358 Studies In Art Education Art Curriculum Influences A National Survey

358 Studies in Art Education
Copyright 2008 by the Studies in Art Education
National Art Education Association A Journal of Issues and Research
2008, 49(4), 358-370
Art Curriculum Influences: A National Survey
Angela M. La Porte
University of Arkansas
Peg Speirs
Kutztown University
Bernard Young
Arizona State University
This article is the result of an empirical study1
that attempts to discern the extent to
which certain factors might influence current curriculum content taught by K-12
art teachers in the United States with 0 to 7 years of teaching experience. Data were
collected from a sample of 437 art teachers’ completion of a survey instrument with
quantitative and limited open-ended response questions. A principal components
analysis with a varimax rotation yielded five general art content categories. The use
of t-tests measured the relationships between these content categories with demo-
graphics, undergraduate coursework, and grade levels taught. Factors that might
have influenced curriculum content include: undergraduate coursework, personal
interests, national and state curriculum standards, and student issues. The rela-
tionship between those factors and the influences of current curriculum content
being taught is discussed.
Factors Influencing Art Curriculum Content
Demographic research in art teacher education has been limited
(Galbraith & Grauer, 2004), particularly on issues associated with the chal-
lenges of bridging contemporary art education theories to practice in U.S.
schools. Some art educators in higher education have been concerned about
the application of contemporary art education issues by newly trained art
teachers entering the field. In order to better understand factors influencing
the art curriculum content actually applied by new service art teachers, a
primarily quantitative survey instrument with limited open-ended response
questions was used for data collection. For the purposes of this article,
curriculum has been defined as course content and implementation guided
by external and internal factors such as the state or school as well as the
beliefs, attitudes, assumptions (Congdon, Stewart, & White, 2002), and
interests of the teacher.
Contemporary approaches of art teacher education and practice empha-
sizing, for example, feminist, social, and critical theories in art and pedagogy
have offered progressive possibilities for art curriculum that are diverse and
addresscurrentsocial(Efland,2004;Lampela,1995,2001),political(Garber,
2004), and cultural (Banks, 1993; Grossman, 1995) issues that exist in our
current world. Many educational researchers have recommended the use of
curriculum that is relevant to students and reflects the cultural diversity of
Correspondence
regarding this article
should be sent to: Angela
M. La Porte, Associate
Professor of Art
Education, University
of Arkansas, 335 Fine
Arts Center, Fayetteville,
AR 72701. E-mail:
alaporte@uark.edu;
Peg Speirs, Associate
Professor of Art
Education, Kutztown
University, P.O. Box
730, Kutztown, PA
19530. E-mail: speirs@
kutztown.edu; and/
or Bernard Young,
Professor of Art
Education, Arizona
State University, The
Katherine K. Herberger
College of the Arts,
School of Art, Tempe,
Arizona 85287-1505.
E-mail: Bernard.young@
asu.edu
This research was
supported by The
Katherine K. Herberger
College of the Arts
Research and Creative
Activity Grant,
Fulbright College of Arts
(continued)

