thetheoretical approach of this study is “symbolic interactionism”.The emphasis is on understanding the actions of participants onthe basis of their active experience of the world andthe ways inwhich their actions arise and reflect back on experience(Burgess, 1984). There is a close theoretical parallel betweenthe philosophy of symbolic interactionism and theassumptions inthis study. Symbolic interactionism is based on thepremise thatconstruction of meaning occurs through interactions. This studybegan with the premise that beliefs are personal constructions of63meaning relying heavily on personal experience which teachers actupon when teaching.Another term that applies to this study is “ethnography.”This term is often used interchangeably with “qualitativeresearch”; as such, it is defined as “interactive research whichrequires extensive time in the field to observe, interview, andrecord processes as they occur naturally in a selected site”(MacMillan & Schumaker, 1989, p. 382). But because this termoriginated in the field of anthropology, it is often seen ashaving a cultural perspective. “Ethnographers’ goals are toshare in the meanings that the cultural participants take forgranted and then to depict the new understanding for the readerand for outsiders” (Bogdan & Bilken, 1982, P. 36). Because theculture of the classroom is an issue in the study, and itexamines the perception of this culture from the teachers’ insideperspective, ethnography is an appropriate theoretical descriptorfor this study.A third term is “field research”, which refers to thecollection of data in natural settings as opposed to artificalones set up in a laboratory (Bogdan & Bilken, 1982). But thedifference between field research and traditional experimentalapproaches 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 inexperimental settings. This philosophy insists that the physicaland the natural world are the same — that there is only one64“real” reality and that researchers must remove themselves fromthis reality in order to study it (Kirby & McKenna, 1989).Controlling as many variables as possible is key to establishingthis reality, so that it may be generalized to many situationsand therefore be considered reliable. In contrast to positivism,field research has an emergent design, focusing on reality fromthe point of view of the participants. So the underlyingphilosophy is one of a socially constructed reality, or multiplerealities as defined by the participants in social situations(McMillan & Schumaker, 1989).Clearly, the philosophy of a socially constructed realityunderlies this study. What is sought is not a universal realityabout the integration of art and language; rather, this studyseeks to understand how two individual teachers integrate art andlanguage through an examination of their beliefs about knowledge,learning and integration. It seeks to define their “reality” inteaching an integrated art and language curriculum.Validity and Reliability in Qualitative ApproachesIt is important to all research, whatever methodology isemployed, to yield valid and reliable results. But the measureof validity and reliability is related to the methodology and itsunderlying philosophy. In quantitative research, numbers andmeasurement document consistencies in behavior; thus they usedefinitions of validity and reliability that relate to theinstrumentations employed to show these consistencies (MacMillan65& Schumaker, 1989). In contrast, qualitative research assumesmeaningfulness of human actions depends on the contexts orsituations in which these actions, feelings, and perceptionsoccur. So for qualitative research to have validity, it mustaccurately reflect what the research participants do, feel andperceive (Kirby & McKenna, 1989). Because of lengthy datacollection periods, the use of participants’ own language and theuse of natural settings, validity is seen as a major strength ofqualitative research (McMillan & Schumaker, 1989).But if validity is its strength, then reliability is aserious threat to much qualitative research. Qualitativeresearchers tend to view reliability as a fit between what theyrecord as data and what actually occurs in the setting understudy (Bilken & Bogdan, 1982). Reliability is reflected in thedecisions that qualitative researchers make throughout the entireresearch process. The qualitative researcher “attempts tobalance a respect for the complexity of reality with the need tosimplify for analytical and communication purposes” (McMillan &Schumaker, 1989, p. 419). This involves narrowing and definingthe focus of the study, explaining the underlying assumptions ofthat focus, and connecting the focus to established theory. Thisdefines where the study is coming from, or the analyticalpremises upon which the study is built. it is important inestablishing the reliability of a study that these premises bemade explicit so that it is understood what conceptual framework66informs the study. Then findings can be integrated or contrastedfrom this framework.The first two chapters of this study attempt to provide thisframework. But it is also necessary that, as research“instruments,” researchers make explicit the following aspects ofthe research design: a) informant selection, b) data collectionstrategies, c) researcher role, 4) data analysis strategies(adapted from MacMillan & Schumaker, 1989, p. 189). Thefollowing section attempts to do this by explaining the decisionsmade in each of these aspects for this study.Design and Methodology of This StudyThe design and methodology of this study is an explanationof the decisions made through the research process.Informant SelectionIntermediate grade teachers were chosen for this studybecause, for the most part, these grades are taught by a singleclassroom teacher, so elements that would affect integration thatare outside the control of the teacher, such as time—tabling andteaching only a specific subject specialty, would not be afactor. Also, the intermediate grades are traditionally atransitional one in curricula, particularly in the language arts.Early grades, especially with the advent of movements such aswhole language, tend to focus on children and their learning ofthe procedures and skills involved in reading and writing. Thereis also a growing tendency to advocate child-centered learning in67the primary grades, as is evidenced by new curricula (Ministry ofEducation, 1991), with content mostly serving as a motivator anda prop for learning to read and write.The intermediate grades usually bring a shift in emphasisaway from procedures and skills and toward content. Oncestudents have these language skills they can then apply them todifferent content areas. Increasingly, schools are more content—driven as students get older (kmdur, 1993). Therefore,integration may have a more delineated content—oriented focus inthe intermediate grades involving more of the content fromdifferent subjects, like art. So how teachers’ beliefs aboutintegration may be affected by a traditionally more content-focused curriculum will be addressed.The selection of the two teachers involved in the casestudies was on the basis of a number of criteria. Willingness toparticipate was a major factor in case selection. It involvedfinding teachers who have enough confidence and reflectiveness toexamine their belief systems. It also required elements of trustand reciprocity to exist in the researcher/researcheerelationship; since I was approaching teachers that I had notpreviously met, initial interviews were used to establish rapporton both sides. The professed beliefs of the teacher also had aninfluence on case selection; because the integration of art andlanguage are the focus of this study, a professed commitment tothis integration was necessary. This involved case selection onthe basis of interest and experience. I wished to study one68teacher with. interest and experience in integrating art andanother teacher with interest and experience in integratinglanguage. This provided perspectives from the two content areas.This study took place in the çDranbrook School District insoutheast British Columbia. Cranbrook is a city of approximately16,000 residents. The main industries are forestry and mining.There is also a large contingent of provincial civil servantssince the city serves as the center of the East Kootenay region.The population is very homogeneous in ancestry; 96% of people wholive here are of western European descent (McCreary Commission,1993). There are approximately 30 intermediate grade teachers inthis district.Locating teachers for my study took place using a snow-ballsampling technique. I did not know any teachers in the district,so I relied on “word of mouth”. I started at the schooldistrict office, where, after agreeing to allow me to proceedwith my study in their school district, the Director ofInstruction and the Director of Curriculum offered severalsuggestions. After contacting the teachers and requesting aninitial interview, I went out to the teachers’ schools andexplained my study and the commitment involved. Often theteachers offered names of other teachers that they felt fit mycriteria. I contacted all the teachers suggested to me, a totalof eleven, and all together I completed seven initial interviews.These interviews consisted of an introduction to myself andmy study. I explained the purpose of my study, and the criteria69that I was looking for in the teachers to be studied. Most feltthat they lacked sufficient expertise in the area of art. Somefelt that the time commitment was too much for them. Twoteachers had switched from intermediate to primary and thereforedid not fit my criteria. From the initial interviews I chose twoteachers that I felt best fit my criteria. Both had somereluctance about participating initially.The first teacher, whom I refer to as Paul, taught a classof 28 grade seven students. The school where he taught was thelargest elementary school in Cranbrook, with approximately 450students. The school is located in an older area of Cranbrookwith mostly low- to middle-income housing.Initially, Paul felt that he did not match my criteria verywell because he felt deficient in formal art training, havingonly taken one curriculum class in the subject. Nevertheless hisname was the only one that came up consistently as arecommendation for an “art expert” for the intermediate grades.As well, in the initial interview he indicated a lot of interestin pursuing artistic activities himself. He participated in manyin—services and conferences in the area of art education. Hisclassroom was also covered with students’ art. He had the Art inAction (Hubbard, 1987) series in his classroom, including theposters. His was the only classroom I had visited in the initialinterviews that had any art curriculum materials visible, so Iexpressed my confidence in his meeting my criteria. However, hewas also having a difficult year and felt that my observations70may not yield “good” data because of discipline problems. Again,I explained that I would be interested in investigating howdiscipline problems may affect how he integrated art andlanguage. He agreed to participate, although he did not feelcompletely reassured that I would be satisfied with the data Iwould collect.The second teacher, whom I refer to as Janice, taught aclass of 23 grade five students. The school where she taught wasin a new area of Cranbrook, where most of the housing was middle—to high-income. She agreed to participate in my study after twoweeks of deliberation because she was not sure she could committhe time to the project. However, her interest in art andlanguage integration, plus the fact that she was planning onbeginning her master’s program in the fall and was veryinterested in the process, convinced her to participate.In the initial interview, both teachers were veryapproachable and easily and eloquently expressed their views onart and language education, which boded well for me both in termsof their self—confidence in their teaching style, and in terms ofestablishing a good rapport. Both remained easy to approach,even with difficult or threatening questions, and at ease with meobserving in their classrooms.Data Collection StrategiesIn order to provide the “thick description” (Bogdan &Bilken, 1982) characteristic of qualitative research, data was71collected from a number of sources using a number of differentstrategies. This also increased the validity of the data; afocus on the combining of methods of investigation is known astriangulation (Burgess, 1984).Data was collected from one integrated unit of study (ofapproximately eight weeks duration) from these two intermediategrade teachers. Data collection strategies included:1) Pre—unit Interviews: semi—structured and open—endedinterviews (see Appendix A for the question guide) focusing onthe teachers’ general principles and beliefs about a) knowledgestructure, particularly in relation to art and language, b) theway 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 toobserve. Underlying beliefs inherent in the materials used werenoted.3) Classroom Observation: observations from the classroomduring the unit of study. Eight visits of approximately twohours each were made to each classroom. Field notes were kept.4) Post—unit Interviews: “stimulated recall interviewsfocusing on the teachers’ explanations of their teachingpractices” (Nespor, 1987, p. 317). These interviews took theform of explanations of the beliefs that I had inferred through72the previous data collection procedures (see Appendix B for thefinal interview guides), and the teachers’ reactions and commentsto my inferences. Notes were taken from these interviews.Researcher RoleBecause the study of events as they occur naturally isofgreat significance in qualitative research, the researcher needsa clearly understood role within this natural setting.Moreover,since all research is done by someone, it is essential that that“someone” is identified in some way and accounted forin theresearch (Kirby & McKenna, 1989, p. 49). My role in thisresearch needs to be examined from three perspectives:first as acollector and interpreter of data, second as an interviewer andthird as a participant-observer.First, it was necessary for me as a researcher to keep fieldnotes throughout the entire research process. Thisinvolved twoseparate components, content notes and process notes. In contentnotes I recorded information on the actions and interactions ofthe teacher and students, the material studied, conversations,etc. Process notes were used to record informationabout my ownthoughts, reactions and ideas. This was an importantaspect ofdata collection because it was in a sense “research self—monitoring” — a continuous and rigorous questioning andreevaluation of the research process (McMillan & Schumaker, 1989,p. 192). writing process notes occurred not only for interviews73and field note collection, but all the way through the researchprocess.Second, because interviews were an important data collectionprocedure in this study, my position as an interviewer needsexplanation. I conducted three interviews for each case study.Both teachers were unknown to me before I approached them toparticipate in my study, so our relationships began on aresearcher/researchee basis. Because both teachers wereconsiderably older than me and had considerably more teachingexperience (22 years each compared to my three), there was noquestion 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 factthat I was not a colleague afforded me some “stranger value”(Burgess, 1984); since I had no relationship outside of theresearcher role, previous factors that might have affected thedynamics of the interviews were not present.Finally, most field researchers conducting observations takea position along a continuum from a full participant in thesocial setting to an unnoticed observer. The degree ofinvolvement of the researcher is something that is negotiatedbetween the researcher, the participants and the setting orcontext of the observations (Kirby & McKenna, 1989). Fullparticipants have a role in the social setting apart from theirresearch roles, and are totally immersed in the setting throughthat role. Full observers would have no involvement in the74social setting, although on some level, there is communicationtaking place between those who observe and those who participate(Bogdan & Bilken, 1982).In both case studies, my role was closer to observer than toparticipant. In the classrooms, I was introduced to the studentsas a teacher doing some observations about art and language. Thestudents in both classes readily accepted this and neverquestioned my being present. I made an effort not to interferein the way the teachers’ presented lessons by remaining stillwhile the teacher was talking, by keeping quiet and by sittingoff to the side. During work periods I talked with students,observed their work, listened to the students interacting, andlistened to the teachers as they interacted individually withstudents.My role was slightly different in the two classes. InPaul’s class, I never interacted in class activities, and henever referred to me in class after introducing me. I talked tostudents directly during work periods, although students oftenseemed surprised when I did this. I felt that I was present asan observer mostly as I participated very little. In Janice’sclass, she made a point of including me in class discussions andin some activities. I also talked to students directly duringwork periods, and they seemed quite comfortable with this.Janice and I also conversed frequently during work periods. So Ihad more opportunities to participate in her class; yet my rolewas still mostly that of an observer. It is important that in75both cases, my degree of participation was determined by theteacher, and I followed their lead. Because having a goodworking relationship with the teachers was of prime importance tome as a researcher, I felt it was necessary that the observationsshould be on their terms.With both teachers I had conversations before and afterclasses. Fortunately, both seemed comfortable with me observingin their classes and asking them questions about their teaching.Data Analysis StrategiesFollowing the methodology of qualitative research, thisstudy had an emergent design. Because the teachers’ beliefs werethe unit of study, establishing what these were and how they wereutilized in teaching integrated art and language was key.From pre—unit interviews, data about each teacher’sprofessed beliefs was analyzed along three broad concept areas.The first is the teachers’ professed beliefs about the nature ofknowledge and how it is organized. Also included in this area isthe place of art and the place of language within the teachers’beliefs about knowledge. Careful attention was paid to whattraditional views of art and language are, and what traditionalclassroom practices are, so that unreflected assumptions aboutthese issues were examined. The next concept area was theteachers’ professed beliefs on the way students best learnknowledge, and the way teachers can best facilitate thislearning. Understanding where the teachers place themselves76along the continuum from child—centered to knowledge—centeredlearning was key in this concept area. Obviously there are manyoverlappings of these concepts with concepts about the nature of•knowledge. Consistencies and contrasts were examined. The finalconcept area was the teachers’ beliefs about integration,especially as it related to the previous two concept areas. Aworking definition of what integration means for each teacher wasformed.The concepts that have emerged from this initial analysishad an important impact on how the examination of curriculumdocuments, the classroom observations and the post—unitinterviews were undertaken and analyzed. I attempted to followthe teachers’ professed beliefs through the processes of planningand delivering lessons, looking for consistencies and contrasts,in order to understand how their professed beliefs were put intopractice. Thus an ongoing analysis was an element in thisprocess. Process notes taken from the interviews and the fieldobservations were an integral part of this analysis.At the end of data collection, the data was reviewed andthen coded according to concepts that emerged from datacollection and from the review of the data. The coding processtook the form of placing “bibbits” of information from the datainto appropriate concept files (Kirby & McKenna, 1989). Eachbibbit was cross—referenced if placed in more than one file; thecross—referencing allowed me to see broader patterns ofrelationships in the data. This was not a direct and smooth77process; considerable reflection, renaming, shifting andreorganizing occurred. The results of the process of developingconcepts and concept groups and examining the interrelationshipsamong these groups formed the basis for the data analysis,summarized in the following chapter.78CHAPTER IVSUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSISIntroductionThis summary deals with each of the case studies separately.First, there will be an introduction for each case study. Thenthe major concept areas that arose from data analysis will beoutlined. This analysis was ongoing throughout the researchprocess; while initial interviews provided a framework for theteachers’ beliefs, this summary encompasses the understanding ofthese beliefs from the entire research process. Understanding ofthe beliefs of these two teachers changed and grew as I gained anunderstanding of how their beliefs were put into practice intheir classrooms.The interviews, curriculum documents and the observationsare cited and noted in this analysis. To aid the reader inunderstanding these, an explanation of the notes is in order.Interviews begin with the letters “Int”. This is followed