1. INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adverselyaffect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note willindicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sectionswith small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
A Bell &Howell Information Company
300 North 2eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
PR
EVIEW

2. PROBLEMS OF ADVANCED LEARNING IN THE VISUAL ARTS:
THE ROLE OF REDUCTIVE BIAS IN PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING
OF DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE
Volume I
DISSERTATION
Presented in P a rtia l Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio S tate University
By
Georgianna Short, B.F.A., M.A.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
1995
D issertation Committee:
Judith Koroscik
Michael Parsons
Arthur Efland
Approved by
( J Adv/sor
Department of Art Education
PR
EVIEW

3. UMI Number: 9544687
Copyright 1995 by
Short, Georgianna
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9544687
Copyright 1995, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
PR
EVIEW

4. Copyright by
Georgianna Short
1995
PR
EVIEW

5. To my mother
Who, but for circumstance
Would have walked t h is path before me.
i1
PR
EVIEW

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On th is page, I wish to acknowledge the contributions of others who
helped make the writing of th is d isse rta tio n possible. F irs t, I would
like to express deep appreciation to my advisor and mentor Judith Korosclk
for her i n te lle c t, insight, support, and encouragement. I also wish to
express my gratitude to Mike Parsons for his f a ith and confidence in my
a b i l i t i e s and fo r providing an opportunity to work d ire c tly with pre­
service teachers. I am also profoundly grateful to Arthur Efland for his
support and in te re st in exploring reductive bias and cognitive f le x ib i l i t y
in Art Education.
In addition, I want to thank Paul Feltovich from the Southern
I l l i n o i s School of Medicine for continuing to share his more recent
thinking about reductive bias and for sharing copies of his most recent
papers. I am also indebted to Richard Coulson, also from the Southern
I l l i n o i s School of Medicine, for taking time from his busy schedule to
share his views on research methodology and to explain the many disguises
of reductive bias.
I am fortunate in having exceptional friends whose advice and
encouragement were invaluable. I especially wish to thank Carol
Stavropoulos fo r her loyalty, friendship, and willingness to read my
d ra fts ; to Dixie Durr for her an aly tical, fo rth rig h t approach to problem-
iii
PR
EVIEW

7. solving; to Liz Kowalchuk for allowing me to see th a t there is more to
l i f e than research; and to Jeanne Auseon, who alone knows why.
I also wish to thank the Getty Center for Education in the Arts for
i t s in te re st in the future of teacher education in the a r t s , and for th e ir
support of my work.
Finally, I wish to thank my remarkable mother and l i t t l e friend Mary
Beth who have stood fa s t with me throughout th is journey.
iv
PR
EVIEW

8. VITA
1949...................................................................Born - Denver, Colorado
1971...................................................................B.F.A., University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado
1972 - 1977....................................................Junior High School Art Teacher
Ft. Scott Jr. High
Ft. Scott, Kansas
1974...................................................................M.A., Pittsburg State University
Pittsburg, Kansas
1979 - 1984................................................... Middle School Art Teacher
Cherry Creek School D is tric t
Englewood, Colorado
1984 - 1995................................................... High School Art Teacher
Overland High School
Englewood, Colorado
1989................................................................... Graduate Teaching Assistant
Department of Art Education
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
1991 - 1 9 9 2 ...............................................Director, The Saturday Art Workshop
Department of Art Education
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
1995 - present.............................................V isiting Assistant Professor
Department of Art Education
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
PUBLICATIONS
Short, G. (1995). Understanding domain knowledge for teaching: Higher-
order thinking in pre-service a r t teacher s p e c ia lis ts . Studies in
Art Education, 56(3), 154-169.
v
PR
EVIEW