Studies in Art Education 359
the students’ community (Ballengee-Morris & Stuhr, 2001; Boughton &
Mason, 1999; Heard, 1990).
Art Education Curriculum Trends
For more than two decades the predominant use of formalism has been
challenged by new approaches and theories.True to a postmodern sensibility,
there has not been a dominant curriculum theory or approach, but instead
a plurality of approaches that address a more inclusive body of artists and
issues (e.g., social, political, and cultural), preparing preservice teachers for
the dramatic demographic changes occurring in U.S. public schools.
Despite this paradigm shift in higher education, there have been noted
concerns about curriculum content and its applications. Jelcich (1998)
claimed that the art education curriculum in most public schools was over-
whelmingly Western European. Many teachers taught within a modernist
framework emphasizing Western male artists from a formalist perspective.
Stewart and Katter (2003) and Stuhr (2003) noticed some difficulty bridging
contemporary theories to practice. Stuhr’s own preservice teachers questioned
the validity and application of these ideas, since they differed from how
they were taught by their K-12 art teachers, and what they felt comfortable
teaching. La Porte (2001) and Jones (1997) asserted that educators tend to
teach what they have been taught as students. If this was and still is true,
then, current curriculum content being taught in public schools should
reflect the elements that most influenced the new teachers, whether contem-
porary curriculum reflects the old paradigm or the new.
These contradictions set this study into motion, asking art teachers what
they practiced in the classroom, their educational experiences, the factors
that hindered them from practicing what they learned in their art education
coursework, and for those who moved beyond the frameworks of the past,
what factors might have influenced them. These inquiries may offer a better
understanding of the content and frequency of usage of higher education’s
curriculum and the factors influencing current curriculum practice of art
teachers recently entering the teaching profession.
Overview of Study
As a response to the concern about bridging contemporary art education
theories to practice, this study2
focused on the relative importance and the
interrelations of various factors influencing current curriculum content
implemented by art teachers in the US during their first through seventh year
of teaching. The selection of this group was based on the assumption that
they would be more likely educated in contemporary art education theory
than their predecessors. A finer comparison clustering was not achieved for
those who were less experienced with those who had been teaching longer
because of a disproportionate number of respondents within these subcat-
egories. The highest number of respondents who completed the question-
naire had five years teaching experience, followed in declining order by those
teaching four, three, and six years. The study involved analyses3
between
curriculum content and (1) the demographics of 1st- through 7th-year
and Sciences Research
Grants, Kutztown
University Research
Grants, Binney and
Smith Corporation, The
Survey Research Center,
and Dr. Joanna Gorin
through statistics and
research methodology in
Educational Psychology.
This research was
presented at the 2006
National Art Education
Association Conference
in Chicago, Illinois and
the 2007 National Art
Education Association
Conference in New
York.
1
The University of
Arkansas Institutional
Review Board approved
this study.
2
Past survey research
by art educators were
reviewed in preparation
for this study. While
some of our ques-
tions were similar to
Chapman’s (1979)
Teacher Viewpoint
Survey (basic identity
questions, relation-
ships with art, and
involvement with profes-
sional organizations),
our research dealt less
with teacher attitudes
and more with the
content components of
curriculum.
Like Chapman and
Newton’s comparative
study in 1990, our
questionnaire took
(continued on p. 360)

teachers and their students, (2) the contextual nature of their teaching, (3)
the origin of theoretical foundations and conceptual issues that informed
their teaching, and (4) other determinants including their schools, commu-
nities, and curriculum standards at the state and national levels.
Methodology
Participants
The sample consisted of 436 K-12 art teachers (85% female, 15% male)
from 42 states. The number of teachers in the sample assigned to classes in
elementary, middle, and high school was approximately equal, with slightly
more teachers working in elementary school than at the other two levels.
Teacher samples were from suburban (40%), rural (36%), and urban (22%)
schools (4%, no response).
The top three undergraduate educational degree categories represented
were Bachelor of Arts (149), Bachelor of Fine Arts (139), and Bachelor
of Science (85). There were 117 (23%) out of 436 who had some type of
master’s degree while 260 (60%) had completed some graduate coursework
(see Table 1 for a master’s degree breakdown).
Table 1
Distribution of Master’s Degrees Earned by Sample of Teachers
n %
MAE 22 4%
MFA 08 2%
MA 28 5%
MMAE/MFAE 08 2%
MS 14 3%
MAT 11 2%
MEd 4 1%
95 19%
Twenty-six teachers (4%) listed other types of master’s degrees
with f ≤ 3.
Many teachers (70.6%) were members of art organizations (n = 308)
based on a yes/no question. Therefore, the specific art organizations to which
they belonged were indeterminate. Without specific identification of the
particular conferences, more than half (59.4%) attended state art education
conferences (n = 259) and very few (14.4%) attended national art education
conferences (n = 63).
Teacher and student race and ethnicity4
identifications in this study were
established to enable comparisons to be made with curriculum content.
The majority of the teachers (88.3%) racially identified as White/Anglo (n
= 385), followed by 3.9 % Latino/a teachers (n = 17), 1.4% Asian (n = 6),
1.4% African American (n = 6), and 0.9% Native American (n = 4). A few
Angela M. La Porte, Peg Speirs, and Bernard Young
into account DBAE,
but moved beyond
it to include other
approaches. Because
our questions allowed
for the responses,
more people indicated
they were using wider
subject matter in our
study, whereas the
earlier studies solicited
studio related answers.
Again, our focus in
this study examined
factors influencing the
art curriculum content
actually applied by new
service art teachers in the
classroom. There was no
indication of the length
of service of teachers in
the earlier studies.
3The pilot study and
this study involved
statistical t-tests, correla-
tions, and factor and
regression analyses. The
teachers rated their usage
of each content area
listed on the question-
naire in a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from never
to very often. Although
each of these content
areas was referenced as
an individual item, it is
possible that participants
associated certain topics
with one another as part
of a larger curriculum
theme. Given this logic
and the large number
of individual content
area choices offered on
the questionnaire, a
principal components
analysis reduced the
number of variables. The
(continued)

