UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A survey of the attitudes of Icelandic art and craft teachers toward curriculum and practice in their… Helgadóttir, Guðrún 1989

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 H44.pdf [ 7.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097788.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097788-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097788-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097788-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097788-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097788-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097788-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097788-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097788.ris

Full Text

A S U R V E Y O P T H E A T T I T U D E S O P I C E L A N D I C A R T A N D C R A F T T E A C H E R S T O W A R D C U R R I C U L U M A N D P R A C T I C E I N T H E I R S U B J E C T A R E A by GUDRUN HELGADOTTIR B.Ed. Kennarahaskoli Islands [The Teachers' College of Iceland], Reykjavik, Iceland, 1982. THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Visual and Performing Arts i n Education) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 © Gu5run Helgadottir, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of />}>nwf Tx-Chrtry'LifJ /Ms /K £dtdC#4?OL, The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date A 9.  DE-6 (2/88) i i Abstract Teachers do not merely implement the formally approved curriculum, they a c t i v e l y develop a personal curriculum. Teachers adopt, adapt and select to shape t h e i r personal curriculum. Teachers' attitudes, p a r t i c u l a r l y toward curriculum rationales, prominent practices, p o l i c y issues and personal e f f i c a c y or concept of s e l f as a professional are key factors i n t h i s process. This study surveyed Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers' attitudes toward curriculum rationales, current practices and personal e f f i c a c y factors including t h e i r attitudes toward subject, student and society centered rationales for a r t and c r a f t education, the practices of a b i l i t y grouping and subject matter integration, t h e i r perceptions of gender differences i n t h e i r students' r e l a t i o n to t h e i r subject. Teacher attitudes toward statements r e f l e c t i n g c u r r i c u l a r autonomy, a strong s e l f concept and the influence of others were also measured. Relations between attitudes and demographic variables were also sought. The survey was conducted by a mailed questionnaire that consisted of L i k e r t scale items for measuring attitudes and l i m i t e d choice items to e l i c i t demographic information. I t was concluded that attitudes toward c u r r i c u l a r rationales s i g n i f y a t r a n s i t i o n from subject centered to student centered rationales and that society centered rationales are currently of marginal importance to Icelandic i i i a r t and c r a f t teachers. Respondents disagreed that gender based differences i n students' r e l a t i o n s to the art and c r a f t subjects e x i s t . This was perhaps a denial of an unresolved issue rather than an i n d i c a t i o n that these differences do not e x i s t . Within the school the art and c r a f t teachers enjoyed the status of experts but believed themselves to be marginal as decision makers which could be a threat to t h e i r e f f i c a c y . i v Table of contents Abstract i i Table of contents i v L i s t of tables v i i i Acknowledgements x Dedication x i I The research problem 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Statement of the problem 4 C. The research questions 4 D. D e f i n i t i o n of terms 5 E. Design of the study 8 II Review of the l i t e r a t u r e 9 A. , Curriculum 9 1. Curriculum conceptions 9 2. The t r i p a r t i t e model of curriculum rationales..11 3. The Icelandic curriculum for art and c r a f t i n compulsory education 15 1. The history 15 2. The goals 19 3. The integrated subject area 22 4. Recommendations on evaluation 2 3 5. The recommended course of study 24 6. Degree of prescriptiveness 27 7. The missing part 28 B. Teachers and curriculum 29 V 1. Teachers' r e l a t i o n to curriculum 29 1. C l a r i t y 32 2 . Congruence 34 2. Teacher attitudes toward curriculum rationales.35 C. Teachers' concept of s e l f as a professional 37 1. Empowerment 38 2. Curriculum i d e n t i t y 39 3. Teaching experience 40 D. Summary 41 III Conduct of the study 44 A. The research questions 44 B. The research instrument 45 C. Pretesting the instrument 46 D. The population 48 E. Implementation of the questionnaire 49 F. Data analysis 52 G. Limitations 53 IV Summary and presentation of findings 54 A. The sample 54 1. The representativeness of the sample 54 2. Teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n 58 3. Teaching experience and teaching load 61 4. Student enrollment and grade l e v e l s taught 66 B. The attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers...68 1. Attitudes toward curriculum rationales 68 1. A subject centered rationale 70 v i 2. A student centered rationale 73 3. A society centered rationale 76 2. Issues i n Icelandic a r t and c r a f t education....79 1. Attitudes toward a b i l i t y grouping. 79 2. Perceptions of gender differences 81 3. Attitudes toward integration 85 3. Teachers' concept of s e l f as a professional....88 1. Perceptions of curriculum autonomy 88 2. Self concept 90 3. Perceived influence of others 93 C. Comments from respondents 96 1. Additional information on respondents teaching s i t u a t i o n 96 2. Comments on the instrument 98 3. Comments on issues raised i n the questionnaire.98 4. Attitude towards t h i s research 99 V Discussion of findings 100 A. The attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers..100 1. Curriculum rationales 102 2. Issues i n Icelandic a r t and c r a f t education...105 1. Attitudes toward a b i l i t y grouping 105 2. Perception of gender differences 106 3. Attitudes toward integration 108 3. Teachers' concept of s e l f as a professional... 109 1. Perceptions of curriculum autonomy 109 2. Self concept 110 v i i 3. Perceived influence of others 110 B. The attitudes of various groups within the sample..Ill 1. Gender differences i n attitudes I l l 2. Attitudes and subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n 113 3. Attitudes and teaching experience 116 4. Attitudes and grade l e v e l taught 119 VI Conclusions and implications 121 A. What are the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and practice i n t h e i r subject area ? :...121 B. How do demographic variables a f f e c t the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and pr a c t i c e i n t h e i r subject area ? 123 C. A comment regarding gender proportions i n the population 124 D. Implications 125 1. Implications for teachers 125 2. Implications for curriculum development 127 3. Implications for further research 128 References 131 Appendices 136 1. Tables showing differences on attitude items according to demographic variables 136 2. The questionnaire and follow up l e t t e r s 145 3. A l i s t of informants 153 v i i i L i s t o f t a b l e s Table 1. Gender 55 Table 2. Subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of respondents 56 Table 3. Gender and subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n 57 Table 3.1. Gender proportions i n t e x t i l e teaching 57 Table 3.2. Gender proportions i n art teaching 57 Table 3.3. Gender proportions i n wood and metalwork teaching 57 Table 4. Teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n 59 Table 5. Year of receiving teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n 60 Table 6. Level of teaching experience 61 Table 6.1. Teaching experience and gender 62 Table 7. Proportion of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n teaching load 63 Table 7.1. Proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load and years of teaching experience 64 Table 8. A v a i l a b i l i t y of art and c r a f t teaching 65 Table 9. Sample d i v i s i o n by student enrollment 66 Table 10. Grade l e v e l taught 67 Table 11. Attitudes toward subject centered statements 71 Table 12. Attitudes toward student centered statements 74 Table 13. Attitudes toward society centered statements 77 Table 14. Attitudes toward statements favoring a b i l i t y grouping 79 Table 15. Attitudes toward statements i n d i c a t i n g gender differences 82 ix Table 16. Attitudes toward statements favoring integration..86 Table 17. Attitudes toward statements favoring curriculum autonomy 89 Table 18. Attitudes toward statements r e f l e c t i n g a strong concept of s e l f as a professional 91 Table 19. Attitudes toward statements r e f l e c t i n g perceived influence of others 94 X Acknowledgements I would l i k e t o expres s my a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the gu idance and s u p p o r t o f my a d v i s o r s D r . J e a n Barman, D r . L a u r i e B a x t e r , D r . Graeme Chalmers and i n p a r t i c u l a r my p r i n c i p a l a d v i s o r D r . Ron MacGregor . They have had a p r o f o u n d impact on my a t t i t u d e toward r e s e a r c h . I w i sh t o acknowledge the s u p p o r t f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h t h r o u g h f u n d i n g and o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d from Rannsoknastofnun u p p e l d i s m a l a (The I n s t i t u t e f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research) and M e n n t a m a l a r a 3 u n e y t i I s l a n d s (The M i n i s t r y o f C u l t u r e and E d u c a t i o n ) , R e y k j a v i k , I c e l a n d . My s i n c e r e thanks go t o the i n f o r m a n t s l i s t e d i n Appendix 3 and t o I c e l a n d i c a r t and c r a f t t e a c h e r s f o r r e c e i v i n g t h i s s u r v e y so w e l l . I am g r a t e f u l t o my mother Porunn M a g n i i s d o t t i r cand mag who by h e r example as a f e m i n i s t and s c h o l a r has i n s p i r e d me. I w i sh t o thank h e r and my s i s t e r s E y g l o B j a r n a r d o t t i r , I n g i b j o r g B j a r n a r d o t t i r and B i l B j a r n a r d o t t i r f o r t h e i r c o n s i d e r a b l e h e l p w i t h p r o d u c i n g , m a i l i n g and r e t r i e v i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . L a s t b u t not l e a s t I w i sh t o thank my husband H e l g i T h o r a r e n s e n f o r h i s s u p p o r t and p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s e x p r e s s e d i n t e r e s t i n and a s s i s t a n c e w i t h s t a t i s t i c s and computat ions f o r t h i s s t u d y . This work i s dedicated to my daughter Johanna Thorarensen 1 I. The research problem. A. Introduction. In curriculum development and implementation the teacher's r o l e i s c r u c i a l : the teacher i s the person who presents the curriculum to students. In so doing the teacher i s not only a c t i v e l y implementing but also developing curriculum. This has not always been properly acknowledged. Curriculum proposals and innovations are developed and decisions made on implementation without attention to teachers' a b i l i t y or wish to implement. Current development i n educational research involves a reconceptualization of the r o l e of teachers. Their importance and influence i n curriculum development and implementation i s being recognized to an increasing extent. Research on teachers and teaching points to t h e i r attitudes toward educational rationales as being a c r u c i a l factor i n curriculum development and implementation. Another important element receiving increased attention i s the teacher's e f f i c a c y , the extent to which the teacher f e e l s able to implement curriculum. A c r u c i a l factor i n teachers' r e l a t i o n to curriculum i s t h e i r attitudes, which are predispositions to behavior. Knowledge of teacher attitudes toward curriculum and practice i s thus valuable i n assessing the v i a b i l i t y of curriculum proposals. The o f f i c i a l curriculum guide for art and c r a f t for compulsory education i n Iceland i s an i n t e r e s t i n g example of a 2 curriculum proposal. Prio r to 1977 what i s now known as the integrated subject area of art and c r a f t were three separate subjects without any formal connection. With the 1977 curriculum guide they were redefined to a c e r t a i n extent, given a common heading and goals. This r e d e f i n i t i o n took place at the documentary l e v e l and l i t t l e i s known about how t h i s document translated into practice. This study deals with teachers' attitudes, an important factor i n such a t r a n s l a t i o n . A b r i e f description of the education system and the p o s i t i o n of a r t and c r a f t as well as the art and c r a f t teachers i s i n order here. The Icelandic public school system provides compulsory education for children from 7-15 years of age, as well as preschool for 6-year"olds and 9th grade for 16-year olds. In the public school curriculum guide from 1977 art and c r a f t i s defined as an integrated subject area made up of four subjects: art, t e x t i l e s , weaving, and wood and metalwork. As weaving has not become an established subject i n compulsory education and weaving instructors are generally not employed as s p e c i a l i s t s at the public school l e v e l , weaving w i l l be excluded from consideration i n t h i s study. V i s u a l art and c r a f t s have been compulsory subjects i n the public school curriculum i n Iceland since 1946 (Danielsson, Helgadottir and Kjartansdottir 1982). These subjects are compulsory from grade 3 through grade 8. Students are i n each 3 of the three subjects e n t i t l e d to i n s t r u c t i o n by s p e c i a l i z e d teachers, conducted i n s p e c i a l l y designed f a c i l i t i e s . In the recommendations for time allotment put forth by Menntamalarac-uneytiS [the Ministry of Culture and Education], ar t i s a l l o t t e d 90 minutes per week and the two c r a f t subjects, t e x t i l e s , and wood and metalwork, share another 90 minutes per week. The public school act decrees that t o t a l i n s t r u c t i o n time i n grade 3 should be 1080 minutes, and i n grade 8 1440-1480 minutes (Log um grunnskola nr. 63/1974). In grades 0-2 art and c r a f t education i s the generalist classroom teacher's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , but cooperation with the s p e c i a l i s t s i s highly recommended i n the curriculum documents. Art and c r a f t i s an e l e c t i v e i n grade 9, and i n grades 7 and 8 art and c r a f t e l e c t i v e s can be added to the compulsory program. Over the years art and c r a f t teachers i n Iceland have been trained through separate programs and at times i n d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s . O r i g i n a l l y the three programs were offered through a college of art and c r a f t but moved to a teacher t r a i n i n g college at various points i n time (Danielsson et a l 1982) . Since 1987 a l l three programs t r a i n i n g a r t and c r a f t teachers for the public school system have been offered through Kennarahaskoli Islands (Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education) which i s at the univ e r s i t y l e v e l of education. P r i o r to t h i s a rt teachers were educated through Myndlista- og handioaskoli Islands (The Art and Craft College of Iceland) which i s at the diploma l e v e l . Craft teachers were educated 4 through Kennarahaskoli islands (Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education) and have graduated with a B.Ed, degree since 1971. Meanwhile a rt teachers graduated with a diploma as t h e i r t r a i n i n g was not defined as univer s i t y l e v e l (Log um Kennarahaskola Islands 1988, Log um Myndlista- og handioaskola islands 1965). B. Statement of the problem. Throughout the hist o r y of curriculum development i n art and c r a f t i n Iceland l i t t l e attention has been paid to the teachers 7 point of view. Not enough i s known about the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers towards t h e i r subject area. I t i s not known whether there are marked differences between art and c r a f t teachers related to t h e i r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . I t i s not known to what extent the attitudes of these teachers are compatible with the curriculum they are to implement. I t i s not known whether they are e f f i c a c i o u s . Information on the attitudes of teachers toward curriculum rationales i s valuable i n developing and implementing curriculum. The purpose of t h i s study i s to gather information on Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to curriculum i n t h e i r subject area. C. The research questions. The research questions addressed i n t h i s study were: 5 R l . What are the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and practice i n t h e i r subject area ? R l . l What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' attitudes toward a) subject centered c u r r i c u l a , b) student centered c u r r i c u l a , c) society centered c u r r i c u l a ? R1.2 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' perceptions of gender differences i n t h e i r students r e l a t i o n to t h e i r subject ? R1.3 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' attitudes toward integration of subject matter ? R1.4 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' attitudes toward a b i l i t y grouping ? R1.5 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' perceptions of personal e f f i c a c y ? R.2 How do background variables a f f e c t the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and practice i n t h e i r subject area ? D. D e f i n i t i o n of terms. Art: The subject within the curriculum for compulsory education encompassing v i s u a l fine a r t s ; usually drawing, painting, printmaking, three-dimensional design and ceramics. T e x t i l e s : The subject within the curriculum for compulsory education dealing with design i n f a b r i c and thread, \ 6 encompassing k n i t t i n g , embroidery, machine s t i t c h i n g and clothes construction for example. Wood and metalwork: The subject within the public school curriculum dealing with l i g h t cabinet making, woodcarving and -turning, leatherwork, and metalwork such as forming, etching, engraving, and enameling. Art and c r a f t teacher: In t h i s study the term ref e r s to a c e r t i f i e d public school teacher who i s trained as a spe c i a l i z e d teacher of one or more of the a r t and c r a f t subj ects. C e r t i f i e d teacher: A teacher holding a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e . S p e c i a l i z a t i o n : The subject that the teacher i s s p e c i a l l y trained to teach. The integrated subject area of art and c r a f t : The subjects art , t e x t i l e s , wood and metalwork and weaving as defined i n the curriculum guide for compulsory education from 1977, that i s , the subjects grouped together under one heading with common goals. Compulsory education: Grades 1-8 (ages 7 to 15) are compulsory. Grades 0, that i s kindergarten, and grade 9 s h a l l be offered a l l children but are optional. MenntamalaraSuneytiS: The Icelandic Ministry of Culture and Education. Skolaprounardeild: The School Development Branch of the aforementioned ministry. 7 Kennarahaskoli Islands: The Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education, a u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l teacher t r a i n i n g college granting a B.Ed degree with a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e to gen e r a l i s t classroom teachers with a subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Kennaraskoli islands: The predecessor of Kennarahaskoli islands, a teacher t r a i n i n g college that granted a diploma with a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e to classroom teachers and/or subject s p e c i a l i s t s . Myndlista og handiSaskoli islands: The Art and Craft College of Iceland. An art school granting diplomas i n various studio areas i n f i n e art, design and c r a f t as well as a diploma with a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e as an art s p e c i a l i s t . Log um grunnskola: The l e g i s l a t i o n on compulsory education. ASalnamskra Grunnskola: The curriculum guide f o r compulsory education published by MenntamalaraouneytiS. Integration: The term refers i n t h i s study to the integration of subject matter, teaching and learning across subjects. A b i l i t y grouping: The practice of grouping students into classes on the basis of t h e i r academic achievement. Mixed a b i l i t y grouping: The practice of grouping students into classes without reference to t h e i r academic achievement. 8 E. Design of the study. The study was an attitude survey conducted by a mailed questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on a 5 point L i k e r t scale. I t contained 45 items designed to measure attitudes and 8 items to provide demographic information. The questionnaire was mailed to a l l c e r t i f i e d a r t and c r a f t teachers on p a y r o l l i n the Icelandic public school system i n mid January 1989, i n t o t a l 356 i n d i v i d u a l s . The questionnaire was accompanied by a cover l e t t e r which was the i n i t i a l contact, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The return date was set two weeks a f t e r mailing, on February 3rd (See appendix 2). A "thank you" note was mailed to a l l respondents a week before the return date and a follow up l e t t e r was mailed to those respondents who had not responded by February 16th (See appendix 2). 9 II Review of the l i t e r a t u r e . In t h i s chapter two of the major elements i n the process of education are i d e n t i f i e d : the curriculum and the teacher. Each, as well as the relat i o n s h i p between the two, i s discussed i n the context of relevant l i t e r a t u r e i n the f i e l d of curriculum inquiry, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n art education. S p e c i f i c attention i s paid to the Icelandic a r t and c r a f t curriculum. The implication drawn i s that because of teachers' c r u c i a l r o l e i n r e l a t i o n to curriculum, t h e i r attitudes toward c u r r i c u l a r rationales and personal e f f i c a c y must be an important factor i n the match between formal and implemented c u r r i c u l a . A. Curriculum. A . l . Curriculum conceptions. The term curriculum refers to an array of conceptions, which makes i t necessary to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between i t s various meanings. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important to note that the term encompasses both a plan for action, teaching or learning, and the action i t s e l f . There has been some controversy within the f i e l d of curriculum inquiry over the d e f i n i t i o n s of the term, whether i t should only r e f e r to goals and objectives or i f in s t r u c t i o n , that i s the means by which the ends are met, should be included. Another facet of the problem of d e f i n i t i o n i s whether the term should only r e f e r to planned objectives 10 and i n s t r u c t i o n a l outcomes, or include unintended outcomes, what i s commonly c a l l e d the hidden curriculum. (Zais 1976). Goodlad and associates (1979) contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the f i e l d of curriculum inquiry by i d e n t i f y i n g f i v e l e v e l s or types of curriculum that account for these controversies. The id e a l curriculum i s what interested p a r t i e s want. This curriculum i s developed on the i d e o l o g i c a l l e v e l often without reference to a s p e c i f i c context, which means that the complex s o c i a l , s o c i o p o l i t i c a l and personal factors a f f e c t i n g implementation are not necessarily addressed. The formal curriculum i s what i s o f f i c i a l l y adopted and sanctioned as curriculum by the respective a u t h o r i t i e s . The perceived curriculum i s what a person, i n t h i s case the teacher, perceives or interprets as being the curriculum. I t i s a curriculum of the mind rather than a document. The perceived curriculum of the teacher i s of c r u c i a l importance as i t forms the basis f o r teaching and for the teacher's c u r r i c u l a r decisions. The operational curriculum i s what a c t u a l l y happens or goes on i n the classroom, which may be f a r removed from the teacher's perceived curriculum as well as from the formal and i d e a l c u r r i c u l a . I t should be noted that the operational curriculum i s also a perceived curriculum; i t does not have a manifestation or documentation other than the perception of a beholder. The experiential curriculum i s the t h i r d form of a perceived curriculum and i s as such unique to each student (Goodlad et a l . 1979, McNeil 1985). 11 The modes of curriculum making can be external to the context of use; that i s by governments, businesses such as publishing houses, or advocacy or educational agencies. This mode may also be termed the fidelity-mode as i t presupposes that the teacher f a i t h f u l l y follows the curriculum, using i t as intended by the curriculum developer. The i n t e r n a l mode of curriculum development refers to teachers developing programs for t h e i r students. A mixed mode exists as well where external and i n t e r n a l influences meet, such as i n teacher adaptation of materials provided by external sources (Eisner 1984, Fullan 1982) . Goodlad and associates (1979) describe curriculum modes d i f f e r e n t l y , as four l e v e l s of c u r r i c u l a r decision-making: the s o c i e t a l , the i n s t i t u t i o n a l , the i n s t r u c t i o n a l and the personal. I t i s decision-making on the s o c i e t a l l e v e l that leads to a formal document, while the teacher i s the decision maker at the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l , and the student's influence i s mostly confined to the personal l e v e l . I t should be noted that Goodlad et a l . have reservations about the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l i n that they have found that i t i s v i r t u a l l y i n a ctive i n the process. A.2. The t r i p a r t i t e model of curriculum rationales. Within the f i e l d of art education as well as i n education generally, a number of t h e o r e t i c a l positions can be i d e n t i f i e d based on t h e i r rationale for curriculum or c u r r i c u l a r 12 orien t a t i o n . These attempts to c l a s s i f y i d e a l c u r r i c u l a vary i n t h e i r degree of d e t a i l , from a p o l a r i z a t i o n of two positions to elaborations of numerous categories and sub-categories (Chapman 1978, Day 1972, Efland 1979, Eisner 1972,1984,1985, Gibson-Garvey 1985, Hamblen 1984, Hobbs 1984, Lanier 1977, Maitland-Gholson 1986, Thelen 1971). By r e l a t i n g what these models o f f e r and the positions of a few prominent authors i n a r t education the three basic rationales for art c u r r i c u l a can be described as follows: A subject centered art curriculum i s based on a perception of the d i s c i p l i n e a rt as a s p e c i f i c body of knowledge with an inherent structure. The subject i s perceived as having a sequential structure where mastering basic elements i s required to achieve higher l e v e l p r i n c i p l e s . The teacher i s the s p e c i a l i s t who transmits knowledge and s k i l l s , and the authority who assesses students' achievement. Teaching i n t h i s view involves arranging materials so that the learner w i l l a t t a i n a concept i m p l i c i t i n the s e l e c t i o n of the materials themselves. I f t h i s concept i s based on exposure to objects of aesthetic value, "a taste for the best" i s presumably attained. A l l students are expected to meet the same objectives through covering the same content and following the same i n s t r u c t i o n . Instruction according to t h i s model can be highly standardized i n terms of materials, projects, objectives and evaluation. The value of the subject i s perceived as i n t r i n s i c , the subject i s valued f o r i t s own 13 sake (Chapman 1978, Efland 1979, Eisner 1972, 1984, 1985, Smith 1981, Thelen 1971). A student centered curriculum i s based on a perception of the student as a c t i v e l y seeking knowledge or s k i l l s . Art i s here e i t h e r viewed as a form of problem-solving through cognitive processes or as an avenue of i n d i v i d u a l expression. Whether the emphasis i s on ce r t a i n processes of cognition or the personality, the student i s seen as an active agent i n the learning process. A student centered curriculum would not have defined content or subject matter; instead i t would outline learning processes. The teacher i s here seen as the student's partner i n the search, someone who has to know the student to f a c i l i t a t e and prompt the student i n the process. The process of learning i s deemed more important than the product. This model i s highly i n d i v i d u a l i z e d . Art as a subject i s here valued as instrumental i n bringing about the student's s e l f -a c t u a l i z a t i o n (Chapman 1978, Eisner 1972, 1984, 1985, McFee and Degge 1977, Thelen 1971). Art c u r r i c u l a based on perceptions of s o c i e t a l needs d i f f e r from the other two models i n that a r t i s considered i n the broader context of culture, as c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t , as having a s o c i a l function. The objectives for t h i s type of c u r r i c u l a d i f f e r according to the curriculum developer's analysis of society and how students should r e l a t e to i t . I f the goal i s to adapt students to society the appreciation of values and adoption of roles become central, but i f i t i s 14 believed, that students w i l l have to change society the emphasis w i l l be on c r i t i c i s m and r e d e f i n i t i o n of rol e s . Art and c r a f t as a subject would i n t h i s orientation be valued pr i m a r i l y f o r i t s contribution to the understanding of society (Boyer 1987, Chapman 1978, Chalmers 1981, Eisner 1972, 1984, 1985, McFee and Degge 1977, Thelen 1971). Usually such models are not a r t i c u l a t e d by p r a c t i c i n g a r t teachers but rather by theoreticians within the f i e l d , those a r t educators who are part of academia. Vincent Lanier voices t h i s as a concern by wishing that the voice of p r a c t i t i o n e r s , the s i l e n t majority i n art education, might be heard more often as they "...more authentically represent[s] those who have d i r e c t contact with the pupils i n the classrooms, the es s e n t i a l and ultimate target of a l l our conceptualizing" (Lanier 1977, p.7). Chapman (1979) shares t h i s concern and points out that researchers i n art education have neglected the teacher so that the research l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r s l i m i t e d i n s i g h t into the process of teaching and learning i n ar t . Although the rel a t i o n s h i p between t h i s branch of curriculum theory and teaching practice i s neither d i r e c t nor l i n e a r , i t has two important and i n t e r r e l a t e d functions. Curriculum theory can on one hand guide practice and on the other hand provide a framework for interpretation of pra c t i c e (Eisner 1972, Gay 1980). Curriculum rationales can be used as descriptors or indicators by which to assess attitudes toward curriculum. 