by a1 or a 2, indicating the first and the second interviews. Thisis followed by a letter: “p” for Paul’s interviews or a “j” forJanice’s interviews. Next there appears two numbers, the pagenumber and the line number from the interview transcript.Curriculum documents are noted by the letters “Curdoc”, followedby a number, the page number. Observations are noted by theletters “Ob”, followed by a “p” for observations in Paul’s79classroom or a “j” for observations in Janice’s classroom. Nextare the page number and line number of the field notes.Case Study 1: PaulAfter agreeing to participate in my study, I met with Paulin early February, 1994 for the initial interview. Paul is ateacher with 22 years of experience. He began his career as ahigh school math teacher. He switched to the elementary grades“to get a job” (Intlp 1, 3). He has remained at the upperintermediate grade level ever since. He likes several thingsabout this grade level. He likes the freedom of the timetable.Moreover, he finds the elementary classroom “more of a socialexistence, in the same room with the same kids all day. It’smore interesting, more work” (Intip 1, 10).He holds a Bachelor of Education degree with a major inmathematics as well as a Masters of Education degree inCurriculum Studies andAdministration, that he completed in 1987through a distance education program from Gonzaga University inWashington State. His only formal art education training was acourse he took when he first started teaching elementary school.In the month following the first interview he was beginninga student—directed unit in social studies on Ancient Egypt, so wedecided I would observe some of these classes. He often usedactivities in language arts and art that were integrated,although all of these activities were not thematically linked.80So we also agreed that I would be present when integratedlanguage and art activities were planned.I made a total of seven visits for observations to hisclass, each lasting approximately two hours, from February toMay, 1994. The curricular materials used were all of Paul’s own;none included any formal statement of intent, objectives orpurposes for the lessons; therefore data collected from thesematerials are very limited. The following summary of dataanalysis incorporates the data collected from the initialinterview, the observations, and the final interview along threebroad concept areas: 1) beliefs about knowledge, 2) beliefs aboutthe role of the teacher and the role of the students in knowledgeacquisition, and 3) beliefs about the integration.Beliefs about KnowledgeThe purpose of this analysis was to gain some understandingof what Paul believed about the nature of knowledge and how it isorganized. Important to this analysis is the organization thatPaul did for his work that I observed in the classroom. Thisanalysis 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 contentupon which they operate. Paul believed differently. Processesplayed a prominent role in what he believed knowledge was, andcontent a supporting role.81This became apparent in several ways; the most prominentwere in the ways he organized lessons and units. He did notorganize the content of the lessons I observed into arecognizable unit structure. Because I was observing a unit onAncient Egypt, I asked to see the materials that he used to teachthis unit. He had it in a box,. which contained exclusivelycontent material about Egypt: maps, booklets xeroxed from books,pictures. He also gave me the student contract, included on thenext page (Figure 2). The assignment rules provide the onlywritten organizing structure of this unit. The curricularmaterials for the art/language arts lessons that I observedconsisted of worksheets with boxes for the drawings that Paul haddeveloped. I had no concrete evidence of the purposes,objectives and rationale for what Paul taught or how he taught itfrom examining these.His room contained five bulletin boards; all of thesecontained student art work. These changed weekly; everyassignment was displayed. Examination of this work showedattention to technical aspects of art in the assignments; oneobviously related to analogous colour schemes. Another had to dowith form and movement. While these aspects of what was taughtshowed in the art work, no specific content area could bediscerned (Obp 1, 3).Beliefs that Paul held about the nature of knowledge itselfand how knowledge was organized for presentation in the classroomwere inferred mainly from the interviews and observations. I was1xjCD t%)0’ j2 UI U) Ct0 (U CtC) 0 Ct‘1 0’ C) CtOZ t%)lb F Ii!(A: IL L I83challenged 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 thoughtthan for the content of those thoughts. His own thoughtprocesses had a prominent position in what he presented in theclassroom. Paul’s teaching was a very personal activity. Hismain interest was how the students used the knowledge; thus hisfocus was on procedural knowledge.Paul stated: “What I do has grown from thieving” (Intip 1,31), from courses, inservices and from other teachers. He likedto mentally organize, or “see how things fit together. I see theend—product and then visualize or draw out the steps” (Intip 2,2). Thus the way he personally organized and understood thingswas very important in determining what he taught. Paul’s senseof himself as a learner had a great impact on what he taught. Animportant example for this study was his use of visualization.He saw visualization as important when he learnt something, andvisual learning held a prominent place in his teaching (Intip 2,5). This was particularly influential in his way of integratingart and language, which will be discussed later.He followed no formal curricula in either art or languagearts. What was important, as far as teaching was concerned, wasto “follow processes for learning” (Intip 2, 9). Theseprocesses, as he defined them, were the basis of what hepresented in the classroom. This emphasis on process posed•84somewhat of a problem in deciding what content I would observe inhis class. He did not teach thematically organized units, nordid his units have a pre-defined beginning, middle and end. Forhim “content fills in to meaningful work” (Intip 2, 31). Whatthe students learned was not so important as the ways oflearning. He stated that “content gets learned in this form; butmore importantly, they learn to think for themselves” (Intip 2,17).Beliefs about the Role of the Teacher and the Role of the Studentin Knowledge AcquisitionThis concept area is aimed at understanding where Paul wouldfall along a continuum from child—centered learning to knowledge—centered learning. This was influenced greatly by Paul’s senseof knowledge as being process—based rather than content—based.Paul paid attention to individual differences in learningstyles, although his process-directed method of teaching did notalways address these individual needs. He spoke of one studentwho “froze” every time he was asked to do visual work:There’s some kind of block there — a physicalblock in the brain. He just cannot think invisual terms. When he’s asked to draw, hebecomes disruptive - will do anything butwhat he’s been asked to do. And normallythat’s not a problem (Int2p 4,7).Providing opportunities to work in their own learning styleswas an important goal of his self-directed unit on Ancient Egypt.Also important to his method of teaching is being explicit aboutthe standards for work:85I like using ways of learning that let thestudents choose and structure their ownunits. I want them to think for themselves,all working in their own learning styles.But I do have some expectations set up inminimum standards. For instance, I could notallow that no writing takes place. I have tohave standards that I am happy with (Intlp 2,14).Standards: His use of standards is integrally related toteaching that is very procedurally directed. Paul states, “Ifeel very directed. I explain it so there are no loopholes”(Intip 7, 22). “I do have very specific criteria. I can’t markit if I don’t lay down criteria.... Poor attempts led me toadopt these criteria” (Intip 10, 28).In observing him teach, I did note several instances ofPaul’s standards (Obp 9, 5; Obp 12, 29; Obp 14, 14). An exampleis his standards for booklets that the students were making onthe novel A Wrinkle in Time, written by Madeleine L’Engle. Hewanted them to “imagine a snippet in time” from each chapter andcapture it in a picture, with a sentence for a caption (Intip 10,17). The following are the criteria he had the students place onthe inside cover of their booklets:1) Titles at the top - spelling and capitals2) Sentence - full, written with liner3) Spelling, punctuation and capitals4) People — large, full—body, front views,realistic5) Colour all page - top to bottom6) Background - details drawn in andcolored7) Cover — title, your name and picture8) Handwriting - all your best (Obp 12, 29)86When asked if he felt that these standards may limit thestudents’ responses, he replied:I try to leave them a lot of freedom to dowhat they can do, but if I don’t haveanything to base marks on, it’s not fair tome. There is still room for interpretationand creativity. I feel it encourages them todo better work ... I must hold some kind ofstandard - I give the expectation that theyreach for a quality. I start with theassumption that they are being as creative asthey can be. Sometimes I’ll practically for them to give them guidance and allowthem some feeling of success” (Intip 10, 34).There appeared to be some conflict between his goal ofhaving students think for themselves and the procedurallydirected way in which he taught. He believed that the process heoutlined would lead to student understanding at an advanced level- that they would synthesize, interpret and evaluate through thelearning activity. Moreover, he felt that these learningexperiences would lead to creative expression. He stated, “Ifeel the standards encourage them to do better work. I giveevery chance to be creative, and the benefit of the doubt isalways toward creative aspects” (Intip 11, 6). But what heexpected standards to do and what the students actually used themfor was at odds. This, he admitted, causes him a lot offrustration (Int2p 1, 26). Students often got caught up in thestandards and saw them as the goals of the activity. In effect,they saw the standards as the content to be learned rather than apart of the process that would lead to learning, which was whatPaul intended.87For example, while observing the students working on theirWrinkle in Time booklets, I noted:It seems that students are very concernedabout 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 ofdrawing ability - most have traced theirillustrations. As I walk around I hear thefollowing 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 discrepancybetween what he expected the standards to do and how his studentsappeared to use them. This brought into play another majorconcept. We discussed at length the students’ motivation tolearn.Students’ Motivation to Learn: Paul found the group ofstudents that he had this year a disciplinary challenge. Much ofthe frustration that he experienced over their preoccupation withthe standards were attributed to the students’ lack of desire tolearn. For Paul, this was a quality of the students; theyarrived in his class with a lack of willingness and it wasdifficult for him to influence it (Int2p 1, 19). He felt thatthe responsibility for learning clearly belonged to the students:“They can all develop the personal discipline to follow mydirections” (Intip 11, 10).Because in past years he had taught students that were opento learning, he felt strongly that it was not him or his way of88teaching, but the students that made the difference:(In past years) the kids loved having controlover what they learned. Mostly they did muchmore work. But some kids would do nothing.Kids who like working really like theindividualization but some kids just do notwant to think. This year I don’t do as much.For them, picking and choosing is likedeclaring a holiday” (Intip 3, 4).The discipline problems that he was experiencing had aneffect on what he taught and the way he taught it. Providing avery process—organized structure was necessary for Paul inorderto maintain control. He found this very draining on his energy,because he felt that he was constantly “policing” (Intlp 3, 15).He stated, “Students expect things to be handed to them”(Intip 3, 8). This implied that, in trying to maintain orderthrough explicit directions, he did more of the work. Work, inthis instance, meant the thinking and organizing that Paulintended the students to do through the activities that hepresented. Paul ended up spending his time and energy doingthis thinking. On top of that burden, he then had to “police” tobring this externalized thinking to the students. It wasunderstandable that this was tiring, as Paul professed it to be(Intip 8, 6).It is also understandable that students perceived thestandards as the goals of the activity. Paul did in effect dothe thinking for them and then hand it to them, as he felt forcedto do because he felt the students would not do any work if he89did not. But providing work to the standards’ specificationsbecame the only work that he asked of the students.Trust: Paul did not trust that the students would do thethinking on their own, and felt a duty to have them achieve to acertain overall standard. So he really worked hard, and did“hand things to them.” He did not trust the students to do thework without his very directed and explicit lessons.I observed that Paul’s approach to his discipline problemsworked for him. The students in his class were “under control” —there was no evidence of serious discipline problems when Iobserved in his classroom. Paul stated: “They’ll all do gradeseven work - 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). Paulmaintained that they could get through the work because he chosecarefully what he felt these students could handle. Forinstance, he stated: “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’steaching. Having a good working relationship was important toPaul: “I like teaching the students, rather than the subjectmatter” (Intlp 1, 14). To teach the way he would like to, trustin the working relationship with the students was an absolutenecessity.He worked to build trust in that relationship in two ways.Having standards, for him, built trust. The students know what90he expected of them, because he told them explicitly. “They arenot going to be surprisedby any marks they receive” (Int2p 1,33). The second way that he built trust was integrally relatedto the integration of school and self; he actively encouraged hisstudents to bring their own ideas for content into the classroom.This overlap leads into the analysis on Paul’s beliefs aboutintegration.Beliefs about IntegrationIntegration of School and Self: Paul was very accepting ofstudents’ ideas. He elicited their ideas and experiences inclassroom work, so that the students used their own interests andexperiences to “fill in to learning processes” that Paulprescribed. He showed that he valued what they brought to theclassroom, as I noted during observing:Five or six students are actively involvedwhen Paul asks them to make connections ofarticles and information in A Wrinkle in Timeto their own experiences and to makepredictions about what is going to happen inthe story (Obp 11, 30).One boy, Jon, refers to his Calvin and Hobbescartoon book to get words for his noises ofwalking through mud. This seems to help thekids who could make the noises but had noidea how to spell them. Now three or fourboys are eagerly searching through their owncartoon books. Paul finally takes a book andwrites examples on the board (Obp 6, 4).In these examples, Paul actively encouraged their input. He wasvery animated when eliciting their ideas and accepted themwithout qualification (Obp 6, 7), except on one occasion, when I91noted 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 excitedlythat they are including comics and showinghim the Calvin and Hobbes strip that theyhave glued on their paper. ‘Is it aboutEgypt?’ he asks. ‘What?’ asks the girl,uncomprehending. ‘Well, if it is an Egyptianpaper, the comics should reflect that theme.There, look at this Far Side cartoon. It’sabout a mummy. Now that would beappropriate.’ The girls look slightlychastised (Obp 9, 16).When the trust in the working relationship between studentand teacher was not there, Paul felt compelled to change histeaching toward a more directed approach. And this change wasfrustrating. When asked why he thought that he was having aproblem with these students, Paul stated that the students thathe had this year did not seem to trust themselves to learn. Outof the 28, 13 came from broken homes. He had three students whohad been convicted under the Young Offenders Act. Paul believedthese factors “seriously undermined confidence in their abilityto learn” (Int2p 2, 16).Social Interaction: He also saw the social interactions inthe class as having a detrimental effect on learning for thewhole class. Because a few of the students with “a terribleattitude toward learning” also were socially dominant, “the otherkids are dragged down. They just follow, or they are just there”(Iritip 9, 24).92While observing, I noted that students were not asked towork together, except on one occasion. During this lesson, I sawone glaring example of peer influence that was detrimental to thework of the students involved:The students have just been placed intogroups of five or six according to proximity.One group that I am standing near has notstarted their task. Sean has placed his backto Christina, effectively blocking her out ofthe group. When Paul comes over, he asks thegroup to shift to accommodate Christina.Sean studiously ignores this, and continuesto talk to the other group members whilekeeping his back to Christina. Paul quietlyasks Christina to join another group. Sean’sgroup, subsequently, does not complete thetask they are given. Christina does notparticipate in her new group’s discussion,either” (Obp 17, 9).There appeared to be a lack of trust on Paul’s part over theissue of learning through peer interactions. Paul saw theseinteractions as being detrimental to learning in his class, andthis example supports this claim. Again, he did not trust thatthey would learn.Vertical Integration: The students’ ability to use.procedures that were previously presented in Paul’s class wasimpaired by the students’ perception of the standards as thecontent of the lesson. “Each day we seem to start from scratchagain” (Int2p 1, 42). This clearly was a root cause of Paul’sfrustration as this outcome was almost opposite to hisintentions. I pointed to the following example of the students’using previously learned procedures that I had observed duringthe students’ work on Ancient Egypt:93About half the students are writing. They’rewriting notes into squared paper, cutting outthe squares and then organizing their notesinto a ‘mind map.’ Obviously this is aprocedure that they have used before (Obp 8,21)But Paul felt that they just followed the procedure withoutactually doing any thinking, as their mind-maps “just stuckinformation in any place without any sense of organization. Theyjust don’t understand the purpose” (Int2p 2, 1).In one observatIon period, I watched the students createposters for Earth Day. This was the only time that I observed inPaul’s class where he had not procedurally directed what theyshould do. They had a great deal of difficulty:All the students start with lettering.Despite the fact that they had done blocklettering using a grid in a lesson the weekbefore (and Paul had just reminded them ofthis), the students were having a lot ofdifficulty with centering and spaces (Obp 16,1)Integration of Art and Language: Paul had a very definiteidea that visual and verbal learning go together. Personally, asa learner, he was very visual (Intlp 2, 4). This visuality wasvery influential on the way he integrated. When paired with hisbelief in the prominence of process in the nature of knowledge,his beliefs about the integration of art and language were basedin how art and language are used in thinking.An example of this is the booklets that the students made onthe novel A Wrinkle in Time, mentioned previously. Here thestudents were asked to translate visually the language that theyheard. Involved in this assignment was the idea of “a snippet in94time” that the students were to visualize (Intip, 10, 18). I wasstruck by the use of time as an element in the assignment for tworeasons. First, visual images have a different means ofconveying time that does language; visual images do not movethrough time, but are, in a sense, static. So it seemed thathaving the students use visual images was particularlyappropriate to capture “snippets”. The second reason that theuse of time struck me related to the theme of the book. Itseemed an interesting dimension content—wise.It was interesting to note that when I expressed myappreciation of the relationship of this assignment to the themeof time, Paul was quite dismissive of this. “Yes, I see, butwhat is important is the translation of the words, thevisualization” (Int2p 1, 3). While the content integration hadinterested me, this was secondary to the processes for Paul.An example of a student’s visual “snippet” from a chapter hasbeen included on the following page (Figure 3).Paul taught four lessons that integrated art with variousaspects of English grammar. One of these lessons was on thetopic of misplaced modifiers:The class is studying misplaced modifiers.Paul asks the students to write them and thenshare them with the class. Then, after tenminutes Paul introduces the idea of visualequivalents to misplaced modifiers. Heinstructs them to ‘visualize the problem’ andto ‘cartoonize it’ (Obp 8, 1).95FIGURE 3: Michelle’s Visual Translation of a“Snippet of Time”4 ‘1I /I,ii_______q: jjIr&1(1 196The students had a great time drawing such oddities as “The womansat on the chair with the red dress on.” The drawing aided thestudents in understanding that the modifier is misplaced in avery graphic sense.Another lesson involved onomatopoeia:Paul introduces the work ‘onomatopoeia’.Students are writing down examples and Paulis writing their suggestions on the board.Several students are making the noises theyare writing down and are enjoying theirinvestigations immensely. Kids seem fairlyuncertain about the writing - ‘How can Ispell a whistle?’ ... Then he directs thestudents to picture ‘just the words.’ Heasks for colours, outlines, bubbles, etc. Nocharacters (Obp 13, 20).This exercise involved complex integration of listening, writingand drawing. The students had to imagine a sound, translate itinto phonemes to write down in a word, and then take that wordand draw it as a picture. The meaning of the picture would beheavily involved with the meaning of the sound and the meaning inthe word.Several assignments involved using words to make visualstatements, including a lesson on positive and negative space:This time they are taking two three-letterwords and blocking them in, one on top of theother using a grid. Paul has been verydirected in the procedure they are to follow.They are then to colour in the negativespaces between the letters. At first thestudents aren’t sure what they’re doing.When Paul asks them to erase the lines of theletters they are amazed at their visualpuzzles (Obp 14, 14).Another lesson involved using a word to make a picture thatportrayed the shape, texture, and colours of the word:97The students drew their words. One girl isworking on ‘tree’ in the shape of a palmtree. She has put the word ‘leaves’ for eachof the leaves; Paul comments to me that shedoes not really have the idea. One picture -that really intrigues me is ‘water.’ Iwonder what motivated Annie to pick a wordthat has no definite shape; she has to relyon colour, texture and other qualities (Obp17, 6).These two lessons connect the thought processes involved in artand language. They deal with more formal technical aspects ofart — positive and negative space and form, texture and colour ina way that relies on the use of language. Here language becomesthe content of visual expression.More generalized understandings, such as the structures inlanguage — misplaced modifiers and onomatopoeia, and thestructures in art — positive and negative space, were featured inthese 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’tdo that much integrating” (Intlp 12, 13), but in observation thiswas clearly meant in terms of content. The processes involved inart 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. It’s a different wayof knowing your students” (Intlp 7, 9).SummaryCentral to Paul’s beliefs about the integration of art andlanguage was his view of knowledge as primarily process—based.98Content was secondary, and it filled in to the processes ofthought.While he wanted the students to achieve deeperunderstandings through these thought processes, his lessons wereorganized around strict standards. Paul outlined specificallythe procedure his students were to follow in lessons. He sawthese standards as providing a minimum level of acceptable work,but that the real goals of the activities were the understandingsthat came from following the process. He also saw the standardsas building security and trust in the teacher/studentrelationship. Often the opposite of his intentions were noted.Students treated the standards as the content to be learned; thusthey gained very little procedural knowledge from following them.Also Paul’s lack of trust in the students’ abilities to learnseemed to be reinforced through strict standards.What standards did for Paul was allow him to satisfy what hefelt were the requirements of his job; he was going to have thesestudents achieve to a minimum standard, and he was going to havehis class in control.In terms of integration, his beliefs about knowledge showedan understanding of thought processes that were visual, and thatthese thought processes were integrally involved with language.Visual procedures were very strong in his lesson planning,echoing a personal bias toward visual learning.99Case Study 2: JaniceAfter agreeing to participate in my study, Janice and I metfor the initial interview in March of 1994. Janice has 22 yearsof experience in the field of teaching: 20 years of classroomteaching at the elementary school level and two years as thelocal teachers’ association president. She began teaching in1966 after obtaining a three-year diploma from the University ofVictoria. She returned to university through part-time distanceeducation from the University of Victoria after many years ofteaching. Her areas of specialization are language arts and art.She completed the final two years for her five-year Bachelor ofEducation degree in 1986. She plans to begin studying for aMaster’s degree in Educational Counselling in the fall of 1994.She had just begun an integrated unit on horses. She hadtaught this theme several times before; it was one of herfavorites:This unit on horses is good. It is reallyeasy to do in that is easy to set up theliterature base — there is such amultiplicity of books on the subject (Intlj4, 8).Because it involved a strong language arts base and Janice alsofelt that there was a lot of art potential in the unit, wedecided that I would observe in her class for the duration. Imade a total of ten visits to her classroom for observations fromMarch, 1994 until May, 1994, each lasting approximately an hourand a half.100The curricular materials that she used during this unit shekept in two binders: one was a pre—packaged collection ofmaterials produced by the school board on the novel KIng of theWind, written by Marguerite Henry, and the second was acollection that Janice had amassed herself on the theme ofhorses. Also examined was a chapter on an learning strategycalled “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 finalinterview were also conducted. The final interview took placeafter the observations were completed, in June of 1994.The summary of the data analysis that follows incorporatesthe understandings of the beliefs gained from these sources thatJanice holds in three broad concept areas: 1) beliefs aboutknowledge, 2) beliefs about the role of the teacher and the roleof the student in knowledge acquisition and 3) beliefs aboutintegration.Beliefs about KnowledgeIn order to understand Janice’s beliefs about knowledge, itwas important first to outline exactly what she presented asknowledge in the classroom; so the integrated unit on horses isdescribed first. Then the framework that underlies this unit isanalyzed, with particular attention being paid to her beliefsabout art and language.101The Integrated Unit: Janice’s approach to presentation ofknowledge in the classroom displayed a fair amount oforganization of content materials, which was apparent from themoment that I entered her classroom. Four bulletin boards werecovered with pictures and information about horses. She had abookshelf full of factual and fiction books relating to horses.She had several “How to Draw Horses” books as well. Propped onthe blackboard were posters of the anatomy of horses, dealingwith the musculo—skeletal system. One wall contained a workstation on topics to do with horses. Hanging from the ceilingwere vocabulary cards. She had a saddle for a horse, a sculptureof 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 novelKinc of the Wind by Marguerite Henry. Janice read the book outloud to the students; they also each had their own copy. Mostread ahead of the activities that they did in the class. Theactivities included the following:- Students used the technique “Listen, Sketch and Draft” onfour of the chapters.— They wrote predictions on another chapter.- They wrote an opinion piece about why or why they wouldn’tlike 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 thebook into a drama presentation, complete with props and costumes.— They made lists of good events and bad events and drewlines to show how these events were connected.— They wrote about good—luck and bad—luck charms, a theme ofthe book.Also included in this unit were several worksheets. Thesewere:- A map of Europe, explaining the route traveled in thebook.— 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 andproportion.— A guest speaker: a veterinarian who came to speak on horsediseases.- A videotaped documentary about a man who lost his abilityto 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 tosaddle the horses and then took their horses on a trail ride.— Writing a research report on a breed of horse andpresenting it to the class.— Writing an adventure story with a horse as a hero orheroine (illustrations optional) and presenting it to the class.103Framework for Learning: The unit that Janice taught onhorses had a definite framework that provided insights into herbeliefs about knowledge. Two components are involved in thisframework. First, she organized materials thematically;therefore content organization was fairly prominent in herapproach. This content organization provided insight into herbeliefs about how knowledge is organized. Second, she was guidedby overriding objectives that are developmentally appropriate forher students. These two components of her framework fordeveloping her units are interwoven, as the following statementsuggests:I never say to myself, ‘That’s a socialstudies component’ because I’ve moved waybeyond setting things up by looking atdiscrete subjects. Now I tend to look at thewhole, and I tend to say to myself, ‘Allright, here’s the overriding principles Iwant to address. Are they in fact beingaddressed? And I’m looking at theintellectual, the aesthetic, and the socialdevelopment of the students. Am I reallyproviding learning opportunities that allowthem to use their strengths?’ (Intlj 6, 9).Content Organization: Janice recognized that language artswere primary in her consideration:Something like horses, if you really want tobe specific about it, would be more of ascientific subject. But it’s organizedaround the language arts area so ourexpressions of our learning the content are alot 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. Shesaw them as “a set of skills that absolutely have to be104interwoven into just about everything we do” (Intlj 12, 23).Language arts were “the mode of communication” (Intlj 12, 6),indicating her belief in the central role of language in herconceptions of knowledge. It was her perception of language asthe main vehicle of thought that underlay her ideas aboutintegration: “What happens is the very processes that are thelanguage arts allow you to integrate with other subjects” (Intlj12, 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 indifferent ways and at different rates andhave different styles, then we also have torecognize that they can represent themselvesdifferently. Then we need to recognize andaccept and celebrate! (Intlj 12, 18).Janice had developed a sense of the expression of thought ashaving many other realms. This she incorporated into herclassroom practice:What I attempt to do is have them expresstheir learning in an art form, or a dramaform. So representation of their learningcan be extended into recognition of the factthat it can be pictorial, or three-dimensional, or it can be expressed in nonverbal forms like dance and so on (Intlj 4,33)Art is an area in which Janice had a personal interest. Shealso saw it as having its own place in the curriculum:In education, I think, we have tended to feedthe mind and forget about the spirit. Andart, to me, is putting spirit back into thecurriculum (Intlj 11, 28).105She characterized an intellectual side of art:There is an intellectual component, say inart history, or in researching thedevelopmental techniques that have developedover the centuries. I don’t believe it hasbeen recognized for its true value (Intlj 11,16).It is noteworthy that her ideas pointed to art’s intellectualcharacter as being interwoven into areas where it relies onlanguage for thought development, such as research, a furtherindication of her belief in language’s primacy in thought. Butwhat interested her about art is not its “intellectual”possibilities:There is something about just being able to -not be challenged by something other than bythe self-initiated challenge in art (Intlj11, 35).Essentially, she did not characterize art as being anintellectual challenge; rather it was more idiosyncratic andexpressive in nature.For Janice, organizing knowledge for the curriculum involveda central language arts component, as the language arts wereviewed as the primary processes involved in thought. Art, aswell as other content areas, provided means of expressingthought. Art particularly provided room for the students’“spirit”, an opportunity to explore idiosyncratic challenges.Overriding Objectives: The second component in Janice’sframework for developing units were overriding objectives thatreflected the developmental appropriateness of activities for herstudents. They involved a dynamic, interactive process between106what she knew about children from her experience and what theybrought into the classroom. The content that she structured wasa reflection of this process:There’s a cut, a nice cut between providingrelevant experiences and drawing kids intothe learning and having them participate inthe learning process, and having them directthat process to the role that I assume — notso much the role of the director of thelearning process, but the facilitator.Basically we make a locally developedcurricular unit. It is being developed, inmy mind, by myself and the children as we gothrough, under some fairly broad statementsabout what is appropriate for kids to learn(Intlj 8, 27).These overriding objectives provided structure and purpose forwhat they did. She stated:I still use and still pay attention tocurricular objectives, but not in theirprescriptive form. So I’m saying that Irecognize curricular objectives for themajority of things. I don’t depart fromcurriculum in its broadest sense — from theoverriding objectives that are appropriatefor kids to develop knowledge, skills andattitudes that are appropriate in writing, orin reading or in mathematics ... (Intlj 9,29)These objectives involved having specified content:Given a direction coming from the kids as toan area of interest, I can build on and usethe resources that A) are accessible to meand B) using what they bring in, all underthe guidance of what are the appropriatelearning objectives for this group of kids(Intlj 8, 21).Janice had no conflict in directing her students to content areasin learning:I’m willing to share with students mychoices, my reasons for having chosen107something - and to be really clear about thisbeing part of the curriculum and showing themhow•the parts fit together (Intlj 6, 48).Overriding objectives, through the interaction with studentinterests and ideas and her experience and expertise, translatedinto providing relevant learning experiences for the students:What I am attempting to do is to set upexperiences that are going to cater to theirinterest level, to set up connections forthem, to allow them to work from the pointwhere they are. I have to recognize clearlythat not all kids have the same set of skillsat the same point in time. There is aspectrum of abilities and experiences thatcome to you at the beginning of September(Intlj 13, 3).The interactive process between these overriding objectives, theinterests and abilities of the students and the material that shepresented in class made it difficult for Janice to tell meexplicitly what these objectives were. In observing the processin action, it became apparent that many of these objectives notonly defined what she believed about knowledge, but what shebelieved about her role and the role of the students in knowledgeacquisition.The Role of the Teacher and the Role of the Studentsin Knowledge AcquisitionThe purpose of this analysis was to gain some understandingof where Janice fell on a continuum of child—centered learning toknowledge—centered learning. This was not a simple task; it wasconfounded by a confusion between child—centered learning andchild—centered expectations for outcomes. Also, Janice was108making transitions into more child-centered work, indicating thather beliefs were changing in this area.Relevance to Students: It was important to Janice is thather overriding objectives were addressed through the learningexperiences that she set up. One very clear objective was thatthese experiences be relevant to the students, as the followingstatement professed: “I have a really strong belief that youcan’t just decide to do this and that it is going to be relevantto kids” (Intlj 4, 18).Through her mediating process, she believed that theinterests of the students would be addressed in the experiencesshe provided in the class: “Themes are something that are goingto put the little hook in and get them engaged in the learningprocess. What sort of ownership are they going to take as we gothrough it?” (Intlj 6, 21).Because these overriding objectives overlay an interactiveprocess between the experiences she provided and what herstudents brought to the class, they took on a fluid, as opposedto a static nature. They were not written in stone, but, infact, reflected the changes in her beliefs over time:I guess what comforts me in this whole thingis that my understanding of what isappropriate for kids to learn has changeddramatically over the years. We used toreally hold ourselves in high regard - to befilled with knowledge - like a mother birdjust passing this chewed up worm into theselittle birds’ mouths... My feelings havechanged. Part of it is that I recognize thatknowledge is so much bigger than myself and Irecognize that there are so many things that109are changing while you and I are sitting here(Intlj 9, 35).This pointed to a belief in the fluidity of knowledge and Janicehad, as an overriding objective, a desire for her students togain some sense of this:I see that some of the best understandingsthat I have as a student and as an adultlearner too is that somebody else’s knowledgehas to be questioned and viewed in light ofmy past experiences before it becomes myknowledge. And so what I want to do is allowfor that same process to happen with kids interms of knowledge so that they are free toquestion it (Intlj 10, 8).Active in her teaching was having students examine andquestion what they learned. For instance, some of the boys inher class were working on a unit on the theme of space after thehorse theme had been completed. Janice had a poster of theastronauts from the first lunar landing, where they were posed onthe moon with their helmets off. Janice told me:They were horrified by this poster. They hadto make it explicitly clear to me and therest of the class that this poster was notrealistic, since they wouldn’t be able tobreathe without their helmets on (Int2j 3,17).Metacognition: Moreover, this questioning was not onlydirected at what they learned, but how they learned it. Janicestrove for a sense of metacognition for her students.A tool that Janice used to establish some sense ofmetacognition was called “Listen, Sketch and Draft”. Thisstrategy involved listening to oral reading, drawing whilelistening, discussing what has been drawn with a partner, and110drafting key points. Because there is a strong integrativecomponent, this strategy is discussed under the heading ofintegration. But it also provided opportunity for the. studentsto examine how they best learn, as Janice’s students pointed out:Janice pulls the whole class together andasks the class what they thought of doing‘Listen, Sketch ‘and Draft.’ One girl stated,‘It helps to draw, because then I canremember details.’Another said she wished she could usecolour. Janice said, ‘That is a good point,and the-re is no reason why you can’t go backto your drawings and add colour.’ She added,‘A lot of the description in the bookreferred to colour.’A boy said he liked to draw. When askedby Janice to elaborate, he said, ‘Drawinghelps me to say things.’A girl raised her hand and stated veryeloquently, ‘I find this book very difficultfor “Listen, Sketch and Draft.” A lot ofimages don’t come to my mind, but there is somuch detail in the book. I keep having toadd to what I’ve already put down!’Janice comments, ‘You certainly havethought about the process!’ (Obj 3, 21).Asking students what they thought about learning was an almostdaily occurrence. During their group work on murals, Janice andI had discussed the various working styles of the groups. WhenJanice asked them how their groups worked together, I noted:Amazingly, the kids assessed their workingsituations to be very much as Janice and Idid, only their vocabulary was a little lessstereotyping. While we had characterizedRyan as being the leader of his group, Brettsaid, ‘No - he just sort of told us what todo’ (Obj 12, 10).During another work session on the murals, many of thestudents were attempting to draw horses. Two girls were tracinghorses from a book. When Janice asked at the end of the session111if they had learned anything new in terms or art that day, one ofthe girls raised her hand and said, “I learned that you cantrace something, then change it in small ways to make it the wayyou want it.” Janice congratulated her on her discovery.Part of this emphasis on metacognition was directed towardshow students’ prior knowledge fit into the knowledge presented inthe 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 acentral figure in the procession. Aside fromhis lovely, aesthetically pleasingabdominals, Janice questioned where he fitinto King of the Wind thematically. The boysasked her if she had seen the movie Alladin.