9. Short, G. (1994). Writing and applying for research grants. Graduate
Perspectives in Art Education, 7(1), 33.
Short, G. (1994). Preliminary examination of reductive tendencies in a rt
understandings and lesson-planning of pre-service teachers. Marilyn
Zurmeuhlen’s Working Papers in Art Education, 1993, 12, 24-32.
Short, G. (1993). Pre-service te a c h e rs ’ knowledge of visual art: The
reductive bias. A rts Education Policy Review, 94(5), 11-15.
Koroscik, J. S., Short, G ., Stavropoulos, C., & Fortin, S. (1992).
Frameworks for understanding a r t: The function of comparative a rt
contexts and verbal cues. Studies in Art Education, 35(3), 154—
164.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Art Education
vi
PR
EVIEW

10. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1
DEDICATION......................................................................................................................... 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. 111
VITA...................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... x iii
LIST OF PLATES................................................................................................................. xiv
CHAPTER
I. BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM............................................................................ 1
Introduction........................................................................................... 1
Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding and
Teacher P r e p a r a t i o n * 3
Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of
Visual A rt....................... 4
Implications for Learning.................................................. 8
Statement of the Problem................................................................. 9
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................................... 12
Learners and the Acquisition of Knowledge............................ 12
Advanced Learners................................................................... 12
Knowledge Gaps and Advanced Learners.......................... 14
Reductive Bias.......................................................................... 17
Reductive Biasand Prior Knowledge................................. 19
Reductive Bias in Learning............................................ 21
Reductive Bias and Visual A rt........................................ 24
Reductive Bias in Teaching........................................... 25
Habitual Practice of Reductive Bias............................ 28
Learners and the Problem of Misunderstanding...................... 28
Reductive Bias and Misconceptions................................. 29
The Maintenance of Less Adequate Understandings.. 30
Learners and the Application of Knowledge............................ 30
Condition-Action Rules......................................................... 31
Transfer....................................................................................... 32
The Role of Attitudes in Transfer and Learning.................. 34
vii
PR
EVIEW

11. Learners and Cognitive F le x ib ility ............................................ 37
Education in the A rts........................................................... 38
Wei 1-Structured Information and
Misconceptions About the A rts........................ 39
Learning in Ill-S tru c tu re d Domains:
Cognitive F le x ib ility ......................................... 40
Nurturing Cognitive F le x ib ility in the A rts 41
Importance of Cognitive F le x ib ility
in the Visual A rts................................................ 41
Curriculum to Counteract Reductive Bias................................. 42
Use of a Semi-Lattice Curriculum in Visual A r t... 42
Teachers as Learners............................................................. 43
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................... 43
I I I . METHODOLOGY........................................................................... 45
Introduction........................................................................................... 45
Design of the Study............................................................................ 47
The Multiple-Case Replication Design.......................... 47
The Multiple-Case Replication Design
and Case Study Research..................................... 47
The Nature of Case Study Research.................... 48
Differences Between Multiple-Case
Replication Design and Experimental
Research...................................................................... 49
P articip an ts and Location of Research........................ 50
M aterials..................................................................................... 51
Researcher-Selected Work of A rt........................ 51
Artworks of Choice.................................................... 52
Procedures................................................................................... 53
Interviews...................................................................... 53
Unit Outline and Lesson Plans............................ 56
Auto-biographies........................................................ 56
University T ran scrip ts........................................... 57
Jo u rn als.......................................................................... 57
Analysis of Data................................................................................... 57
Coding of Data.......................................................................... 57
Pattern-Matching...................................................................... 59
IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION - PART ONE......................................................... 61
Introduction........................................................................................... 61
Reductive Bias and Pre-Service Teachers.................... 62
Purpose of the Study............................................................. 63
Findings of the Study........................................................... 63
Pattern of Reductive Bias in Understanding. 63
Pattern of Reductive Bias in Lesson-Plans.. 64
Presentation of Findings.................................................... 64
Selection of Representative Case S tu d ie s... 64
Presentation of Case Study Data........................ 64
Format.............................................................................. 65
viii
PR
EVIEW