(continued on p. 362)
(1.4%) responded with ethnic identification, i.e., European, Italian, multi-
ethnic (n = 6), and 1.6% of the participants did not respond at all (n = 7),
leaving insignificant numbers for comparison.
The sample of teachers’ ages ranged from 22 to 57 years old (M = 35.81,
SD = 9.37) including both experienced and new teachers, with the number of
years teaching ranging from 1 to 7 years (M = 4.35, SD = 1.58). The sample
majority included certified teachers (82.6%) and non-certified teachers
(4.1%; 13.3% missing data). Public school teachers (94.7%) dominated the
sample over private schools (4.4%; 0.9%, missing data).
Art Teacher Questionnaire
The Art Teacher Questionnaire consisted of 5 open-ended and 17 close-
ended response items with options for “other” write-in responses including
questions pertaining to each teacher’s demographic information, training,
experience, and curriculum applications. The random questionnaire respon-
dents were only 1st- through 7th-year art teachers from a supplied mailing
list of 3200 names and addresses.5
Participants returned more than 437 ques-
tionnaires, with many excluded for exceeding the teaching experience limita-
tions for this study.
Use of Content Areas in the Curriculum
Of primary interest was each teacher’s usage of various content areas in
their curriculum. They provided responses to 25 items on the questionnaire
regarding their use of individual content areas (see Appendix Table A1).
The content areas reflected a broad range of interests addressed in contem-
porary art education from sources such as recent NAEA publications and
Contemporary Issues in Art Education (Gaudelius & Speirs, 2002), and recom-
mendations by art education colleagues.6
Integrated curriculum, inquiry, and
conceptually based curriculum were not included since categories for this
research focused on curricular content, not styles of teaching.
Qualitative Data
Open-ended questions offered teachers the opportunity to expand upon
concerns about their curriculum influences. The survey instrument included
the following prompts: (1) Do you feel that you are able to implement the
art curriculum content that you learned as a student? Yes/No. If no, why?,
(2) Overall, what has most influenced your curriculum?, and (3) Please
include any additional comments related to the factors that influence your
curriculum that are not mentioned in this survey instrument. The analysis
and interpretation of these responses were relative to the focus of this study.
Study Limitations
Limitations of this study included a sample of respondents, their candor
and question interpretations, and the survey instrument. Respondents’ inter-
pretations of questions, primarily quantitative with few qualitative prompts,
might also have hindered valid answers, even though some questions
included clarification of terms (e.g., Contemporary Art included a period
roughly from 1970s to the present). The teachers’ lenses of interpretation
principal components
analysis of the 25
curriculum usage items
with a varimax rotation
yielded 5 factors with
8 values greater than 1.
This statistical analysis
revealed groupings based
on the frequency of
common usages. Because
of space constraints,
a summary of these
curricular themes and
findings could not
be reported. A more
complete discussion of
this research is available
from the authors.
4The use of race
and ethnicity was
in alignment with
the statistical Policy
Division, Office of
Information and
Regulatory Affairs, of the
Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) that
determines federal stan-
dards for the reporting
of “racial” and “ethnic”
statistics (American
Anthropological, 1997).
Unlike the OMB we
used the terms Latino/a
rather than Hispanic,
and Native American
rather than American
Indian. The remaining
categories for race were
consistent with popula-
tions use by federal
agencies.
5Names and addresses
were purchased through
Market Data Retrieval, a
national database. Each
questionnaire contained
a self-addressed, stamped