‘In the movie, ‘ they responded, ‘There was astrongman who was doing an act.’‘So he’s an entertainer?’ Janice asks.‘Yes,’ the boys reply, ‘And he’s also,you know, a bouncer. In case things getrough at the procession.’‘Oh,’ says Janice, ‘I just wonderedwhere he fit in’ (Obj 15, 16).Acceptance of Individual Differences: Integrally involvedin Janice’s perception of her role as a teacher and the students’roles as learners was Janice’s acceptance of her students as theywere. In relation to knowledge acquisition, it meant that herconceptions of developmentally appropriate overriding objectivesmay have had a content base, but the outcomes of learning wereindividually perceived; they were not perceived strictly inrelation to the content presented in the class.The way that Janice set up the curriculum in her classroomreflected individual differences because she has paid attentionto their interests and their needs when structuring her units. I112asked her if her approach to integration served all the learnersin her class:Yes, I think it does. Because what it doesis - if their lives are fractured — it givesthem an opportunity to do something from awhole perspective. And integration ofsubject matter is where they see thoseconnections. It is not a difficult thing forthem. In a matter of fact, it is probably apretty warm and welcoming environment (Intlj7, 23).However, Janice did not support whole—heartedly the concept ofchild-centered learning. She stated:I couldn’t, in all reality, suggest to youthat this is a fully child-centered classroombecause it is a balanced classroom. While Iascribe to the philosophies of child-centeredlearning, I also understand that some of thedevelopmentally appropriate learnings forstudents are not something that they woulddream up themselves (Intlj 8, 10).As noted, her units did have a strong content component.However, she did support child—centered expectations for learningoutcomes. It was always in the forefront of her mind just whatthe individual styles and capabilities of each student were, andhis/her work was perceived accordingly.This did not mean that any work the students do wasnecessarily acceptable to Janice. She did have a standard thatshe expected, but this standard was not set in absolutes thatwere the same for everyone in the class. Although, for the mostpart, Janice did not seem to need to do any prodding to get herstudents to work to the best of their abilities, one studentraised the issue of how Janice would deal with someone trying toget out of work:113Janice says she will place no limitation onlength for their adventure stories. ‘You canwrite as much as you like,’ she says. Stuartraises the possibility that they could thenonly write one sentence, if they liked.Janice thanks him for the opportunity toexplain that she would expect a page minimumfrom most of the writers il-i the room, but ifthey have told a good story in less than apage, then she would accept that (Obj 19,27).An example of Janice’s acceptance of individual differencescame up when the students were working on their murals. Twogirls were working from the “How to Draw Horses” books thatJanice had in the classroom. Jennifer was having a lot ofsuccess with the step-by-step approach. Kim, on the other hand,was frustrated and soon gave up the technique. I sat down withher, trying out the steps in the book myself. I got extremelyfrustrated, so I sympathized with Kim completely. Janice cameby, and I explained that I had just discovered that I could notfollow the steps in the book, just as Kim could not. She pointedout: “Kids who learn holistically will have a lot of troublewith 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 itselfin the adventure stories. Jennifer’s story was basically aretelling of King of the Wind. Janice commented, “It is veryconsistent with her need for patterns” (Obj 37, 19).Janice’s acceptance of individual differences was verynoticeable in the case of Leonard, a special needs student in herclass. Leonard had numerous learning deficits; his work was at a114pre—school level. He often made comments in class that wereinappropriate or off—topic. Janice always remained patient. Anexample of this was during a class discussion on what they hadlearned during “Listen, Sketch and Draft”:Leonard says, ‘I don’t know if it matterswhose is the biggest castle, but I drew thebiggest castle.’ Janice replied, ‘It isimportant to draw what you are thinking, justas it is important for everyone else to drawwhat they are thinking. Good job on yourcastle’ (Obj 3, 34).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 hashad. But she says, ‘In general he’s come sofar. He’s really bloomed this year.’ Icomment on my amazement at the support hereceives from his classmates. Anna says,‘They follow Janice’s example of acceptance’(Obj 17, 23).Social Mediations of Student Learning: Janice’s studentsalso seemed to have an incredible level of acceptance ofindividual 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 reallyimportant ... and I have found that there isless stigma attached to that set ofcircumstances (Intlj 14, 5).The major group project that the students did while I observedwere the murals. I was struck at how the girls in Leonard’sgroup patiently dealt with his behavior:They spent a lot of time trying to convinceLeonard of their ideas and trying to find115something that he was happy doing (with, ofcourse, the catch that it met the rest of thegroup’s standards). They arrived at asolution by preparing him a tracer for makingwindows on the castle. Leonard was happy to -be working on the castle. The girls heaved acollective sigh of relief (Obj 14, 18).The students shared their work often, with little or nodirection from Janice. I noticed a lot of sharing while theywere writing their adventure stories:The students quite enthusiastically sharetheir stories as they proofread each other’swork. I’m not sure how effectively they editand proofread, but the sharing goes well.They are amazingly supportive of each other(Obj 25, 31).Trust: The acceptance that Janice demonstrated for herstudents’ learning styles provided an atmosphere that supportedtheir learning. Her students had trust in themselves as learnersbecause their styles were dealt with as worthy and important ofconsideration.Interestingly, Janice’s development of self—trust in herstudents has lead to Janice’s trusting them to do more of thecontent structuring; the direction that the class was taking wastoward a child-centered approach. They had just completed theirhorse units. In asking them what they learned, the discussionturned to what they would be doing next. One student said, “Whydon’t you let us study whatever we want, and then we could, youknow, surprise you” (Obj 41, 24). The rest of the classenthusiastically endorsed her idea.Janice was enthused by their suggestion. She was-exhilarated by the success of her horse unit and by the desire to116learn that her students were expressing. She told me afterclass, “You know, I think this group is quite capable of doing aunit on their own. I’m sure they can ‘surprise’ me” (Obj 42,10).At the time of the final interview, the class had begunworking on their own units. Janice had opened up her teachingstores, and students were using her materials to create bulletinboards, 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’resorting it out and questioning the material that I have” (Int2j3, 7).I commented: “There is so much trust going on. It takes alot of trust to hand over your possessions and trust that theywill learn from them” (Int2j 3, 9).I asked her if she thought that the level of trust that theyhad then in June was a result of the relationships that they hadbuilt over the school year. Would she feel comfortable usingthis approach in September? Janice replied:I really don’t know. I find the way thatthings are going gratifying for myself andexciting for the students - I’m excited byall the learning that is going on. I worrysometimes because I know that this is notwhat they are going to be doing next yearI don’t know. Next year I’ll be teachinggrade seven to a group that I’ve had for twoyears; this will be our third year together.It will be interesting to see how thingsdevelop (Int2j 3, 12).117Exciting ideas were happening for Janice in her teaching.While overriding objectives were stated repeatedly as being ofgreat importance in her content structuring, some of theseobjectives led to Janice having less control over the structure;more of that control had been handed to her students. Thus, herteaching had shifted to a more child-centered approach.The development of this shift was new, and Janice was stillsorting out her beliefs about it. Trust in the students’ abilityto learn appeared to be a prerequisite, and integral to thistrust was the acceptance of students’ abilities and fostering asense of acceptance in the students. During the final interviewJanice commented while sketching:It seems to me that education has always beenfocused on bringing students to the samepoint,like this:September Junewhereas I see it now as more like this:September June(Int2j 2, 7).118Beliefs about IntegrationIntegration, for Janice, revolved around her belief in thecentrality of language arts to thought processes. Herorganization of the horse unit centered on a language base — thenovel King of the Wind; other content matched and supported thiscentral focus:The language arts, those are a set of skillsthat, in my view, absolutely have to beinterwoven into just about everything we do(Intlj 12, 23).Janice read my research proposal before agreeing toparticipate in my study. During the initial interview, shequestioned my criticism of theme teaching; she felt that thelearning experiences she provided were more than merely organizedaccording to theme because student interest was an integralfactor in the development of her units:Integration to me is more that organizationaround a theme. I do that but I do more thanthat because I really try to look at therelevance for each of the individual learners(Intlj, 6, 17).Beliefs about the centrality of language to thought and about theconsideration 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 workthat was asked of the students involved using language primarilyto express learning. The major assignments were the writing ofan adventure story and the research report on a breed of horses,both primarily writing assignments, although both did contain119visual elements as support material to the main ideas thatlanguage provided.The adventure stories that the students wrote near the endof the unit provided some insight into how the students viewedart and language. This activity was the least content-directedthat they did in the unit; Janice specified only that it must bean 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 todo an illustration for the title page. In the final interview, Imade this comment to Janice:Their illustrations were props to thewriting, and did not appear to be involved inthe process of developing ideas for the storyat all” (Int2j 2, 32).She agreed; she could not think of a case where a student useddrawing in the “thinking” part of the assignment. She said: “Iguess 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 learningfor the majority of assignments, there was the notable exceptionof the strategy “Listen, Sketch and Draft.” While listening to achapter of the book, the students were asked to draw. Afterthat, they discussed their drawings with a partner. Then theywere asked to draft key points, make predictions or ask questionsabout what went on in the chapter. Important integrativecomponents involve the visual representations of words that areheard, talking about these with others and then translating key120ideas into writing. Visual images have a prominent role in thedevelopment of ideas; therefore it is given status as a thoughtprocess.The Integration of Art and Language: School and Self: Manyof the integrative strategies that Janice employed had animportant function for Janice in that they provided opportunityand insight into the students’ integrations of schoolwork withtheir previous knowledge. “Listen, Sketch and Draft” was alsoseen as useful by Janice because it provided an excellentexperience in understanding how students’ past experiencesinfluence present understandings. Janice provided her guide forthis strategy. It was a chapter from a book that describes theprocess, which she highlighted for me. One of the quoteshighlighted was: “It is interesting to not how movies we make inour minds are also made from our prior experiences” (Curdoc 1,81). She describes the strategy as doing the following:This strategy allows students to integratepast learning experiences with presentunderstandings of what is happening... andthey’re drawing on prior knowledge, I think.And I’ve seen it happen here in the class,where they draw on prior understandings tocreate the pictures but they build newunderstandings as they go ahead. So it ishelping them in terms of their recall andthought processes (Intlj 5, 14).In observing the class at work doing “Listen, Sketch andDraft” I noted that the class was very focused; none seemed tohave any problems drawing and listening. In the discussion thatfollowed I noticed with amazement the details that theyremembered:121As I wonder around and look at the student’sbooks, I wonder why so many of them havepredicted that the foal’s mother will die.This has not occurred to me. Then, in thediscussion that follows, the students pointout the ‘omens’ of death. Suddenly it seemsquite clear! (Obj 3, 3).She asked after a “Listen, Sketch and Draft” session, “Howdo you know what a stable looks like?” (Obj 4, 12). Thediscussion that followed involved the students’ enthusiasticaccounts of their personal visits to stables.Another chapter from the book was translated into a picture.As Janice read the chapter, the students drew. What wasinteresting about this assignment was that, for Janice, itpointed out very clearly some of the learning styles in theclassroom. She was continually analyzing student abilities. Thefollowing 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 tothings. Her picture was very graphic; it involved the use oflanguage and a left to right time progression. On the followingpage (Figure 5), there is a picture by Ryan, who, according toJanice, thought quite visually. He has pictured a single scenefrom the chapter, with details to objects rather than tocharacters..Integration of School and Self: Social Mediations: Thestudents also translated a chapter from the book into murals.This work was done in groups of five or six; it was the socialCsJ‘-Ia)4)C)4-I004.)I-IU)4.)r1U)U)a)(44.11a)//FIGURE 5: Ryan’s visual translation of Chapter 7123C44th 7 /,1• N124mediations of thought that were interesting for Janice toobserve in this activity. I noted:Each student has their own vision; what endsup on the paper is the result of theirinteractions with each other. This is reallyan integration of personal visual thoughtprocesses through social mediations” (Obj 8,16)The groups approached the problem of combining their visionsin different ways:The group of boys in the hall are off toa quick start. One boy, Ryan, takes the leadand sketches out his vision of theprocession. The other boys stand back as hesays, ‘Just wait a minute, then you’ll seewhat I mean.’ Then the other boys startdrawing in their assigned parts around Ryan’svision (Obj 8, 19).This group of girls started out arguingand they are still arguing. No one’s will iswinning. One girl, Chelsea, quietly startssketching how she sees the mural looking.The other girls continue to argue.Eventually they too decide to do their ownsketches. They all look like Chelsea’s,except Jennifer’s. Her’s is practically amirror image. But since she has beenassigned the task of drawing the castle, shedecides where to place it on the paper (Obj9, 1).The members of this group eachenthusiastically started working on theirassigned tasks although they had notdiscussed well issues such as which side wasup! Austin started drawing sand on what therest believed to be the sky. He quickly gotturned around ... Their drawings were not onthe same scale and their ground was adifferent heights. They weren’t disturbed bythis. I wonder if they will resolve it (Obj9, 33).The following pages are photographs of the student’s murals(Figures 6-9).H c-ICD I-I.ID ‘1 0H LiL0 0L’JviFIGURE 8: Austin’s groupFIGURE 9: Leonard’s group126k127SummaryJanice structured units thematically. This involved a fairamount of content direction, but this was mediated by overridingobjectives that Janice has arrived at as a teacher through adynamic interactive process between her experiences and theinterests and needs of her students. Janice planned manyactivities that focused on the students self—expression and onmetacognition. However, the importance of individualconsiderations showed more in the acceptance of individualoutcomes for learning than in the planned experiences.Janice’s ability to accurately assess and accept individualdifferences built an atmosphere of trust in her classroom; thestudents trusted in their own individual capabilities. Oneresult of this was that, at the end of the horse unit, Janiceincreasingly trusted her students with the structuring ofcontent.Having the students understand themselves just what and howthey were learning were also featured prominently. Developing asense of metacognition in the students clearly was an objectiveof Janice’s; this also aided in the trust the students developedin their learning.In structuring this integrated unit, Janice showed her biastoward language arts. She professed a belief in the centralityof 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 the128technique of “Listen, Sketch and Draft.” Here studentsdemonstrated visual thinking. Interestingly, Janice found thedemonstration of individual learning styles through the use ofvisual modes of primary interest.Social aspects in Janice’s classroom was featured inJanice’s ideas about integration. Acceptance of individualdifferences was also a prominent feature in the socialinteractions in her class. As well, Janice noted with interestthe effect that social mediation had on the expression of ideasin the group work on the mural. This integration of ideas wassocially based; it also pointed out important factors for Janicein the students’ learning.ConclusionThese two case studies have yielded data about the beliefsabout knowledge, particularly in the areas of art and languagearts, for these two teachers. The role of these two teachers andtheir students in knowledge acquisition was also summarized.These gave understanding to how language and art were integratedin their classrooms. Next, these understandings will bediscussed in relation to current theories and research.129CHAPTER VDISCUSSIONResearch Questions RevisitedThe research questions with which I began this study werethe following:1) What does the teacher believe about knowledge and itsorganization? Specifically, how are art and language perceivedin these beliefs about knowledge?2) What does the teacher believe about how children learn? Whatdoes the teacher believe about the role of the students and therole of the teacher in learning?3) What is the relationship of these beliefs to the integrationof art and language?4) How are these beliefs about the integration of art andlanguage translated into practice?In keeping with the tradition of qualitative research, thisstudy has followed an emergent design. Redefinition of theresearch questions occur through the process of research(McMillan & Schumaker, 1989). This study is no exception. Thefirst three of these questions, in their initial words, formedthe basis for the analysis of the data. The fourth question wasinteresting for me to examine after going through the researchprocess. I found that beliefs and practices were not separateentities: I could not observe how beliefs were put into practice.Rather, I came upon the realization that I did not understand130even theoretically what their beliefs were until I saw thepractice of these beliefs.This realization needs clarification in understanding howthe first three questions were examined in the data analysis.The understandings needed to infer the beliefs of these teachersfor the first three questions necessitated seeing the teachers inaction, and in having the teachers explain their actions. Soanalysis of how these beliefs were related to their practice tookplace throughout the research process. It was therefore not aquestion of how their beliefs were put into action, but rather aquestion of how their actions in the classroom revealed theirbeliefs.The first three questions also have ties to the bodies ofliterature reviewed in Chapter Two. Beliefs that were inferredduring data analysis about the nature of knowledge, the role ofthe students and the role of the teacher in knowledge acquisitionand integration all have ties to the dominant classroom culture,theories of art and language education and theories ofintegration. This discussion will explore these ties.I also found that for both case studies, socialrelationships in the class had an integral effect on the way artand language were integrated in the classroom. So anotherresearch focus emerged: how do the social relationships in theclassroom affect the integration of art and language?Accordingly, this discussion will include these areas andfollows this format: I will discuss the analysis of the data in131relationship to the different theories proposed in the literaturereview: 1) traditional classroom culture, 2) theories of art andlanguage education, 3) theories of integration. I will alsoaddress 4) social