15 A.3. The Icelandic curriculum for a r t and c r a f t i n  compulsory education. This section provides a b r i e f description and analysis of the 1977 curriculum guide preceded by an overview of the his t o r y of curriculum documents i n art and c r a f t f or compulsory education. In the analysis the t r i p a r t i t e model of curriculum rationales described i n the previous section w i l l be used. Some consideration w i l l also be given to the document's degree of prescriptiveness. This discussion i s based on the curriculum guide from 1977. While t h i s present study was being conducted, a new or rather revised version of the curriculum guide for compulsory education was drafted by a curriculum committee formed by Menntamalara5uneyti3 [the Ministry of Education]. The revised document i s scheduled for public a t i o n i n the spring of 1989. A comparison was made of the d r a f t and the ex i s t i n g (1977) document to i d e n t i f y key issues and/or major changes proposed. From the document as a whole and the debate during the l a s t decade (Danielsson, Helgadottir and Kjartansdottir 1982, Edelstein 1987) three issues stand out as being of p a r t i c u l a r importance, integration of subject matter, a b i l i t y versus mixed a b i l i t y grouping, and gender issues related to the c r a f t subjects. A.3.1. The hist o r y 16 At the time of the introduction of art and c r a f t i n public education i n the twenties and t h i r t i e s pragmatic values prevailed. The p r a c t i c a l i t y and moral benefits of these subjects as well as t h e i r r o l e i n preserving the national heritage and culture were prominent i n the argumentation for t h e i r i n c l u s i o n as school subjects. The pedagogical value of a r t and c r a f t i n education through students' creative work was propounded by a slowly increasing number of advocates. In the l a t e f o r t i e s curriculum documents f i r s t i n c r a f t and then i n a r t were developed i n conjunction with l e g i s l a t i o n on the education system passed i n 1946. In the curriculum document for c r a f t t e x t i l e s was made mandatory for g i r l s and wood and metalwork for boys, the subjects were referred to as g i r l s ' and boys' c r a f t respectively. By comparing the two documents i t i s apparent that the emphasis i n c r a f t was on a system or sequence of methods and s k i l l s to enhance technical dexterity. The curriculum i n drawing had, on the other hand, a strong emphasis on pedagogical rationales; c h i l d development i s the focus. An outline of the developmental stages i n childrens' drawings was presented and the emphasis was on developing p i c t o r i a l expression, by free creation and conscious expression. A sequence of units was recommended as well as materials and t o o l s . There were suggestions for projects, whereas the c r a f t c u r r i c u l a had a sequence of compulsory projects (Menntamalara&uneytia 1948, 1950) 17 In 1960 a new or revised curriculum document was put out. No s i g n i f i c a n t changes were made regarding curriculum i n g i r l s ' c r a f t ( t e x t i l e s ) or i n drawing. The only innovation was the introduction of the objective of fostering cooperative s k i l l s and cooperation within the drawing curriculum. In boys' c r a f t (wood and metalwork) an increased tendency to meet the needs of the i n d i v i d u a l was d i s c e r n i b l e (MenntamalaraSuneytio 1960) . As t h i s b r i e f description of the documents preceding the current syllabus indicates, there was a s t r i k i n g difference between the c r a f t c u r r i c u l a and the drawing curriculum. The former made no reference to i n i t i a t i v e or c r e a t i v i t y , whereas these were the key concepts i n the drawing curriculum. This difference can p a r t l y be attributed to the d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s of these subjects. Drawing has h i s t o r i c a l l y a stronger a f f i l i a t i o n with l i b e r a l arts than the c r a f t subjects. The c r a f t subjects were more d i r e c t l y related to vocational t r a i n i n g and the home c r a f t movement. In the general debate on education at the time the attention to c h i l d centered views was increasing. Independent and creative approaches were presented as a v i t a l counter to increased automation and mechanistic technology. The sequential s l o j d systems of projects s t i l l had a marked influence i n the c r a f t curriculum despite much c r i t i c i s m , but divergent thinking, s e l f evaluation and motivation were concepts that frequently showed up i n writings during the 1960's (Danielsson et a l 1982). 18 Art and c r a f t education had a high p r o f i l e i n educational debate i n the early seventies. There were c a l l s for more art education, p a r t i c u l a r l y a formal a r t program for the early primary grades where such a program was not i n place. The main rationales propounded i n the debate at t h i s point were three: a) the c u l t i v a t i o n of aesthetic s e n s i b i l i t i e s and awareness of the arts by increasing the i n s t r u c t i o n i n a r t h i s t o r y and art education of the general public, b) v i s u a l arts as an avenue for expression of f e e l i n g and b e l i e f s leading to personal development and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n , and c) v i s u a l l i t e r a c y , that i s , awareness and understanding of the power and e f f e c t s of imagery as a necessary l i f e - s k i l l i n contemporary democratic society (Danielsson et a l 1982). In 1974 a new law on compulsory education was passed. [L e g i s l a t i o n #63/1974] wherein i t was stated that students should be granted equal opportunity and access to education. With the new l e g i s l a t i o n ability-grouping was abolished and i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n demanded. Equality i n education was a growing concern, and the practice of gender s p e c i f i c programs i n c r a f t s became the focus of c r i t i c i s m . Time was ripe for change, as the feminist movement was i n rapid growth and the issue of gender equity at the p o l i t i c a l forefront. On the basis of the new l e g i s l a t i o n and a new l e g i s l a t i o n on gender equity i t was decreed by the Ministry of Education that the practice of separate programs for boys and g i r l s i n c r a f t should be abolished. This was done 19 by having a l l students take t e x t i l e s for h a l f and wood and metalwork for h a l f of t h e i r time allotment i n c r a f t . The change was r a d i c a l for the teachers who were simultaneously faced with a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t student population and the consequences of having the i n s t r u c t i o n time per student i n t h e i r subject cut 50%. This was also an unexpected turn of events i n l i g h t of the educational debate referred to e a r l i e r , where the importance of art and c r a f t was generally recognized and c a l l s made for increased rather than decreased i n s t r u c t i o n (Danielsson et a l 1982). The progressive ideal of the integration of subject matter was very prominent i n the curriculum documents developed i n connection with t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n . In a r t and c r a f t t h i s i d e a l was manifested i n the document statements that a r t , t e x t i l e s , wood and metalwork and weaving are an integrated subject area. The implementation of t h i s i d e a l i s problematic though. Not only are these t r a d i t i o n a l l y separate subjects with t h e i r separate c u r r i c u l a , but teachers i n these subject were trained through separate programs. These programs have had d i f f e r e n t content and philosophy and the c e r t i f i c a t i o n granted through them has d i f f e r e d (Danielsson et a l 1982). A.3.2. The goals. The goals of the 1977 curriculum guide are presented here i n a near verbatim t r a n s l a t i o n . 20 * To develop and t r a i n the student's mind and hand to express personal ideas, knowledge and experience through diverse media and appropriate techniques. * To enhance the imagination, c r e a t i v i t y , self-esteem and independence of the student. * To contribute to the student's environmental l i t e r a c y . * To foster the cooperativeness, cooperative s k i l l s and s o c i a l development of the student. * To lay the foundation for in d i v i d u a l values, spark i n t e r e s t i n and enhance knowledge about material culture, the arts and other c u l t u r a l treasures. * To contribute to the student's a c q u i s i t i o n of p r a c t i c a l s k i l l s and the a b i l i t y to work independently. * To motivate the student to engage i n p r a c t i c a l and educative recreational a c t i v i t i e s . S o c i a l and student centered rationales are apparent i n these goals. The student centered rationale leads to an emphasis both on the cognitive and a f f e c t i v e development of the student. This i s v i s i b l e i n the mind-hand coordination objective and i n the s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n objective. The s o c i a l centered objectives lean more toward adaptation than reconstruction (Eisner 1985). Cooperative s k i l l s and attitudes, assuming s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by becoming a good worker and learning to use l e i s u r e time constructively are objectives for students that r e f l e c t t h i s orientation. 21 The goals are explained i n the curriculum guide under the heading "explanations" or "explication". The objective for mind and hand coordination i s extended beyond a c o g n i t i v i s t perspective to f a l l under the auspices of the progressive ideals of learning by doing, by i n t e r a c t i n g with the environment. This i s corroborated by an emphasis on s e l f -a c t u a l i z a t i o n through creative experimenting. The balance that i s struck i s epitomized i n the claim that "creative e f f o r t i s based on f e r t i l e imagination and c l e a r thought" (Menntamalarac-uneytia 1977, p. 3). The student centered rat i o n a l e s p i l l s over into an i n t e r e s t i n the therapeutic aspects of art i n a discussion of special needs populations i n education. The importance of motivation i s heavily underscored and problem-solving approaches advocated. The emphasis on motivation becomes an important issue when t h i s curriculum guide i s compared with previous ones, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c r a f t . The c r a f t curriculum guides from 1960 were based on compulsory projects and student motivation was not emphasized, and t h i s became one of the f o c i for c r i t i c i s m of those documents (Danielsson et a l . 1982). The 1977 document does not contain indications of what might be c a l l e d extreme progressivism, where learning i s seen as t o t a l l y student directed; the teacher's active r o l e as the guide and d i r e c t o r of the learning process and the transmitter of knowledge i s maintained. The subject centered r a t i o n a l e 22 becomes more apparent i n the exp l i c a t i o n than i t i s i n the statement of goals. There the importance of d i r e c t t r a i n i n g i s stated and the importance of an introduction to the c u l t u r a l heritage i n v i s u a l arts i s discussed. The society centered r a t i o n a l e i s also emphasized here. The objective of environmental l i t e r a c y i s elaborated i n the explications. There the emphasis i s on c r i t i c a l understanding of imagery and environment. The necessity of preserving and enhancing the p r a c t i c a l s k i l l s and know-how of the public through art and c r a f t education i s another s o c i a l rationale emphasized strongly i n the curriculum guide. A.3.3. The integrated subject area. In the 1977 curriculum documents the idea of a r t and c r a f t as an integrated subject area i s formally introduced. Previous guides from 1960 were separate for each subject, so t h i s was a major innovation. The concept of integration of subject matter and c r o s s - d i s c i p l i n a r y approaches i s discussed at some length i n a sp e c i a l section on integration. There i s an apparent compromise between an i n t e g r a t i o n i s t and a separatist or subject centered viewpoint i n the documents, as i s apparent i n the introductory statement to the curriculum guide. Art and c r a f t i s an integrated subject that encompasses t e x t i l e s , wood and metalwork, drawing and weaving,...The reason for giving these subjects a common name i s that 23 they are i n many ways c l o s e l y related, have the same goals and support each other. The learning as a whole must however take place i n such a way that the aforementioned subjects r e t a i n t h e i r independence, separate objectives and content. P a r t i c u l a r care has to be taken to ensure that students a t t a i n the foundations i n each subject (MenntamalaraSuneytio 1977, p. 1). The integration of subject matter i s to be accomplished mainly through theme projects, or through using each subject area i n turn to complete d i f f e r e n t stages of one project, such as designing a pattern i n drawing to embroider i n t e x t i l e s . The chapter on the integration of subject matter l i s t s almost a l l subjects i n compulsory education and suggests themes or connections with a r t and c r a f t . Again the tension between d i f f e r e n t viewpoints i s apparent; "The aim i s to enhance the integration of art and c r a f t subjects as well as that of art and c r a f t with other subjects....This approach must however not detract from the actual a r t and c r a f t study" (MenntamalaraouneytiS 1977, p. 10). A.3.4. Recommendations on evaluation. In the general recommendations on evaluation, d i v e r s i t y of measurements i s advocated. The necessity of basing evaluation on the process rather than the product i s stated: " F a i r evaluation must be based on accounting for many factors. The 2 4 v i s i b l e achievement of a fi n i s h e d product o f f e r s l i m i t e d i nsight into the progress of the student" (MenntamalaraSuneytiS 1977, p. 8). I t i s pointed out that evaluation should be a part of the learning process both for students and teachers, a t o o l to d i r e c t and r e d i r e c t the process. Verbal statements are preferred to other forms of grading. In the section containing a program outline and recommendations for i n s t r u c t i o n i n wood and metalwork there i s a paragraph regarding evaluation. In the comparable sections for the other subjects no s p e c i f i c references are made to evaluation. This paragraph contains a general observation that students should be guided i n evaluating t h e i r own work and that of others and encouraged to engage i n moderate s e l f -c r i t i c i s m . Teachers are also reminded to use c r i t i c i s m c onstructively. A.3.5. The recommended course of study. The 1977 document contains a short note on a r t and c r a f t i n the education of preschoolers. There the importance of play as childrens' way of learning i s a central theme: "The i n i t i a t i v e of students should be u t i l i z e d for education and development, although t h i s education i s at f i r s t c a l l e d play" (Menntamalara6uneytiS 1977, p. 16). In kindergarten art and c r a f t are not separate subjects but seen as a component i n t o t a l education. Narrative 25 p i c t o r i a l expression i s seen as the natural emphasis at t h i s stage. Art and c r a f t i s not a l l o t t e d separate i n s t r u c t i o n time i n grades 1-2. In the curriculum guide s p e c i f i c recommendations are however made for each subject at t h i s grade l e v e l . The rationale given i s that a r t and c r a f t education should commence at t h i s stage when children are s t i l l motivated or as i t says i n the curriculum guide; "Self c r i t i c i s m i s s t i l l latent, the expression i s therefore sincere and free" (Menntamalaraouneytic- 1977, p. 19). The a r t and c r a f t subjects are compulsory from grade 3-8 and may be offered as e l e c t i v e s i n grade 9. The curriculum guide lays out the recommended program of study for grades 3-9 i n three separate sections: drawing, t e x t i l e , and wood and metalwork. In e f f e c t the three sections constitute three separate curriculum guides which d i f f e r not only i n content but i n formal aspects as well. No attempt seems to have been made to e d i t the sections so that they would f i t a s i m i l a r format, have a consistent s t y l e or cover the same issues. The program outline for t e x t i l e s i s stated i n terms of learning outcomes: that i s , what students are to learn. The program i s set out i n terms of s p e c i f i c objectives for each grade l e v e l under the heading "Units of study." In wood and metalwork the comparable section i s under the heading "Recommendation on techniques and the use of equipment for various age groups." For the t h i r d grade, which i s the f i r s t grade where the subject i s mandatory, the techniques on one 26 hand and the tools on the other are l i s t e d . For each subsequent grade the recommendation reads "Same as before. In addition....". There i s no reference to the student or the kinds of projects suitable for each technique or t o o l . In drawing, the program outline i s divided into recommendations for grades 3, 4, and 5 on one hand and grades 6, 7, 8, and 9 on the other. No reason i s given for t h i s d i v i s i o n . Objectives are stated i n terms of what s h a l l be addressed, as i n t h i s quotation from the recommendations for grades 6, 7, 8, and 9.: "Composition. Observations and exercises i n composition. Balance. Inquiry into proportions" (MenntamalaraSuneytia 1977, p. 50). This objective i s not t i e d to any s p e c i f i c grade l e v e l or stated i n terms of what students are to do. The content of the courses i s d i f f e r e n t , which i s natural as these are i n fact separate subjects, but more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the pedagogical emphases d i f f e r from one section to another. The c r a f t c u r r i c u l a are more concerned with technical s k i l l than the drawing curriculum, which has instead a stronger emphasis on understanding and expressive q u a l i t i e s . One could say that the c r a f t c u r r i c u l a are concerned with the physical quality of the student's output, whereas the drawing curriculum i s concerned with cognitive and a f f e c t i v e q u a l i t i e s . The drawing curriculum has the strongest student centered orientation of the three. I f Doyle and Ponder (1977) are r i g h t i n assuming that a curriculum proposal has to be stated i n what they c a l l 27 e c o l o g i c a l l y relevant terms, the section on drawing i s less l i k e l y to appeal to teachers than the one on t e x t i l e s which s p e l l s quite c l e a r l y what, and when. This e f f e c t may be countered by the need for id e o l o g i c a l congruence, as the drawing section i s quite e x p l i c i t i n stat i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . This discrepancy i n the s t y l e and content of the program outlines and recommendations casts doubt on the strength of the advocacy for integration of the subject area, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the various cautionary remarks c i t e d e a r l i e r are taken into account. A.3.6. Degree of prescriptiveness. On the f i r s t page of the document i t i s stated i n bold typeface that: "The curriculum guide i s intended to be a general guideline and a resource i n teaching the various subjects within a r t and c r a f t " (MenntamalaraouneytiS- 1977, p. 1). I t i s thus emphasized that these are not d i r e c t i v e s to be followed but rather recommendations to be used by teachers, the i n t e r n a l or mixed modes of curriculum development are preferred (Eisner 1984, Fullan 1982). The emphasis on integration of subject matter c a l l s for decision-making at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l . I t should be noted that Goodlad and associates (1979) suggest that the i n s t i t u t i o n a l mode of c u r r i c u l a r decision-making i s indeed weak. The program outlines for the three subjects d i f f e r i n regard to t h e i r degree of prescriptiveness. In the c r a f t areas 28 there are defined prescriptions of content for each grade l e v e l whereas the drawing program i s not p r e s c r i p t i v e i n t h i s respect. A. 3.7. The missing part. The c r a f t subjects, t e x t i l e s , and wood and metalwork were t r a d i t i o n a l l y gender s p e c i f i c : t e x t i l e s was f o r g i r l s and wood and metalwork for boys. These subjects i n compulsory education are derived from vocational education for the d i f f e r e n t walks of l i f e anticipated for working men and working women. These subjects were made compulsory for both boys and g i r l s i n conjunction with the 1974 l e g i s l a t i o n on compulsory education and a l e g i s l a t i o n on gender equity i n 1975. The curriculum guide from 1977 was i n the making when t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t change occurred. Yet there are no s p e c i f i c recommendations on how to adapt the programs and i n s t r u c t i o n . The only reference made to the change i n the entir e document i s t h i s statement: Through a r t and c r a f t education an attempt i s made to meet the goal of compulsory education to give every in d i v i d u a l opportunity to r e a l i z e and develop t h e i r t a l e n t . In accordance with t h i s , the streaming of g i r l s into t e x t i l e s and boys into wood and metalwork w i l l be discontinued as soon as circumstances allow (Menntamalara5uneyti5, July 1977). 29 Twelve years l a t e r equal access to these subjects for boys and g i r l s i s almost universal i n Icelandic compulsory education. There i s however no documentation of how the curriculum or practice has changed as a r e s u l t of making both c r a f t subjects mandatory for boys and g i r l s . B. Teachers and curriculum. B . l . Teachers' r e l a t i o n to curriculum. The teacher i s the mediator between the formal curriculum and the student. The teacher's perception of the curriculum i s therefore a c r u c i a l component of the teaching-learning context, as i s demonstrated i n studies i n d i c a t i n g that teachers e i t h e r r e j e c t (Dow, Whitehead and Wright 1984) or a c t i v e l y adapt and develop curriculum to the extent that they may be said to have a personal curriculum (Barone 1983, Berl i n e r 1984, Doyle and Ponder 1977, Fullan 1982, Goodlad 1984, Gray and MacGregor 1987). In a well-known a r t i c l e Schwab (1969) diagnosed the i l l s of the curriculum f i e l d and gave a p r e s c r i p t i o n . He directed researchers' attention to the mainstream by d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between the t h e o r e t i c a l , which i s concerned with "warranted conclusions", and the p r a c t i c a l , which i s concerned with "defensible decisions". Schwab argued for the r e l a t i v e importance of the l a t t e r , claiming that education i s a p r a c t i c a l f i e l d . 30 This r e d i r e c t i o n has also been proposed to researchers i n art education, who have been urged to adhere to the mainstream issues, the common ground which i s "an art teacher working with students to foster learning." (Day and DiBlasio 1983 p.170). The basis for t h i s cooperation i s the curriculum. Through curriculum, theory i s translated into practice, idea into action and teaching into learning. Following t h i s d i r e c t i v e Andrews (1983) conducted a comprehensive case study of the implementation of a curriculum proposal through p a r t i c i p a t i o n and observation i n a school for two years. Andrews' review of the l i t e r a t u r e led her to conclude that One of the major problems, i n considerations of educational change, has been the t r a d i t i o n a l emphasis on proposing directions for change, rather than on an examination of the r e a l i t i e s of schools as a pot e n t i a l foundation upon which to b u i l d change (p. 106). Andrews points out that a key factor i n the r e a l i t y of schools i s the teacher, with whom the burden of innovation r e a l l y r e s t s . Current research on curriculum implementation suggests that teachers are autonomous agents rather than instruments i n implementing curriculum; that i s , the teacher as p r a c t i t i o n e r i s a c t i v e l y developing curriculum (Barone 1983, Connelly and Elbaz 1980, Elbaz 1981, Goodlad 1984, Gray and MacGregor 1987, McNeil 1985). I f t h i s p o s i t i o n i s taken, the int e r n a l mode of 31 curriculum development takes on more importance i n r e l a t i o n to the external modes than i t has hitherto been assigned. I t becomes v i t a l l y important to i d e n t i f y the base on which the teacher builds a curriculum and the processes or methods by which the teacher's personal curriculum i s b u i l t . This view focuses the attention of researchers on s a l i e n t features of teachers and teaching. Their conceptual bases, p r a c t i c a l knowledge, personal curriculum, value systems, moral reasoning, attitudes and e f f i c a c y have become the subject of inquiry (Elbaz 1981, Barone 1983, Gray and MacGregor 1987, Irwin 1988, Bergem 1986, Wolfe 1977, Cavers 1988). This branch of research has led to the formulation of theories and frameworks intended to explain teachers' curriculum thought. The conclusions drawn from studies dealing with teachers' r e l a t i o n to curriculum can be summarized i n the recommendation that the teacher be treated on his/her own terms and that the implementation practices of the teacher be regarded as a n a t u r a l l y occurring phenomena to be analyzed and understood rather than controlled or aborted (Connelly and Elbaz 1980, Doyle and Ponder 1977, Elbaz 1981, F r a n s i l a 1989, Fullan 1982) . Researchers d i f f e r somewhat i n t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of factors i n the rel a t i o n s h i p between teachers and curriculum. The following factors are of importance i n t h i s r e l a t i o n . 