shaped their responses and did not guarantee validity. Nor was the sample
large enough to make generalizations about the field, but might offer some
guidance to future studies in higher education.
Findings
Summary of Curricular Themes
The principal components analysis of the 25 curriculum usage items with
a varimax rotation yielded 5 factors with 8 values greater than 1 (see Appendix
Table A2). This statistical analysis revealed groupings based on the frequency
of common usages. For example, a high percentage of those who selected
Postmodern as “very often” also checked Modern as “very often.” Their
usage correlated but was not conflated. The terms Modern and Postmodern
are referred to as curricular content and not styles of teaching. Based on the
variables loaded on each of the factors, five art curriculum themes emerged:
(1) Multicultural, (2) Identity and Issues, (3) Art Disciplines, (4) Modern
and Postmodern, and (5) Graphics and Visual Culture. The five category
titles are used as umbrella terms, a generalized way to refer to the category
groupings.
Effect of Undergraduate Education on Use of Curriculum
Content Areas in Teaching
A sample of independent variable t-tests helped to determine the rela-
tionship between undergraduate coursework and current curriculum content
use. The survey instrument prompted teachers to check a box next to each
content item included in their undergraduate curriculum. In addition,
they selected from a one to five Likert scale prompt for their current usage.
Overall, teachers used topics that were similar to those taught to them in
undergraduate school.
Teachers who received undergraduate training in Discipline Based Art
Education (DBAE) approaches reported higher use of Art Disciplines (M
= .16, SD = .99) than those who did not receive DBAE training in under-
graduate school (M = -.20, SD = 1.03). Those with an undergraduate
training in Multicultural Art approaches or theories to art education
reported higher use of Multicultural Art (M = .07, SD = .99) than those
who did not receive Multicultural Art training during undergraduate studies
(M = -.15, SD = 1.00). Teachers with undergraduate training in Child-
Centered Art approaches or theories of art education reported higher use of
the Multicultural theme (M= .13, SD= 1.06) than those who did not receive
Child-Centered art training as undergraduates (M= -.08, SD= .94).
Most Influential Coursework Relative to Curriculum Themes
Another t-test revealed a relationship between the five curriculum
themes and the coursework teachers reported as most influential on their
art curriculum content (question #16). Teachers who reported either Art
History, Art Studio, Art Education, or Student Teaching as the most influ-
ential coursework in their undergraduate training differed in terms of their
reported use of several curriculum content areas. If Art Studio was the most
envelope along with
a complimentary
permanent black marker
(a contribution from
Binney and Smith
Corporation) as an
incentive for teachers
to complete and
return their completed
questionnaire.
6We wish to thank Dr.
Marilyn Stewart for her
assistance in developing
the questionnaire and
Glen Speirs for his
insights and feedback
in the writing of this
article.