relationships, an area that appeared in bothcase studies that was not addressed in the original researchquestions or in the literature review.The Literature RevisitedTraditional Classroom CultureI was lucky to find two very experienced teachers who wereable to state what they believed quite succinctly, with littleconflict or doubt in their own minds about the way they perceivedthe enterprise of teaching. I expected traditional classroomculture to have a noticeable bearing on each teacher’s beliefs.This was the case. But instead of finding that traditionalclassroom culture values were unreflected, both teachers haddefinitely demonstrated a reflected internalized state aboutthese values. They did not agree with these values because theyassumed them to be valid; they had both practiced them andunderstood them to be valid or invalid based on their experienceand reflection. Each teacher supported and differed fromtraditional classroom culture values in reflected and practicedways.Paul had a very different perception of knowledge fromtraditional classroom culture in that content was not a focus.The transmission of knowledge was not. in the form of isolated132bits of information to be digested and regurgitated by thestudents, as dominant classroom culture supports (Monson & Pahi,1991). Instead he focused on processes for learning, whichacknowledged many of Gardner’s ways of knowing (1983) besides theverbal and numerical, most notably the visual.This difference from the way that knowledge is perceived intraditional classroom culture caused me to examine my unreflectedassumptions about the nature of knowledge. It is a powerfuldifference. The focus on process knowledge makes all content ina manner generic; if one knows the procedure to follow anycontent can lead to learning. His focus on process, in theory,solves a common problem seen with knowledge—based approaches tolearning. Because content knowledge is currently viewed inintegrative philosophies as being vast and ever-changing (Court,1991), a focus on content that is relevant and “true” today maynot serve the needs of the students tomorrow. Processes, on theother hand, focus on the ways content knowledge are attained, andhave potential for far greater range in terms of long—termrelevance of education (Case, 199la).In practice, Paul’s focus on process did not have thiseffect. I have speculated that Paul’s background as amathematics teacher may have had an influence on his beliefsabout knowledge. Mathematics is integrally related to learningspecific procedures that lead to the correct answers. Intraditional classroom culture, pages and pages of drill, inmathematics are drills on the procedures; the specific content of133the numbers does not matter. But an interesting parallel ariseshere that may explain why Paul’s processes did not have thedesired effect. A common criticism of the traditional methods ofteaching mathematics is that the students follow the procedurewithout having any real understanding of how or why they aremanipulating the numbers (Case, l99la). They cannot use theprocedural 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 inart (Obp 15, 24) and language arts (Int2p 2, 6) and then use itin all applicable situations.The root of the problem for Paul revolved around how heconceptualized “processes for learning.” The proceduralknowledge presented in Paul’s classroom supported values held intraditional classroom culture because the knowledge presented wasdefinitely knowledge external to the students. He relied widelyon large group instruction, seatwork assignments and teachertalk, which according to Werner (1991) touches on the corepedagogical strategies of the dominant classroom culture. Thechoice of procedures were not informed by student experiences orinterests and they were not.directed by the students; Paulperformed these tasks.The very teacher—directed method was used, at least in part,as a method for control, and this method of control has thebacking of traditional classroom culture (Werner, 1991). BecausePaul retained strict control over the procedural knowledge base,134he felt a control over the students. Part of his job as ateacher was to have the students achieve to certain standardswhich were external and predefined. Although content was not ascontrolled, and Paul did actively encourage input in this area,the procedures were the focus for the students, most probablybecause the marks that they were rewarded depended on theiradherence to the standards (Intip 10, 25), and not on the contentof their work.Paul’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge had importantphilosophical differences to what is generally thought of asknowledge. The definition of knowledge that was used in thisstudy was written by Nespor (1987): “ways of thinking aboutsomething that have consensuality and bounds determined byrelatively well—established canons of argument, with consensusabout the ways in which these things are evaluated or judged.Knowledge has relatively well—defined domains of application” (p.319). But Paul’s beliefs about knowledge in art and knowledge inlanguage arts largely ignored consensuality and bounds determinedby these two disciplines. The lack of adherence to curriculum ineither discipline is an indication of his very differentperception of knowledge. Paul’s beliefs about art and languageas educational enterprises largely defined what he presented asknowledge in these two disciplines, and these beliefs did notsupport what would be commonly held as knowledge. This will bediscussed in more detail in relation to current theories of artand language education.135Janice had a more traditional approach to knowledge. Herviews of knowledge had a content base; the materials shepresented in class were highly organized according to content,and processes such as “Listen, Sketch and Draft” were used onthat content where applicable. Janice was the director of bothcontent and processes in integrating, so the knowledge in herhorse unit was mostly organized and presented externally to thestudents. This was a support to traditional classroom culture.However, she did differ radically from traditional classroomculture in that she did not present knowledge as absolute;Popkewitz (1978) describes the popular, narrow conceptualizationof knowledge: “There exists a specified, limited body ofknowledge to be imparted to students” (p. 430). Janice did notset standards for knowledge acquisition that reflected thephilosophy that all knowledge is the same for everyone. InJanice’s classroom, she acknowledged the students’ differentperceptions of knowledge in the expression of their work. Sowhile the students did not control the content or the processesthat they undertook, the outcomes of learning were accepted astheirs to control.In terms of integration, knowledge in art and knowledge inlanguage had definite role and status for Janice. Her beliefsabout the nature of knowledge reflected a strong belief inlanguage as being central to thought, which again reflects biastoward traditional classroom culture. Art played a supportingrole to language arts, making knowledge within the discipline of136art to a great degree subservient to knowledge within thedisciplines of language. This view of knowledge brings intoquestion whether these two disciplines were actually integratedin Janice’s teaching.Integration as defined for this study means that “the partsof an integrated entity themselves have increased significanceand intelligibility because they are seen to be parts of ameaningful whole” (Coombs, 1991, p. 2). While art’s expressivecapabilities were seen as aiding in thought and understanding ofcontent presented in language, language activities in Janice’sclass did not support art’s unique characteristics at all.Theories of Art and Language EducationPaul’s views of art and language arts were also quitedifferent from the way these pursuits are perceived intraditional classroom culture. Although there certainly wasemphasis on verbal skills, Paul also had a very strong emphasison visual skills. However, he did not support current theoriesin language and art education in some key ways. First, he didnot pay attention to the expressive modes as defined by Eisner(1981). These were not in evidence in either language arts orart. Because of the procedurally directed method employed byPaul, the skills became the focus, rather than the expression ofideas. For me, this was particularly noticeable in art. The artdisplayed on the walls showed very clearly the focus of thelesson - individual pictures did not differ much (Obp 1, 3).137Also, no language arts activity that I observed involved usingwords for creative expression, except ironically as content forvisual images (Obp 18, 20).The integrated language arts activities that I observed inPaul’s classroom lacked some of the “whole” that whole languagephilosophies endorse. Specifically, whole language takes theperspective that experiences with language should arise fromchildren’s own experiences (Froese, 1990). Paul’s very teacher—directed methods made this difficult. And because he taught toprocedures more than to content, creative expression in choicesof content were not rewarded (Intip 7, 29). In support of wholelanguage theory, response to literature was a major component ofthe work on the novel A Wrinkle in Time. As well, the responsesrequested by Paul gave credence to integrated visual and verbalways of knowing, involving complexities in the students’perception of the literature.Still, it is evident that the beliefs that Paul held aboutthe nature of knowledge in the area of language arts held largeand gaping holes in comparison to what is commonly perceived asknowledge. Even if knowledge in language arts is thought ofsimply in terms of reading, writing, listening and speaking, theactivities that Paul’s students engaged in during my observationsdid not adequately cover these areas; activities in writing andspeaking were extremely limited.Paul’s approach to teaching art revealed much attention tostudent production, as Harvard’s Project Zero (Gardner, 1989)138advocates. However, the major focus was on technical knowledge,which is not the major emphasis of Project Zero. Gardnerstressed expression, with critical and aesthetic understandingsin art emerging from the student’s own work. No personalexpression and subsequent reflection, discussion or analysis ofthe students’ work in art took place in Paul’s classroom.Disciplines within art proposed by DBAE - art history, artcriticism and aesthetics (Greer, 1984), which would requirereflection, discussion and analysis, therefore did not play arole in Paul’s class. His focus on materials and processesneglects the other three content areas defined in the ElementaryFine Arts Resource Book, the curriculum guide for the province ofBritish Columbia (Ministry of Education, 1985): developingimages, elements and principles of design, and responding to art.Again, what Paul presented as art knowledge in his class did notmatch what is commonly considered knowledge in this area.In terms of the integration, his approach to language artsand art affected work in his classroom in two ways. First,because creative expression was not at all the focus in eitherlanguage arts activities or art activities, the students were notgiven an opportunity to externalize their internal knowledge.Having no avenue for expression effectively blocked off muchchild—centered learning that could have taken place. Second,having no procedures for reflecting, discussing and analyzing thework of the students and having no expressive language activitiesdisallowed the most advocated areas for integration of art and139language. For example, art criticism and aesthetics areintricately linked by Thorns (1985) to the use of language forexpressing ideas. Paul’s class had many activities that involvedthe visual and linguistic processing of information in anintegrated form. However, having no discussions, either orallyor in written form, that focus on the students’ understandingsgave Paul less potential for integration in terms of art andlanguage. It also did nota11ow for the students to enter intothe learning actively; they basically were the passivereceptacles of procedural knowledge.Janice’s beliefs placed language arts education at the coreof the curriculum as she believed in the centrality of languageto 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 andtherefore to educational goals has traditionally had a great dealof support (Hamblen, 1983). This support perhaps made Janiceless reflective of the need to address knowledge within the areaof art; there was a lack of art knowledge integrated in Janice’shorse unit.Most of the content of Janice’s horse unit was organizedexternally to the students around language activities. ButJanice had a strong emphasis on assignments in the expressivemode (Eisner, 1981), both in language arts and art. Many ofthese assignments showed a belief on Janice’s part of thecomplimentary nature of expressive art and language activities.140Examples of these assignments include “Listen, Sketch and Draft”activities, visual translation of a chapter from King of theWind, the murals, the adventure stories, and the reports on thehorses. Expressive assignments in both language arts and art hadthe effect of bringing the students’ own ideas into the learningprocess. In fact, there was evidence that Janice was movingtoward a more child—centered approach to dealing with the contentknowledge in the classroom, indicating that her beliefs in thisarea were evolving.Janice did not have a major focus on skills in language orin art in this unit. So the work that she asked students to dodid not focus on transmitting the rules and regulations oflanguage’s more formalized syntax, the traditional contentemphasis in schools (Eisner, 1981). This is partly because shehad done alot of work on writing skills previously, and waspleased to hote that the students transferred those skills to theassignments in the horse unit (Obj 28, 13). This validatesvertical integration (Case l991a) taking place within herclassroom. -Janice had a very strong focus on metacognition, or theunderstandings of their own learnings that students gained fromtheir assignments (Obj 3, 24; Obj 12, 9; Obj 32, 21; Obj 33, 9).Giving this aspect of learning credence in her classroom allowedthe students to focus on the internalization of knowledge. Verynoticeably, however, the fostering of metacognition was centeredin language activities. The students presented their reports on141a horse breed and their adventure stories to the class. Thissharing allowed for discussion of their written work andconsequently the development of critical and aestheticunderstandings (Obj 14, 28). Her views of knowledge support thetheories of whole language, which emphasize student expression,sharing and understanding (Goodman, 1986).In contrast, the students’ own productions of art were notdiscussed separately from these two written assignments. Theonly formal discussion of their artwork took place within theprocess of “Listen, Sketch and Draft,” and this procedure useddrawing as a way to understand and interpret oral language.There was more formalized sharing and criticism of the writtenwork as opposed to the artistic work (Obj 33, 19; Obj 35, 23; Obj38, 12). Because the aesthetic and critical understandings thatthe students reached in this unit were all essentially languagebased, the comprehensive understandings that could have beenachieved through integrated art activities were not utilized.Art skills were taught in production—focused lessons in theunit — the students did one lesson on the anatomy of a horse’shead and one lesson on perspective. I was not present for eitherone. Use of these skills, however, did translate into work onthe murals and in the illustration of the horse adventurestories, providing more evidence of vertical integration ofknowledge. But clearly the focus was on the expressive nature ofthese art assignments as opposed to the technical aspects (Ob12, 23). As well, some historical understandings of the theme of142horses came from language activities, specifically the researchon horse breeds (Obj, 33, 20), while none came from arthistory. So while aesthetics as a component of DBAE (Creer,1984) was addressed casually and briefly, studio production had .amajor emphasis in Janice’s class.In terms used in The Elementary Fine Arts Resource Book(Ministry of Education, 1985), Janice’s unit had a focus ondeveloping images — “a way of recording observations, pastevents, feelings and fantasies ... a way of knowing” (p. 28).The elements and principles of design were also addressed throughwork on horse anatomy and perspective. Materials and processeswere not an emphasis, and neither was responding to art.Janice’s unit, therefore, showed a central belief in theprime importance of language in education, while the artactivities did show belief in artistic ways of knowing that wereintegrated to support the language arts core. She alsoemphasized expressive activities and metacognition, allowing forthe students to first of all express their own ideas and thenunderstand the processes involved in that expression, makingtheir role in learning an active one. But the fostering ofmetacognition particularly was language—based; understandingabout their own learning was not promoted through art activities.Theories of IntecrationThe literature review revealed two dimensions involved inintegration (see Figure 1). One had to do with the nature of143knowledge itself. It fell on a continuum from a basic unity ofall knowledge to knowledge existing in discrete isolated bits.The second was based on the locus of integration. This dimensionfell on a continuum of child—centered learning to knowledge—centered learning. In the initial literature review, the fourforms of integration that Case (l991a) defined were used as adifferentiating factor for these two dimensions. The first two,content and processes, had to do with the teachers’ beliefs aboutthe nature of knowledge. These were characterized as knowledgeexternal to the students that education seeks to make internal.The other two, integration of school and self and holisticintegration, were characterized as being knowledge that isinternal, to the students that education seeks to make external.Thus they had more to do with the locus of integration. Bothteachers demonstrated that this was a simple conceptualization.Content and processes in integration are forms ofintegration over which the teachers have control in theircurriculum planning; they can decide what and how these aspectsof knowledge are presented in their classrooms. Teachers do nothave the same control over the forms of integration of school and’self and holistic integration; these primarily belong to thestudents. However, both of the teachers in this studydemonstrated that they sought to bring the students into learningby allowing them some autonomy over either content or process.So, in structuring integrated work, these teachers facilitatedchild-centered learning - the integration of school and self and144holistic learning, by allowing them to bring their own content inPaul’s case, or their own processes in Janice’s case, to thelearning context. The organizing of content and processes thatthese teachers performed was integral to bringing the studentsinto the learning process; thus, they demonstrated a greatconnection of these two dimensions of integration outlined in theliterature review.What seems to be missing from the initial conceptualizationof integration is the dialectic that takes place for the studentsbetween internal knowledge and external knowledge, and howteachers seek to foster this dialectic through the activitiesthat they provide. Important to beliefs about integration .arethe beliefs about this dialectic, which I have called “thelearning process.” The views that-these two teachers have aboutthe learning process involve essentially differentepistemological positions that are interwoven with theirunderstanding of their roles as teachers.My understanding of Paul’s beliefs about integration interms of the nature of knowledge pointed towards a more unitedview of knowledge. The unifying forces were the processes thathe emphasized so much in his teaching. It was evident that hewanted the students to form unities in the content. But he didnot focus on what content formed unities; rather, his emphasiswas on processes that could act on any content. The purposes forforming unities of content were the understandings gained fromthe processes that the students underwent. Paul did not145emphasize the unity of content in his students’ work (Obp 17, 6).Rather, roads and pathways which traveled through the contentwere the emphasis. Paul had a strong belief in visual elementsin these roads and pathways, which interconnected with verbalelements in learning activities; he believed in integrated waysof knowing. But it was like these ways of knowing wereinterwoven to form strong roads almost to the exclusion of whatpassed by on the roadside.Paul’s views of processes were influenced greatly by hisbeliefs about knowledge as being external to the students, thathe, through educational processes he presented, sought to makeinternal. The students’ own internal knowledge did not have muchemphasis, as is evidenced by the lack of expressive modes in hisassignments. While he did encourage their content input, thiswas not what he showed value for in rewarding marks (Intip 7,30).This had a great influence on what happened in the processof learning in his class. There was not much that Paul did as ateacher that encouraged a dialogue between internal and externalknowledge for his students. Processes were strictly definedexternal knowledge. He taught towards forgone conclusions whichwere process—based, rather than the traditional