32 1) C l a r i t y regarding goals and expectations i n curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n (Cavers 1988, Doyle and Ponder 1987, Fullan 1982). 2) Congruence between the teacher's ideology or philosophical stance and that of the school and curriculum (Andrews 1983, Doyle and Ponder 1977, Elbaz 1981, F r a n s i l a 1989, Fullan 1982, Wolfe 1977). 3) Curriculum i d e n t i t y : that i s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with and fluency or a b i l i t y i n subject matter or f i e l d of teaching (Andrews 1983, Day 1986, Eggleston 1977, Elbaz 1981, F r a n s i l a 1989) . B . l . l . C l a r i t y . In 1977 Doyle and Ponder suggested that i n evaluating c u r r i c u l a or curriculum proposals teachers employ what they term "the ethic of p r a c t i c a l i t y " . To enable the teacher to consider the merits of the proposal i t has to be stated i n " e c o l o g i c a l l y relevant terms" That i s , the teacher has to be able to r e l a t e the proposal to the p a r t i c u l a r teaching s i t u a t i o n and assess three factors; instrumentality, congruence and cost. Instrumentality refers to how and indeed whether the proposal can be implemented. Congruence refe r s to the perceived match between student needs and i n t e r e s t s and teacher attitudes and habits on one hand, and the proposal on the other. Cost refers to the r e l a t i o n between e f f o r t on the 33 teacher's behalf and y i e l d i n terms of increased student achievement or s a t i s f a c t i o n (Doyle and Ponder 1977). Another way of describing c l a r i t y of curriculum i s by r e f e r r i n g to i t s degree of prescriptiveness. Eisner (1984) t a l k s of a continuum. On one hand there i s rule-governed curriculum that i s p r e s c r i p t i v e i n a l l aspects, or "teacher-proof". On the other hand there i s a loose framework of structures, suggestions and p o s s i b i l i t i e s open to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and elaboration by the teacher (Eisner 1984). I t should be noted that a high degree of prescriptiveness or perceived c l a r i t y does not automatically lead to the adoption and implementation of a curriculum proposal. Fullan (1982) warns that teachers can operate on a f a l s e conception of c l a r i t y . A curriculum proposal may be c l e a r l y stated i n i t s operational terms, but t h i s c l a r i t y does not necessarily convey the underlying rationale or philosophical stance. Thus teachers may implement s u p e r f i c i a l l y : change materials and even behavior but t h e i r b e l i e f s may be unaffected by the proposal (Fullan 1982). The integration of the art and c r a f t subjects i n the Icelandic curriculum might be used as an example of how f a l s e c l a r i t y might be manifested. Art and c r a f t teachers might perceive themselves as avid i n t e g r a t i o n i s t s when designing compulsory projects that address objectives from the three subjects similutaneously. They might never attend to the underlying rationale f o r integration of the subjects, which denotes a s h i f t from 3 4 subject centered c u r r i c u l a toward a student centered curriculum. B.1.2. Congruence. In a case study of how elementary school teachers define the task of teaching art, Rafferty (1987) found that there i s a disjuncture between the basic tenets of art education theory as represented i n the l i t e r a t u r e and curriculum documents on one hand and the framework imposed upon teaching practice by the school as an i n s t i t u t i o n on the other. The l i t e r a t u r e advocates freedom of expression, personal unfolding and i n d i v i d u a l i t y f or students without providing teachers with the know-how needed to implement t h i s advocacy. The school as an i n s t i t u t i o n has a time-honored t r a d i t i o n of exercising control over and demanding conformity of students that c o n f l i c t s with the notions of what art education should be l i k e prevalent i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Thus there i s a gap between the theory of the subject and the r e a l i t y of the i n s t i t u t i o n that reduces teachers' sense of e f f i c a c y i n r e l a t i o n to the t h e o r e t i c a l rationales of the subject. The importance of congruence i s also underscored by the findings from Fransila's (1989) case study of the implementation of a ministry curriculum guide for a r t . Within the same school some teachers implemented the curriculum proposal f u l l y , others p a r t i a l l y and s t i l l others not at a l l . One of the three main factors a f f e c t i n g implementation was, 35 according to F r a n s i l a , the congruence between the teacher's philosophical stance toward teaching a r t and the rationale of the curriculum proposal. Those teachers who implemented had a ra t i o n a l e for teaching art that was compatible with that of the curriculum. B.2. Teacher attitudes toward curriculum r a t i o n a l e s . Curriculum rationales or philosophical stances are part of the c r i t e r i a that teachers apply to curriculum to determine i t s v a l i d i t y . In t h i s context attitudes are one of the factors of primary importance as they are predispositions to behavior (Shaw and Wright 1967). Teachers' attitudes shape practice i n the classroom as well as i n planning, preparing and evaluating teaching. Fullan (1982) claims that the b e l i e f system of a teacher i s c r u c i a l as i t forms the basis for c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i n g valuable learning opportunities and r e j e c t i n g those of l i t t l e value i n the teaching context. Fullan suggests that i t i s easiest f o r the teacher to change materials or resources, as these are changes of the environment rather than changes of the i n d i v i d u a l . I t i s more d i f f i c u l t to change teaching approaches or s t y l e s as i t involves developing new s k i l l s and breaking patterns of behavior. Change i n b e l i e f s or attitudes i s s t i l l more d i f f i c u l t to e f f e c t as i t i s a challenge to "the core values held by individuals regarding the purposes of education" (Fullan 1982, p. 35). In a sense one could say that 36 these l e v e l s of change progress towards the teacher as a person, where b e l i e f s are most personal, most central and materials most peripheral. Fullan suggests that change i n b e l i e f i s further complicated because b e l i e f s are often not e x p l i c i t , a r t i c u l a t e d or even understood, but rather "buried at the l e v e l of unstated assumptions" (p. 35). Andrews (1983) corroborated t h i s notion. She found that, i n r e l a t i o n to the three l e v e l s of d i f f i c u l t y of innovation or educational change i d e n t i f i e d by Fullan (1982), change i n b e l i e f s or attitudes i s most d i f f i c u l t to accomplish and puts the greatest psychological s t r a i n on the teacher. This i s compatible with reports on the s t a b i l i t y of teacher attitudes, revealed i n the findings of Hogben and Lawson (1984). They found that the attitudes of teacher trainees and neophyte teachers toward a wide range of concepts related to education and schooling were stable and r e s i s t a n t to change. What l i t t l e change i n attitudes occurred during one year of teacher t r a i n i n g was reversed when the teachers entered the workplace (Hogben and Lawson 1984). Goodlad (1984) found that the attitudes and preferences of teachers i n regard to t r a d i t i o n a l and progressive educational ideals were such that they held a mixture of both ideals, and that t h e i r values were neither strongly shared nor consistent. He concluded that "the rh e t o r i c about what should be undoubtedly s h i f t s more rapidl y and strongly than eit h e r the 37 b e l i e f s or practices of teachers" (Goodlad 1984, p. 174). This conclusion i s supported by the previously c i t e d sources. The importance of i d e n t i f y i n g and accounting for teacher attitudes toward curriculum rationales i s underscored by these studies, suggesting that teacher attitudes toward educational theory or the philosophical stance of the teacher are r e s i s t a n t to change. Chapman (1979) c a l l s for research i n t h i s area and points out that the importance of teacher attitudes i s increased i n a r t education because of the art teacher's r e l a t i v e freedom i n planning and implementing a program, a freedom which has been documented by various researchers i n the f i e l d such as Day (1972), Wolfe (1977) , and Gray and MacGregor (1987). torlindsson (1988) points out the importance of such research for the development of the Icelandic education system by sta t i n g that one of the main tasks i n educational research i s to seek out the knowledge and b e l i e f s of Icelandic teachers so that t h e i r experience can be u t i l i z e d i n developing the Icelandic education system. C. Teachers' conceptions of s e l f as a professional. The teacher's professional i d e n t i t y or self-concept i s an i n f l u e n t i a l factor i n practice. I t a f f e c t s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between teachers and curriculum, but has wider implications, which sets i t apart from t h i s r e l a t i o n . Researchers are currently attentive to teacher e f f i c a c y , that i s the extent to which the teacher believes or f e e l s able to a f f e c t student 38 performance (Cavers 1988, Grimmett and Housego 1985, Hogben and Lawson 1984, L o r t i e 1975). The concept has been addressed under various labels other than e f f i c a c y . Wolfe (1977) t a l k s f o r example of "matters a f f e c t i n g teachers' professional well-being" i n the t i t l e of her thesis when addressing a s i m i l a r construct. Empowerment based on c o l l e g i a l i t y and support within the school, or "synergy" i s also a concept c l o s e l y related to and part of the e f f i c a c y construct (Cavers 1988, Elbaz 1981, F r a n s i l a 1989, Fullan 1982). Teaching experience can also be assumed to a f f e c t teacher e f f i c a c y , an assumption supported by Wolfe (1977) who found a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n between l e v e l s of teaching experience and teacher attitudes. C.1. Empowerment. I t has been suggested that teacher e f f i c a c y i s increased by a sense of c o l l e g i a l i t y , a sense of belonging to a group of professionals engaged i n the shared task of improving education. Cavers (1988) points to the importance of t h i s kind of a r e l a t i o n between administration and teachers. Elbaz (1981) and F r a n s i l a (1989) both emphasize the importance of what F r a n s i l a terms "synergy"; that i s the supportive atmosphere of cooperative planning and sharing of ideas i n working toward a common goal. Professional i s o l a t i o n , a pervasive sense of uncertainty and a sense of powerlessness are the a n t i t h e s i s to t h i s kind of empowerment (Cavers 1988). 39 This c a l l s attention to the seriousness of the weakness Goodlad and associates (1979) found i n curriculum development at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l . I t has been suggested that art teachers are p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable to these conditions as they have a high degree of autonomy and are r e l a t i v e l y i s o l a t e d i n the school context as s p e c i a l i s t s , working under conditions d i f f e r e n t from the rest of the s t a f f . The implementation of an art program rests almost exclusively on the teacher's own rationale (Wolfe 1977). C.2. Curriculum i d e n t i t y . One of the important aspects of teachers' self-concept i s what Eggleston (1974) terms curriculum i d e n t i t y , or the i d e n t i t y conferred on teachers by the subjects or school d i s c i p l i n e s . Eggleston c a l l s t h i s the strongest bastion of i d e n t i t y throughout the school system. As some d i s c i p l i n e s have a high status whereas others t r a d i t i o n a l l y have a low status, there i s a hierarchy among school teachers i n t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with d i s c i p l i n e s . This i s a key area of c o n f l i c t over curriculum, i n that attempts to bring about the reevaluation and r e d e f i n i t i o n of low status components of the curriculum meet with disapproval and resistance from proponents of the more prestigious components of the curriculum. This c o n f l i c t a f f e c t s the teachers' professional image and concept of s e l f e f f i c a c y , an e f f e c t l i k e l y to be 40 pronounced i n the art and c r a f t area as these subjects are engaged i n a struggle to r a i s e and secure c u r r i c u l a r status. In h i s c r i t i q u e of the a r t i s t - t e a c h e r model as a r o l e model fo r art educators Day (1986) raises an issue of c u r r i c u l a r i d e n t i t y . The problem i n r e l a t i o n to c u r r i c u l a r i d e n t i t y i s that the teacher i s i n danger of overemphasizing an image of a professional i n the subject at the expense of his/her r o l e as a professional educator. Another aspect of c u r r i c u l a r i d e n t i t y i s the teacher's e f f i c a c y i n r e l a t i o n to the content or subject matter of teaching. In i d e n t i f y i n g the fundamental conditions for an art teacher to implement a vigorous art program Wolfe (1977) states that "the teacher must f e e l s u f f i c i e n t l y confident of h i s a b i l i t y to teach art, and be s u f f i c i e n t l y well prepared to do so" (p.1). C.3. Teaching experience. An important but often overlooked factor contributing to teachers' sense of e f f i c a c y i s the l e v e l of teaching experience. I t has been proposed that teachers pass through stages i n t h e i r career i n which they are concerned with d i f f e r e n t aspects of teaching. Three stages have been i d e n t i f i e d and sequenced as an i n i t i a l teacher-centered stage where the teacher i s concerned with personal performance; a period of concern over i n s t r u c t i o n a l matters or content-structure; and l a s t l y concern with i n d i v i d u a l learning or a 41 student centered stage (Wolfe 1977). In her 1977 study of art teachers' perceptions of matters a f f e c t i n g teachers' professional wellbeing, Wolfe found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between prospective, beginning and experienced teachers. She also found that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n t h i s respect according to the proportion of art i n the t o t a l teaching load of the art teachers, namely that those of her respondents who taught the l e a s t a rt did not see themselves as s p e c i a l i s t s (Wolfe 1977). D. Summary. The reviews and studies c i t e d here underscore the importance of teacher predisposition to curriculum. As B e r l i n e r states, "the f i n a l a r b i t e r of what i t i s that gets taught i s the classroom teacher"(1984, p.53). I t can no longer be assumed that curriculum w i l l be implemented because i t has been o f f i c i a l l y adopted (Dow, Whitehead, and Wright 1984). In the era of teacher-proofing c u r r i c u l a the teacher was devalued as a professional by overlooking the simple fact that the teacher i s the person that presents the curriculum i n the classroom. Innovation e f f o r t s have p e r s i s t e n t l y ignored the r a t i o n a l i t y of teachers' d e l i b e r a t i o n on whether to adopt curriculum proposals. One of the consequences of admitting teachers' central r o l e i n curriculum development and implementation i s an acknowledgement of t h e i r perceptions of and attitudes toward 42 curriculum as a c r i t i c a l factor. Attitudes can be regarded as predispositions to behavior (Shaw and Wright 1967), they indicate what the teacher wishes to do or be. I t would appear that i n order to assess the v i a b i l i t y of a curriculum proposal i n a given s e t t i n g and/or to d i r e c t the implementation process, knowledge of teacher attitudes would be a useful measure. Turning to the Icelandic s i t u a t i o n one could summarize the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the art and c r a f t curriculum thus: the curriculum document i s probably perceived as non-prescriptive. There i s a v a r i a t i o n however i n the degree of apparent prescriptiveness of the program outlines between the three subjects that are covered by the guide: drawing, t e x t i l e s , and wood and metalwork. There i s an apparent tension between an i n t e g r a t i o n i s t and a separatist viewpoint i n the document i n that i t states that art and c r a f t i s an integrated subject area, but the manner i n which the document and i t s content i s l a i d out suggests that the subjects are not only separate but divergent i n orientation. The program outline i n drawing i s most e x p l i c i t i n describing an underlying curriculum rationale: a c h i l d -centered orientation where equal emphasis i s put on s e l f -a c t u a l i z a t i o n and cognitive processing. The r a t i o n a l e on which the c r a f t subjects are based i s not as e x p l i c i t l y defined, but there seems to be an emphasis on content or subject matter i n the program outlines. 43 In t h i s review the curriculum conceptions and p a r t i c u l a r l y curriculum rationales have been discussed. The Icelandic curriculum i n art and c r a f t has been described and analysed i n r e l a t i o n to t h i s discussion. The r e l a t i o n between the teacher and the curriculum, the teacher as personally i n t e r p r e t i n g curriculum has been discussed and the implication drawn that teacher attitudes toward curriculum rationales are a c r u c i a l factor i n curriculum implementation. Teachers' s e l f concept or professional i d e n t i t y has also been discussed and the point made that t h i s a f f e c t s teachers' interpretations of curriculum. 44 III Conduct of the study Among of the s t u d i e s reviewed i n the p r e v i o u s chapter were c a s e - s t u d i e s designed t o e x p l o r e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s i n depth. C o l l e c t i v e l y they serve t o f u r t h e r our understanding by e l u c i d a t i n g c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the t e a c h e r and c u r r i c u l u m such as t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s or the p r a c t i c a l knowledge on which the t e a c h e r bases t e a c h i n g . Case s t u d i e s are not designed t o y i e l d r e s u l t s g e n e r a l i z a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g s and p o p u l a t i o n s . In order t o determine the a t t i t u d e s of a p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r p o p u l a t i o n a q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h method i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e approach. The f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s were formulated t o gather i n f o r m a t i o n on I c e l a n d i c a r t and c r a f t t e a c h e r s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e i r f i e l d . A: The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s R l . What are the a t t i t u d e s of I c e l a n d i c a r t and c r a f t t e a c h e r s toward c u r r i c u l u m and p r a c t i c e i n t h e i r s u b j e c t area ? R l . l What are I c e l a n d i c a r t and c r a f t t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward a) s u b j e c t - c e n t e r e d c u r r i c u l a , b) s t u d e n t - c e n t e r e d c u r r i c u l a , c) s o c i e t y - c e n t e r e d c u r r i c u l a •? 45 R1.2 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' perceptions of gender differences i n t h e i r students' r e l a t i o n to t h e i r subject ? R1.3 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' attitudes toward integration of subject matter ? R1.4 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers attitudes toward a b i l i t y grouping ? R1.5 What are Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers' perceptions of personal e f f i c a c y ? R.2 How do background variables a f f e c t the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and practice i n t h e i r subject area ? B; The research instrument An attitude survey through a mailed questionnaire was conducted to provide answers to these research questions. The questionnaire consists of a section of 45 items dealing with curriculum, a b i l i t y grouping, integration of subject matter and personal e f f i c a c y and a section of 8 items providing background information (See appendix 2 questionnaire and cover l e t t e r ) . The section on background information i s made up of "l i m i t e d choice items" whereas the section on attitudes i n based on a 5 point L i k e r t - s c a l e . The decision to use li m i t e d choice items and a f i v e point L i k e r t - s c a l e rather than open ended questions was made i n order to make the task of responding simpler and less time-consuming (Jaeger 1988, 46 Wiersma 1986). This was considered of p a r t i c u l a r importance as the return rate of mailed questionnaires by Icelandic public school teachers has been reported as low as 15%. (Porlindsson, 1988) . C: Pretesting the instrument The questionnaire and cover l e t t e r were o r i g i n a l l y written i n English and subsequently translated into Icelandic by the researcher. The t r a n s l a t i o n was pretested with a group of informants i n Reykjavik, Iceland. This was done through interviews where on each occasion the researcher and an informant went through the cover l e t t e r and questionnaire item by item to check mutual understanding, correct wording and general appropriateness of the items. Sudman and Bradburn (1982) mention s i m i l a r procedures of pretesting for mutual understanding i n which respondents reformulate or back-tra n s l a t e questions into a second language. This method of pretesting was preferred to a more formal p i l o t i n g as i t gave the researcher d i r e c t feedback on the items and the opportunity to discuss pot e n t i a l problems with the informants. Eleven such interviews were conducted. The format was varied so that some informants read the questionnaire and made written or verbal comments. As the researcher l a t e r wished to include the enti r e population i n the study, informants were not selected from the active a r t and c r a f t teacher population. Instead informants 47 consisted of people working i n the f i e l d of a r t and c r a f t education, but not at the public school l e v e l ; a r t and c r a f t teachers not teaching i n the 1988-89 school year; and researchers who have been involved i n survey research i n education, sociology and psychology i n Iceland. (See appendix 3, l i s t of informants). Several changes were made on the basis of these interviews. They were mostly changes i n wording and c l a r i f i c a t i o n of terms, r e s u l t i n g from instances when the researcher had not been successful i n the t r a n s l a t i o n , or when conformity to procedures set i n current research practice i n Iceland seemed advisable. One change i n content was made as a r e s u l t of the pretesting. The interviews and comments revealed a serious problem i n addressing aesthetic education. The informants objected on two grounds, that the concept and i t s practice were unfamiliar to the population and that even i f i t were f a m i l i a r i t pertained only to the a r t teachers and not to those teaching c r a f t s . I t was suggested that questions on t h i s t o p i c would be a l i e n a t i n g to respondents. This argument was weighted by the fact that a l l informants had major d i f f i c u l t i e s i n wording "aesthetic" i n ways other than archaic, which indicates that t h i s concept i s not i n current use or discussion among art and c r a f t educators i n Iceland. As no acceptable solution was found, no question addresses aesthetic education d i r e c t l y . 48 D: The population The survey was directed at the population of Icelandic public school teachers that hold a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e i n art or c r a f t . A l i s t of teachers on p a y r o l l i n the public school system that met the c r i t e r i a of c e r t i f i c a t i o n as e i t h e r an art or a c r a f t s p e c i a l i s t was obtained from Launadeild Fjarmalaraouneytis islands (The Payroll Services of The Ministry of Finance) through Grunnskoladeild MenntamalaraSuneytis Islands (The Public School Branch of The Ministry of Culture and Education). This l i s t was only p a r t i a l as graduates from Kennarahaskoli Islands (Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education) are not l i s t e d according to t h e i r f i e l d of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n with the p a y r o l l services, but only as holding a B.Ed, degree as they receive teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n with t h e i r degree. Craft teachers that have graduated since 1974 f a l l into t h i s category. By comparing a l i s t of a l l public school teachers holding a B.Ed, degree with the records from Kennarahaskoli Islands (Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education) the researcher was able to complete the l i s t of c e r t i f i e d a rt and i c r a f t teachers employed i n public schools i n Iceland. The t o t a l population included i n t h i s study i s 356 i n d i v i d u a l s . Sixty s i x or 18% are art s p e c i a l i s t s , 286 or 82% are c r a f t s p e c i a l i s t s . Of the c r a f t s p e c i a l i s t s 161 or 56% hold a B.Ed, degree, that i s those who completed teacher t r a i n i n g and received c e r t i f i c a t i o n 1974 or l a t e r . F i f t y eight percent of the a r t teachers received c e r t i f i c a t i o n 1974 or 49 l a t e r . The majority, 76% of the population, i s female. That i s , 73% of the a r t teachers, 17% of the wood and metalwork teachers and a l l the t e x t i l e teachers are female. According to a survey done by Skolaprounardeild (The Department of School Development, Ministry of Culture and Education) i n 1988, i n which public school p r i n c i p a l s were asked to l i s t the teachers responsible for a r t and c r a f t teaching i n t h e i r school, 280 c e r t i f i e d a r t and c r a f t teachers were teaching t h e i r subjects at the public school l e v e l i n the 1987-88 school year. Of these, 140 were t e x t i l e teachers, 70 were a r t teachers and 70 were wood and metalwork teachers. By comparing the information from the 1988 survey and the population i d e n t i f i e d from the public school p a y r o l l for t h i s study i t appears that approximately 70 c e r t i f i e d a r t or c r a f t teachers are employed for some purposes other than teaching these subjects i n the public school system. Teachers employed i n special education do not appear i n t h i s population as they are i d e n t i f i e d d i f f e r e n t l y on p a y r o l l . Teachers employed i n schools for special populations or those who are employed by any of the handful of private schools that e x i s t were excluded as well, since t h e i r teaching s i t u a t i o n and curriculum d i f f e r s from that of the public schools. E: Implementation of the questionnaire A copy of the questionnaire, the cover l e t t e r and an addressed and stamped envelope were put i n an envelope 50 addressed to the i n d i v i d u a l teacher at his/her school address. The questionnaires were mailed through the mailing system of Menntamalaraouneyti Islands (The Ministry of Culture and Education) i n January 1989. An unpaid research assistant was responsible for carrying out the follow up procedures and data c o l l e c t i o n . To f a c i l i t a t e the data c o l l e c t i o n the assistant assigned each respondent a number that appears on his/her questionnaire. The researcher has not had access to the numbered l i s t of respondents, so t h e i r anonymity was preserved. The return address was that of Rannsoknastofnun Uppeldismala (The I n s t i t u t e for Educational Research), Reykjavik, Iceland. The researcher was granted f a c i l i t i e s for preparation, p r i n t i n g and gathering of the questionnaires by that i n s t i t u t e . The return date was set as two weeks a f t e r mailing. This i s i n accordance with advice from researchers i n Iceland, who have found that by s e t t i n g the return date as early as possible the return rate increases (Lindal, E. personal communication). A "thank you" note was mailed on the return date. The researcher approached the board of Samband Islenskra Mynd- og Handmenntakennara (The Association of Icelandic Art and Craft Teachers) with a request that a l e t t e r , i n which t h i s research was supported and members encouraged to respond, be sent to the membership. This l e t t e r was mailed at approximately the same time as the "thank you" note. 51 Ten days a f t e r the return date responses had been received from 39% of the population, or 138 respondents. A follow up l e t t e r to the remaining 61% of the respondents was mailed two weeks a f t e r the return date. Three weeks a f t e r the return date the response rate was 47% and four weeks l a t e r i t was up to 53%. Five weeks a f t e r the return date the response rate was 55%. In the t h i r d , fourth and f i f t h week the assistant made phone c a l l s to schools where more than one respondent remained to respond and asked the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s to encourage the art and c r a f t teachers i n the school to respond to the survey. At the end of the f i f t h week a f t e r the o r i g i n a l return date, i t was decided not to pursue the c o l l e c t i o n further. As no research t r a d i t i o n has formed i n art education i n Iceland i t was considered important to make the experience as p o s i t i v e as possible f o r the respondents. The hi s t o r y of art education i n North-America reveals a dichotomous attitude toward research i n i t s early stages, i n that although some p r a c t i t i o n e r s had a p o s i t i v e attitude toward research others were very s c e p t i c a l of research and i t s value for them as professionals (Day and DiBlasio 1983, Hoffa 1964). I t was concluded that, i n the case of t h i s study, the r i s k of further a l i e n a t i n g the s c e p t i c a l was too high i n r e l a t i o n to the increase i n the response rate to allow for extensive and r e p e t i t i v e follow up measures, p a r t i c u l a r l y when an acceptable response rate for analysis and reporting had already been reached (Babbie 1986). 