influential undergraduate coursework reported, there was a lower use of the
Multicultural Art theme in their curriculum (M = -.18, SD = .96) than those
reporting Art History (M = .20, SD = 1.09) or Art Education as the strongest
undergraduate influence (M = .08, SD = 1.00).
Effect of Classroom Variables on Use of Curriculum Topics
Curriculum content choices sometimes revealed particular relationships
with grade level and demographic information. Although there were clear
differences in the number of contact hours in art across the curriculum, there
were few differences in the type of curriculum based on the number of contact
hours spent with the students. Notably, those with more contact hours had a
markedly different priority than those with the least amount: Teachers who
reported less than 75 hours per year of contact time per class (elementary)
were more likely to use the Multicultural Art theme than teachers who
reported between 200-299 hours per year (middle and high school).7
Predominant Undergraduate Coursework
Some significant findings emerged from specific questions in the ques-
tionnaire. Given a list of choices (see Table 2), question #14 asked, which
of these (check all that apply) were you taught as an undergraduate, and
(#15) which one predominated your undergraduate experience? Categories
were listed in random order. Of the 436 respondents to question #15, 75
responded with more than one answer. The first column of numbers repre-
sented the valid answers to the question of one predominant approach
or theory in their undergraduate training. As a comparison, the second
column included the first column plus the aggregate of multiple answers.
It was obvious that the aggregate numbers directly reflected the rankings of
predominant approaches or theories and did not change the results. Overall,
DBAE ranked as the most dominant approach or theory in the teacher’s
undergraduate training, followed by studio practice (Art Forms, Media &
Materials). Multicultural and Child-Centered approaches or theories ranked
significantly behind these.
The frequencies (actual responses) represented in question #14 were
a summation of multiple approaches or theories taught to the teachers as
undergraduates. Their ranking was listed next to the frequency of question
#15 for comparison. The top three were the same in both lists but in a
different order. Items four and five are the same for both questions.
Based on the rankings of exposure resulting from the answers for
question #14, studio (Art Forms, Media & Materials) dominated most
art teachers’ undergraduate experience. Reflecting historical trends in art
education, Multicultural approaches and theory ranked after studio, being
a contemporary emphasis. DBAE followed in ranking, being dominant in
the recent past. Child-Centered approaches or theories ranked next which
dominated art education prior to DBAE. As indicated by the numbers and
ranking in question #15, Child-Centered still appeared to dominate in some
programs.
7T-tests supported these
findings though these
differences disappear
when you consider the
number of contact hours
that they have with
students.

Question #17 asked for teachers to identify educational background and
usage of 25 categories of curriculum content (plus a write-in for Other). As
a first response to this question, respondents checked the content areas they
were exposed to as undergraduates. A second response ranked their own use
of each of these content areas in their teaching curriculum using a 5-point
Likert scale (see Appendix Table A1). The following list has ranked the eight
top choices by frequency of exposure in their undergraduate educational
background. Because teachers could check more than one category and
rate each category differently, the numbers were relative and not absolute.
Therefore, percentages have not been included in this table.
Along with the exposure to Western European Art, Modern Art, and
Contemporary Art, all the components of DBAE were highly ranked content
areas in undergraduate experience. The high rankings of Western European
Art and Modern Art usage might be an indicator that the Modernist
Canon is still emphasized. The participants who often used Contemporary
Art may suggest inroads into theories beyond Modernism (or a mistaken
conflation with Modern Art). In practice at the K-12 level, Art Studio
Production ranked the highest usage of all content areas followed by Design
Elements/Principles.
The four content areas of The Body, Latino Art, World Politics, and
Ecological Issues were the only content areas to be “Rare” (and coinci-
dently occupied four of the six lowest rankings based on experience). All
other content areas had a “Moderate” ranking and, except for Visual Culture
and Other Non-Western Art, they all ranked as moderately experienced in
undergraduate education. There was a direct relationship between exposure
to content areas and subsequent inclusion in the K-12 curriculum.
Table 2
Answers to Questions #14 and #15
#15 one #15 f #14 rank #14 f
answer only
DBAE 165/38% 201 3 276
Art Forms, Media & Materials 108/25% 152 1 318
Multicultural 024/05% 061 2 293
Child-Centered 024/05% 043 4 173
Comprehensive 020/04% 032 5 122
Other 015/03% 029 9 033
Formalism 005/01% 016 7 054
Community-Based 0 007 6 090
Feminist 0 001 8 039