content—basedconclusions. Clearly, having the external knowledge of theprocedures to follow for learning was to lead to internalizationof this knowledge, to then be used on all appropriate càntent.146There was evidence that this did not occur in Paul’s class (Obp8, 21).Janice’s practices pointed to an external and content—basedperception of knowledge. Content knowledge had some organizingprinciples; it was evident that the content Janice presented inher class had some organizing force which involved placing itinto categories. It was also evident that Janice had beliefs inthe interconnections of these categories. In her planning sheasked students to explore the content of her horse unit in anumber of predefined ways. These included vocabulary sheets, aprescribed novel of study, and the use of “Listen, Sketch andDraft” strategies.On the other hand, processes that acted upon the contentwere quite fluid, and reflected individual learning styles andexperiences. Process knowledge for Janice involved thepresentation of external knowledge in the form of strategies suchas “Listen, Sketch and Draft.” But is also involved the way thatstudents individually structured the organization of knowledge;thus her understanding of process knowledge reflects a dialecticbetween knowledge that is external and knowledge that is internalto students.An understanding that Janice had a belief of this dialecticin the process of learning comes from the great acceptance thatJanice had for her students’ individual learning styles andexperiences. Janice paid great attention to the ways studentsdemonstrated these connections through their work, and also147emphasized the students’ own understandings of these connectionsthrough metacognitive activities. There was a balance betweenthe external knowledge in the presentation with the internalknowledge emphasized through “expressive mode” assignments andthe acceptance of individual differences.Social RelationshipsPerhaps the most overlooked area in my original researchquestions was the role that social relationships in theclassrooms played in beliefs about the integration of art andlanguage. These social influences were both in terms ofteacher/student relationships and peer relationships. Issuessuch as trust and social mediations in learning came up for bothteachers. Perhaps they were pointed out so clearly to me becausethese two teachers had very different experiences in the socialrelationships in their respective classes.Good teacher/student relationships and peer relationshipscan no doubt be seen as a benefit to student learning in anyclassroom situation. McEwan (1993) found trust to be integral todeveloping a “sojourning community” at the graduate school level.She found that, for trust to develop within the context ofstudent/teacher/peer relationships, the teacher must communicatewarmth and trust to the students, and the students should receivestrength from the teacher and each other.But these relationships become critical in terms ofteachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how students148and teachers function in knowledge acquisition in more integratedand child—centered classrooms. This is because the powerrelationships in the classroom change in relation to theknowledge base as teachers move toward more child—centeredlearning. More equity in relation to knowledge provides studentswith more power but also requires that the students take moreresponsibility. In order to do this, students need support.These ideas are discussed here in terms of teacher/student trustand social mediations of learning.Teacher/Student Trust: In traditional classroom culture,there is a clear power differential between the teachers and thestudents in terms of knowledge; the idea is that the teacher hasknowledge and the students do not. This is one issue thatunderlies order in traditional classrooms. Control over theknowledge base defines and maintains the teachers’ power (Werner,1991).Shifting to a more child-centered philosophy of learning notonly changes the role of the teacher and of the students, it alsoshifts this power relationship in terms of knowledge toward oneof greater equality. If a dialectic between external andinternal knowledge is sought, then there is a greater equalityover the control of the knowledge base. This makes theteacher/student relationship much more complex. But underlyingthis complexity is the issue of trust. There needs to be trustin the teacher/student relationships in order for child—centered149learning to take place. This involves trust on a number oflevels.First, the teacher must trust the students to learn. Whilecertainly it can be argued that this is necessary in allclassrooms, in traditional classroom culture, this trust does nothave the dimensions that it does in child-centered classrooms.The knowledge can no longer be controlled by the teacher in thesame autocratic mode; order cannot be maintained through thepresentation of “absolute knowledge.” Because child—centeredlearning relies on what the students bring to the classroom interms of interest and past experience, the teachers have to trustthe students to indeed bring these elements into their learning.As well teachers have to trust in the idiosyncratic abilities ofeach student; so, process knowledge as well as content knowledgeto a great extent shift to the hands of the learners.This involves greater power for the students. But this alsoentails greater responsibility on the part of the students.McEwan (1993) found that her graduate school class, havingestablished trust as a foundation, then began “to venture intothe areas of the intellectual unknown” (p. 6).In Paul’s class, there was not a lot of trust on his part inhis students’ abilities to learn (Int2p 1, 16). Because this,like any other relationship, is not single-sided, I do not meanto suggest that he did not have valid reasons for this lack oftrust. Clearly he did (Int2p 1, 35). But what was interestingwas his reaction to the challenges that a lack of trust posed in150the teacher/student relationship. Paul retreated behind an“absolute knowledge” approach, where he presented methods forlearning that he made as fool—proof as he was able, and thenexpected the responsibility for learning to be solely thestudents from that point. This demonstrated a simplification ofthe teacher/student relationship to the knowledge base; theacquisition of knowledge enforces a more linear relationshipbetween teacher and student roles. Control over the presentationof knowledge was how he answered the lack of trust that he feltin his students’ ability to learn. This involved control overteacher and student roles and a simple definition of the learningprocess: the teacher teaches and the student learns.Students also have to trust their teacher. It is an act offaith to bring yourself into the learning process. A studentneeds to feel safe in order to do this (McEwan, 1993).Acceptance is the key to this feeling of safety. Obviously, thisacceptance comes from more sources than the relationship with theteacher. It is clear that what the students bring to thelearning situation involves all of what goes on in their lives,and the ability to trust is no exception. Paul understood thatstudents’ backgrounds may impair their ability to trust anyone,including teachers (Int2p 1, 32).When students do not trust their teachers, it makes it verydifficult for teachers to trust their students. However, havingthe teacher trust the students to learn, and the students trustthe teachers to accept what they bring to the classroom is an151essential element in students learning to trust themselves aslearners. When students have this internal sense of trust, thenthey have the power to act on the knowledge base. Integrativetheories propose that they will help students become independent,critical and creative thinkers (Werner, 1991; Court, 1991). Thestudents need to have this sense of power before this can happen;thus for integrative philosophies to work their must be a stronginterconnected trust between teachers and students.When students do not take the power, as they cannot do ifthey do not trust themselves to learn, many teachers may feel theonus to take that power and control it for the students.Certainly Paul felt it was his responsibility as a teacher tohave the students achieve to a certain level (Intlp 2, 17), andretaining control over knowledge was how he met thisresponsibility.Janice had a different belief structure in terms of trust inthe teacher/student relationship. While she did retain muchcontrol over the content knowledge in her classroom, she gave thestudents power in terms of processes by allowing them much avenuefor expression, and by accepting the work as the results of theirexperience and learning styles. Janice focused on the acceptanceof her students’ learning (Obj 3, 31; Obj 5, 3; Obj 14, 14; Obj16, 9; Obj 19, 31; Obj 29, 23; Obj 31, 11). This took place bothin terms of her understandings of their learning styles andabilities, as well as a fostering of the students’ ownunderstandings. As a result, her students had a greater ability152to trust themselves to learn and a greater sense of power. Infact, they had so much trust in their own abilities to learn thatthey were eager to take over the content structuring by the endof the school year (Obj 41, 25). Janice’s relationships that shehad built over the school year allowed the students to gain thispower.Janice’s definition of the teacher’s role and the students’role in learning had a dynamic and in interactive element thatwas integrated with the teacher/student relationship. Sheachieved a greater equality in this relationship in terms ofpower over the knowledge base through a dialectic view of thelearning process. Although she was actively presentingknowledge, her emphasis on the acceptance of the many differentways her students internalized that knowledge allowed thestudents to build more trust in their learning. This emphasis,paired with students who trusted in their abilities, influencedthe way she organized and presented knowledge. So students’perceptions of knowledge and Janice’s perceptions of theknowledge become integrated in planning the curriculum.Social Mediations of Thought: Knowledge—centered approachesto learning show an underlying philosophy about knowledge;knowledge in schooling is viewed as absolute, true and the samefor everyone (Popkewitz, 1978). How students interact inknowledge—based classes, therefore, does not affect the knowledgeitself because they were separate entities. Child—centeredapproaches to learning, in contrast, acknowledge idiosyncratic153understandings of knowledge. They necessitate an understandingof the interrelationship between knowledge and person.Peer relationships are important in child—centered learningbecause they allow for the social mediations of thought.Involved in the dialectic of the learning process is anunderstanding of knowledge as having external or “universal”characteristics that allow for communication. This externalknowledge provides a means for the expression of ideas in termsthat are understandable to others. But also extremely importantto understandings of others’ thoughts is that these understandingevolve our own (McEwan, 1993). Dis—allowing peer relationshipsin learning denies the interrelationship between knowledge andperson, and keeps knowledge bound to the philosophy ofexternality. These two case studies showed very cleardifferences in beliefs about the influence of peers on learning,so very different contexts for peer learning were fostered byeach of the teachers.Janice had a strong belief in peer learning; she felt thatindividual differences were less stigmatized when the learningwas a shared experience (Intlj 14, 5). She paid carefulattention to how her students interacted; problem-solving withinand among groups of students was a focus (Obj 26, 1). This wasespecially noticeable in watching her responses to the students’mural assignment (Obj 6, 24). “Listen, Sketch and Draft” alsoinvolved the students sharing their ideas with each other, and154then recording new understandings. Janice reflected belief in thestudents’ individual knowledge as credible learning material.Paul’s belief in knowledge being more external to studentsand the power that he retained over this knowledge in hisclassroom did not leave much room for students’ understandings ofthe knowledge to be shared. Students did not work together inany of the assignments that I observed except one (Obp 17, 6).Classroom control was definitely an issue in the lack of peerinteractions in learning in Paul’s class (Int2p 3, 21). Whenknowledge as an external, pre—defined entity is used as a meansof control, there is no need for peer interaction in order togain understanding of the knowledge. Knowledge is not mediatedthrough people, so working together is superfluous. Perhaps thestudents viewed it as a time for fun (Intip 3, 14), rather thanfor learning and this was why control was difficult to maintain.There is a strong tie between the teacher’s conception ofknowledge and how relationships are supported within the contextof the classroom. Janice believed knowledge to have an internalcomponent and that greater understanding is achieved throughsocial mediations of those understandings. Consequently, shefostered peer interactions as being an essential part oflearning. Paul believed knowledge to exist as an entity moreexternal to individuals. His job was to bring the knowledge tothe students. Therefore student interactions in the classroomdid not relate to the knowledge presented, and a subsequent lackof peer interaction was noted in Paul’s teaching style.155SummaryIn order to understand the findings of this study in termsof theories proposed in the relevant literature, this discussionhas reviewed the results of the two case studies in terms oftraditional classroom culture, theories of art and languageeducation, theories of integration and social relationships. Tosummarize, I will now restate the research questions, as theywere reformulated through the research process, with a briefsummary of the findings from analysis of the data, in light ofthe discussion of the relevant literature.1) What beliefs about knowledge and its organization does theteacher describe and practice in his/her classroom?Specifically, how does the teacher describe and practice beliefsabout art and language knowledge?Most of what Paul presented in the classroom involvedspecific and rigid standards for learning. These were preexisting and external to the students, thereby supporting beliefsabout knowledge held in traditional classroom culture. However,in contrast to traditional classroom culture, Paul’s beliefsabout knowledge focus on the processes as opposed to the contentfor learning. His standards were based on processes. In fact,Paul did very little organizing around content. Knowledge forPaul did not have strong categorical boundaries; rather the156processes that he presented in the classroom formed thefoundation of a belief in the unity of knowledge.The processes that Paul presented showed a strongintegration between visual and linguistic processes, which formedthe basis for the integrated art and language activities inPaul’s classroom. These activities focused on production, withthe major emphases being skills acquisition as opposed toexpression. Paul’s beliefs about art and language knowledge haddeviations from the commonly held bounds and consensus of thedisciplines involved.Janice had a strong content base to the knowledge that shepresented in the classroom, and this content revealedorganization into categories with connections made among them;her unit was organized thematically. However, knowledge was notpresented as absolute. It was mediated through students’interests, abilities and styles of learning. These aspects ofJanice’s organization were informed by her experience with thestudents’ methods for processing knowledge. She emphasized theseby assigning expressive mode learning tasks and providingopportunity for students to explore and understand their ownlearning.Language arts formed the core of her unit, supporting abelief in the centrality of language to thought. Art and othersubjects played a supporting role. Art activities in particularprovided a means of expression, and they also provided for Janice157insight into children’s idiosyncratic ways of processingknowledge.2) What is the role of the teacher and the role of the studentsin knowledge acquisition in this classroom?Paul believed that his role was to have students achieve toa certain pre—defined level, and the presentation of strictprocedural methods existing externally to the students was themeans that he used, again showing support for the values oftraditional classroom culture. Paul also used a teacher—directedpresentation of knowledge as a means for retaining order in hisclassroom. Students were given the responsibility for learningto his expectations. His goal was to have the studentsinternalize the procedures he presented, and then use them in allapplicable situations. Frustrations developed for Paul becausethis did not happen; the students showed very little transfer ofprocedures because they treated the processes as the content tobe learned.Essentially, the learning process was linearly defined bythe activities that Paul directed in his classroom. He presentedexternal procedures for the students to follow; by followingthem, the students would acquire the external knowledge. Therewas no dialectic fostered between internal and externalknowledge.158Although Janice’s role in her class did involve theorganization and presentation of knowledge as it exists outsideof the students, she was able to bring the students into thelearning process through her great acceptance of the studentsexpressions of learning. These expressions were treated as theirunderstandings of the knowledge she presented, so knowledge wasnot presented as absolute. The knowledge—centered presentationsby Janice were dynamically related to child—centered.expectationsfor learning outcomes.A dialectic was thereby formed between internal knowledgeand external knowledge in the learning process that Janicefacilitated. Students individual interests and capabilitiesinformed the activities that she planned. She presented thecontent material, but then focused on student expression,understanding and sharing of this knowledge. So internalknowledge again was considered in her perception of the learningprocess.3) What is the role of social relationships in the organizationand presentation of knowledge in this classroom?Paul demonstrated a belief in a linear model of knowledgeacquisition through the role that he assumed in the classroom andthe role that he assigned the students. A simple, direct coursewas expected for knowledge acquisition: he presented theprocedures which were to lead to learning; by following them, the159students would acquire the knowledge. Important to thisconception of teacher/student relationships is that the knowledgeexists externally to the people involved. Social mediations ofthought do not need to exist because knowledge is presented asexternal to people; therefore peer interactions in learning werenot encouraged or supported by Paul in his classroom.Janice’s interactive perception of her role in presentingknowledge and her students’ role in expressing their learning ofthat knowledge shows a more interactive model of teacher/studentrelationships. The acceptance that Janice demonstrated towardtheir learning and the fostering of a sense of metacognition inthe students led to students forming a greater trust in their ownunique abilities and interests in learning. And because Janicehad a belief in internal perception of knowledge, she saw peerinteractions as an important mediator in thought which lead togreater understanding. Many of the activities that she plannedinvolved group work.4) What is the relationship of these beliefs to the integrationof art and language in this classroom?The beliefs that Paul held about knowledge being unitedthrough strong integrated processes affected the way that heintegrated art and language arts in this class. His verydirected methods had an equal effect. He did not organizearound themes; integrated activities focused on unifying elements160of language and of art through the procedures he presented.These procedures showed a belief in the cognitive unity of artand language processes.His very directed method of teaching, and his focus onskills to the exclusion of individual expression disallowed manychild—centered integrations to take place. He also did not useany discussions or critical explorations in either visual orlinguistic activities. So while integrated processes forlearning were prominent in his teaching, Paul’s exclusion of thestudents from his beliefs about knowledge did not allow for themto enter into the learning process actively. This is a majordeviation from integrative philosophies such as whole language.His major focus on skills also left out creative expression. Aswell, the disciplines of art criticism, art history andaesthetics from the four proposed in DBAE were not addressed.These are also the areas that the literature viewed as havinggreat potential for art and language integration.Janice presented knowledge in a categorically organized formin her horse unit, but important to her belief about knowledge isthat it is not an external or absolute entity. Knowledge has anidiosyncratic component. This belief formed the basis for theacceptance that she had for her students’ individual abilities,needs and interests. She integrated content thematically andexternally to her students; however, this knowledge was mediatedthrough students’ methods of processing that knowledge.161Janice organized her unit based on her belief that languageis the prime instrument of thought. Most