12. Most Reductive Cases: Case Study One..................................... 65
Introduction to A lice........................................................... 66
Interview I: Olympia (1863)............................................ 67
Conversation One......................................................... 67
Conversation Two......................................................... 67
Lesson Plan Incorporating Olympia.................... 69
Olympia Interview and Reductive Bias 70
Evaluation...................................................................... 71
Interview II: Prior to Saturday Art Workshop.... 72
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 72
Proposed Lesson Plan.................................... 72
D isc u ss io n .................................................................... 74
Interview II and Reductive Bias........................ 76
Evaluation...................................................................... 77
Interview I I I : Subsequent to Saturday
Art Workshop.......................................................................... 78
Selection of Exemplar............................................ 80
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 80
Discussion...................................................................... 81
Interview III and Reductive Bias...................... 83
Evaluation...................................................................... 83
Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop.... 84
Lesson Plan and Reductive Bias.......................... 85
Evaluation...................................................................... 86
A lice’s Understanding of Works of Art and
Lesson-Planning.................................................................... 87
A lice’s Understanding of Works of A rt 87
A lice’s Lesson-Planning A b ility ........................ 88
Additional Observations......................................... 88
Most Reductive Cases: Case Study Two..................................... 89
Introduction to Rachael....................................................... 89
Interview I: Olympia......................................................... 90
Conversation One......................................................... 90
Conversation Two......................................................... 91
Lesson Plan Incorporating Olympia.................... 91
Olympia Interview and Reductive Bias............. 92
Evaluation...................................................................... 93
Interview II: Prior to Saturday Art Workshop 95
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 95
Proposed Lesson Plan .............................................. 95
D isc u ss io n .................................................................... 97
Interview II and Reductive Bias........................ 99
Evaluation...................................................................... 100
Interview I I I : Subsequent to Saturday
Art Workshop.......................................................................... 102
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 102
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 102
Discussion...................................................................... 111
Interview I II and Reductive Bias...................... 112
Evaluation...................................................................... 113
Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 114
Background Information on Exemplars............... 117
ix
PR
EVIEW

13. Lesson Plan and Reductive Bias.......................... 119
Evaluation...................................................................... 120
Rachael’s Understanding of Works of Art and
Lesson-Planning.................................................................... 121
Rachael’s Understanding of Works of A r t . . . . 121
Rachael’s Lesson-Planning A b ility .................... 121
Additional Observations.......................................... 122
Moderately Reductive Cases: Case Study Three.................... 122
Introduction to Kathy........................................................... 123
Interview I: Olympia........................................................... 123
Conversation One......................................................... 123
Conversation Two......................................................... 125
Lesson Plan Incorporating Olympia.................... 125
Olympia Interview and Reductive Bias 126
Evaluation...................................................................... 127
Interview II: Prior to Saturday Art Workshop 128
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 128
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 130
Discussion...................................................................... 131
Interview II and Reductive Bias........................ 134
Evaluation...................................................................... 135
Interview I II : Subsequent to Saturday
Art Workshop.......................................................................... 135
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 135
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 137
Discussion...................................................................... 138
Interview III and Reductive Bias...................... 141
Evaluation...................................................................... 144
Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 144
Background Information on Exemplars............... 150
Lesson Plan and Reductive Bias.......................... 153
Evaluation...................................................................... 155
Kathy’s Understanding of Works of Art and
Lesson-Planning................................................................... 156
Kathy’s Understanding of Works of A rt 157
Kathy’s Lesson-Planning A b ility ........................ 157
Additional Observations......................................... 158
Moderately Reductive Cases: Case Study Four...................... 159
Introduction to Nancy........................................................... 159
Interview I: Olympia........................................................... 160
Conversation One......................................................... 160
Conversation Two......................................................... 161
Lesson Plan Incorporating Olympia.................... 161
Olympia Interview and Reductive Bias 162
Evaluation...................................................................... 163
Interview II: Prior to Saturday Art Workshop 163
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 163
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 164
Discussion...................................................................... 165
Interview II and Reductive Bias........................ 166
Evaluation...................................................................... 167
x
PR
EVIEW