Qualitative Data Analysis and Interpretation
The following section includes findings based upon the responses to the
final three open-ended questions on the survey instrument. Numbers shown
are a relative ranking and not an absolute count. Numbers came from inter-
preting responses and included multiple reasons listed in some answers, sepa-
rating each “factor” or “reason.”
Only 17% felt they were not able to implement the art curriculum
content they learned as students. The top two reasons preventing teachers’
implementation of curriculum learned included their lack of art education
curriculum training (f = 16) and facilities/supplies/resources (f = 16). Budget
followed (f = 11) with students’ attitudes/needs/abilities/interests (f = 10)
ranking fourth. After time restraints (f = 8) teachers identified their own atti-
tudes and perceptions next (f = 7), which revealed a very small number who
felt the content of what they learned was inappropriate or irrelevant. Most of
the factors addressed by the teachers who responded no to this question were
out of the purview of university art education programs.
Question 21 asked teachers to identify overall, what most influenced their
curriculum. Personal interests was the number one answer (f=102). Even
though the responses for standards (f=102) equaled personal interests, stan-
dards ranked second because it was a composite score (see breakdown).
State 56
District 16
National 14
Not specified 12
County 4
Table 3
Use of Content in Teaching Curriculum
Response Content Moderate Often Very Often
f Area Usage Used Used
370 Art History 160
355 Western European Art 130
346 Design Elements/Principles 279
346 Modern Art 152
344 Art Studio Production 305
326 Contemporary Art 145
314 Art Criticism 130
292 Aesthetics 109
All content areas received rankings under every usage amount, but the usage
category that ranked highest for each item seemed to give the strongest
indication of their overall relative usage (see Appendix Table A1).

Teachers next identified student interest/concerns/issues/identity/needs
(f = 86) followed by faculty/peer/mentor (f = 62) as most influencing their
curriculum. Numbers then decreased considerably starting with lack of
resources (f = 36) and budget (f = 31). More teachers identified art history
as an influence (f = 26), closely followed by professional development (f =
24), studio interests (f = 23), and time (f = 23) before undergraduate studies
(f = 19), student teaching (f = 18), integrated/cross-curricular learning (f =
18), and graduate studies (f = 15). Internet resources (f = 14) influenced
curriculum over art publications (f = 7). More teachers mentioned elements
& principles (f = 9) than multicultural awareness (f = 8). Three influences
receiving the lowest scores (f = 3) were textbooks, core knowledge, and
contemporary art.
If the goal of higher education is to design better curriculum to serve
the needs of the students, higher education needs to consider a teacher’s
personal interests when discussing curriculum development. Out of 36
factors mentioned more than once as most influential to their curriculum,
art educators in higher education only have direct input into 10 of these
factors8
(less than 1/3). If student attitudes are beyond reach, preparing
preservice teachers to expect or deal with a variety of student issues, how
to address the needs of students, how to deal with student populations, and
responding to demographics might be important considerations for future
university art education programs.
Examining the student issues revealed from qualitative data (why teachers
can’t implement curriculum and what influences their curriculum the
most), the attitudes, interests, and needs of the students were prime factors.
Responding to these issues requires a broader curriculum approach than is
typically addressed when trying to consider varying student populations
based exclusively on cultural differences. Although cultural differences can
and often do play a factor in some of these issues, teachers identified other
factors, such as AP/college portfolio students, those with special needs,
group dynamics, individual abilities, behavioral issues, transient popula-
tions, student motivations, and boredom. Any teacher might face these
issues in a classroom, regardless of the cultural makeup of their students. In
higher education, preservice teachers should be aware of these other factors
in order to consider and develop flexibility with teaching and organizational
approaches, not only curricular.
The last question solicited additional comments related to factors not
mentioned in the questionnaire. The responses showed the variety of issues
that might have to be considered when preparing curriculum. Factors
included a high number of students from military families and deployment
during times of war; having more than 47 students in a class; students with
no English speaking skills; travel between buildings and rotation schedules;
lack of motivation and resistance from art peers; many special needs students
and no aid; National Board Certification; AP raised benchmarks; discipline/
safety issues; and state core objectives in the arts but no state requirement for
art to be taught.
8The 10 factors that
art educators in higher
education might
influence in K-12
curriculum are art
history, undergraduate
studies, student teaching,
graduate studies,
DBAE, an art education
background, elements &
principles, an education
background, multicul-
tural awareness, and
contemporary art.