of the activities inthe unit had a language arts base, and other areas, such as art,provided support. However, many of the activities reflectedconsideration of visual ways of knowing being integrated withlanguage, specifically the activities involved in “Listen, Sketchand Draft”.Many of the assignments in this unit focused on theexpressive mode, and Janice emphasized metacognition in most ofthe activities. Thus students had opportunity to bring theirinterests, their abilities and their learning styles into thelearning process. This, as well as the emphasis on reading,writing, listening and speaking in the assignments, support wholelanguage philosophy.While there was potential for critical and aestheticunderstandings in art to be developed in her classrooms, this didnot happen formally as it did with written assignments; againenormous potential for integrated art and language activities wasneglected because art was not perceived as having its own domainof knowledge. The major focus in art was on productionemphasizing creative expression, the traditionally perceivedstrength of art education. Art history, of DBAE’s fourdisciplines, was not addressed at all.In summary, the beliefs that Paul and Janice held about thenature of knowledge, their roles in the students’ acquisition ofknowledge, integration and social relationships within the162classroom all had a powerful impact on the integrated languagearts and art experiences that I observed in their classrooms.These findings will be discussed in detail in the followingchapter.163CHAPTER VICONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSIntroductionThis final chapter attempts to tie together theunderstandings. of two teachers’ beliefs about the integration ofart and language gained through an entire research process. Inorder to reach meaningful conclusions, I first found it necessaryto reflect on the research process, and define issues in theprocess that for myself, as a research instrument, affected theconclusions that I reached. Secondly, I have outlined thesignificant conclusions of the research. Next, I have consideredimplications for theory and practice and finally, I makesuggestions for further research.Reflections on the Research ProcessI have found that examining others’ beliefs from aqualitative research perspective is also an examination of one’sown beliefs. What I brought to the research process in terms ofknowledge and expertise gained from experience and research oftencontained unreflected assumptions. In order to gainunderstanding of these two teachers’ beliefs, sometimes I had adifficult time letting go of my own beliefs. I felt that, in avery experiential way, I gained an understanding of how difficultit is to examine and understand aspects of one’s own beliefs. Ina sense, belief systems are our own personal “cultures”; moving164in others’ cultures made me feel awkward, out—of—place, stupid orconversely superior in my greater understandings of this world.Understanding of others’ beliefs involved losing selfcenteredness and placing my own beliefs in a more objectiveperspective. In order to understand, I needed to let go of thedata and let it do the talking. I feel that the teachers’ voicesdid come through.I felt that a limitation of the research process undertakenin this study was the number of case studies involved. Each ofthe teachers caused me to re—examine my assumptions in differentareas. Also, the differences in these teachers’ beliefs causedme to understand elements in art and language integration fromdifferent perspectives. If I had been able to study moreteachers, deeper and more rounded understandings of beliefs aboutthe integration of art and language would have resulted. Thelength of data collection also placed limitations on theconclusions. The relatively short data collection period was awindow on these teachers’ integration strategies. It would havebeen enlightening to see how integration of art and language wasplanned and undertaken over an entire school year. This seemsespecially true because the development of trust inteacher/student relationship emerged as an important element inintegrated settings; it would have been interesting to examine ofhow this relationship is developed over a school year. More timewould have revealed more depth in the understanding of theirbeliefs.165Another problem that I realized in hindsight was that I didnot see a complete picture of the language arts teaching of eachof these teachers. While I was present for virtually all of thevisual arts work, I was not present for any language arts workunless there was an art—integrated component. This is telling inthat virtually all the art activities of these two teachers werepresented in conjunction with language activities, while thelanguage activities had a definite life of their own. Inexamining the beliefs of knowledge of these teachers, I felt thisgap acutely. I felt that I had adequate data to infer beliefsabout the place of art in these teachers views of knowledge. Theplace of language in their beliefs of knowledge required moredata than I was able to collect. So conclusions about languagearts integration need to be viewed with this qualification inmind.ConclusionsAn understanding that came from this study is that there wasa tremendous interrelationship among beliefs about knowledge,student and teacher roles in knowledge acquisition, the socialrelationships in the classroom and the integration of art andlanguage. While this was somewhat foreshadowed in the researchquestions, the depth of these relationships was surprising. Ineach of the cases, the teacher’s beliefs could not be understoodseparately from his/her others; what emerged was an integratedsense of their belief systems about the integration of art and166language. None of my understandings of these teachers’ beliefsindividually had the strength of my understandings of the sum ofthem together. Within these conclusions, many show relationshipsto others, indicating an integrated nature of each of theseteachers’ belief systems about the integration of art andlanguage.1) Teacher’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge are extremelyinfluential in determining what and how they choose to integrate.Both of these teachers integrated art and language arts intheir classrooms according to their beliefs and not according tothe knowledge base that they understood in each of these areas.This was evident in that neither of these teachers followed theprovincial curriculum for art (Ministry of Education, 1985);rather, art was presented in their classrooms through activitiesthat reflected their own beliefs about the nature of art as aneducational enterprise.Paul’s beliefs about knowledge showed in the organizationand presentation of pre-defined procedural knowledge in hisclassroom. Activities in art and language integration showed agreat deal of emphasis on visual ways of knowing, and on theintegration of these visual cognitive processes with linguisticprocesses. He fostered students own interests and ideas byallowing much flexibility in content. However, the emphasis inlearning outcomes was on skills attained from following theV167procedures. Thus his integrated teaching was teacher—structuredand teacher—delivered towards pre-defined procedural outcomes;there was little room for expression of individual learningstyles.VJanice’s beliefs about knowledge showed a contentorientation, where information was organized externally from thestudents and presented in an integrated manner. She demonstrateda strong belief in the primacy of language in thought through herintegrated unit; art activities complemented and supportedlanguage activities, with their main function being in theexpressive mode. Also important to her conceptualization ofknowledge is that it is mediated through people. She emphasizedexpression both in language arts activities and art activities;as well, she presented a great number of metacognitiveactivities. Thus Janice’s integrated teaching in language artsand art formed a dynamic process of presenting content andprocess knowledge and accepting child—centered outcomes forlearning that knowledge.2) Teachers’ personal learning experiences with art and languagehad a great influence on how they integrated art and language inthe classroom.VPaul professed a very visual style of learning, whichreflected in his teaching practices. He also noted that isvisual style was very sequential, and this also was reflected in168the way he integrated art with language. His lessons focused onvisual ways of knowing and interpreting language ideas in a veryprocedurally directed way.Janice’s prime interest in learning was language, and visuallearning for her was based in the spirit rather than in theintellect. The integrated assignments involved in her teachingshowed a much heavier cognitive emphasis in the language arts;critical and aesthetic understandings used language in theproduction and sharing of these ideas. Visual images were usedmostly as supports and expressions of linguistic ideas.3) The teacher’s self-defined role in presenting knowledge inthe classroom supported his/her beliefs about the nature ofknowledge and integration.Paul’s belief in a more absolute nature of knowledge and ina procedural base to that knowledge made his teaching role thatof a deliverer and enforcer. Thus he told the students what theyhad to do, and then “policed” to see that it was done. Since hefocused on procedures that used integrated art and languageprocesses, his role in terms of art and language knowledgevalued both subjects equally. He presented art and languageskills as having equal worth and policed procedures for both.Janice defined herself as a facilitator of knowledge. Sheorganized and presented knowledge thematically through theintegrated unit. But this knowledge was not external to the169students or absolute. For Janice, knowledge must be understoodthrough the context of the learner. Janice’s facilitation of adialectic between external and internal knowledge took place inthe acceptance that she had for the students’ individualexpressions of learning. This also involved what she chose toteach and how she chose to teach it. She included opportunityfor learning and expressing learning in different ways, includingvisual and social ways. Art, particularly, was noted for itsexpressive value. But because her beliefs pointed to the primacyof language in thought most of the activities that involvedcritical and aesthetic understandings were about languageactivities using language as the form of expression.4) The teacher’s role also plays a major part in defining thestudents’ role in relation to the knowledge base in integratedcurricula.Paul’s role as the director and enforcer of knowledge placedthe students in the role of learners of that external knowledge.While control over content knowledge was more in the hands of thestudents, this knowledge was not viewed with the same importanceas the procedural knowledge. Paul’s emphasis on proceduralknowledge and the tight control he maintained over this knowledgecreated a differential in the power over the knowledge base.Paul maintained control over knowledge in fairly absolute terms -170which did not allow for many child-centered integrations to takeplace.Janice’s acceptance of individual learning differencesallowed the students to have an interactive role in the knowledgepresented in her classroom. Because their ways of learning wereseen as credible, students were given some power over processknowledge. And because students’ ways of learning also affectedthe curriculum planning of Janice, there was a more dynamic powerrelationship to the knowledge base in terms of Janice’s role andher students’ role.5) Trust is integral to the teacher/student relationship inintegrated classroom contexts.Trust of the teachers to have the students interact with theknowledge base and trust of the students to have theseinteractions accepted by the teachers form the basis of havingstudents trust themselves to learn. These two case studies pointout how differences in the trust affected child-centeredintegration. Child-centered learning did not take place withoutthis interdependent trust.In Paul’s class, there was not a lot of trust in theteacher/student relationship. Paul did not trust the students tolearn without presenting and enforcing knowledge in quiteabsolute terms. This necessitated students placing their trustin external knowledge via the medium of the teacher. Trust in171themselves as learners was not fostered. Students must have somemeasure of trust in themselves before they can have power overthe knowledge base. If they cannot act on their own knowledgebecause of lack of trust in themselves, teachers may feelpressured to organize the knowledge externally and present it tothem, as Paul did.Janice’s class demonstrated much trust by the students intheir abilities to learn. Janice had a great emphasis onunderstanding and accepting individual differences in herstudents’ learning. During the horse unit, this was primarilyfostered through child—centered expectations in learning outcomesfrom expressive and metacognitive activities. Janice stillmaintained control over content and much process presentation ofknowledge. However, she was increasingly trusting her students’abilities to act on the knowledge base. In the next unit shetaught, her class moved to work with increasingly child—centeredcontrol over content and processes.6) Teacher’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge and teacherroles and student roles in knowledge acquisition are related tohow interactions are fostered in the classroom.Paul’s presentation of external knowledge kept the studentsout of the learning process in some key ways. What they broughtas individuals in terms of interests, abilities, needs andlearning styles had no impact on what was presented as knowledge172in the classroom. But this exclusion also eliminated thedesirability or need of the students’ own knowledge to be sharedor understood by others. If the teacher teaches to pre—definedoutcomes, then there is no room for idiosyncratic perceptions andexpressions of knowledge. This showed in the lack of expressiveassignments in Paul’s teaching, the absence of group assignmentsand in the lack of sharing activities.Janice actively encouraged peer interactions and sharing inher unit plan. Her belief in the interaction between internaland external knowledge in the learning process showed in herfostering of shared learning and shared learning experiences inher classroom.7) Control issues in integrated classroom contexts areinseparable from the teacher’s beliefs about the nature ofknowledge and the role of the teacher and the role of thestudents in knowledge acquisition.Classroom control is clearly an issue that has immenseimplications in integrated settings. Both of these teachers usedtheir control over content and procedural knowledge in theirclassrooms. But the different ways that they did this wasintegrally related to their beliefs about knowledge and theirself—defined roles as teachers.Paul had a great emphasis on having his students achieve topre—defined standards, so his beliefs about his role as a teacher173would not allow a great deal of flexibility in terms of processesto follow to achieve these standards. The content upon which thestudents acted was where he provided flexibility, allowingstudents to bring part of themselves into the learning process.However, power was clearly maintained through proceduralknowledge; this is what he emphasized in presenting and marking.His role in terms of power over the knowledge base and the rolethat he assigned the students as powerless made personal contentknowledge a minor factor in learning. Therefore, control inPaul’s class was maintained around knowledge and the exclusion ofstudents’ personal knowledge from the knowledge that he presentedcreated a linear model of the learning process.Janice, on the other hand, provided organized content andprocesses as a means to facilitate, rather than to prescriptlearning. In accepting outcomes of learning that reflected thestudents’ individual thought processes, her role as a classroomteacher was defined interactively with her presentation ofknowledge and acceptance of learning outcomes. Therefore powerover the knowledge base was more equal. The learning process wascharacterized by a dialectic taking place between internal andexternal knowledge.Control in Janice’s classroom was not maintained through anabsolutist view of knowledge. Incorporating the dialecticbetween external and internal knowledge in the learning processallOwed trust to develop. She did have a control, but it wasmaintained less through her control over knowledge and more174through trust in the teacher/student relationship. Increasingly,as trust was built between her students and herself, students’learning became more child—centered and less controlledexternally by Janice.Implications for Theory and PracticeThis research supports the theory that teachers’ beliefshave a very important bearing on what goes on in classrooms. Thebeliefs that these teachers described through interviews andthrough their actions provided a great deal of understanding ofthe integrated art and language curricula presented in theirclassrooms.An interdependence of beliefs pertaining to the integrationof art and language arts was another key finding. This has manyimplications in terms of changing from traditional classroomculture practices to more integrated and child—centeredpractices, as proposed by whole language theories and Harvard’sProject Zero. Curricular change towards integration involve manycomplex beliefs of teachers. The interrelationship of thesebeliefs make change to a more integrated curricula a veryinvolved process and one that needs to address many teacherbeliefs as well as how these beliefs interact with each other increating a learning context in the classroom.One of the most disturbing implications of this study wasthat beliefs of these teachers about art and language arts aseducational enterprises superseded their knowledge in these two175areas in their presentations of integrated curricula. Paul didnot adhere to well—established bounds and the generally accepteddomains of application in either language arts or art. Soknowledge in these two areas was not being addressed; rather hewas addressing his personal beliefs in these two areas throughhis teaching. Janice dealt with knowledge in language arts verydifferently than she did with knowledge in art; activitiesreflected her belief in the primacy of language. This bringsinto question whether or not these two subjects were trulyintegrated, or if art was used merely as a support to learning inlanguage.Both of these case studies indicate that belief, as opposedto knowledge, was the defining point in what they chose tointegrate. An understanding gained from this study is thatteachers’ beliefs affect the position of art and language intheir integrated curricula. This had less to do with whatknowledge the teacher had than how they perceived that knowledge,especially in their own learning. In terms af changing to a moreintegrated art and language curricula, this understanding hasimplications as to how this should be undertaken. While bothteachers in this study acknowledged art as being an integral partof the work that they did in the classrooms, neither addressedthe comprehensiveness of knowledge within the area of art. Bothaddressed art as functioning very much as it did in their ownlearning. Therefore, as an implication for practice, in orderto understand the potential of art in learning, teachers may have176to experience creation in art, art history, art criticism andaesthetics as being relative to their own cognition.This has serious implications for integration of arts andlanguage arts specifically. Art production and critical andaesthetic understandings in art have a traditional and perhaps afundamental internal component that has been ignored bytraditional classroom culture and, more pointedly, by theteachers in this study. However, developing critical andaesthetic understandings through students’ own artwork haspotential not only for establishing a dialectic between internaland external knowledge, but the integration of artistic andlinguistic ways of knowing are integral to the learning processesinvolved. This study implies that there is great potential to beexplored in the area of art and language arts integration, bothin theory and in practice. Beliefs about knowledge that supporta personal dimension have potential to increase the prevalence ofartistic ways of knowing within classrooms, which in turn wouldprovide a powerful avenue for students to have an interactiverole in the learning process.The relationship of the practice of teaching to beliefsabout the learning process also need to be considered in light ofhow the teacher defines his/her own role and the role of thestudents. Both teachers studied here, in planning integratedcurricula, made attempts to give the students power to enter intothe learning process. The beliefs of these teachers about thenature of content and processes within knowledge was key. Both177allowed the students to have control of either content orprocesses in order to draw them into the learning context. Thisimplies a dynamic relationship with the knowledge that theteacher has the power to control and the knowledge that he/shedoes not.Important to the involvement of students in the learningprocess is this relinquishment by teachers of power overknowledge. This study indicates that moving toward more child-centered learning involves a redefinition of teacher and studentroles in relation to power over the knowledge base. Child—centered learning presupposes a belief in knowledge as having aninternal or personal component. If knowledge is believed to beexternal to students, then students’ own perceptions,experiences, needs, abilities and expressions do not have aninfluence over that knowledge. There is no need to sharelearning and interact with peers in learning. In fact, eventeachers have a limited role as transmitters of knowledge. Butthis role is bound in the power it exerts over knowledge; theteacher has control over what passes to the students. Powermaintained through absolute knowledge has been the norm. Withoutthis power, teachers need a new way to create order.This study indicates that one way a new power relationshipis defined in integrated settings is through trust inteacher/student relationships. A learning process that involvesa dialectic between internal and external knowledge requires thatteachers trust the students to bring internal knowledge into the178process. It also involves the students’ trusting the teachers toaccept this knowledge. This leads to students trusting in theirown abilities to learn and ultimately gives them power to act onexternal knowledge, internalize it and express their learning.Recommendations for Further ResearchResearch that investigates teachers’ beliefs in creatingintegrated contexts for learning in all subject areas is needed.Particularly in the area of language arts and art, beliefs needfurther investigation to add to and support the investigations inthis study. Because theories in the literature express a greatpotential for integrated learning experiences in these two areas,and a greater understanding of how and why art and languageintegration takes place in classrooms can illuminate thispotential, particularly in the area of critical and aestheticunderstanding.This study also opens the door to new understandings in howorder in integrated classrooms may proceed. Since maintainingorder through an absolute view of knowledge is a strong motivatorfor teachers to stay within the bounds of traditional classroomculture, research on integration needs to consider order interms of relationship—based as opposed to knowledge—based order.The understandings of their own learning styles had animpact on how language arts and art were integrated by these twoteachers. Metacognition on the part of teachers in order tounderstand their own teaching practices is an area of research179that is growing. From this study, an understanding of how theteacher’s metacognition affects art and language integration wasgained. Interesting research possibilities arise from this studyin the area of beliefs in the idiosyncratic nature of knowledgein relation to teachers themselves and their beliefs aboutstudents’ knowledge acquisition.180ReferencesAdolescent Health Survey: Report for the East Kootenay Region ofBritish Columbia. (1993). Vancouver: The McCreary CentreSociety.Amdur, D. (1993). Arts and Cultural Context; A CurriculumIntegrating DBAE with other Humanities Subjects on aSecondary Level. Art Education, j(3), 12-19.Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychologyof the Creative Eve. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.Bates, M. (1993). Imitating the Greats: Art as the Catalystin Student Poetry. Art Education, j(4), 41-45.Bogdan, R. C. & Bilken, S. K. (1982). qualitative Research forEducation. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to FieldResearch. 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 OveremphaisizedTool? (Tn-University Integration Project, Occasional Paper#7). Simon Fraser University, University of BritishColumbia & University of Victoria.Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind, New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, Inc.Colbert, C. (1984). The Relationship of Language and Drawing inDescription and Memory Tasks. Studies in Art Education,(2), 84—91.Coombs, 3. (1991). Thinking Seriously About Integration (Tn-University Integration Project, Occasional Paper #4). SimonFraser University, University of British Columbia &University of Victoria.Court, D. (1991). Curricular Integration and Personal PracticalKnowledge (Tn-University Integration Project, OccasionalPaper #5). Simon Fraser University, University of BritishColumbia & University of Victoria.181Daniels, L. (1991). Integration and Relevance (Tn-UniversityIntegration Project, Occasional Paper #3). Simon FraserUniversity, University of British Columbia & University ofVictoria.Dearden, R. (1976). Theory and Practice in Education. Journal ofPhilosophy of Education, j(l), 17-29.Dixon, G. T. & Chalmers, F. G. (1990). The Expressive Arts inEducation. Childhood Education, 67(1), 12-17.Dyson, A. H. (1988). Negotiating Among Multiple Worlds. Researchin the Teaching of English, (4), 355-390.Dyson, A. H. (1992). From Prop to Mediator: The Changing Role ofWritten Language in Children’s Symbolic Repertoires(Occasional Paper #32). Berkeley, CA: National Center forthe Study of Writing and Literacy.Edwards, B. (1986). Drawing on the Right Side of The Brain. NewYork: 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 andCurriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(1), 48-52.Eisner, E. (1982). The Role of Cognition and Curriculum: A Basisfor Deciding What to Teach. New York: Longman.Eisner, E. (1988). The Role of Discipline—Based Art Education inAmerica’s Schools. Los Angeles, Calif: Getty Center forEducation in the Arts.Eisner, E. (1991). The Enlightend Eye: Qualitative Inquiry andthe Enhancement of Educational Practise. Toronto: CollierMcMillan.Elementary Fine Arts Resource Book. (1985). Victoria: Ministry ofEducation, 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: Friend or Foe of ArtEducation. Art Education, (6), 6-9.Froese, V., Ed. (1990). Whole Language Practice and Theory.Scarborough Ont.: Prentice—Hall Canada, Inc.182Forrest, E. (1984). Art Education and the Language of Art.Studies in Art Education, (l), 27-33.Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto:OISE Press.Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: the Theory of MultipleIntelligences. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of theCognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Gardner, H. (1989). Zero—based Arts Education: An Introduction toARTS PROPEL. Studies in Art Education, Q(2), 71-83.Golonib, C. & Farmer, D. (1983). Children’s Graphic PlanningStrategies and Early Principles of Spacial Organization inDrawing. Studies in Art Education, (2), 23-34.Goodman, K. (1986). What’s Whole in Whole Lanquage?Toronto: Scholastic.Grauer, K. (1991). Integration. BCTATA Journal for Art Teachers,(l), 23—26.Gray, J. U. & MacGregor, R. N. (1990). A Report on the Status ofArt Teaching: PROACTA Plus. Unpublished manuscript,University of British Columbia.Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff Development and the Process ofTeacher Change. Educational Researcher, , 5—12.Hamblen, K. (1983). The Cognitive Umbrella. Studies in ArtEducation, 2..4.(3), 177—183.Hamblen, K. (1987). An Examination of Discipline-Based ArtEducation Issues. Studies in Art Education, (2), 66-78.Hamblen, K. (1988). What Does DBAE Teach? Art Education, March,23—35.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). King of the Wind. Toronto: Alladin Books.Hirst, P. (1974). Knowledge and Curriculum. London; Routledge &Kegan Paul.183Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change inLearning to Teach. American Educational Research Journal,(2), 160—189.Hubbard, G. (1987). Art in Action. San Diego, CA.: CoronadoPublishers.Isenberg, J. P. (1990). Teachers’ Thinking and Beliefs andClassroom Practice. Childhood Education, (5), 332-337.Jones, V. (1991). Collaborative Teaching: Writers and VisualArtists. Teachers and Writers, (3), 3-9.Kindler, A. (1987). A Review of Rationales for Integrated ArtsPrograms. 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 MentalRepresentations: A Continuing Study. Studies in ArtEducation, 2.(3), 167—175.L’Engle, M. (1962). A Wrinkle in Time. New York: Dell Publishing.Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and Mental Growth. New York:MacMillan.McEwan, A. E. (1993). On Becoming A Solourning Community. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Atlanta, GA.McGuire, G. N. (1984). How Arts Instruction Affects Reading andLanguage: 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 ThroughChildren’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 WithWhole Language. Educational Leadership, (6), 51-53.Neill, A. (1960). Summerhill. New York: Hart Publishing.Nespor, J. (1987). The Role of Beliefs in the Practice ofTeaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, (4), 317-328.184Nessel, D. (1989). Thinking Through the Language Arts. New York:MacMillan Publishing Company.Osborne, H. (1984). The Language Metaphor in Art. The Journal ofAesthetic Education, j(1), 9-20.Oxford English Dictionary. (1966). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and EducationalResearch: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review ofEducational Research, 2.(3), 307—332.Pappas, C., Kiefer, B. & Levstik, L. (1990). An IntegratedLanguage Perspective in the Elementary School: Theory intoAction. New York: Longman.Perkins, D. N. (1988). Art as Understanding. The Journal ofAesthetic Education, (l), 111-132.Perry, L. (1984). Arts Judgment and Language. The Journal ofAesthetic Education, j(1), 21-33.Pring, R. (1973). Curriculum Integration. The Philosophy ofEducation. London: Oxford University Press.Popkewitz, T. (1978). The Social Structure of Schools and G.Willis (ed.) qualitative Evaluation: Concepts andCases in Curriculum Criticism. Berkeley: McCutchan.Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D. & Lloyd, C. (1991). TheRelationship Between Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices inReading Comprehension Instruction. AitLerican EducationalResearch Journal, (3), 559-586.Schmidt, W. & Buchmann, M. (1983). Six Teachers’ Beliefs andAttitudes and Their Curricular Time Allocations. ThElementary School Journal, (2), 162-171.Schmidt, W., Roehler, L., Caul, J. L., Buchman, M., Diamond, B.,Solomon, D. & Cianciolo, P. (1985). The Uses of CurriculumIntegration in Language Arts Instruction: a Study of SixClassrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, J(3), 305-320.Siera, M. & Combs, M. (1990). Transitions in Reading Instruction:Handling Contradictions in Beliefs and Practice. ReadingHorizons, (2), 113—121.Temple, C. & Gillet. J. W. (1989). Language Arts: LearningProcesses and Teaching Practices, Glenview, Illinois:Scott, Foresman and Co.185Thorns, H. (1985). Creative writing as dialectical interplay:Multiple Views of a Painting. Art Education, (6), 18-21.Walker, D. & Soltis, J. (1986). Curriculum and Aims. New York:Teacher’s College Press.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’sDrawings. Unpublished manuscript, University of BritishColuiTibia.Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools: Ethnography in EducationalResearch. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Young, J. H. (1991—92). Curriculum Integration: Perceptions ofPreservice Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, ja(4), 1—9.Youngblood, N. (1983). The Dichotomous Man: The Message ofPhaedrus. Studies in Art Education, (1), 6-13.186APPENDICESAppendix A: Pre-unit Interview Question GuideQuestion Guide1) General Background Information: rn/f, number of years teaching,what grades, subject specialization (?).2) Introduction to the topic of integration: What do you thinkabout curricular integration? Can you think of examples in yourteaching experience where integration worked (did not work)?Describe the situation. (The purpose of this questioning is togain a working definition of integration. What are we talkingabout from the teacher’s perspective?).3) Focus on the students: What do you think students gain (and/orlose) 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 ofthese questions is tä gain understanding of beliefs that theteacher holds about the way students learn and/or do not learn inintegrated settings).4) Focus on the teacher and the teacher’s role in curricularintegration: How does integration affect you? Does it alterplanning? Example? Does it alter your role in the classroom?Example? Does it affect order? Example? (The purpose of thesequestions is to gain an understanding of beliefs about teachingin an integrated setting, specifically the perceived role of theteacher).5) Review of beliefs understood about integration, studentlearning and teacher’s role: How do these professed beliefs fittogether? (The purpose of these questions is to check with theteacher as to whether or not the responses were understoodcorrectly, especially if their views or examples seem to displayinconsistencies).6) Focus on teaching art: How do you feel about teaching art? Isit different from other subjects? How? How do your students feelabout learning art? Does integration affect your feelings aboutart? Example? Does integration affect the way students feelabout art? Example? (The purpose of these questions is todetermine beliefs about art as a subject, as an element inintegration and how the teacher believes students react to it).7) Focus on teaching language: How do you feel about teachinglanguage arts? Is it different from other subjects? How do yourstudents feel about learning language arts? Does integrationaffect your feeling about language arts? Example? Doesintegration affect the way students feel about language arts?187Example? (The purpose of this question is to determine beliefsabout language as a subject, and beliefs about the perceivedviews of students towards language arts in an integratedsetting).8) Focus on the integration of language and art: Do you integratelanguage and art? Why or why not? Does the previous answerreflect views previously stated about language and art assubjects? Does this answer reflect views on how students learn?Does this answer reflect views on the teacher’s role? (Thepurpose of this question is to gain understanding of why thisteacher would or would not teach language and art together, andhow beliefs about art and language as subjects, beliefs about theway students learn and beliefs about the way teachers teachrelate to the notion of integration).188Appendix B: Post-unit Interview GuideThemes for Final Interview With PaulMay 3, 19941) Integration: While observing in your class, I have notedthat you do not integrate thematically. But you have a verydefinite idea that visual and verbal learning go together. Thisseems to be more of a “process” integration. Visual learningcertainly does have a prominent position in your class.2) Discipline: We talked quite a bit in our initial interviewabout discipline because you were finding this class difficult.A number of ideas relating to this theme came from myobservations:-Standards: You are very explicit about the standards thatyou expect for each assignment. But what you expect standards todo and what the students actually use them for seem to be atodds. You are very clear, for the most part, about how yourexpectations relate to what you expect them to get out of anactivity. But some of the students seem to get hung up on thestandards themselves, rather than any learning that they aresupposed to get out of the activity. Some especially seem to behung up on “neatness” standards.—Standards and Creativity: I know that you are veryaccepting of students ideas, ones that show critical thinking andcreativity. You ask for their opinions, predictions, etc. Andsome students really enjoy these interchanges (I am thinkingparticularly of your reading of A Wrinkle in Time). But in someactivities I wonder if students get hung up in the standards anddon’t work on creative aspects of their work. They see thestandards as the goals of the activity; whereas I had understoodthat you see these as minimum standards.3) Trust: This theme has a lot to do with the teacher’sworking relationship with the students. It also has to do withwhat the students believe themselves capable of doing. I thinkthat, for you trust is a very important part of teaching. Yourstandards are a way that you establish trust — the students arenot going to be surprised about their marks because you are soexplicit about what they need to get a good grade. But you alsoestablish trust by your acceptance of their ideas. I can seethis normally building into a fine learning relationship. Thisyear, because you have expressed some problems with this class, Iwas seeing some of the problems as relating to a trust theme.The students don’t seem to trust their own ideas or their ownabilities to go beyond your standards into creative and criticalthinking activities.4) Drawing on Previous Learning: Of course, as teachers, wewant what we teach to be useful and relevant in futuresituations. Obviously, some of what you had done before I began189observing extended into my observation period. The individualprojects on Egypt, for example, used the mind—mapping and anorganizational sheet for writing essays. Some had trouble,though, with the lettering for the Earth Day posters - and youhad even reminded them of the lettering that they had done in theprevious week’s art lesson. This was a more open assignment, andsome of them really had trouble with the freedom of it.S) Relationship of order to learning: This is a very complexchain, and obviously not easily observable. But it is the basisof what we do as teachers. When we create order out of all theknowledge that we have and present it in the classroom, we havecertain goals in mind of what we want students to receive. Whatthey actually receive is the final link in this chain.6) The teacher as a learner: From our initial interview, I wasstrongly impressed with your insight into yourself as a learner.Visual components of the way that you learn seem to affect theway you teach, and why visual learning has a high status in yourclassroom.190Final Interview With JaniceDiscussion GuideJune 1st, 19941) Child—centered presentation/exploration of knowledge versuschild—centered expectations for outcomes:A) Child-centered learning: In the initial interview, youstated that you could not truly define your classroom as child—centered. I found this to be true in many assignments in thedimension of knowledge — the students in this unit weren’t to anenormous extent directing the knowledge that entered into theclassroom. This did not seem to affect their interest level,however.B) Child—centered expectations for outcomes: But what Idid find was a very interesting complication of your having verychild—centered expectations of learning outcomes. I felt thateach student’s abilities and needs were taken into account in allclassroom activities, including the acceptance of differentability levels, different learning styles and the influence ofsocialization on those learning styles. This gave the studentssuch a sense of trust in themselves to internalize and use thepresented knowledge base. They seemed to exercise a lot ofcontrol of the knowledge presented as a result of support fromyou. This allowed them to personalize the knowledge andintegrate it with knowledge they had already acquired.C) Trust in the working relationship: The students thenhad more trust in themselves, which showed especially in the moreself-directed assignments like the creative writing story.Creative assignments necessitate children drawing on themselvesand they did this with utter confidence. I have called thischild—supported learning, where the children have a sense ofcontrol and trust in their learning as a result of the supportthat you provide. A supporting and trusting relationship seemsto be key to integrated learning in your classroom.2) Vertical Integration:Many times you commented on how well the students appliedpreviously learned knowledge. For instance, you mentioned howwell the students used writing skills such as quotation marks andparagraphing that you had spent some time teaching in a writingunit. The research reports, as well, drew on previously learnedprocesses for writing. Interesting to me is the fact that thisprevious learning of processes has been applied so well in theleast directed activities in this unit. Do you move from moreteacher—directed to more independent work as students acquire arepertoire of processes? Or is this just an example of how thisworked?1913) Metacognition:You were constantly asking students to consider what and howthey 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 andimportant of consideration. This, of course, ties in withsupporting them, or teaching them to trust themselves aslearners.4) Personal Metacognition:Recognition of yourself as a learner is important to the wayyou teach. You are a learner to your students, albeit a moreexperienced and knowledgeable one.5) Art and Language Integration:A) Listen, sketch and draw: This is a marvelous processthat really brought the student’s thinking in visual terms andtheir thinking in verbal terms together. From the enthusiasmthat the students showed for these activities, it did aid intheir learning. As such, it is and integrative process.B) Murals: These displayed many kinds of integration.First, the ideas from the book were interpreted in visual form.They also had to integrate their ideas with others. Also knownas cooperative or social learning, this involves complex thoughtthat involves visual and language learning. They also involvedthe integration of art techniques that they had learned, such asthe drawing of horses and perspective.C) Illustrations of their stories: These I found reallyinteresting because they were the least directed and theyoccurred in the culminating work piece for the unit. For themost part, these were “props” — the thought processes were mostlythrough writing, and sharing with their friends while they“edited”. The drawings then reflected these thoughts.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items