52 Seven weeks a f t e r the i n i t i a l return date the responses arri v e d at U.B.C., having been photocopied by the research assistant before dispatch. The f i n a l response rate was 59%. F. Data analysis. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the instrument was assessed both by l o g i c a l analysis of the items and by running a r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t . The Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for the instrument was 0.67. Bruning and Kintz (1987) define a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.70 or more as high. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of t h i s instrument does not quite reach that category, but i s acceptable. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for subscales (groups of questions) within the instrument ranged from 0.00 f o r the subscale for curriculum autonomy to 0.69 for the subscale on gender differences. As the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were low i t did not seem appropriate to base analysis on subscales but rather on item per item c a l c u l a t i o n s . Contingiency tables on frequencies and percentages were chosen rather than analysis of the variance of means to report the findings. The rationale i s that as t h i s study w i l l be reported primarily to lay people a commonly known c r i t e r i a should be used. I t i s presumed that i t i s c l e a r e r for most people with minimal knowledge of s t a t i s t i c s to use frequencies and percentages rather than the mean as the basis for discussion. That i s , the reader may more r e a d i l y grasp that 53 32% of the sample agreed with a p a r t i c u l a r statement than that the mean score was 3.21 on the item, p a r t i c u l a r l y as the former statement can translate into "32% of my peers agree with me on t h i s item." G. Limitations. The l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study r e l a t e to the research design chosen and the instrument developed. The L i k e r t - s c a l e questionnaire o f f e r s the respondent very l i m i t e d options for responses. That i s , the response i s to a great extent dictated by the researcher. A more in t e r a c t i v e design would have e l i c i t e d more information from respondents and thus given a f u l l e r p i cture of t h e i r point of view. The items r e f l e c t e d factors defined by the researcher as important. These factors might not have the importance that the researcher assigned to them r e l a t i v e to other factors i n teachers' r e l a t i o n to curriculum. Consequently, equally or even more important factors might e x i s t that were not addressed i n t h i s study. Designing survey items i s a d i f f i c u l t task. In t h i s case i t was complicated by the need to translate the questionnaire from english to Icelandic. This might have added to the shortcomings of the questionnaire items. 54 IV. P r e s e n t a t i o n and summary o f f i n d i n g s . A. The sample. A . l The representativeness of the sample. The survey questionnaire was mailed to 356 i n d i v i d u a l s . Two hundred and twelve questionnaires were returned. Two of these were d e f i c i e n t i n that over 50% of the items had not been responded to. These were not used i n data analysis, and so 210 of the i n d i v i d u a l s who responded constitute the sample. The terms sample or respondents r e f e r to the 210 i n d i v i d u a l s whose responses were analysed, but population r e f e r s to the 356 individuals who were targeted. As those who chose to respond constitute the sample i t may be regarded as a voluntary sample and some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of volunteers may apply here, possibly biasing responses. Borg and G a l l (1983) l i s t f i v e conclusions about voluteers that are supported by such evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e to be warranted. These are that volunteers tend to be better educated, have higher s o c i a l - c l a s s status, be more i n t e l l i g e n t , have higher need f o r s o c i a l approval and be more sociable than non-volunteers. No information i s available to assess whether the l a s t three assumptions have biased the responses i n t h i s study. In terms of education there i s v i r t u a l l y no difference between the proportion of individuals holding a B.Ed degree i n the population and the sample. Regarding s o c i a l status the sample and population are comparable i n that they have the 55 same o c c u p a t i o n and a r e employed by t h e same employer. Other f a c t o r s t h a t d e f i n e s o c i a l s t a t u s such as m a r i t a l s t a t u s o r f a m i l y income were n o t c o n s i d e r e d as t h i s s u r v e y was d i r e c t e d a t a group o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s and p e r t a i n e d t o t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e sample r e f l e c t e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n , p r o p o r t i o n s were compared on t h r e e v a r i a b l e s ; gender, s u b j e c t m a t t e r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , and y e a r o f r e c e i v i n g t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Out o f t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n 76% were female and 24% were male. T a b l e 1 shows t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f i g u r e s f o r t h e sample. T a b l e 1.Gender. Gender Na) % female 152 73.1 male 56 26.9 t o t a l 208 100 a) N = 210 From t h e e x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on s u b j e c t m a t t e r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n i t was o n l y p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e whether an i n d i v i d u a l i s an a r t t e a c h e r o r a c r a f t t e a c h e r . The p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d 82% o f c r a f t t e a c h e r s and 18% o f a r t t e a c h e r s . The sample was d i v i d e d as T a b l e 2 shows. 56 Table 2. Subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of respondents. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n N a) % t e x t i l e 109 52.2 art 39 18.7 wood & metalwork 48 23.0 weaving 4 1.9 multiple s p e c i a l i z a t i o n b) 9 4.2 t o t a l 209 100 a) N = 210 b) These respondents are c e r t i f i e d as teachers i n more than one of the art and c r a f t subjects. F i f t y nine point f i v e percent of the population received c e r t i f i c a t i o n i n 1974 or l a t e r . The comparable figure for the respondents i s 59%. Further information on gender proportions and subject matter s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , teaching experience and teaching load as well as where and when the respondents received t h e i r c e r t i f i c a t i o n as teachers i s reported elsewhere i n t h i s chapter. T e x t i l e teachers make up ha l f the sample and subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and gender seem to be related along t r a d i t i o n a l patterns of gender roles (see table 3). 57 Table 3. Gender and s u b j e c t s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Table 3.1. Gender proportions i n t e x t i l e teaching. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and gender N a) % T e x t i l e female 107 100 male 0 0 Total 107 100 a) N = 107 Table 3.2. Gender proportions i n a r t teaching. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and gender N a) % Art female 30 79.0 male 8 21.0 Total 38 100 a) N = 38 Table 3.3. Gender proportions i n wood and metalwork teaching S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and gender N a) % Wood and metalwork female 4 8.3 male 44 91.7 Total 48 100 a) N = 48 There are no male t e x t i l e teachers i n the sample and 91.7% of the wood- and metalwork teachers are male. Compared to 58 c r a f t teaching the gender proportions are l e s s skewed i n art teaching where 79% of the teachers are female and 21% are male. (Table 3). A.2. Teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Art and c r a f t teachers i n Iceland have received c e r t i f i c a t i o n through several programs. Most of the c r a f t teachers were trained i n a college of education, whereas art teachers were educated i n an art college. Respondents were asked to i d e n t i f y the i n s t i t u t i o n from which they received teaching c e r t i f i c a t i o n . 59 Table 4. Teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n . I n s t i t u t i o n a) N b) % K.H.I. 94 46. K.I. 58 28. M.H.I. 43 21. K.H.I. & K.I. 3 1. M.H.I. & K.I. 4 2. Other 2 1. t o t a l 204 100 a) K.H.I. = Kennarahaskoli islands (Icelandic I n s t i t u t e of Education), K . i . = Kennaraskoli islands (The Teachers' College of Iceland), M.H.I. = Myndlista- og handioaskoli Islands (The Art and Craft College of Iceland), other = journeymen c e r t i f i e d as teachers and people with c e r t i f i c a t i o n from abroad. b) N = 210 Those who have graduated from Kennarahaskoli Islands, 47.6% of the sample, receive teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n with t h e i r B.Ed degree. This group i s c e r t i f i e d as generalist classroom teachers with either of the c r a f t subjects as a s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . 60 The majority of the teachers, i n t o t a l 74.5% of the sample, i s educated through Kennarahaskoli islands (Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education) or i t s predecessor Kennaraskoli islands (The Teachers' College of Iceland). A small portion of the sample (3.4%) has received c e r t i f i c a t i o n from more than one i n s t i t u t i o n . The category "other" i s comprised of people who have been granted c e r t i f i c a t i o n by l e g i s l a t i o n such as journeymen carpenters who have been granted c e r t i f i c a t i o n based on t h e i r trade education and teaching experience, and persons educated abroad. Respondents were asked to state the year i n which they received teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The e a r l i e s t date reported by respondents i s 1949 and the l a t e s t 1988 (see Table 5). Table 5. Year of receiving teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Year N a) % 1949-1959 25 12.2 1960-1969 37 18.0 1970-1979 43 21.0 1980-1988 100 48.8 t o t a l 205 100 a) N = 210 61 A.3. Teaching experience and teaching load. Teaching experience and proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n teaching load are variables that are presumed to be related to atti t u d e s . (Wolfe 1979) Table 6. Level of teaching experience. Years N a) % 0-1 13 6.3 2-5 50 24.0 6-10 48 23.1 11-20 56 26.9 more than 20 41 19.7 t o t a l 208 100 a) N = 210 In terms of teaching experience 53.4% of the sample had taught for 10 years or less (see Table 6). These figures are s i m i l a r to the findings of Thorlindsson (1988) who found that about h a l f of the teaching force i n public schools has fewer than ten years of teaching experience. This indicates that the population of a r t and c r a f t teachers i s i n t h i s respect not d i f f e r e n t from the general population of public school teachers. Gender and teaching experience i s related i n that the percentage of male respondents that has taught more than 10 years i s higher than that of female respondents with the same 62 l e v e l of teaching experience. Conversely the percentage of male respondents with less than 10 years teaching experience i s lower than that of female respondents with l e s s than 10 years teaching experience (see Table 6.1.). Table 6.1. Teaching experience and gender. Female Male Years N a) % N b) % 0-10 88 56.8 23 41.8 more than 10 67 43.2 32 58.2 Total 155 100 55 100 a) N = 155 b) N = 55 As the questionnaire was directed at a l l c e r t i f i e d a r t and c r a f t teachers currently teaching i n the public school system, regardless of whether they teach art and c r a f t , i t was necessary to ask about the proportion of the subject matter s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n t h e i r teaching load. 63 Table 7. Proportion of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n teaching load. Proportion i n % N a) % 0 30 14.6 1-10 27 13.2 11-25 24 11.8 26-50 23 11. 3 51-75 24 11.8 76-100 76 37.3 t o t a l 204 100 a) N = 210 As shown i n Table 7 almost 15% of the sample reports that they do not teach t h e i r subject matter s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . For 41% of those that do teach a r t and c r a f t i t makes up 50% or less of t h e i r teaching load. Teaching experience and proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n teaching load seem p o s i t i v e l y related (see Table 7.1.). 64 Table 7.1. Proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load and years of teaching experience. Years of teaching experience 0-•1 2--10 11 -20 > 20 Proportion N a) % N b) % N C) % N d) % 0-10% 4 18.2 34 35.4 12 22.6 5 12.8 11-50% 5 22.7 26 27.1 10 18.9 6 15.4 51-100% 13 59.1 36 37.5 31 58.5 28 71.8 Total 22 100 96 100 53 100 39 100 a) N = 22 b) N = 96 c) N = 53 d) N = 39 The item on the proportion of art and c r a f t i n the t o t a l teaching load of respondents was followed by the question "Is a r t and c r a f t teaching available to you ?" The purpose of t h i s question was to f i n d out i f a substantial group existed that did not have the opportunity to teach t h e i r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Responses are summarized i n Table 8. 65 Table 8. A v a i l a b i l i t y of a r t and c r a f t teaching. Available N a) % yes 17 48.6 no 18 51.4 t o t a l 35 100 a) N = 210 Note that the high rate of non-response i s to be expected as the item was s p e c i f i c a l l y directed at those who reported 0% ar t and c r a f t teaching i n the previous item. Seventeen percent of the sample responded to t h i s item, which i s a s l i g h t l y higher proportion of respondents than reported 0% a r t and c r a f t teaching i n the previous item. The explanation for the difference could be that a generalist classroom teacher i n t h i s group might not report 0% art and c r a f t teaching because of the a r t and c r a f t teaching conducted as a classroom teacher, but might respond to the a v a i l a b i l i t y item as an unemployed s p e c i a l i s t . The respondents on t h i s item were almost evenly s p l i t between responding yes or no, which suggests that only a small group has elected not to teach t h e i r subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . I t has to be noted i n t h i s context that i t i s l i k e l y that non-response i s high i n the group that does not teach a r t and c r a f t , which could mean that t h i s group was underrepresented here. 66 A.4. Student enrollment and crrade l e v e l s taucrht, Table 9. Sample d i v i s i o n by student enrollment. Enrollment N a) % < 30 3 1.5 31-100 20 10.4 101-300 39 20.2 301-599 71 36.8 600 > 60 31.1 t o t a l 193 100 a) N = 210 The item on student enrollment indicates that 31% of the sample teach i n schools with more than 600 students (see Table 9). According to Thorlindsson (1988) 6.7% of public school teachers are employed i n schools with more than 1000 students, but f o r the purposes of t h i s study, a 1000+ category was not considered e s s e n t i a l . The grade l e v e l s at which the respondents are teaching can a f f e c t t h e i r attitudes, as programs d i f f e r with students age. Hence a question on grade l e v e l s taught was included. Responses are summarized i n Table 10. 67 Table 10. G r a d e l e v e l t a u g h t . Grades N a) % 0-3 22 12.4 4-6 9 5.1 7-9 20 11.3 0-6 41 23.2 4-9 25 14.1 0-3 & 7-9 2 1.1 0-9 58 32.8 t o t a l 177 100 a) N = 210 The item on grade l e v e l might have caused some confusion, since the options do not accurately r e f l e c t the t r a d i t i o n a l d i v i s i o n of grade l e v e l s i n compulsory education. Grade 3 i s the f i r s t year of middle school and i s also the f i r s t year of mandatory a r t and c r a f t i n s t r u c t i o n . In retrospect, i t might therefore have been better to i d e n t i f y the response categories as grades 0-2, 3-6, and 7-9, as t h i s d i v i s i o n would have conformed to the t r a d i t i o n a l understanding of primary, middle and secondary grades. I t i s l i k e l y that t h i s caused a representation i n grades 0-3 that i s more properly a r e f l e c t i o n of the number of respondents teaching grade 3. For data analysis involving grade l e v e l taught respondents were grouped as those that teach grades 0-6, 7-9 and 0-9. By 68 comparing the proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n teaching load between groups teaching at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s i t appeared that those who teach a l l grade l e v e l s have the highest proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n t h e i r teaching load. I t should be noted that the high rate of non-response shown i n tables 9 and 10 might be an e f f e c t of the lay-out of the questionnaire. The l a s t three items on demographic variables were printed on the back page of the questionnaire. On the top of the page were instructions on responding to the a v a i l a b i l i t y item d i r e c t i n g i t exclusively at those who reported 0% a r t and c r a f t teaching on the previous item. This might have led some respondents to assume that the in s t r u c t i o n s applied to the remaining two items on the page as well. B. The attitudes of Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers. B.l Attitudes toward curriculum rationales. Attitudes toward three basic curriculum rationales, subject-, student-, and society-centered, were measured by responses to 5 items i n each case, for a t o t a l of 15 items. Attitude toward a b i l i t y grouping comprised 4 items. Six items measured whether the teachers believed that gender differences between students affected t h e i r r e l a t i o n to the subject. Attitude toward integration was measured by f i v e items where agreement r e f l e c t e d a favorable attitude toward t h i s practice. Three categories comprising 15 items addressed the teacher's perception of personal e f f i c a c y . Attitude toward curriculum autonomy was measured by 4 items, where "agree" s i g n i f i e d a p o s i t i v e a ttitude toward curriculum autonomy. Self-concept involved f i v e items where agreement r e f l e c t s a perception of s e l f as a recognized professional within the school. Influence of others was measured by s i x items where agreement s i g n i f i e d a b e l i e f that the respondent was r e s t r i c t e d by the influence of others. The questionnaire items were statements that were either negative or p o s i t i v e . A high score on an item with a p o s i t i v e statement s i g n i f i e d agreement; a low score on a negative statement s i g n i f i e d a p o s i t i v e response to the attitude i n question, which equals agreement. Negative statements are i d e n t i f i e d i n appendix 2, the categorized English version, by a c a p i t a l R i n brackets following the statements. "R" stands for reversed as scores on these items were reversed for c a l c u l a t i o n of agreement and disagreement with the attitude addressed by that p a r t i c u l a r group of questions. Hoyt's estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for these groups of items as subscales ranged from .00 to .69. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are i n many cases rather low and that lack of r e l i a b i l i t y i s on occasion confirmed by written comments from the respondents on the ambiguity of the material. I t was therefore deemed more appropriate to base analysis of the responses on calculations of item scores rather than on 70 grouping the items for sub-scale computations. This would allow for attention to the r e l i a b i l i t y of each item. Results are summarized i n tables where the frequencies and percentages of respondents f a l l into three response categories; undecided, disagree and agree. These are presented for each item. The tables also show the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of each item with the subscale as an indicator of i t s r e l i a b i l i t y . Cross-tabulations of attitude items and demographic variables were conducted to t e s t for s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the proportion of respondents i n various groups agreeing and the proportion disagreeing with an item. Results are presented as chisquare values and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 and .01 l e v e l s indicated. Tables summarizing t h i s information appear i n Appendix 1. To locate the difference i n crosstabulations with more than two groups a t e s t for s i g n i f i c a n c e of differences between two proportions was conducted on items where the chisquare value indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences. Results are reported as Z values, which are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l i f z > 1.96. B . l . l . A subject centered rationale. These items did not c o l l e c t i v e l y show a d i s t i n c t preference for or against subject centered statements (see table 11) and s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups were few. 71 The Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for t h i s group of items as a scale i s .28. The f i v e statements were: Sul. The main ro l e of the a r t and c r a f t teacher i s not that of transmitting knowledge but of creating conditions for students independent learning.(R) Su2. Standard, compulsory projects are the best way to teach students new methods. Su3. The student's products (objects, images) are the only sound c r i t e r i a for evaluation. Su4. Art and c r a f t teachers should use hands-on te s t s i n evaluation. Su5. Knowledge and s k i l l s must be learned i n a c e r t a i n sequence to make the student able to work independently. Table 11. Attitudes toward subject centered statements. Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) Sul 14 6.9 89 43.8 100 49. 3 203 -.03 Su2 8 3.9 114 55.1 85 41. 1 207 .14 Su3 2 1.0 165 78.9 42 20. 1 20 .16 Su4 11 5.3 137 66.2 59 28. 5 20 .15 Su5 3 1.4 35 16.9 169 81. 6 207 . 25 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r item with scale 72 The f i r s t two items show l i t t l e differences between the percentages of people that agree and those that disagree. A more d e f i n i t e trend i s detectable i n responses to item 3 "The student's products (objects, images) are the only sound c r i t e r i a for evaluation"; 79% of the respondents disagreed. This trend i s reversed i n item 5. The majority agrees with the statement: "Knowledge and s k i l l s must be learned i n a c e r t a i n sequence to make the student able to work independently". Respondents were grouped by gender, subject matter s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , l e v e l of teaching experience, grade l e v e l taught, i n s t i t u t e of teacher t r a i n i n g , student enrollment i n t h e i r schools, and proportion of art & c r a f t i n teaching load to t e s t for s i g n i f i c a n t differences (See Appendix 1, Table 1). Gender had s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n only one instance. In responding to item 2; ."Standard, compulsory projects are the best way to teach students new methods", women were more l i k e l y to disagree than men. (Chisquare [1, N = 197] = 4.47, p_ < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 1.1.) Subject matter s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s i m i l a r l y yielded s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups on one item, item 4; ar t and c r a f t teachers should use hands-on te s t s i n evaluation, where (chisquare [2, N = 185] = 7.93, p < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 1.2.). Art teachers seemed to be less i n agreement with the statement that tests should be used than the other two groups. By t e s t i n g for s i g n i f i c a n c e of differences between two proportions, art teachers were found 73 to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from both t e x t i l e (z = 3.01) and wood-and metalwork teachers (z = 2.83). This finding i s corroborated by grouping respondents by i n s t i t u t i o n of teacher t r a i n i n g , where graduates from M.H.I, d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the other groups (chisquare [4, N = 191] = 17.56, p_ < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 1.7.) Comparison of item 4 by l e v e l s of teaching experience yielded s i g n i f i c a n t differences; (chisquare [4, N = 195] = 9.94, p_ < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 1.3.) the group with 21 or more years of teaching experience agreed more than the others that t e s t s should be used. The t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e between two proportions only showed differences to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l between t h i s group and others. Grouping respondents by experience and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n on t h i s item confirmed these findings. B.1.2. A student centered rationale. In four out of f i v e items the majority of respondents agreed with student centered statements. The Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for these items as a scale i s .33 which i s s l i g h t l y higher than for the subject centered items. The statements to which teachers were asked to respond were: S t l . Art and c r a f t education should rather be based on the i n t e r e s t s and needs of each group of students than a prescribed curriculum. 