Conclusion
The goal of this research was to determine if and to what degree art
education theory learned in higher education might influence practice in
the classrooms of art teachers early in their careers. Findings are important
in many ways: (1) the empirical evidence offers a better understanding of
what might influence the art education curriculum in the teachers’ formative
years; (2) the large sample size offers more perspectives and summaries; (3)
the teachers are from different regions of the US offering a broad overview of
current art teacher training; and (4) quantitative evidence suggests whether
contemporary art education theories have made inroads into current prac-
tices in the K-12 art classroom and to what degree. These issues are relevant
to current theory and practice in higher education.
Even though students were influenced by what they learned as an under-
graduate, what they knew and felt comfortable teaching was the highest
influence. The survey instrument did not differentiate between the attitudes
coming in or interests modified through a program, but being exposed to
broader issues resulted in direct application, not reverting to public school
enculturation. This verified La Porte (2001) and Jones’ (1997) assertions that
educators tended to teach what they have been taught as students, regardless
of the content.
A balance between traditional and contemporary art education curriculum
is a paradigm shift that takes time to occur. Not only are art teachers including
in their curriculum what they were exposed to during undergraduate studies,
they are broadening their scope and including more than what they expe-
rienced. The inclusion of the components of DBAE in the top ranked
content areas implies a shift from Western European oriented Formalist Art
History and Studio Production to broader content has already occurred and
is continuing to include the Multicultural and Postmodern content areas
that now rank as “Moderate” usage (i.e., multicultural, feminist, critical,
and cultural theories and pedagogy). One concern did arise with the decline
of the Multicultural theme usage at the middle and high school levels and
should be a serious consideration for higher education in attempting to
balance theory and practice across the curriculum.
Regardless of the challenges associated with achieving a diversified
curriculum throughout K-12 art education, some contemporary issues are
being addressed and modeled in current teacher preparation programs and
practiced in the classroom. The results of this study should reassure the art
education community that their efforts seem to be having a positive impact.
References
American Anthropological Association Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for
Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. (1997, September). Retrieved January 8, 2008
from http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm
Ballengee-Morris, C., & Stuhr, P. (2001). Multicultural art and visual cultural education in a
changing world. Art Education, 54(4), 6-13.

Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice.
In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 3-49). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association Publisher.
Boughton, D., & Mason, R. (Eds.). (1999). Beyond multicultural art education: International perspec-
tives. New York: Waxman.
Chapman, L. (1979). Teacher viewpoints survey: The results. School Arts, 78(9), 2-5.
Chapman, L., & Newton, C. (1990). Teacher viewpoint survey: The results and comparisons. School
Arts, 90(1), 41-45.
Congdon, K., Stewart, M., & White, J. (2002). Mapping identity for curriculum work. In Y.
Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.). (2002). Contemporary issues in art education (pp. 108-118).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Efland, A. D. (2004). The entwined nature of the aesthetic: A discourse on visual culture. Studies in
Art Education, 45(3), 234-251.
Galbraith, L., & Grauer, K. (2004). State of the field: Demographics and art teacher education. In
E. W. Eisner and M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 415-
437). Reston, VA: The National Art Education Association.
Garber, E. (2004). Social justice and art education. Visual Arts Research, 30(2), 4-22.
Gaudelius, Y., & Speirs, P. (2002). Contemporary issues in art education. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Grossman, H. (1995). Teaching in a diverse society. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Heard, D. (1990). How do teachers identify multicultural and cross-cultural pedagogical
phenomenon in and out of arts classrooms? Educational Review, 42(3), 303-318.
Jelcich, S. (1998). Art education: Does multiculturalism equal diversity. Diversity Factor, 6(4), 8-13.
Jones, R. L. (1997). Modern and postmodern: Questioning contemporary pedagogy in the visual
arts. In J. Hutchens & M. Suggs (Eds.), Art education: Content and practice in a postmodern era
(pp. 91-102). Reston, VA: The National Art Education Association.
Lampela, L. (1995). A challenge for art education: Including lesbians and gays. Studies in Art
Education, 36(4), 242-248.
Lampela, L. (2001). Lesbian and gay artists in the curriculum: A survey of art teachers’ knowledge
and attitudes. Studies in Art Education, 42(1), 146-162.
La Porte, A. M. (2001, March). Multicultural issues facing art teachers. Paper presented at the
National Art Education Association Conference, New York, NY.
Stewart, M., & Katter, E. (2003, April). Theory and practice: Perceptions on speculations. Paper
prepared for discussion by the Council for Policy Studies in Art Education at The National Art
Education Association Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Stuhr, P. (2003). A tale of why social and cultural content is often excluded from art education and
why it should not be. Studies in Art Education, 44(4), 301-314.