14. Interview I II : Subsequent to Saturday
Art Workshop.......................................................................... 168
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 168
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 168
Discussion..................................................................... 170
Interview III and Reductive Bias...................... 171
Evaluation..................................................................... 172
Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop.... 173
Background Information on Exemplars............... 178
Lesson Plan and Reductive Bias.......................... 178
Evaluation...................................................................... 180
Nancy’s Understanding of Works of Art and
Lesson-Planning................................................................... 181
Nancy’s Understanding of Works of A rt 181
Nancy’s Lesson-Planning A b ility ........................ 182
Additional Observations......................................... 183
Least Reductive Cases: Case Study Five................................. 184
Introduction to Barbara...................................................... 185
Interview I: Olympia........................................................... 185
Conversation One........................................................ 185
Conversation Two........................................................ 188
Lesson Plan Incorporating Olympia.................... 189
Olympia Interview and Reductive Bias 189
Evaluation...................................................................... 192
Interview II: Prior to Saturday Art Workshop 192
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 192
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 194
Discussion...................................................................... 195
Interview II and Reductive Bias........................ 197
Evaluation...................................................................... 197
Interview I II : Subsequent to Saturday
Art Workshop.......................................................................... 198
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 198
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 201
Discussion...................................................................... 201
Interview I II and Reductive Bias...................... 203
Evaluation................................................................ 204
Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 205
Background Information on Exemplars............... 209
Lesson Plan and Reductive Bias.......................... 213
Evaluation..................................................................... 215
Barbara’s Understanding of Works of Art and
Lesson-Planning................................................................... 215
Barbara’s Understanding of Works of A r t .. .. 216
Barbara’s Lesson-Planning A b ility .................... 217
Additional Observations......................................... 219
Least Reductive Cases: Case Study S i x . . ............................... 219
Introduction to Mary............................................................. 220
Interview I: Olympia........................................................... 220
Conversation One........................................................ 221
Conversation Two........................................................ 224
Lesson Plan Incorporating Olympia..................... 225
xi
PR
EVIEW

15. Olympia Interview and Reductive Bias............. 227
Evaluation...................................................................... 228
Interview II: Prior to Saturday Art Workshop 228
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 228
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 230
Discussion...................................................................... 231
Interview II and Reductive Bias........................ 233
Evaluation..................................................................... 233
Interview III: Subsequent to Saturday
Art Workshop.......................................................................... 233
Selection of Exemplar.............................................. 233
Proposed Lesson Plan................................................ 234
Discussion..................................................................... 235
Interview III and Reductive Bias...................... 236
Evaluation..................................................................... 237
Sample Lesson Plan From Saturday Art Workshop 237
Background Information on Exemplars............... 242
Lesson Plan and Reductive Bias.......................... 246
Evaluation..................................................................... 249
Mary’s Understanding of Works of Art and
Lesson-Planning................................................................... 249
Mary’s Understanding of Works of A rt 249
Mary’s Lesson-Planning A b ility .......................... 250
Additional Observations.......................................... 251
xii
PR
EVIEW

16. LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGE
1. Depth of understandingmodel for visual a r t ........................................ 16
2. Reproductions offered to p articipants in Interview II
and th e ir source.................................................................................................. 52
3. Reproductions offered to p artic ip a n ts in InterviewI I I ................ 53
xiii
PR
EVIEW

17. LIST OF PLATES
PLATES PAGE
I. Marino Marini
Man On Horse (1909)
Oil on paper (measurements unavailable)
Kunsthalle, Hamburg............................................................................ 7
II. Edouard Manet
Olympia (1863)
Oil on canvas, 130.5 cm x 190 cm
Musee D’Orsay, P a r is .......................................................................... 68
III . Romare Bearden
Back Home From Up The Country (1969)
Montage-painting, 50" x 39.75"
Cordier and EkstromGallery, New York....................................... 73
IV. Jean Dubuffet
Leader In A Parade Uniform (1945)
Mixed media (Huile sur Toile), 92cm x 65 cm
Collection Mr. and Mrs. Morton Neumann,Chicago.................. 79
V. A rtis t(s ) unknown
Amenhotep II And His Governess (XVIII Dynasty)
Fresco (measurements unavailable)
Necropolis of Thebes, Egypt........................................................... 96
VI. Pablo Picasso
Girl Before A Mirror (1932)
Oil on canvas, 162.3 cm x 130.2 cm
Museum of Modern Art, New York.................................................... 103
VII. Jacob Lawrence
The Brooklyn Stoop (1967)
Casein on paper, 21” x 16"
Collection of Gwendolyn and Jacob Lawrence............................ 104
VIII. Katsushika Hokusi
The Great Wave (Tokugawa Period, 1823-1829)
Woodblock p rin t, 14 3/4" wide
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston........................................................... 105
xiv
PR
EVIEW