74 St2. The goal of art and c r a f t education i s not to teach childre n the values of adults but to preserve the inherent c r e a t i v i t y of the c h i l d . St3. I t i s n ' t appropriate to base art and c r a f t education completely on students' i n i t i a t i v e . ( R ) St4. Evaluation i n art and c r a f t education should be based on what the student gained from the process rather than the product of the process. St5. Knowledge and s k i l l s w i l l best be attained through projects that the student i n i t i a t e s . Table 12. Attitudes toward student centered statements Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) S t l 3 1.5 49 23.9 153 74.6 205 .23 St2 3 1.4 10 4.8 195 93.8 208 . 11 St3 8 3.8 159 75.7 43 20.5 210 .07 St4 4 1.9 26 12.5 178 85.6 208 .12 St5 9 4.3 66 31.7 133 63.9 208 . 24 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale Table 12 shows that the majority of respondents seem to agree with the student centered statements i n items 1,2,4 and 5. The percentage of respondents agreeing ranges from 63.9% to 93.8%. The reverse i s true for item 3 where 75.7% disagreed 75 with the notion that i t i s appropriate to base a r t and c r a f t education exclusively on the student's i n i t i a t i v e . This item correlates badly with other items i n the group as well as i n the questionnaire. Comparison of groups of respondents yielded a few instances where there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference. Item 5, "Knowledge and s k i l l s w i l l best be attained through projects that the student i n i t i a t e s " , yielded d i f f e r e n t responses according to subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . The chisquare value was (2, N = 188) = 12.99, p < -05, (Appendix 1, Table 2.2.) I t appeared that the c r a f t teachers agreed more with t h i s statement than did the art teachers. The z scores show that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the c r a f t teachers, but f o r t e x t i l e and art teachers z = 3.33 and f o r a r t and wood- and metalwork teachers z = 3.26. On two items, 2 (chisquare [4, N = 200] = 9.63, p < .05) and 5 (chisquare [4, N = 193] = 15.26, p < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 2.7.) differences appeared between groups from d i f f e r e n t teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s . In both instances graduates from Kennaraskoli islands (The Teachers' College of Iceland) disagreed most with the student centered statements. When respondents to item 5, "Knowledge and s k i l l s w i l l best be attained by projects that the student i n i t i a t e s " , were grouped by s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and proportion of art and c r a f t taught t h i s difference between s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s was confirmed (chisquare [2, N = 195] = 8.29, p < «05) (Appendix 1, Table 76 2 . 5 . ) « I t further appeared that the c r a f t teachers agreement was negatively related to proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n teaching load. B.1 . 3 . A society centered rationale. The items formulated to measure attitude toward a society centered ra t i o n a l e were: 501. Art and c r a f t teachers should b u i l d t h e i r teaching on the aesthetic standards apparent i n what kind of art and c r a f t i s valued i n students 7 homes. 502. An understanding of the r o l e of art and c r a f t can j u s t as well be gained through studying f o l k - a r t as from studying recognized art and c r a f t masterpieces. 5 0 3 . I t i s more important to make students environmentally l i t e r a t e than to teach them the s k i l l s of a r t i s t s or craftsmen. 5 0 4 . Preservation of the c u l t u r a l heritage should be the goal i n a r t and c r a f t education. 5 0 5 . The goal of art and c r a f t education i s not that of transmitting universal aesthetic standards but to teach students that d i f f e r e n t groups have d i f f e r e n t but equally v a l i d aesthetic values. The f i v e items presenting society centered attitudes had a higher c o r r e l a t i o n both within the group of items and the t e s t than the subject- and students centered items. Hoyt 7s estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for these items as a scale was .48. The r e s u l t s are however inconclusive as to whether the majority of 77 respondents held or rejected society centered attitudes (see Table 13). Table 13. Attitudes toward society centered statements Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) Sol 13 6.3 186 89.4 9 4. 3 208 .20 So2 47 22.8 70 34.0 89 43. 2 206 .30 So3 18 8.8 33 16.1 154 75. 1 205 .22 So4 23 11.1 107 51.7 77 37. 2 207 .27 So5 23 11.2 15 7.3 168 81. 6 206 .28 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale I t should be noted that the category "undecided" was used more frequently for these items than i t was i n the other two groups of items (see Table 13). Item 1 i n t h i s group consisted of a statement that a r t and c r a f t teachers should teach i n accordance with the aesthetic standards set by students' homes; 89.4% of the sample disagreed. On the other hand 81.6% of the sample agreed that the goal of art and c r a f t education i s not transmission of universal aesthetic values, but to teach students that d i f f e r e n t groups have d i f f e r e n t but equally v a l i d aesthetic values (item 5). Item 2, where i t i s stated that an understanding of the ro l e of a r t and c r a f t can be gained through the study of f o l k - a r t as well as fin e a r t , has a high rate (22.8%) of undecided responses. Respondents 78 tended to agree that i t i s more important to make students environmentally l i t e r a t e than to teach them a r t i s t s ' or craftsmens' s k i l l s (item 3), but are s l i g h t l y more i n c l i n e d to disagree than agree that preservation of the c u l t u r a l heritage should be the goal i n art and c r a f t education (item 4). Some differences between groups were found: the chisquare values and si g n i f i c a n c e are reported i n Appendix 1, Table 3. The respondents who teach grades 7-9 were the only group where some support was found for the statement i n item 1 "Art and c r a f t teachers should b u i l d t h e i r teaching on the aesthetic standards apparent i n what kind of art and c r a f t i s valued i n students' homes". (Chisquare [2, N = 139] = 10.60, p <.05) (Appendix 1, Table 3.3.). Agreement with the statement (item 2) "An understanding of the role of art and c r a f t can ju s t as well be gained through studying f o l k - a r t as from studying recognized a r t and c r a f t masterpieces", declined s i g n i f i c a n t l y with increased proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load. (Chisquare [2, N = 154] = 6.66, p <.05) (Appendix 1, Table 3.5.). In one instance (item 5), "The goal of a r t and c r a f t education i s not that of transmitting universal aesthetic standards but to teach students that d i f f e r e n t groups have d i f f e r e n t but equally v a l i d aesthetic values", differences between groups according to student enrollment appeared. Respondents teaching i n schools with more than 600 students were lea s t l i k e l y to agree (chisquare [4, N = 169] = 11.74, p <.05) (Appendix 1, Table 3.6.). 79 B.2. Issues i n Icelandic art and c r a f t education.  B.1.2. Attitudes toward a b i l i t y grouping. Four items were designed to measure attitudes toward a b i l i t y grouping. Hoyt's estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was .41. The o v e r a l l tendency was to disagree with a b i l i t y grouping. The statements on which agreement or disagreement was sought were: Abl. The s i z e of groups a f f e c t s students achievement more than whether grouping i s according to a b i l i t y or not.(R) Ab2. Grouping according to a b i l i t y enhances s o c i a l development more than does mixed a b i l i t y grouping. Ab3. A b i l i t y grouping i s contrary to the public school's commitment to equity.(R) Ab4. Mixed a b i l i t y grouping has resulted i n lowered standards of achievement i n my subject. Table 14. Attitudes toward statements favoring a b i l i t y grouping Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N S Abl 5 2.4 191 91. 4 13 6. 2 209 . 14 Ab2 29 14.0 140 67. 6 38 18. 4 207 .23 Ab3 20 9.7 156 75. 4 31 15. 0 207 .23 Ab4 32 15.4 128 61. 5 48 23. 1 208 .28 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale 80 Some group differences occurred on the issue of a b i l i t y grouping: see Appendix 1, Table 4. There were differences between the three subject matter s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s on item 3, which i s reversed and states that a b i l i t y grouping i s contrary to the public school's commitment to equity (chisquare [2, N = 176] = 6.86, p < .05) (See Appendix 1, Table 4.2.). The art teachers disagreed more with a b i l i t y grouping on t h i s item than d i d the c r a f t teachers. The contrast was z = 2.70 for difference between art and t e x t i l e teachers and z = 2.25 for art and wood and metalwork teachers, both s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . There were also differences according to l e v e l of teaching experience on item 2, which advocates a b i l i t y grouping for i t s benefits f o r s o c i a l development (chisquare [4, N = 176] = 12.61, p_ < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 4.3.). The group with 21 or more years of teaching experience disagreed l e a s t with item 2, and t h i s difference i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l cases. The group with 2-5 years of teaching experience i s also s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n agreement than the others on t h i s item. Item 2 generated differences between respondents teaching at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s (chisquare [2, N = 129] = 8.85, p <.05), where those who teach grades 7-9 were most l i k e l y to agree. On item 4, "Mixed a b i l i t y grouping has resulted i n lowered standards of achievement i n my subject", s i m i l a r differences were found (chisquare [2, N = 126] = 6.46, p <.05) (Appendix 1, Table 4.5.). 81 B.2.2. Perceptions of gender differences. Six items addressed the notion that students' gender differences a f f e c t t h e i r r e l a t i o n to the subject. The Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for t h i s group as a scale was .69, which i s the highest of a l l nine groups. These items were: Gl. Boys and g i r l s have d i f f e r e n t attitudes toward my subj ect. G2. There are marked differences between the projects that boys and g i r l s choose i n my subject. G3. I have to use d i f f e r e n t approaches to teach boys and g i r l s . G4. There i s a divergence i n a b i l i t y between boys and g i r l s i n my subject. G5. Students would learn more i n my subject i f they were grouped according to gender i n classes. G6. I believe that boys and g i r l s are going to make equal use of what they learned i n my subject when they leave school.(R) The majority of respondents disagreed with t h i s notion i n a l l items (see Table 15). There were several s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups. Women did not disagree as often as men, a r t teachers disagreed more than c r a f t teachers which was corroborated by the breakdown of responses according to c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Agreement was p o s i t i v e l y related to teaching 82 experience, and teachers i n the upper grade l e v e l s agreed more than those teaching i n the primary grades. Table 15. Attitudes toward statements i n d i c a t i n g gender differences. Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) Gl 8 3.8 107 51.0 95 45.2 210 .44 G2 9 4.3 117 56.5 81 39.1 207 .32 G3 4 1.9 177 84.3 29 13.8 210 .36 G4 6 2.9 132 63.5 70 33.7 208 .56 G5 3 3.8 160 76.9 40 19.2 208 .51 G6 16 7.6 105 50.0 89 42.4 210 .22 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale The majority of respondents (84.3%) rejected item 3, the statement that they have to use d i f f e r e n t approaches to teach boys and g i r l s , while 76.9% disagreed with item 5, the statement that students would learn more i f grouped by gender. On the other hand only about 50% disagreed with the statements that students attitudes toward the subjects are gender related (item 1), and that boys and g i r l s w i l l make equal use of t h e i r learning i n the subjects upon graduating (item 6). 83 Comparisons between groups reveal that the attitudes of various groups within the sample d i f f e r i n regard to perceived gender differences between students; see Appendix 1, Table 5. Women were more l i k e l y to agree with item 1, that boys and g i r l s have d i f f e r e n t attitudes toward the subjects (chisquare [1, N = 200] = 4.23, p < .05). About 90% of the male respondents disagreed with item 5, where grouping based on gender i s suggested, but only 75% of the women shared t h i s opinion (chisquare [1, N = 198] = 4.33, p < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 5.1.). Four of these items yielded s i g n i f i c a n t differences between subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s . On item 1, which states that boys and g i r l s have d i f f e r e n t attitudes towards the subjects (chisquare [2, N = 188] = 23.33, p <.001) (Appendix 1, Table 5.4.), t e x t i l e teachers were most l i k e l y to agree whereas art teachers were lea s t l i k e l y to agree, as revealed i n that z = 4.68 for contrast between t e x t i l e and art teachers. The z scores f o r differences between wood- and metalwork and t e x t i l e teachers, and wood- and metalwork and art teachers were 2.90 and 2.70 respectively. A s i m i l a r trend, although not as pronounced, was r e f l e c t e d i n items 4 (chisquare [2, N = 188] = 8.18,_p <.05) which dealt with difference i n a b i l i t y , and 5 (chisquare [2, N = 186] = 13.22, p <.05) on gender-grouping, z = 3.07 and 3.21 respectively between art and t e x t i l e teachers. On item 6 (chisquare [2, N = 181] = 30.49, p <.001), art teachers were most l i k e l y to agree that boys and g i r l s are 84 going to make equal use of t h e i r subject (Appendix 1, Table 5.4.)- T e x t i l e teachers were lea s t l i k e l y to agree with t h i s statement. The contrasts between t e x t i l e and a r t teachers was z = 5.41, between art and wood- and metalwork teachers z = 3.48 and between the c r a f t teachers z = 2.80, a l l s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . Comparison between groups according to which i n s t i t u t i o n issued t h e i r teaching c e r t i f i c a t e confirms the differences between s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s ; see Appendix 1, Table 5.7. On item 5 (gender grouping) a r e l a t i o n appeared between l e v e l of teaching experience and attitude (chisquare [4, N = 198] = 10.14, p < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 5.3.). The more teaching experience the more people tended to agree with the statement that gender makes a difference. When attitudes toward gender differences were compared between teachers at various grade l e v e l s , item 1 on d i f f e r e n t attitudes of boys and g i r l s showed differences (chisquare [2, N = 147] = 9.81, p <.05). Item 2, which states that there are marked differences between boys' and g i r l s ' choice of projects, showed s i g n i f i c a n t differences (chisquare [2, N = 141] = 7.65, p < .05). For item 3, "I have to use d i f f e r e n t approaches to teach boys and g i r l s " (chisquare [2, N = 148] = 12.86, p < .05), s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were obtained. In a l l cases the teachers of the upper grade l e v e l s agreed that there was a gender based difference (see Appendix 1, Table 5.4.). 85 B.2.3. Attitudes toward integration. Five items were designed to measure whether respondents had negative or p o s i t i v e attitudes toward integration. Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was .56. The majority of respondents had a p o s i t i v e attitude toward integration (see Table 16). The items making up t h i s category were: 11. Integration w i l l always compromise the objectives of the subjects involved.(R) 12. My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the subject area of art and c r a f t . 13. My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the public school curriculum. 14. Integration of d i s c i p l i n e s i s more i n accordance with the nature of the learning process than basing education on separate d i s c i p l i n e s . 15. In todays society integrative a b i l i t y i s more useful than s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge. 86 Table 16. Attitudes toward statements favoring integration. Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) 11 33 15.9 45 21.7 129 62.3 207 .06 12 7 3.3 29 13.9 173 82.8 209 .38 13 12 5.8 51 24.6 144 69.6 207 .50 14 15 7.2 69 33.3 123 59.4 207 .45 15 50 24.2 48 23.2 109 52.7 207 .41 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale Items 1, "Integration w i l l always compromise the objectives of the subjects involved", and 2, "My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the subject area of a r t and c r a f t " , showed women to be more i n favor of integration than men (chisquare [1, N = 174] = 3.88, p < .05) for item 1 and for item 2 (chisquare [1, N = 200] = 13.28, P < .001) (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.). The only s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the s p e c i a l i s t s was found on item 2 (chisquare [2, N = 190] = 13.20, p < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 6.2.). Wood- and metalwork teachers were lea s t l i k e l y to agree, z = 2.51 when compared with t e x t i l e teachers and z = 5.96 when compared with art teachers. When attitudes toward integration and experience were compared responses to items 1-3 showed that the group with 87 more than twenty years of teaching experience was l e a s t favorable toward integration. The group with 6-10 years of teaching experience was most l i k e l y to condone integration. Item 1 deviated from the pattern i n that the f i r s t year teachers agreed more with integration than they appear to do on the other two items. Items 2, 3 and 4 showed difference i n attitudes between respondents according to proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n teaching load (Appendix 1, Table 6.5.). For item 2, "My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the subject area of art and c r a f t " (chisquare [2, N = 197] = 7.21, P <.05). Chisquares were s i g n i f i c a n t ((2, N = 190) = 13.38, p < .05) f o r item 3 "My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the public school curriculum", and again ((2, N = 186) = 6.73, p <.05) for item 4, "Integration of d i s c i p l i n e s i s more i n accordance with the nature of the learning process than basing education on separate d i s c i p l i n e s " . In a l l cases the percentage of agreeing responses was highest for those who teach t h e i r subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n as 0-10% of t h e i r t o t a l teaching load and lowest for those who teach more than 50% art and c r a f t . C e r t i f i c a t i o n made a difference on items 1 and 3 (chisquares (4, N = 168) = 15.74, p <.05 for item 1 and (4, N = 189) = 13.65, p <.05 for item 3) (Appendix 1, Table 6.7.). Graduates from Kennaraskoli Islands (The Teachers' College of Iceland) were most l i k e l y to agree with item 1, "Integration 88 w i l l always compromise the objectives of the subjects involved" (R), which means they were lea s t l i k e l y to condone integration. They were lea s t l i k e l y to agree with item 3, "My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the subject area of art and c r a f t " . B.3. Teachers 7 concept of s e l f as a professional. B.3.1. Perceptions of curriculum autonomy. The statements comprising t h i s category were: C l . In my subject the curriculum guide should state objectives, processes and outcomes c l e a r l y and unambiguously enough to ensure that a l l teachers w i l l teach the same body of content.(R) C2. The introduction of school-based c u r r i c u l a would be b e n e f i c i a l for my subject. C3. When I plan my teaching I use the Public School Curriculum Guide as base.(R) C4. I do not f e e l obliged to follow any one p a r t i c u l a r curriculum guide. As Table 17 shows, the r e l i a b i l i t y of the items i n t h i s group was low, both for item c o r r e l a t i o n within the category and with the questionnaire as a whole. The Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was .00. These items should therefore be considered i n d i v i d u a l l y and interpreted with caution. About h a l f of the respondents f e l t that they should follow a 89 curriculum guide and a s l i g h t l y higher percentage (54.1) reported that they use the o f f i c i a l curriculum guide. Table 17. Attitudes toward statements favoring curriculum autonomy. Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) CI 10 4.8 77 37.0 121 58. 2 208 .04 C2 40 19.2 30 14.4 138 66. 3 208 -.19 C3 14 6.8 111 54.1 80 39. 0 205 .01 C4 23 11.0 105 50.0 82 39. 0 210 .09 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale Differences between groups were s i g n i f i c a n t i n three instances (Appendix 1, Table 7). Responses to the statement i n item 1, whether the curriculum guide should be so s p e c i f i c as to ensure homogeneity i n teaching, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r men and women (chisquare [1, N = 196] = 11.73, p < .001). Men were more l i k e l y to respond to t h i s item i n a way that r e f l e c t s a desire for c u r r i c u l a r autonomy. Differences between subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s were also found on item 1 (chisquare [2, N = 185] = 9.84, p < .05). T e x t i l e teachers were least l i k e l y to agree with t h i s item whereas wood and metalwork teachers were most l i k e l y to agree with i t . The z score for contrast between the proportions of 90 t e x t i l e and wood- and metalwork teachers agreeing with t h i s item i s 4.25. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference (z = 2.34) between t e x t i l e and art teachers i n t h i s respect, but not between a r t and wood- and metalwork teachers. Item 3 on the use of the public school curriculum guide showed a difference between groups with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of teaching experience (chisquare [4, N = 190] = 11.48, p <.05). B. 3 . 2 . S e l f concept. Five statements r e f l e c t i n g a strong self-concept as a professional constituted a group where Hoyt's estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was .28. Respondents rated t h e i r influence within the school and cooperation with other teachers as low. They did however f e e l that they are regarded as experts i n t h e i r subject matter (see Table 18). The statements were: 51. I have influence i n general program planning i n my school. 52. In my school I am considered the expert regarding learning i n my subject. 53. For me teaching i s more than a job (paid job). 54. I have a l o t of cooperation on the teaching with other teachers i n my school. 55. I do not have as much influence on the general operation of my school as other teachers. (R) 91 Table 18. Attitudes toward statements r e f l e c t i n g a strong concept of s e l f as professional. Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) SI 21 10.2 99 48.1 86 41.7 206 .28 S2 32 15.4 28 13.5 148 71.2 208 .41 S3 7 3.4 16 7.7 185 88.9 208 .21 S4 8 3.9 128 61.8 71 34.3 207 . 14 S5 19 9.0 104 49.5 87 41.4 210 .26 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale Items 1 and 5 i n t h i s group consisted of statements regarding the respondent's influence within the school. On both items around 10% of the respondents were undecided. The difference between those who agreed and those that disagreed was not very great. More people disagreed with the claim that they have les s influence than other teachers (item 5) than with the more general statement that they do have influence (item 1). The majority agreed with item 2, that they are considered experts i n t h e i r subject, and with item 3, that for them teaching i s more than a job. Most people (61.8%) disagreed however with the statement i n item 4 that they do cooperate a l o t with other teachers (see Table 18). On item 5 (chisquare [4, N = 190] = 9.87, p < .05), i t i s notable that ninety percent of the f i r s t year teachers 92 disagreed with the claim that they do not have as much influence as other teachers i n t h e i r school (Appendix 1, Table 8.3.) . The z scores between the 3 groups with fewer than 10 years of teaching experience did not show s i g n i f i c a n t differences, whereas there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between these groups and the groups with 11 years or more teaching experience. (Z values ranging from 2.21 to 3.62.) Agreement with t h i s statement was negatively related to teaching experience. The grade l e v e l taught seems to be related to the perception of having lesser influence than other teachers (item 5). Respondents that teach grade l e v e l s 0-6 were more l i k e l y to disagree with item 5 (chisquare [2, N = 140] = 7.27, p < .05) (Appendix 1, Table 8.4.). Proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load mattered i n three instances (Appendix 1, Table 8.5.). On item 1 (chisquare [2, N = 181] = 11.03, p <.05), the proportion of respondents agreeing that they have influence i n general program planning (item 1) declines markedly for those that teach these subjects more than h a l f time. On item 2 (chisquare [2, N = 172] = 9.96, P < .05) the trend was reversed, those who teach more art and c r a f t were more l i k e l y to agree that they are considered experts. On item 5 which i s reversed, "I do not have as much influence on the general operation of my school as other teachers", those who teach art and c r a f t more than h a l f time / 93 were most l i k e l y to agree (chisquare [2, N = 186] = 7.79, E <.05). Agreement with the statement i n item 1, "I have influence i n general program planning i n my school", declines with increased student enrollment i n respondents 7 schools, (chisquare [4, N = 169] = 22.56, p <.001) (Appendix 1, Table 8.6.). On items 1 and 5 which dealt with respondents 7 influence i n program planning i n t h e i r schools graduates from Kennarahaskoli Islands (Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education) agreed more than other groups that they have influence (chisquare [4, N = 179] = 12.81, p < ' ° 5 f o r item 1, and chisquare [4, N = 185] = 11.41, £ < -05) (Appendix 1, Table 8.7.). B.3.3. Perceived influence of others. Six items were designed to measure i f respondents f e l t r e s t r i c t e d by the environment i n carrying out t h e i r teaching. Agreement with these items i s interpreted as acknowledgement of the r e s t r i c t i n g impact of others. The r e s u l t s indicate that the respondents did not f e e l such r e s t r i c t i o n (see Table 19). Hoyt 7s estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was 0.47. The statements were: 01. In planning my program I am r e s t r i c t e d by t r a d i t i o n a l ideas of what a program i n my subject should be l i k e . 02. The administration of my school exerts i t s influence on my program planning. 94 03. I f e e l (know) that i t i s expected that students spend the time i n my program to produce "things to take home". 04. The j a n i t o r and h i s s t a f f have influence on what I can or cannot do i n my program. 05. I cannot teach to my i d e a l because students have very fix e d ideas on what my subject should be a l l about. 06. In my school the f a c i l i t i e s for teaching my subject are good. Table 19. Attitudes toward statements r e f l e c t i n g perceived influence of others. Undecided Disagree Agree Total C Item N % N % N % N a) S b) 01 14 6.8 148 71.5 45 21.7 207 .47 02 17 8.2 165 79.3 26 12.5 208 03 11 5.3 62 29.8 135 64.9 208 .10 04 18 8.7 176 85.0 13 6.3 207 .12 05 13 6.2 165 78.6 32 15.2 210 . 