Appendix
Table A1
Ranking the Results of Question #17
(a) Please check the box to the far left if this content area was in your
undergraduate educational background.
(b) Circle the appropriate number to the right pertaining to your current
usage of the following curriculum content. Please circle a value for
each listing.
The highest response for each content area is in bold.
Response Content Never Rarely Moderately Often Very Often
Frequencies Area Used Used Used Used Used
370 Art History 02 023 095 142 160
355 Western European Art 04 039 126 130 113
346 Design Elements/Principles 02 005 031 098 279
346 Modern Art 05 023 121 152 112
344 Art Studio Production 08 004 029 061 305
326 Contemporary Art 10 031 127 145 093
314 Art Criticism 10 035 105 125 130
292 Aesthetics 13 069 109 098 097
267 Graphic Arts/Design 21 071 140 098 044
233 African American Art 13 098 153 082 026
232 Asian Art 15 135 142 054 016
231 Modernism 30 087 142 064 030
226 Postmodernism 41 103 127 051 028
219 Women’s Art 14 094 158 081 007
213 Identity 29 069 115 075 051
212 Native American Art 18 107 138 069 018
211 Technology 36 092 126 070 031
208 Advertising 22 096 126 066 022
205 Community 19 063 129 096 032
187 The Body 55 100 095 047 026
179 Latino Art 23 127 118 055 014
168 Visual Culture 25 085 119 077 025
160 Other Non-Western Art 20 108 110 042 008
146 World Politics 54 104 100 036 009
135 Ecological 44 115 091 045 006
Note: All four items that had their highest usage ranking as “Very Often,”
show a continuous increase from the lowest ranking of “Never” used to the
highest ranking of “Very Often.” Whereas the three ranked divisions of art
that had their highest usage ranking as “Often” showed the same relative
pattern of increased usage from the lowest ranking of “Never” used to the
highest ranking of “Often” and then a drop off under “Very Often” to just
under the values given under the “Moderate” usage.

Table A2
Summary of Curriculum Themes
Based on teacher responses to items about the use of various curriculum
topics in their classrooms, five themes emerged:
Theme Description
Derived from correlations between:
Multicultural Latino Art, Native American Art,
Asian Art, African American Art, and
Women’s Art.
Identity and Issues Community, Identity, Ecology, World
Politics, and the Body.
Art Disciplines Art Criticism, Art History, Design
Elements and Principles, Art Studio
Production, Aesthetics, and Western
European Art.*
Modern and Postmodern Modernism, Contemporary Art,
Postmodernism, Modern Art, and
Western European Art.*
Graphics and Visual Culture Graphic Arts Design, Technology,
Visual Culture, and Advertising.
*Western European Art overlapped two themes.
Note. These themes are used to describe the design of art teachers’
curriculum and to examine the effects of various factors (demographic,
educational, etc.) on teachers’ curriculum and topic use.

358 Studies In Art Education Art Curriculum Influences A National Survey

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 358 Studies In Art Education Art Curriculum Influences A National Survey

Similar to 358 Studies In Art Education Art Curriculum Influences A National Survey (20)

More from Daniel Wachtel

More from Daniel Wachtel (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

358 Studies In Art Education Art Curriculum Influences A National Survey