38 06 3 1.4 135 64.6 71 34.0 209 .04 a) N = 210 b) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for item with scale As shown i n Table 19 i n four out of s i x items (items 1,4,5, and 6), respondents d e f i n i t e l y disagreed that they are r e s t r i c t e d by outside influences. Most people agreed however with item 3, "I f e e l that i t i s expected that students spend 95 the time i n my program to produce 'things to take home'". The majority of respondents also disagreed with item 2, "The administration of my school exerts i t s influence on my program planning". Item 3 on things to take home generated d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s f o r the various s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s (chisquare [2, N = 184] = 17.78, p <.001) (Appendix 1, Table 9.2.). Art teachers were most l i k e l y to disagree, whereas both t e x t i l e and wood and metalwork teachers were l i k e l y to agree. When respondents were grouped by l e v e l of teaching experience, items 4 on the influence of the j a n i t o r i a l s t a f f , and 6, "In my school the f a c i l i t i e s for teaching my subject are good", showed s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups (chisquare [4 N = 188] = 10.26, p <.05 for item 4 and [4, N = 204] = 9.49, p <.05 for item 6) (Appendix 1, Table 9.3.). The f i r s t year teachers were most l i k e l y to agree that the j a n i t o r i a l s t a f f has influence. They are also most l i k e l y to disagree that the f a c i l i t i e s are good, followed by the second oldest group. On items 1, "In planning my program I am r e s t r i c t e d by t r a d i t i o n a l ideas of what a program i n my subject should be l i k e " (chisquare [2, N = 189] = 9.11, p <.05), and 6 on the f a c i l i t i e s (chisquare [2, N = 199] = 9.02, p <.05), proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n teaching load made a difference (Appendix 1, Table 9.5.). In both cases the group with the highest proportion of art and c r a f t was lea s t l i k e l y to agree that the 9 6 i n f l u e n c e o f o t h e r s had e f f e c t whereas the agreement seemed t o be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the p r o p o r t i o n of a r t and c r a f t t e a c h i n g up t o the p o i n t where the l o a d c o n s i s t e d 50% o f a r t and c r a f t . C. Comments from respondents. Twenty p e r c e n t of the respondents were not s a t i s f i e d by simply t i c k i n g the boxes most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r each item. They made w r i t t e n comments e i t h e r on the margins of the instrument or on s e p a r a t e notes d i r e c t e d t o the r e s e a r c h e r . These comments f a l l i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . On one hand t h e r e are d i s c u s s i o n s o f p e d a g o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l i s s u e s r a i s e d by the content o f v a r i o u s items i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Secondly t h e r e are comments about the r e s e a r c h instrument, sometimes i n the form of m o d i f i c a t i o n of items by u n d e r l i n i n g o r c r o s s i n g out words. T h i r d l y t h e r e are e x p l a n a t i o n s of responses t o i n d i v i d u a l items. C l . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on respondents t e a c h i n g  s i t u a t i o n . Almost 13% (12.8%) of the sample f e l t i t was necessary t o c l a r i f y some of t h e i r responses by adding comments or by u n d e r l i n i n g or c r o s s i n g out words i n items. Of these, many were attempts t o account i n more d e t a i l f o r the respondent's t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n , such as the l e v e l of t e a c h i n g experience, grade l e v e l taught e t c . These remarks 97 were ei t h e r made i n connection with attitude items where s p e c i f i c a t i o n s related to the teaching s i t u a t i o n such as "your subject" occurred, or i n the section of items on demographic information. Of the respondents, 11.4% made such comments. Examples of comments made i n connection with grade l e v e l are underlining a grade l e v e l such as 3. i n 0.-3. while t i c k i n g the box for 4.-6. Writing out the grade l e v e l s taught was also used to counter an apparent problem i n the design of t h i s item. Respondents added to the information on grade l e v e l taught " f o r now", or the words " t h i s schoolyear" were underlined i n the item. Most of the information added was to c l a r i f y that the respondents teach other subjects as well as t h e i r subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , or that the respondent did not teach the subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , i n some cases another a rt and c r a f t subject. A few respondents stated that they based t h e i r responses on t h e i r experiences as subject s p e c i a l i s t s . In three cases respondents reported that i n t h e i r school classroom teachers are responsible for art and c r a f t teaching, that there are no s p e c i a l i s t s . These comments indicate some ambiguity as to which capacity the respondents perceived themselves to f i l l when answering the questionnaire: whether they were to do so as public school teachers or as subject matter s p e c i a l i s t s . 98 C.2. Comments on the instrument. Two respondents reported that they did not understand item 3 on the questionnaire, and were undecided. One respondent reprimanded the researcher for using ornate language i n item 23. Four respondents made comments on lack of p r e c i s i o n and ambiguity i n items 42, 16, 15 and 36, respectively. Items 15, 16, and 42 were deemed unclear but number 36 was s p e c i f i c a l l y l a b e l l e d as double-barreled. These comments are i n accord with the researcher's retrospective analysis of items 36 and 23. Item 36 i s indeed double-barreled. Item 23 i s f a r too long and complicated as well as dealing with a concept that i s probably remote from teachers' day to day t a l k i n g about t h e i r work. C. 3. Comments on issues raised i n the questionnaire. Twelve respondents wrote comments on the margins of the instrument that are best c l a s s i f i e d as further discussion of issues raised i n the questionnaire or i n some cases introduction of issues not raised i n the questionnaire but of importance to respondents, such as the lack of time to carry out the a r t and c r a f t programs and the re l a t i o n s h i p of students' age to the curriculum. These comments indicate that the issues addressed i n the questionnaire are so multi-faceted that for some respondents further elaboration was necessary. In retrospect, a concluding item asking for such elaboration or comments might have been 99 v e r y i n f o r m a t i v e f o r t h e r e s e a r c h e r and more s a t i s f y i n g f o r r e s p o n d e n t s . C. 4 . A t t i t u d e toward t h i s r e s e a r c h . I n t h e comments d i s c u s s e d above a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward t h i s s t u d y can be d i s c e r n e d . Respondents have i n v e s t e d t h e i r t i m e and energy beyond t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r by e l a b o r a t i n g w i t h i n f o r m a t i v e comments. A l t h o u g h a p p r o v a l i s documented i n t h i s way i t i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t some i n d i f f e r e n c e o r even n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e a l s o e x i s t . F o r t y p e r c e n t o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n d i d n o t r e s p ond, and o f t h o s e who responded some might have done so r e l u c t a n t l y . 100 V. D i s c u s s i o n o f f i n d i n g s . A. The attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers. This section opens with a summary of findings presented as responses to the two main research questions. These findings are then discussed i n more d e t a i l l a t e r i n the section. What are the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and practice i n t h e i r subject area ? This study indicates that Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers are favorably disposed towards a student centered rationale f o r a r t and c r a f t i n education. Support was also found for a subject centered rationale, but simultaneously r e j e c t i o n of practices commonly associated with that rationale. Results were not as conclusive for society centered rationales. The majority of respondents disagreed with a b i l i t y grouping, which i s consistent with the emphasis on a student centered rationale and development of s o c i a l s k i l l s apparent from attitudes toward curriculum rationales. The majority of respondents disagreed with statements i n d i c a t i n g gender based differences i n students' r e l a t i o n to the subjects. Integration of subject matter was favored by the majority of respondents, p a r t i c u l a r l y the integration of t h e i r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n with other subjects. Broader p o l i c y statements advocating integration of subject matter did not receive as much support. 101 In regard to personal e f f i c a c y respondents desired more dece n t r a l i z a t i o n of curriculum. The sample was s p l i t i n i t s l o y a l t y toward o f f i c i a l curriculum, but most agreed that they need to follow a curriculum guide. The respondents rated t h e i r influence within the school as low, even lower than that of other teachers. The influence of others was however not perceived as r e s t r i c t i n g . How do demographic variables a f f e c t the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and p r a c t i c e i n t h e i r subject area ? The demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s population make i t d i f f i c u l t to separate the e f f e c t s of gender from the e f f e c t s of other factors that are related to gender, p a r t i c u l a r l y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load. By grouping respondents by gender and a possibly confounding variable such as s p e c i a l i z a t i o n or proportion of ar t and c r a f t i n teaching load, an i n d i c a t i o n was obtained and some of the apparent gender e f f e c t s a ttributed to other factors. Where s p e c i a l i z a t i o n had e f f e c t i t was t y p i c a l that the responses of a r t teachers d i f f e r e d from those of both t e x t i l e and wood and metalwork teachers. In terms of teaching experience there were several instances where the group with the most teaching experience responded d i f f e r e n t l y than the other groups. 102 Grade l e v e l taught affected responses to a few items. Most often the group that teaches grades 7-9, the secondary grades, had attitudes that d i f f e r e d from those of other groups. Demographic variables were most l i k e l y to a f f e c t responses to items dealing with a b i l i t y grouping, integration and gender differences and le a s t l i k e l y to a f f e c t responses to items r e f l e c t i n g the subject, student, and society centered rationales (see Appendix 1). A . l . Curriculum rationales. Three basic rationales were addressed i n the questionnaire; subject, student, and society centered. Respondents disagreed with the statements i n three out of four items i n the group r e f l e c t i n g subject centered attitudes (Su 2, 3 and 4). These numbers must be interpreted with attention to the nature of the statements i n question. The items with which the majority of respondents disagreed dealt with practices commonly associated with subject centered attitudes, whereas the item that most people agreed with r e f l e c t e d the subject centered t h e o r e t i c a l r a t i o n a l e more d i r e c t l y (Su 5). Although item 1 i s unreliable i t should be noted that respondents were s l i g h t l y more i n c l i n e d to agree than disagree with t h i s statement, which i s t h e o r e t i c a l rather than p r a c t i c a l i n orientation (See Appendix 2). I t must be conceded that the findings are inconclusive, but could indicate a preference for a subject centered rationale, 103 despite d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with some practices commonly associated with t h i s rationale. Student centered items generated more decisive r e s u l t s ; the majority agreed with student centered statements i n four out of f i v e items (St 1, 2, 4, and 5). On the f i f t h statement where authority i s completely relinquished to the student, 76% disagreed with the student centered attitude, probably because i t was too r a d i c a l (St 3). I t can therefore be reasonably assumed that a student centered rationale for a r t and c r a f t i n education i s supported by most art and c r a f t teachers i n Iceland. The rate of undecided responses was much higher on the society centered items than i n the other two groups. The r e s u l t s do not allow for substantiated claims about the at t i t u d e toward society centered rationale. By comparison the attitudes of Icelandic public school teachers as reported by fcorlindsson (1988) show that students' c r i t i c a l thinking, motivation and personal relevance are rated as very important. Overall the development of s o c i a l s k i l l s i s favored over teaching subject matter, but s t i l l 67% believe that public schools should mainly emphasize teaching the core subjects such as reading, writing and arithmetic. (Porlindsson 1988). These studies indicate that i n r e l a t i o n to curriculum rationales Icelandic teachers hold b e l i e f s that are a mixture of subject and student centered rationales, but society 104 centered rationales are more marginal. This brings to mind Goodlad's (1984) conclusion that the teachers surveyed i n his study hold a mixture of progressive and t r a d i t i o n a l views. I t appears from the Icelandic studies that subject centered rationales, namely the emphasis on content and structure of a subject are valued. However practices often associated with a subject centered rationale such as a b i l i t y grouping and an emphasis on t e s t i n g achievement are valued le s s than practices more c l o s e l y related to student centered rationales such as emphasis on subject matter integration, mixed a b i l i t y grouping, student i n i t i a t i v e and motivation. Student centered rationales are valued up to the point where the leadership r o l e or authority of the teacher i s challenged. These findings are not surprising i n l i g h t of the hi s t o r y of a r t and c r a f t education i n Iceland where subject centered views have represented the t r a d i t i o n a l , conservative view and student centered views represented the progressive, modern view. Society centered rationales have not been as prominent as the student and subject centered views i n Icelandic art and c r a f t education (Danielsson et a l 1982). These findings are also i n accordance with the conclusion Goodlad (1984) drew about attitudes of American teachers toward curriculum ratio n a l e s that they change more slowly than do educational theory and p o l i c y . I t might be speculated that these conclusions suggest that the p o s i t i o n taken by teachers i s not adequately described as 105 a mixture of b e l i e f s . Fullan's (1982) notion of the l e v e l s of change might be a more adequate model of explanation. I f i t i s true that b e l i e f s and attitudes are most personal and most r e s i s t a n t to change, whereas practices are less deep-rooted and more e a s i l y changed, i t becomes reasonable than a subject centered, t r a d i t i o n a l rationale i s held i n regard although practices associated with i t are eroding with increased acceptance of student centered approaches. What has been l a b e l l e d a mixture of b e l i e f s i s thus probably better described as b e l i e f s i n t r a n s i t i o n , i n the case at hand many of the more student centered approaches to education have been adopted but the rationale which l i e s at the core of the educational practice i s s t i l l subject centered. This in t e r p r e t a t i o n i s supported by the observed differences i n attitude related to teaching experience where the group of respondents with most teaching experience i s most l i k e l y to favor subject centered approaches such as t e s t i n g and a b i l i t y grouping and r e j e c t integration. A.2. Issues i n Icelandic art and c r a f t education.  A.2.1. Attitudes toward a b i l i t y grouping. The r e s u l t s from items dealing with a b i l i t y grouping shows the majority of art and c r a f t teachers to be against t h i s p r a c t i c e . Porlindsson (1988) also found that public school teachers i n Iceland are i n general opposed to a b i l i t y grouping and that they prefer mixed a b i l i t y grouping with remedial 106 education. These findings are i n accordance with the preference for student centered approaches and r e j e c t i o n of subject centered practices. By attending to the in d i v i d u a l items a clear e r picture emerges. Teachers are not convinced that a b i l i t y grouping i s the best way to ra i s e the l e v e l of achievement (Ab 1). Further, respondents do not agree that t h i s p ractice w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l for s o c i a l development (Ab 2). Thi r d l y the majority believes a b i l i t y grouping to be contrary to the public school's commitment to equity (Ab 3). I t should be noted that 23% of respondents agree that mixed a b i l i t y grouping has resulted i n lowered standards i n t h e i r subject and a further 15% i s undecided on t h i s item (Ab 4). This suggests that a portion of t h i s sample has an awareness of problems associated with mixed a b i l i t y grouping, but i t i s not taken as given that the sol u t i o n should be a b i l i t y grouping. A.2.2. Perception of gender differences. The majority of respondents disagree with the items i n t h i s group, which must be interpreted as t h e i r r e j e c t i o n of the notion that gender differences a f f e c t students' r e l a t i o n to the subjects i n question. This finding i s in t e r e s t i n g when i t i s considered that at le a s t the c r a f t subjects were t r a d i t i o n a l l y very gender s p e c i f i c , that i s they were defined i n terms of t r a d i t i o n a l d i v i s i o n s of gender rol e s . I f we accept that there are now no 107 differences between the attitudes, a b i l i t i e s and involvement of boys and g i r l s i n these subjects t h i s could suggest that the subjects are no longer defined by t r a d i t i o n a l gender ro l e s . Were t h i s the case i t would be a most remarkable feat i n the movement for gender equity i n education. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s however countered by the f a c t that teaching i n these subjects i s s t i l l gender related, a l l t e x t i l e teachers are female, and 92% of wood and metalwork teachers are male. Although i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s study to o f f e r evidence i n t h i s matter, the point has to be made that t h i s apparent r e j e c t i o n does not necessarily mean that no gender differences e x i s t i n students' r e l a t i o n to the art and c r a f t subjects, or even that the teachers are unaware of such differences. An alternate explanation of the respondents' stance i s related to the p o l i t i c a l aspect of the mandate to give boys and g i r l s equal amount of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the two c r a f t subjects. This mandate came about as a part of a push by the feminist movement for gender equity i n education (Danielsson et a l 1982). At that point, i n the seventies, the debate on gender differences was shaped by the practice of using them as j u s t i f i c a t i o n for discrimination against women. Thus any acknowledgement of gender differences was a s e n s i t i v e issue, open to interpretation as an argument for inequity. The findings from t h i s study could s i g n i f y a denial of an e x i s t i n g 108 issue, one that i s s t i l l s e n s i t i v e and which has yet to be addressed. A.2.3. Attitudes toward integration. The majority of respondents favors integration of subject matter. The two questions that s p e c i f i c a l l y dealt with integration of the respondents' subject area yielded quite c l e a r cut responses where the majority agrees that the subject should be more integrated with other subjects, t h i s i s even more pronounced when integration with other a rt and c r a f t subjects i s i n question (I 2 and 3). Few respondents are undecided. The broader statements yielded more ambiguous r e s u l t s (I 4 and 5). Although the majority of respondents agrees i t i s by a narrower margin. I t i s notable how many are undecided on these p o l i c y items. I t seems that the respondents f e e l more confident i n responding to questions d i r e c t l y related to t h e i r p r actice than to those items that address the rationales for t h i s p r a c t i c e . This pattern might indicate that the observed support i s only p a r t i a l l y f or integration of subject matter. I t i s possible to argue that the support could be to some extent for an expansion of the subject area of art and c r a f t , to which end integration could be the means. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n could lead to the assumption that these teachers operate on what Fullan (1982) c a l l s f a l s e c l a r i t y , where the practice seems 109 c l e a r but the rationale i s obscure. That i s the practice of integrating subject matter has been cut o f f from i t s t h e o r e t i c a l moorings and employed to expand the curriculum i n one subject onto the time allotment of another, which i s e s s e n t i a l l y a subject centered approach. Such f a l s e c l a r i t y or mismatch between b e l i e f s and practice might be interpreted as a sign of the state of t r a n s i t i o n from one r a t i o n a l e to another. A.3. Teachers' concept of s e l f as a professional. A.3.1. Perceptions of curriculum autonomy. The responses on these items show that about h a l f of the respondents do f e e l that they have to follow a curriculum guide and that they use the public school curriculum guide (C 4 and 3). The rest of the items however show a desire for more autonomy toward curriculum. The majority r e j e c t s the notion of a curriculum so s p e c i f i c as to ensure that a l l teachers teach the same body of content (C 1). On the issue of school based c u r r i c u l a many respondents were undecided, which i s reasonable as t h i s idea was introduced i n the current r e v i s i o n of the public school curriculum (C 2). However the majority agrees that the introduction of school based c u r r i c u l a would be b e n e f i c i a l for t h e i r subject. These r e s u l t s indicate simultaneously l o y a l t y toward o f f i c i a l c u r r i c u l a and appreciation of c u r r i c u l a r autonomy. The teachers seem to acknowledge the value of a formal 110 curriculum but r e j e c t the notion that i t should be so p r e s c r i p t i v e as to be rule-governed or teacher-proof. A.3.2.Self concept. The majority of respondents agree that they are considered experts i n t h e i r subject (S 2). S t i l l the majority rates t h e i r influence within the school as low and even lower than that of other teachers (SI and S5). The majority disagrees that they have a l o t of cooperation with other teachers (S4). These responses indicate that although these teachers enjoy respect as subject matter s p e c i a l i s t s they see themselves as having a marginal status i n the school. This could be a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e i r curriculum i d e n t i t y i n Eggleston's (1974) sense of teachers' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with t h e i r subject. A.3.3. Perceived influence of others. The responses to the 6 items dealing with the influence of others indicate that respondents do not f e e l r e s t r i c t e d by outside influences. The majority of respondents disagrees with the claim that the administration of t h e i r school exerts i t s influence on t h e i r program (02). The only influence that the majority of respondents acknowledged was that of d e f i n i t e expectations of what students should be doing i n t h e i r program (03) . I l l These r e s u l t s could be interpreted as a sign of the professional autonomy of these teachers, but they can also indicate professional i s o l a t i o n , a notion corroborated by the find i n g that most respondents do not have a l o t of cooperation with other teachers and that the majority rates t h e i r influence within the school lowly. The response pattern on these three groups of items raises a concern. The l i t e r a t u r e suggests that c o l l e g i a l i t y and a sense of belonging to a group s t r i v i n g for a common goal i s an important factor i n teacher e f f i c a c y . Professional i s o l a t i o n and powerlessness have been i d e n t i f i e d as the a n t i t h e s i s of t h i s c o l l e g i a l i t y . (Cavers 1988, Elbaz 1981, F r a n s i l a 1989, May 1989). Thus there i s a concern that Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers may not be e f f i c a c i o u s . B. The attitudes of various groups within the sample.  B . l . Gender differences i n attitudes. The skewed gender proportions within the various subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s make i t d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h between the e f f e c t of gender and that of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Eighty percent of the male respondents are wood and metalwork teachers and 70% of the female respondents are t e x t i l e teachers. Grouping respondents by gender and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n can indicate whether there i s a difference between s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s or gender. Gender had l i t t l e e f f e c t on responses to subject centered statements. Only one item generated s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t 112 responses f o r men and women, the item advocating compulsory projects as the best way to teach new methods. Women disagreed more than men with t h i s statement (Su2, Appendix 1, Table 1.1.), Grouping respondents by other demographic variables did not y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t differences, which indicates that the difference i s probably gender-related. In two instances there i s an apparent difference between the responses of men and women to items dealing with gender differences (Gl and G5 Appendix 1, Table 5.1.). Upon closer inspection i t appears that t h i s difference i s probably a t t r i b u t a b l e to subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n rather than to gender. In two out of f i v e items women were more l i k e l y to favor integration than men. Comparison of responses by gender and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n showed differences to e x i s t between men and women within the sp e c i a l i z a t i o n s (II and 12, Appendix 1, Table 6.1.). Further comparison between groups suggests that t h i s difference may as well be related to that the men i n the sample have more teaching experience than the women and agreement with integration decreases with increased teaching experience. An alternate explanation i s related to agreement with integration being negatively related to proportion of art and c r a f t taught. Sixty percent of the men and only 47% of the women teach art and c r a f t more than halftime. Differences i n att i t u d e toward integration might be more properly explained by these two factors: l e v e l s of teaching experience and 113 proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n teaching load than as gender rela t e d differences. In responding to item 1 i n the group of questions dealing with curriculum autonomy men showed a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l of disagreement with the notion of curriculum ensuring homogeneity i n teaching (CI, Appendix 1, Table 7.1.). When the responses were compared between men and women within the d i f f e r e n t s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s the gender related difference was confirmed. Only two instances of differences can reasonably be attri b u t e d to gender: women were more l i k e l y to disagree with compulsory projects but more l i k e l y to condone a p r e s c r i p t i v e curriculum. B.2. Attitudes and subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . The subject centered statement advocating the use of tests (Su4, Appendix 1, Table 1.2.) was less favored by art teachers than any other group. As the difference between men and women was not s i g n i f i c a n t , i t i s most l i k e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Art teachers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less w i l l i n g than other s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s to agree with the student centered statement that knowledge and s k i l l s w i l l best be attained through projects that the student i n i t i a t e s (Su5, Appendix 1, Table 1.2.). 114 Subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n made a difference on one of the items on a b i l i t y grouping, where art teachers were most l i k e l y to see a b i l i t y grouping as contrary to the public schools' commitment to equity (Ab3, Appendix 1, Table 4.2.). This i s i n accordance with the disagreement with t e s t i n g apparent on one of the subject centered items. Although t h i s study does not o f f e r further evidence i t might be speculated that a r t teachers are suspicious of evaluation procedures t h a t " c l a s s i f y students on the basis of achievement. Subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n seemed related to perception of gender differences on four out of s i x items. Art teachers disagreed most with the statements that boys and g i r l s had d i f f e r e n t attitudes toward the subject, that there were gender rela t e d differences i n a b i l i t y and that students should be grouped according to gender. This i s to be expected as the subject a r t i s not as defined i n terms of gender roles as the c r a f t subjects. T e x t i l e teachers were most l i k e l y to agree with these statements, which i s explicable with reference to the way i n which the c r a f t subjects became mandatory for boys and g i r l s (Danielsson et a l 1982). Differences between s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s i n attitude toward integration were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t on the item stating that the respondent's subject should be more integrated with other a r t and c r a f t subjects (12, Appendix 1, Table 6.2.). Although t h i s difference appears to be s i g n i f i c a n t i t should be disregarded as i t i s probably due to the difference between 115 male and female respondents. By grouping respondents according to gender and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , differences were found between genders within s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s . I t should be noted here that there i s a r e l a t i o n between proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load and gender. Women are more l i k e l y than men to teach t h e i r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n less than 50% of t h e i r teaching load: the remaining proportion i s most l i k e l y classroom teaching which o f f e r s more opportunity for integrated approaches. In responding to the item advocating prescriptiveness of curriculum to ensure homogeneity i n teaching i n the group of questions dealing with curriculum autonomy, there are apparent differences between subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s (CI, Appendix 1, Table 7.2.). By observing the response pattern according to gender and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i t became apparent that the difference i s more c l o s e l y related to gender than s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . S p e c i a l i z a t i o n did not seem to a f f e c t teachers' s e l f concept, but to some extent t h e i r perception of the influence of others. Art teachers were lea s t l i k e l y to agree that there i s an expectation for students to produce things to take home i n t h e i r classes (03, Appendix 1, Table 9.3.). This difference might be due to s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and p a r t i c u l a r l y the d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s i n art and c r a f t education. Craft education has t r a d i t i o n a l l y had a much stronger u t i l i t a r i a n or vocational emphasis, i n c r a f t - c l a s s e s students produce useful things, 116 whereas there i s a stronger emphasis on the process and the benefits that go beyond the product i n a r t . Art teachers t y p i c a l l y responded d i f f e r e n t l y than the c r a f t teachers. This i s not surprising given that t h e i r t r a i n i n g and teaching s i t u a t i o n i s quite d i f f e r e n t from that of the c r a f t teachers. Art teachers have hitherto been trained i n an a r t college whereas the t r a i n i n g of c r a f t teachers was moved early on to a teacher t r a i n i n g college. Although c r a f t teachers were trained through two separate programs these programs were within the same i n s t i t u t i o n (Danielsson et a l 1982). The reason why art teachers' attitudes d i f f e r from those of the c r a f t teachers could be what Wolfe (1977) c a l l s "the mystique of the a r t i s t " (p. 19) , that i s , the myth of what i t i s to be a r t i s t i c which r e f l e c t s on a r t as a subject. The st e r e o t y p i c a l image of the a r t i s t and the ethos of art school contribute to the regeneration of t h i s myth, which a f f e c t s the prospective art teacher during t r a i n i n g and sets him/her apart from others i n the staffroom upon entering the teaching profession. B.3. Attitudes and teaching experience. Level of teaching experience had e f f e c t on responses to one of the subject centered items (Su4). The group with most teaching experience (more than twenty years) agreed more with the use of t e s t s than other groups did. This i s corroborated 117 by another finding from t h i s study, that graduates from Kennaraskoli Islands (The Teachers' College of Iceland) were more l i k e l y to agree than graduates from other programs. These findings are related as the graduates from Kennaraskoli islands (The Teachers' College of Iceland), a l l graduated before 1974. I t should also be noted i n t h i s context as a l l graduates from t h i s college are c r a f t teachers, that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the attitudes of a r t and c r a f t teachers on t h i s item, art teachers were less i n c l i n e d to agree. On one of the statements advocating a b i l i t y grouping (Ab2) on the benefits for s o c i a l development, the group with most teaching experience s i m i l a r l y was most l i k e l y to agree. There was also a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l e v e l of teaching experience and agreement with the statement that students would learn more i n the respondent's subject i f grouped by gender. Several items dealing with integration showed the group with most teaching experience to be le a s t favorable toward integration. These r e s u l t s suggest that the group with most teaching experience has the most t r a d i t i o n a l attitudes, which i s reasonable given that progressive ideals have found t h e i r way into the Icelandic education system over the l a s t decade (Edelstein 1987). Agreement with the statement that the respondent does not have as much influence as others i n the school (item 5 on self-concept) i s p o s i t i v e l y related to the l e v e l of teaching 118 experience. Ninety percent of f i r s t year teachers disagree with t h i s statement but only 45% of the group with more than twenty years of teaching experience. F i r s t year teachers d i f f e r from the rest i n that they are l e s s l i k e l y to agree that the teaching f a c i l i t i e s are good. This could either s i g n i f y an unwarranted optimism on behalf of the f i r s t year teachers or that the professional i s o l a t i o n of a r t and c r a f t teachers i s diminishing. The former explanation i s countered by the r e s u l t s from the item on the influence of the j a n i t o r i a l s t a f f , which shows the f i r s t year teachers to be most s e n s i t i v e . These findings support those of Wolfe (1978) who also found that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n teachers' attitudes related to t h e i r l e v e l of teaching experience. Proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load generated a few differences. Agreement with the following statements declined markedly with increased proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load: "Knowledge and s k i l l s w i l l best be attained through projects that the student i n i t i a t e s " and "An understanding of the r o l e of art and c r a f t can j u s t as well be gained through studying f o l k - a r t as from studying art and c r a f t masterpieces" (St5, Appendix 1, Table 2.5. and So2, Appendix 1, Table 3.5.). Those who teach a r t and c r a f t more than halftime, that i s the s p e c i a l i s t s , are also l e a s t l i k e l y to condone integration. This group i s l e a s t l i k e l y to agree that they have influence within t h e i r schools, or that they 119 are influenced by others, but most l i k e l y to agree that they are considered experts. This response pattern could indicate that t h i s group was most subject centered i n t h e i r approach to curriculum and most i s o l a t e d within the schools. B.4. Attitudes and grade l e v e l taught. In responses to the society centered statement, "Art and c r a f t teachers should b u i l d t h e i r teaching on the aesthetic standards apparent i n what kind of a r t and c r a f t i s valued i n students' homes" a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between attitude and the grade l e v e l at which the respondent teaches was found. In r e l a t i o n to a b i l i t y grouping the teachers who teach grades 7-9 again d i f f e r e d from the rest i n that they were more l i k e l y to agree with a b i l i t y grouping, torlindsson (1988) found that Icelandic public school teachers were most l i k e l y to condone a b i l i t y grouping i n grades 7-9. In two out of six items on gender differences the majority of respondents teaching grades 7-9 agreed that gender differences were manifest i n students' r e l a t i o n to t h e i r subject. The response pattern j u s t described seems to indicate that attention to differences between students, to t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y i s seen as more important at the secondary grade l e v e l . One item on s e l f concept (S5), regarding the respondents' influence on the general operation of t h e i r school showed 120 differences between teachers of various grade l e v e l s . Those that teach grades 0-6 disagreed most that t h e i r influence was less than that of other teachers while those that teach a l l grades agreed most. This difference i s probably j u s t as well a t t r i b u t a b l e to the proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load, where s i g n i f i c a n t differences were also found on t h i s item. There i s an overlap between grade l e v e l and proportion of a r t and c r a f t taught i n that those who teach a l l grade l e v e l s are most l i k e l y to teach t h e i r subject more than h a l f -time. The fa c t that teachers at grade l e v e l s 7-9 d i f f e r most often from the other groups may be due to the fact that these grades were the secondary school l e v e l before compulsory education was defined as one l e v e l with the 1974 l e g i s l a t i o n . 121 V I . C o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s . In t h i s chapter the research questions w i l l be addressed. In the f i r s t part research question 1, that i s what can be learned from t h i s study about the attitudes of Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and p r a c t i c e i n the subject area, w i l l be addressed. Part two deals with research question 2, that i s i f the attitudes of groups within the population d i f f e r . In part three important demographic aspects w i l l be considered. F i n a l l y , implications w i l l be drawn from the study f o r curriculum development, for teachers and for further research. A. What are the attitudes of Icelandic art and c r a f t  teachers toward curriculum and practice i n t h e i r subject area From t h i s study i t appears that Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers favor subject and student centered attitudes i n such a way that t h e i r c u r r i c u l a r rationale i s subject centered but they favor student centered practices. With reference to the e f f e c t s of teaching experience on attitudes found i n t h i s study i t i s suggested that the r e s u l t s indicate a t r a n s i t i o n from a subject centered rationale which i s s t i l l a core b e l i e f to a student centered rationale which has influenced teachers' thought about t h e i r practice. In the Icelandic curriculum documents i n a r t and c r a f t t h i s t r a n s i t i o n has been taking 122 place over the l a s t four decades. According to Fullan (1982) change at the documentary l e v e l of curriculum such as has taken place here may only slowly and p a r t i a l l y lead to change i n teaching. Such changes are more l i k e l y to a f f e c t teaching materials and approaches than core b e l i e f s such as a curriculum rationale. I t i s thus concluded that the attitudes of Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward the three curriculum rationales, integration, and a b i l i t y grouping s i g n i f y that t h e i r b e l i e f s are i n t r a n s i t i o n from subject centered to student centered rationales. Three issues were i d e n t i f i e d as of special importance i n Icelandic art and c r a f t education at t h i s point, integration of subject matter, a b i l i t y grouping vs mixed a b i l i t y grouping and gender differences i n students' r e l a t i o n to the subject area. The findings from t h i s study lead to the conclusion that Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers are generally against a b i l i t y grouping. The response pattern on items dealing with integration suggests ambiguity i n attitudes toward integration. Although teachers respond favorably to the term when i t i s applied s p e c i f i c a l l y to t h e i r subject, they are le s s l i k e l y to condone broad p o l i c y statements advocating integration or r e f l e c t i n g an underlying rationale for integration. From the responses to items r e f l e c t i n g a perception of gender differences i n students' r e l a t i o n to the subjects i t appears that Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers do not acknowledge such differences. 123 From the responses to the groups of questions r e f l e c t i n g teachers 7 conception of themselves as professionals i t i s concluded that they value c u r r i c u l a r autonomy but simultaneously acknowledge a need for o f f i c i a l c u r r i c u l a . I t i s concluded from responses on items on s e l f concept and perceived influence of others that although these teachers see themselves as recognized experts they f e e l that t h e i r influence i s l e s s than that of other teachers and they f e e l i s o l a t e d i n the schools. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed suggests that such a perception of marginality and i s o l a t i o n i s detrimental to teacher e f f i c a c y (Cavers 1988, F r a n s i l a 1989, Elbaz 1981). B. How do demographic variables a f f e c t the attitudes of  Icelandic a r t and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and  pr a c t i c e i n t h e i r subject area ? S p e c i a l i z a t i o n which overlaps with the i n s t i t u t i o n from which respondents graduated seems to have considerable e f f e c t on attitudes. Art teachers' attitudes are notably d i f f e r e n t from those of the c r a f t teachers. This difference i s often confirmed by the difference between graduates from Myndlista-og handi8askoli Islands (The Art and Craft College of Iceland) and other respondents. This supports Eggleston's (1977) notion of the strength of curriculum i d e n t i t y or the a f f i l i a t i o n of teachers with t h e i r subject as well as the notion that art teachers are apart from other teachers (Wolfe 1978). 124 Proportion of art and c r a f t i n teaching load and l e v e l of experience also generated differences i n attitudes i n t h i s study. These findings corroborate Wolfe's 1978 findings of s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n attitudes related to l e v e l of experience and proportion of a r t i n t o t a l teaching load. I t seems that the teachers who teach t h e i r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n more than 50% are more prone to see themselves as s p e c i a l i s t s , and t h e i r attitudes were l i k e l y to d i f f e r from those of other groups. In t h i s sample a proportion did not teach a r t and c r a f t , a condition which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the attitude of t h i s group. The group with twenty or more years of teaching experience often had d i f f e r e n t , more t r a d i t i o n a l attitudes than the other groups, which supports the notion that the attitudes of the population may be i n t r a n s i t i o n . Although gender i s apparently a variable of si g n i f i c a n c e here i t i s too e a s i l y confounded with other variables such as s p e c i a l i z a t i o n or proportion of art and c r a f t taught to warrant drawing conclusions from apparent gender differences i n a t t i t u d e s . C. A comment regarding gender proportions i n the population. The gender proportions within t h i s sample as well as i n the population are skewed. Although the t o t a l population of public school teachers i n Iceland i s 64.5% female (I>6rlindsson 125 1988) the s i t u a t i o n i s more extreme i n a r t and c r a f t teaching. The respondents i n t h i s study are 72% female. Gender proportions within the three subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s are even les s equitable; t e x t i l e teachers are 100% female, and wood and metalwork teachers 92% male. This raises concerns about the absence of r o l e models for boys i n t e x t i l e education and s i m i l a r l y for g i r l s i n wood and metalwork. Since the subjects were made mandatory for both boys and g i r l s i t has to be assumed that they are perceived to be a part of an individual's general education regardless of gender. The absence of men i n t e x t i l e teaching and s c a r c i t y of women teaching wood and metalwork sends a message to students that i s contrary to the message i m p l i c i t i n the mandate for education i n these subjects. The question has to be raised whether the subjects are s t i l l defined i n a way that emphasizes t h e i r r e l a t i o n to gender rol e s . D. Implications. D.l. Implications for teachers. This study and i t s focus i s i n d i c a t i v e of a general s h i f t i n emphasis within educational research and p o l i c y making which gives the r o l e of the teacher i n curriculum development and implementation more importance than has been the case over the past decades. I t i s therefore timely that Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers seize the opportunity to secure attention to t h e i r point of view i n curriculum development and school improvement. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y urgent i n l i g h t of the indications that t h i s study provides that a r t and c r a f t teachers are pro f e s s i o n a l l y i s o l a t e d and perceive themselves to have a marginal status within the school system. Art and c r a f t teachers have to s t r i v e to eliminate t h i s threat to t h e i r professional e f f i c a c y at a l l l e v e l s of the education system. This can only be accomplished by the teachers taking an active r o l e i n shaping t h e i r profession. In order to successfully assume an active r o l e a teacher has to define the rationale for education i n h i s or her subject and es t a b l i s h goals accordingly. This study Raises questions i n regard to student centered and subject centered rationales, are teachers conscious of moving from subject centered to student centered rationales ? I f not, are they operating on f a l s e c l a r i t y ? Another concept that may need c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s that of integration: what do teachers mean by integration and how do they r e l a t e t h e i r understanding of and attitude toward integration to t h e i r curriculum rationale ? The implications of the difference i n attitudes related to demographic variables, notably subject s p e c i a l i z a t i o n depend on whether the teachers wish to "diverge" or "converge" so to speak. These r e s u l t s might be interpreted as an argument for more "divergence" of the art and c r a f t subjects i n the in t e r e s t of t h e i r idiosyncracies. However by "convergence" within the integrated subject area teachers' need for c o l l e g i a l i t y and of s t r i v i n g for a common goal might be 127 p a r t i a l l y f u l f i l l e d . I f t h i s i s to happen art and c r a f t teachers have to recognize the p o s s i b i l i t y of differences and accept them as p o t e n t i a l l y enriching the subject area rather than simply d i v i d i n g i t . Taking a stance on t h i s issue i s i n e f f e c t taking a stance on how f a r to depart from a t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of these subjects as d i s t i n c t from each other. Such a departure would s i g n i f y a r e d e f i n i t i o n of the subjects. This could be very d i f f i c u l t for the s p e c i a l i s t teacher, given the strength of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a subject or d i s c i p l i n e suggested by Eggleston (1977). D.2. Implications for curriculum development. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed for t h i s study indicated that subject and student centered goals could be more f a m i l i a r to respondents (Danielsson et a l 1982, Edelstein 1987) and the responses show the sample to have a stance on these items. I f teachers are to work toward society centered goals they would need to be advocated and introduced to f a m i l i a r i z e teachers with them. The research reviewed for t h i s study pointed to the necessity of curriculum proposals to f u l f i l l two conditions, congruence with teachers' philosophical stance and c l a r i t y . This study does not indicate a serious lack of congruence between the curriculum documents from 1977 and the attitudes of the teachers. However the c l a r i t y of the curriculum document i s questionable. Analysis of the documents revealed 128 ambiguity i n rationales and lack of consistence i n t h i s regard between the three subjects that are to be integrated. The l i t e r a t u r e suggests that rationales need to be stated c l e a r l y and concisely (Doyle and Ponder 1977). An increase i n prescriptiveness i n the intere s t of c l a r i t y , such as by sample lesson plans, sample assessment instruments, d i r e c t i o n s for mounting and displaying student work and other teaching aids would be b e n e f i c i a l . This material would demonstrate how the curriculum might be implemented, but would not r e s t r i c t teachers, given t h e i r autonomy toward curriculum. The ambiguity i n teachers 7 responses to items on integration implies that t h i s concept needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n , that i s i t should be defined more c l e a r l y and i t s rationales made more e x p l i c i t i n the curriculum documents to avoid f a l s e c l a r i t y (Fullan 1982). The differences i n attitudes between the various s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s indicate p o t e n t i a l problems i n implementing an integrated curriculum. I f more congruence i n attitudes i s desired some measures have to be taken i n teacher t r a i n i n g at preservice as well as inservice l e v e l s to b u i l d a common foundation from which these teachers can work. D.3. Implications for further research. Although these topics for further research are framed i n the Icelandic context they have implications beyond the Icelandic school system. The integrated subject area i s a 129 curriculum model that should be of i n t e r e s t to a r t educators i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y because of i t s p o t e n t i a l for a broad perspective on v i s u a l a r t s . I t i s of general i n t e r e s t i n curriculum inquiry as a curriculum proposal where a r e d e f i n i t i o n of school subjects i s implied. This i s a proposal requiring a change i n attitudes and core b e l i e f s of the teachers to be implemented. Research i n education has to be conducted by various methods: neither q u a l i t a t i v e nor quantitative approaches are appropriate i n a l l cases. The present study has raised questions that w i l l be more properly addressed through q u a l i t a t i v e research methods such as in-depth interviewing and p a r t i c i p a n t observation. A preference for q u a l i t a t i v e methods should not exclude quantitative approaches from consideration: they might be applied i n conjunction with or as a r e s u l t of findings from q u a l i t a t i v e studies. Among the implications of t h i s study for further research i n the f i e l d of art and c r a f t education are the following topics which should be addressed through q u a l i t a t i v e research design. A c l e a r e r picture i s needed of how p a r t i c i p a n t s perceive a r t and c r a f t education, what i s the operational and/or experiental curriculum i n art and c r a f t ? This question, which of course needs to be formulated more c l e a r l y , would probe the r e l a t i o n s h i p between curriculum at the documentary l e v e l and the l i v e d curriculum. A study of t h i s topic would be valuable 130 i n laying foundations for further development of curriculum and improvement of i n s t r u c t i o n i n art and c r a f t . The integrated subject area of a r t and c r a f t o f f e r s i n t r i g u i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s for research on the e f f e c t s of gender rol e s i n education. The c r a f t subjects have been made compulsory f o r both boys and g i r l s , but teaching i s s t i l l gender related. How do the t r a d i t i o n a l gender roles a f f e c t the r e l a t i o n of students and teachers to these subjects ? Investigation of t h i s question would not only provide d i r e c t i v e s for development i n art and c r a f t education but also shed l i g h t on the issue of gender equity i n education and the workplace. Research on the concept of integration could also o f f e r i n s i g h t into how teachers interpret innovative concepts and curriculum proposals and how t h e i r practice r e l a t e s to curriculum rationales. The key questions would be what do teachers mean by "integration". Do they consciously practice integration, and how does t h e i r rationale for integration r e l a t e to t h e i r practice ? 131 References: Andrews, E. M. (1983). The innovation process of c u l t u r a l l y  based art education. An unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of s o c i a l research. (4th. ed.) Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth. Barone, T. (1983). Things of use and things of beauty. The story of the Swain County high school arts program. In E. Eisner (Ed.) The Educational Imagination. (2nd ed.) (pp. 275-295). 1985. Bergem, T. (1986). Teachers' thinking and behavior. An empirical study of the r o l e of s o c i a l s e n s i t i v i t y and moral reasoning i n the teaching performance of student teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 30, 193-203. Berliner, D. C. (1984). The h a l f - f u l l glass: A review of research on teaching. In P. L. Hosford (Ed.) Using what  we know about teaching. Alexandria Va.: A.S.C.D. Borg, W. R. and G a l l , M. D. (1983). Educational research. An  introduction. (4th ed.) White Plains N.Y.:Longman. Boyer, B. A. (1987) Cultural l i t e r a c y i n a r t : Developing conscious aesthetic choices i n art education. In D. Blandy & K. G. Congdon Art i n a Democracy, (pp. 91-107) N.Y.:Teachers College Press. Bruning, J . L. & Kintz, B. L. (1987). Computational handbook  of s t a t i s t i c s . (3rd ed.) Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman & Co. Cavers, L. (1988). Teacher e f f i c a c y : Its r e l a t i o n s h i p to  school l e v e l organizational conditions and teacher  demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Chalmers, F. G. (1981). Art education as ethnology. Studies i n  Art Education 22(3). 6-14. Chapman, L. H. (1978). Approaches to art i n education. N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chapman, L. H. (1979). Research means 'searching again'. Art  Education 32(4), 6-11. 132 Connelly, F. M. & Elbaz, F. (1980). Conceptual bases for curriculum thought: A teacher's perspective. In A. W. Foshay (Ed.) Considered action for curriculum  improvement.(pp.95-119). Alexandria, Va.:A.S.C.D. Danielsson, B., Helgadottir, G., & Kjartansdottir, S. H. (1982). I helgreipum boknamsrembunnar. [In the deadly g r i p of academic chauvinism] Unpublished major paper, The Iceland Insitute of Education, Reykjavik. Day, M. (1972). Rationales for art education:Thinking through and t e l l i n g why. Art Education 25(2). 17-20. Day, M. (1986). Artist-teacher: A problematic model for art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education 20(4). 38-42. Day, M. & DiBlasio, M. (1983). Contributions of research to the teaching of ar t . Studies i n Art Education 24(3), 169-176. Dow, I. I., Whitehead, R. Y. & Wright, R. L. (1984). Curriculum Implementation: A Framework for Action. Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. (1977). The ethics of p r a c t i c a l i t y : Implications for curriculum development. In A. Molnar & J . Zahorik (eds.) Curriculum Theory, (pp. 74-81) Washington:A.S.C.D. Edelstein, W. (1987). The r i s e and f a l l of the Soc i a l Sciences Curriculum project i n Iceland 1974-84: r e f l e c t i o n s on reason and power i n educational progress. Journal of  Curriculum Studies 19(1). 1-24. Efland, A. (1976). The school a rt s t y l e : A functional analysis. Studies i n Art Education 17(2). 37-44. Efland, A. D. (1979). Conceptions of teaching i n a r t education. Art Education 32(4). 21-32. Efland, A. D. (1984). Curriculum concepts of the Penn State seminar: An evaluation i n retrospect. Studies i n Art  Education 25(4). 205-211. Eggleston, J . (1977). The sociology of the school curriculum. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eisner, E. W. (1972). Educating a r t i s t i c v i s i o n . N.Y.:Macmillan. 133 Eisner, E. (1984). Alternative approaches to curriculum development i n art education. Studies i n Art Education 25(4), 259-264. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's p r a c t i c a l knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry 11(1), 43-71. F r a n s i l a , R. (1989). The process of curriculum change: A case  study of elementary teachers implementing the art  component of the B.C.Ministry of Education Fine Arts  Curriculum. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto:0.I.S.E. Gay, G. (1980). Conceptual models of the curriculum planning process. In A. W. Foshay (Ed.) Considered action for  curriculum improvement, (pp 120-143) Alexandria, Va.:A.S.C.D. Gibson-Garvey, S. (1985). The value of phenomenology i n grounding art education theory. Canadian Review of Art  Education Research 12 f 19-27. Goodlad, J . I. and associates. (1979). Curriculum inquiry. N.Y.:McGraw-Hill. Goodlad, J . I. (1984). A place c a l l e d school. Prospects for  the future. Toronto:McGraw-Hill. Gray, J . U. & MacGregor, R. N. (1987). PROACTA: Personally relevant observations about art concepts and teaching a c t i v i t i e s . Canadian Review of Art Education 14, 23-33. Grimmett, P. and Housego, I. (1984). Teaching and teacher education: Generating and u t i l i z i n g v a l i d knowledge for  professional s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Vancouver, W.E.D.G.E. Hamblen, K. A. (1984). An art education chronology: A process of s e l e c t i o n and interpretation. Studies i n Art Education 26(2), 111-120. Hobbs, J . A. (1984). Popular art versus f i n e a r t . Art  Education 37(3),11-14. Hoffa, H. E. (1964). Two faces of research. School Arts 63(10), 20. Hogben, D. & Lawson, M. J . (1984). Trainee and beginning teacher attitude s t a b i l i t y and change: Four case studies. Journal of Education for Teaching 10(2). 135-153. 134 Irwin, R. (1988). A fi n e arts supervisor's p r a c t i c a l knowledge. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Jaeger, R. M. (1988) Survey research methods i n education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed) Complementary methods for research i n Education. Washington D.C: American Educational Research Association. Lanier, V. (1977). The f i v e faces of art education. Studies i n Art Education 18(3). 7-21. Log um grunnskola nr 63/1974. [The public school act] Special publication. Reykjavik: Gutenberg. L o r t i e , D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher. A So c i o l o g i c a l Study. Chicago:University of Chicago. Maitland-Gholson, J . (1986). Theory, practice, teacher preparation, and discipline-based a r t education. Visual  Arts Research 12(24). 26-33. May, W. T. (1989). Teachers, teaching and the workplace: Omissions i n curriculum reform. Studies i n Art Education 30(3), 142-157. McFee, J . K. and Degge, R. M. (1977). Art culture, and  environment: A cat a l y s t for teaching. Belmont, CA.:Wadsworth. McNeil, J . D. (1985). Curriculum: A comprehensive  introduction. 3rd ed. Boston:Little Brown. MenntamalaraouneytiS (1948). Prog a5 namskram f y r i r barnaskola  og gagnfraeoaskola. [A curriculum d r a f t for elementary and secondary schools] Reykjavik:Gutenberg. Menntamalaraouneytio (1950). Prog ao namskra i teiknun og  skolaibrottum f v r i r barnaskola og gagnfraeoaskola. [A curriculum d r a f t i n drawing and physical education for public schools] Reykjavik:Gutenberg. MenntamalaraS-uneytio (1960). Namskra f y r i r nemendur a  fraeosluskyldualdri. [Curriculum for students i n compulsory education] Reykjavik:Gutenberg. MenntamalaraSuneytiS, Skolarannsoknadeild (Aug. 1976). ASalnamskra grunnskola. [Public school curriculum] Reykj avik:Gutenberg. 135 Menntamalara5uneyti5, Skolarannsoknadeild (July 1977). ASalnamskra grunnskola. Mynd- og handmennt. [Public school curriculum i n art and c r a f t ] Reykjavik:Gutenberg. Rafferty, P. (1987). An in t e r p r e t i v e study of elementary school teachers' descriptive accounts of the art teaching;  task. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Rosenblum, P. (1981). The popular culture and a r t education. Art Education 34(1). 8-11. Rush, J . C. (1984). Who decides ? Studies i n Art Education 25(4), 203-204. Schwab, J . J . (1969). The p r a c t i c a l : A language for curriculum. School Review 78. 1-23. Shaw, M. E. & Wright, J . M. (1967). Scales for the measurement  of attitudes. N.Y.:McGraw-Hill. Smith, R. A. (1981). E l i t i s m versus populism: A question of qu a l i t y . Art Education 34(4), 4-5. Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions. London:Jossey-Bass. Thelen, H. A. (1971). From in d i v i d u a l behaviour to classroom a c t i v i t y - an inquiry into a rt education. Journal of  Curriculum Studies 3(2). 135-158. £6rlindsson, E>. (1988) . Ni5urst65ur ur konnun a hogum og viohorfum grunnskolakennara. [Findings from a survey of v the circumstances and attitudes of public school teachers] Unpublished research report, The University of Iceland, Reykjavik. Wiersma, W. (1986). Research methods i n education: An  introduction. (4th ed.) Toronto:Allyn and Bacon. Wolfe, A. E. (1978). Responses of neophyte and experienced teachers of art i n matters a f f e c t i n g t h e i r professional  well-being. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum: P r i n c i p l e s and Foundations. N.Y.:Harper & Row. 136 Appendix 1. Tables showing differences on attitude items according to demographic variab l e s . T a b l e 1 . O b s e r v e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s u b j e c t  c e n t e r e d s t a t e m e n t s . 1 . 1 . G e n d e r I t e m x 2 d f N p S u l 0 . 6 0 1 188 . 4 3 5 Su2 4 . 4 7 1 197 . 0 3 4 * S u 3 3 . 3 2 1 206 . 0 6 8 Su4 0 . 4 1 1 195 . 5 2 1 S u 5 1 . 3 9 1 203 . 2 3 6 1 . 2 . S p e c i a l i z a t i o n I t e m x2 d f N V S u l 2 . 8 4 2 176 . 2 4 0 Su2 4 . 1 0 2 185 . 128 S u 3 1 . 5 5 2 193 . 4 5 8 Su4 7 . 9 3 2 185 . 0 1 8 * S u 5 4 . 3 2 2 191 . 1 1 5 1 . 3 . E x p e r i e n c e 1 . 4 . G r a d e l e v e l I t e m x2 d f N D I t e m x2 d f N n S u l 0 . 7 1 4 187 . 9 4 9 S u l 2 . 8 9 2 136 . 2 3 4 Su2 4 . 4 4 4 197 . 348 Su2 0 . 8 8 2 143 . 642 S u 3 1 . 5 7 4 205 . 8 1 2 S u 3 0 . 4 7 2 149 . 7 8 6 Su4 9 . 9 4 4 195 . 0 4 1 * Su4 4 . 2 9 2 143 . 117 S u 5 7 . 1 0 4 202 . 1 3 0 S u 5 1 . 5 3 2 146 . 4 6 4 1 . 5 . P r o p o r t i o n 1 . 6 . E n r o l l m e n t I t e m x2 d f N P I t e m x2 d f N P S u l 5 . 9 4 2 186 . 0 5 1 S u l 3 . 5 5 4 173 . 4 6 9 Su2 1 . 6 2 2 194 . 4 4 4 Su2 2 . 8 9 4 183 . 5 7 5 S u 3 0 . 3 6 2 202 . 8 3 4 Su3 0 . 9 8 4 191 . 9 1 2 Su4 0 . 9 6 2 192 . 6 1 6 Su4 5 . 2 9 4 179 . 2 5 8 S u 5 0 . 0 7 2 198 . 9 6 2 S u 5 2 . 1 3 4 187 . 7 1 0 1 . 7 . C e r t i f i c a t i o n I t e m x2 d f N p S u l 6 . 8 2 4 184 . 1 4 5 Su2 5 . 1 1 4 194 . 2 7 6 S u 3 2 . 1 8 4 202 . 7 0 0 Su4 1 7 . 5 6 4 191 . 0 0 1 * S u 5 5 . 2 1 4 198 . 2 6 5 Table 2. Observed differences i n attitude toward student centered statements 2.1. Gender 2.2. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Item x2 df N Item x2 df N P S t l 1.39 1 200 .238 S t l 3.50 2 188 . 172 St2 1.62 1 204 .202 St2 4.95 2 192 .083 St3 0.03 1 201 .853 St3 3.20 2 188 .201 St4 0.07 1 202 .784 St4 0.20 2 190 .902 St5 0.57 1 198 .449 St5 12.99 2 188 .001* 2.3. Experience 2.4. Grade l e v e l Item X2 df N Item x2 df N P S t l 2.28 4 200 .683 S t l 0.59 2 146 .741 St2 3.56 4 203 .468 St2 0.33 2 147 .843 St3 8.71 4 201 .068 St3 1.32 2 147 .514 St4 1.38 4 203 .846 St4 4.20 2 148 . 122 St5 3.35 4 197 .499 St5 2.71 2 141 .257 2.5. Proportion 2.6. Enrollment Item x2 df N t> Item x2 df N p S t l 0.31 2 196 .854 S t l 1.31 4 185 .859 St2 0.98 2 200 .612 St2 0.45 4 188 .977 St3 3.42 2 196 .180 St3 1.01 4 185 .907 St4 1.01 2 198 . 602 St4 4 .43 4 187 .350 St5 8.29 2 195 .015* St5 3.97 4 184 .409 2.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item x2 df N P S t l 9.10 4 197 .058 St2 9.63 4 200 . 047* St3 7.92 4 196 .094 St4 0.93 4 199 .919 St5 15.26 4 193 .004* 138 Table 3. Observed differences i n attitude toward society  centered statements. 3.1. Gender 3.2. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Item X2 df N t> Item x2 df N P Sol 1.13 1 194 .286 Sol 0.49 2 181 .779 So2 0.00 1 158 .956 So2 3.25 2 147 . 196 So3 0.07 1 186 .785 So3 2.30 2 174 .315 So4 3.80 1 184 .051 So4 5.00 2 171 . 082 So5 0.02 1 183 .866 So5 0.75 2 171 .686 3.3. Experience 3.4. Grade l e v e l Item x2 df N n Item X2 df N P Sol 4.15 4 194 .385 Sol 10.60 2 139 .005* So2 1.41 4 158 .840 So2 1.05 2 110 .590 So3 4.33 4 185 .363 So3 4.83 2 134 .089 So4 4.62 4 182 .327 So4 2.34 2 129 .309 So5 2.98 4 181 .559 So5 1.76 2 135 .412 3.5. Proportion 3.6. Enrollment Item x2 df N p Item x2 df N P Sol 0.18 2 191 .911 Sol 2.98 4 179 .560 So2 6.66 2 154 .035* So2 4.66 4 145 .323 So3 1.19 2 183 .551 So3 5.14 4 172 .273 So4 2.81 2 180 .244 So4 0.42 4 169 . 980 So5 2.06 2 178 .355 So5 11.74 4 169 .019* 3.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item x2 df N P Sol 1.15 4 190 .884 So2 7.37 4 155 . 117 So3 7.92 4 182 . 094 So4 5.86 4 179 .209 So5 1.79 4 178 .772 Table 4. Observed differences i n attitude toward statements favoring a b i l i t y grouping. 4.1. Gender 4.2. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Item X2 df N P Item x2 df N P Abl 0.38 1 202 .536 Abl 4.87 2 191 .087 Ab2 0.00 1 177 1.000 Ab2 1.37 2 164 .502 Ab3 0.13 1 186 .711 Ab3 6.86 2 176 .032* Ab4 0.14 1 174 .701 Ab4 1.55 2 163 .459 4.3. Experience 4.4. Grade l e v e l Item x2 df N t> Item x2 df N P Abl 4.51 4 202 .340 Abl 0.85 2 148 .652 Ab2 12.61 4 176 .013* Ab2 8.85 2 129 .011* Ab3 1.64 4 185 .800 Ab3 2.02 2 135 .362 Ab4 7.29 4 174 .121 Ab4 6.46 2 126 .039* 4.5. Proportion 4.6. Enrollment Item x2 df N p Item x2 df N p Abl 2.33 2 198 .310 Abl 2.94 4 187 .566 Ab2 0.07 2 173 .962 Ab2 6.28 4 165 .178 Ab3 1.65 2 183 .436 Ab3 2.48 4 173 .647 Ab4 0.58 2 171 .746 Ab4 4.07 4 161 .395 4.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item x2 df N P Abl 7.54 4 198 . 109 Ab2 2.00 4 173 .734 Ab3 6.68 4 182 . 153 Ab4 6.22 4 171 . 182 Table 5. Observed differences i n attitude toward statements i n d i c a t i n g perception of gender differences 5.1. Gender 5.2. Sp e c i a l i z a t i o n Item x2 df N D Item x2 df N P G 1 4.23 1 200 .039* G 1 23.33 2 188 .000** G 2 0.22 1 196 .635 G 2 1.04 2 184 .593 G 3 3.44 1 204 .063 G 3 4.65 2 192 .097 G 4 0.19 1 201 .662 G 4 8.18 2 188 . 016* G 5 4.33 1 198 .037* G 5 13.22 2 186 .001* G 6 0.81 1 192 .365 G 6 30.49 2 181 .000** 5.3. Experience 5.4. Grade l e v e l Item x2 df N Item x2 df N P G 1 3.54 4 200 .470 G 1 9.81 2 147 .007* G 2 0.85 4 196 .931 G 2 7.65 2 141 .021* G 3 2.96 4 204 .563 G 3 12.86 2 148 .001* G 4 1.46 4 200 .832 G 4 3.17 2 144 .204 G 5 10.14 4 198 .038* G 5 5.01 2 145 .081 G 6 2.08 4 192 .720 G 6 0.73 2 139 .692 5.5. Proportion 5.6. Enrollment Item x2 df N O Item X2 df N O G 1 2.23 2 195 .327 G 1 1.26 4 187 .867 G 2 2.58 2 191 .274 G 2 0.84 4 182 .932 G 3 0.26 2 199 .875 G 3 5.85 4 189 .210 G 4 2.81 2 196 .244 G 4 2.33 4 186 .674 G 5 0.87 2 193 .646 G 5 2.72 4 185 .604 G 6 0.46 2 187 .791 G 6 1.31 4 181 .858 5.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item x2 df N P G 1 22.78 4 196 .000** G 2 0.81 4 192 .935 G 3 4.03 4 200 .401 G 4 6.71 4 196 . 151 G 5 18.91 4 194 .000** G 6 25.13 4 188 .000** 141 Table 6. Observed differences i n attitude toward statements  favoring integration. 6.1. Gender 6.2. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Item X 2 df N O Item x2 df N P I 1 3.88 1 174 .048* I 1 3.32 2 162 . 189 I 2 13.28 1 200 .000** I 2 13.20 2 190 .004* I 3 1.14 1 195 .285 I 3 3.78 2 182 .150 I 4 0.01 1 191 .906 I 4 4.92 2 178 .085 I 5 1.38 1 157 .239 I 5 1.15 2 148 .560 6.3. Experience 6.4. Grade l e v e l Item X 2 df N O Item x2 df N P I 1 13.27 4 172 .010* I 1 0.95 2 126 . 621 I 2 9.74 4 200 .045* I 2 0.90 2 146 .635 I 3 13.73 4 193 .008* I 3 2.25 2 139 .324 I 4 2.22 4 191 .695 I 4 4.62 2 136 .099 I 5 2.55 4 155 .634 I 5 1.00 2 108 .604 6.5. Proportion 6.6. Enrollment Item X 2 df N O Item x2 df N P I 1 2.22 2 169 . 328 I 1 5.69 4 161 .222 I 2 7.21 2 197 .027* I 2 5.77 4 186 .217 I 3 13.38 2 190 .001* I 3 8.40 4 180 .077 I 4 6.73 2 186 . 034* I 4 3.80 4 175 .433 I 5 3.13 2 153 .208 I 5 4.33 4 145 . 362 6.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item x2 df N P I 1 15.74 4 168 .003* I 2 5.77 4 196 .216 I 3 13.65 4 189 .008* I 4 7.55 4 188 . 109 I 5 4.94 4 152 .293 Table 7. Observed differences i n attitude toward statements favoring curriculum autonomy 7.1. Gender 7.2. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Item X2 df N p Item x2 df N P C 1 11.73 1 196 .000** C 1 9.84 2 185 .007* C 2 0.08 1 168 .768 C 2 0.42 2 155 .808 C 3 0.45 1 190 .501 C 3 4.22 2 180 .121 C 4 0.26 1 186 .604 C 4 0.44 2 175 .800 7.3. Experience 7.4. Grade l e v e l Item X2 df N t> Item x2 df N P C 1 8.99 4 196 .061 C 1 1.53 2 142 .464 C 2 3.14 4 167 .534 C 2 3.41 2 123 . 181 C 3 11.48 4 190 .021* C 3 1.08 2 138 . 582 C 4 1.55 4 186 .816 C 4 0.98 2 133 .609 7.5. Proportion 7.6. Enrollment Item x2 df N r> Item X2 df N P c 1 0.05 2 192 .974 C 1 2.37 4 183 .667 C 2 1.05 2 164 .591 C 2 5.90 4 154 .206 C 3 0.06 2 188 .969 C 3 3.52 4 174 .474 C 4 1.46 2 181 .481 C 4 6.70 4 171 . 152 7.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item X2 df N P C 1 8.25 4 193 .082 C 2 1.42 4 164 .839 C 3 2.77 4 185 .596 C 4 4.12 4 182 .390 143 Table 8. Observed differences i n attitudes toward statements  reflecting; strong concept of s e l f as professional. 8.1. Gender 8.2. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Item x2 df N O Item X2 df N P S 1 0.07 1 185 .778 S 1 2.88 2 174 .236 S 2 2.29 1 176 .129 S 2 2.04 2 164 .360 S 3 0.02 1 200 .878 S 3 0.84 2 188 .654 S 4 1.18 1 198 .276 S 4 0.94 2 185 .622 S 5 1.50 1 190 .220 S 5 0.88 2 178 .641 8.3. Experience 8.4. Grade l e v e l Item X2 df N O Item x2 df N P S 1 7.17 4 184 .127 S 1 1.60 2 135 .447 S 2 2.44 4 175 .654 S 2 5.09 2 127 . 078 S 3 0.26 4 199 .992 S 3 0.26 2 146 .875 S 4 2.26 4 198 .687 S 4 4.02 2 144 .133 S 5 9.87 4 190 .042* S 5 7.27 2 140 .026* 8.5. Proportion 8.6. Enrollment Item x2 df N p Item x2 df N p S 1 11.03 2 181 .004* S 1 22.56 4 169 .000** S 2 9.96 2 172 .006* S 2 1.36 4 162 .849 S 3 0.26 2 195 .878 S 3 2.64 4 185 .618 S 4 0.76 2 193 .682 S 4 2.35 4 182 .671 S 5 7.79 2 186 .020* S 5 8.80 4 175 .066 8.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item x2 df N P S 1 12.81 4 179 .012* S 2 6.80 4 171 . 146 S 3 1.74 4 195 .783 S 4 4.88 4 193 .298 S 5 11.41 4 185 . 022* Table 9. Observed differences i n attitude toward statements r e f l e c t i n g perceived influence of others. 9.1. Gender 9.2. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Item X2 df N Item X2 df N P 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 1 9 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 0 . 2 7 2 1 8 0 . 8 7 1 0 2 0 . 5 8 1 1 9 0 . 4 4 4 0 2 3 . 4 3 2 1 7 6 . 1 7 9 0 3 0 . 0 1 1 1 9 5 . 9 0 9 0 3 1 7 . 7 8 2 1 8 4 . 0 0 0 * * 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 1 8 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 4 5 . 9 2 2 1 7 6 . 0 5 1 0 5 0 . 0 4 i 1 9 6 . 8 3 6 0 5 0 . 0 9 2 1 8 3 . 9 5 5 0 6 2 . 1 1 I 2 0 4 . 1 4 6 0 6 0 . 2 4 2 1 9 2 . 8 8 3 9.3. Experience 9.4. Grade l e v e l Item X2 df N n Item x2 df N P 0 1 4.78 4 191 .309 0 1 3.30 2 143 .191 0 2 3.14 4 190 .533 0 2 1.79 2 139 .407 0 3 5.48 4 195 .241 0 3 0.11 2 143 .945 0 4 10.26 4 188 .036* 0 4 0.20 2 136 .904 0 5 5.94 4 196 .203 0 5 0.30 2 145 .860 0 6 9.49 4 204 .049 0 6 3.20 2 148 .201 9.5. Proportion 9.6. Enrollment Item x2 df N r> Item x2 df N P 0 1 9.11 2 189 .010* 0 1 3.03 4 178 .551 0 2 4.24 2 185 . 119 0 2 3.58 4 174 .465 0 3 3.06 2 191 .216 0 3 4.10 4 182 .392 0 4 0.18 2 183 .910 0 4 4.70 4 174 .319 0 5 0.38 2 192 . 823 O 5 2.63 4 181 .620 0 6 9.02 2 199 .011* 0 6 3.93 4 189 .414 9.7. C e r t i f i c a t i o n Item x2 df N p 0 2 1.89 4 185 .755 0 3 17.53 4 191 .001* 0 4 11.47 4 183 .021* 0 5 2.75 4 192 .599 0 6 6.20 4 200 . 184 145 Appendix 2 The questionnaire and follow up l e t t e r s .  "A survey of the attitudes of Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers" Reykjavik 16.1.'89 Dear teacher! My name i s Gudrun Helgadottir, I am a wood- and metalwork teacher currently doing graduate studies i n a r t education at The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. I am conducting a study which i s c a l l e d "A survey of the attitudes of Icelandic public school art and c r a f t teachers toward curriculum and teaching i n art and c r a f t . " The survey i s directed at those teachers who are currently employed i n the public school system and are c e r t i f i e d to teach a r t and c r a f t . This questionnaire i s mailed to you as you belong to t h i s group. In recent years several surveys on the attitudes of Icelandic public school teachers have been conducted, but few of them have addressed art and c r a f t teachers s p e c i f i c a l l y . The objective of t h i s questionnaire i s to survey the attitudes of Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers toward several factors a f f e c t i n g art and c r a f t teaching. I believe that the r e s u l t s of surveys such as t h i s can give d i r e c t i o n to development i n art and c r a f t teaching, p a r t i c u l a r l y at t h i s point where a new syllabus i s on the horizon. The attitudes of Icelandic art and c r a f t teachers are not only important i n t h i s context. Due to the uniqueness of the Icelandic curriculum and teaching i n art and c r a f t they, are of intere s t to a r t educators abroad as well. The v a l i d i t y of re s u l t s from a survey of t h i s kind depends on a high return rate. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important when such a small group i s involved. I t i s therefore imperative that each i n d i v i d u a l responds. To f a c i l i t a t e the c o l l e c t i o n of responses each questionnaire has been assigned a number. The I n s t i t u t e for Educational Research has provided f a c i l i t i e s for mailing and c o l l e c t i o n of the questionnaire. The l i s t of respondents w i l l be treated as co n f i d e n t i a l by the s t a f f . When c o l l e c t i o n i s completed and p r i o r to coding and analysis of data, the l i s t of respondents w i l l be destroyed. Data w i l l be coded and analyzed at The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. In analyzing and presenting findings from t h i s survey responses are not traced to in d i v i d u a l respondents. I t i s estimated that r e s u l t s w i l l be ready for presentation i n the spring of 1990. They w i l l be reported to the Ministry of Education and Culture, teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s and a presentation w i l l be offered to the Association of Icelandic Art and Craft Teachers. 147 ST4-27 Evaluation i n art and c r a f t education should be based on what the student gained from the process rather than the product of the process. ST5-42 Knowledge and s k i l l s w i l l best be attained through projects that the students i n i t i a t e s . 501- 31 Art and c r a f t teachers should b u i l d t h e i r teaching on the aesthetic standards apparent i n what kind of a r t and c r a f t i s valued i n students' homes. 502- 3 An understanding of the r o l e of a r t and c r a f t can j u s t as well be gained through studying f o l k - a r t as from studying recognized a r t and c r a f t masterpieces. 503- 16 I t i s more important to make students environmentally l i t e r a t e than to teach them the s k i l l s of a r t i s t s or craftsmen. 504- 20 Preservation of the c u l t u r a l heritage should be the goal i n a r t and c r a f t education. 505- 2 3 The goal of art and c r a f t education i s not that of transmitting universal aesthetic standards but to teach students that d i f f e r e n t groups have d i f f e r e n t but equally v a l i d aesthetic values. Al-36 The s i z e of groups a f f e c t s students achievement more than whether grouping i s according to a b i l i t y or not.(R) A2-12 Grouping according to a b i l i t y enhances s o c i a l development more than does mixed a b i l i t y grouping. A3-43 A b i l i t y grouping i s contrary to the public school's commitment to equity.(R) A4-25 Mixed a b i l i t y grouping has resulted i n lowered standards of achievement i n my subject. Gl-2 Boys and g i r l s have d i f f e r e n t attitudes toward my subj ect. G2-10 There are marked differences between the projects that boys and g i r l s choose i n my subject. G3-40 I have to use d i f f e r e n t approaches to teach boys and g i r l s . G4-7 There i s a divergence i n a b i l i t y between boys and g i r l s i n my subject. 148 G5-30 Students would learn more i n my subject i f they were grouped according to gender i n classes. G6-37 I believe that boys and g i r l s are going to make equal use of what they learned i n my subject when they leave school.(R) 11- 26 Integration w i l l always compromise the objectives of the subjects involved.(R) 12- 32 My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the subject area of a r t and c r a f t . 13- 11 My subject should be more integrated with other subjects i n the public school curriculum. 14- 6 Integration of d i s c i p l i n e s i s more i n accordance with the nature of the learning process than basing education on separate d i s c i p l i n e s . 15- 38 In todays society integrative a b i l i t y i s more useful than s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge. Cl-22 In my subject the curriculum guide should state objectives, processes and outcomes c l e a r l y and unambiguously enough to ensure that a l l teachers w i l l teach the same body of content.(R) C2-39 The introduction of school-based c u r r i c u l a would be b e n e f i c i a l for my subject. C3-14 When I plan my teaching I use the Public School Curriculum Guide as base.(R) C4-41 I do not f e e l obliged to follow any one p a r t i c u l a r curriculum guide. 51- 19 I have influence i n general program planning i n my school. 52- 21 In my school I am considered the expert regarding learning i n my subject. 53- 45 For me teaching i s more than a job (paid job). 54- 18 I have a l o t of cooperation on the teaching with other teachers i n my school. 55- 5 I do not have as much influence on the general operation of my school as other teachers. (R) 149 01- 35 In planning my program I am r e s t r i c t e d by t r a d i t i o n a l ideas of what a program i n my subject should be l i k e . 02- 33 The administration of my school exerts i t s influence on my program planning. 03- 15 I f e e l (know) that i t i s expected that students spend the time i n my program to produce "things to take home". 04- 8 The j a n i t o r and h i s s t a f f have influence on what I can or cannot do i n my program. 05- 28 I cannot teach to my ideal because students have very fix e d ideas on what my subject should be a l l about. 06- 1 In my school the f a c i l i t i e s for teaching my subject are good. General information. I. Are you ( )female ( ) male ? I I . From which i n s t i t u t i o n did you receive teaching c e r t i f i c a t i o n ? Year I I I . Are you s p e c i a l i z e d as a ( ) t e x t i l e teacher ( ) art teacher ( ) weaving teacher ( ) wood- and metalwork teacher IV. How many years have you been teaching? ( ) 0-1 ( ) 2-5 ( ) 6-10 ( ) 11-20 ( ) 21 or more V. What i s the proportion of a r t and c r a f t i n your teaching load t h i s school year ? ( ) 0% I- 10% I I - 25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% VI. This question i s directed to those that checked 0% i n item V. Is a r t and c r a f t teaching available to you i n your school? ( ) yes ( ) no VII. What i s the student enrollment i n your school? 150 ( ) less than 30 ( ) 31-100 ( ) 101-300 ( ) 301-599 ( ) more than 600 VIII. To what age group do you teach a rt and c r a f t ? ( ) 0.-3. grade ( ) 4.-6. grade ( ) 7.-9. grade Thank you very much for your cooperation! 153 Appendix 3  L i s t of informants: Bjarni Danielsson, p r i n c i p a l , Myndlista- og handiSaskoli Islands (The Icelandic School of Art and C r a f t ) , Reykjavik, Iceland. E i r i k u r Lindal, p s y c h i a t r i s t , Geodeild Landsspitalans (The Department of Psychiatry of the General Hospital), Reykjavik, Iceland. Gu3mundur R. Arnason, doctoral candidate, Felagsvisindastofnun (Ins t i t u t e f o r the Social Sciences), Reykjavik, Iceland and London School of Economics, London, England. Halldora G i s l a d o t t i r , art teacher, Fjolbrautaskolinn i B r e i 5 h o l t i (BreiQholt Comprehensive School), Reykjavik, Iceland. Ingvar Sigurgeirsson, lecturer, Kennarahaskoli Islands (The Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education), Reykjavik, Iceland. J u l i u s Sigurbjornsson, wood- & metalwork teacher and curriculum advisor, Menntamalara3uneyti5 skolabrounardeild (Ministry of Culture and Education Dept. of School Development), Reykjavik, Iceland. K r i s t b j o r g GuSmundsdottir, former t e x t i l e teacher, Reykjavik, Iceland. Kr i s t r u n i s a k s d o t t i r , curriculum advisor, Menntamalara3uneyti3 framhaldsskoladeild (Ministry of Culture and Education Dept. of Secondary Education), Reykjavik, Iceland. Maria Ragnarsdottir, sessional wood- and metalwork teacher, Kennarahaskoli Islands (Iceland I n s t i t u t e of Education), Reykjavik, Iceland. S i g r i 3 u r Jonsdottir, curriculum advisor, Vinnuhopur um j a f n r e t t i i s k o l a s t a r f i , (Commitee for Gender Equity i n Education), Menntamalara3uneyti3 skolaprounardeild (Ministry of Culture and Education Dept. of School Development), Reykjavik, Iceland. S i g r i 3 u r V a l g e i r s d o t t i r , d i r e c t o r , Rannsoknastofnun Uppeldismala (Institute for Educational Research), Reykjavik, Iceland. Skulina Kjartansdottir, former wood- and metalwork teacher, Camberwell School of Art and Design, London, England. 154 f>6rir Sigurosson, Advisor for curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n i n Art and Craft, Menntamalara5uneyti8 skolaprounardeild (Ministry of Culture and Education Dept. of School Development), Reykjavik, Iceland. P o r l e i f D r i f a Jonsdottir, curriculum advisor, Menntamalara3uneyti3 skolaprounardeild (Ministry of Culture and Education Dept. of School Development), Reykjavik, Iceland. fcorolfur torlindsson, professor, Felagsvisindadeild Haskola Islands (Department of Sociology, The University of Iceland), Reykjavik, Iceland. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097788/manifest

Comment

Related Items