18. 106
107
108
115
116
129
136
145
146
T lin g it People
Chilkat Blanket (c. 1925)
Wild goat’s wood and cedar bark in bright colors
(measurements unavailable)
Southwest Museum, Los Angeles....................................................
John M illais
Ophelia (1852)
Medium not described, 30" x 44"
Tate Gallery, London.......................................................................
A rtis t(s ) unknown
Empress Theodora And Attendants (Byzantine, 547 A.D.)
Apsidal Panel Mosaic, (size unavailable)
Church of San V itale, Ravenna, I t a l y .....................................
T itian (Tiziano Vecelli)
Man With A Glove (c. 1519)
Oil on canvas, 39" x 35"
Louvre, P a r is .......................................................................................
Pablo Picasso
Detail from Guernica (1937)
Oil on canvas, 11’ 5.5" x 25’ 5.25"
Museo del Prado, Madrid
Sergei Eisenstein
S t i l l from B attleship Protemkin (1925)
35 mm film
Russia....................................................................................................
Romare Bearden
Miss Bertha And Mr. Seth (1965)
Collage on board, 25.5" x 18.5"
Private co llectio n , New Jersey ..................................................
Jackson Pollock
Lavender Mist (1950)
Oil, enamel, and aluminum paint/canvas, 7’4" x 9’11"
Collection Alfonso Ossorio, East Hampton, NY....................
Ju-Ran (act. c. 960-980 A.D.)
Buddhist Monastery In Stream And Mountains,
Hanging s c ro ll, Northern Sung Dynasty
Ink on s il k , height 73"
Cleveland Museum of A rt.................................................................
Fan Kuan (act. c. 990-1030 A.D.)
Travelers Amid Mountains And Streams, Hanging Scroll,
Northern Sung Dynasty
Ink on s il k , height 81.25"
National Palace, T aibei.................................................................
xv
PR
EVIEW

19. XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
Xia Gui (c. 1180-1230 A.D.)
Clear And Distant Views Of Streams And Hills,
Handscroll, Southern Sung Dynasty
Ink on s il k , 18.25" x 34’
National Palace, Taibei...................................................................
Xu Ben (d. 1403 A.D.)
Streams And Mountains, Hanging Scroll, Ming Dynasty
Ink on paper, height 26.75"
Mr. and Mrs. A. Dean Perry Collection.......................................
Oiu Ying (act. c. 1522-1560 A.D.)
A Harp Player In A Pavilion, Hanging s c ro ll,
Ming Dynasty
Ink on paper, height 54"
Nelson Gallery-Atkins Museum, Kansas City ............................
Henri Matisse
Icarus (1947), Plate VIII from Jazz, published Paris,
E. Teriade, edition of 270 copies
Pochoir, 16 5/8” x 25 5/8"
Museum of Modern Art, New Y o rk ....................................................
William Henry Johnson
Going To Church (1940-1941)
Oil on burlap, 38 1/8" x 44 1/8"
National Museum of American A rt....................................................
Georges Seurat
Sunday Afternoon On The Island Of The Grande Jatte
(1884-1886)
Oil on Canvas, 81" x 120 3/8"
The Art I n s t i t u t e of Chicago...........................................................
Edvard Munch
The Voice (1893)
Oil on canvas, 35 3/5" x 46 2/3"
Munch Museum, Oslo................................................................................
Andrew Wyeth
C h ristin a’s World (1948)
Tempera, 32.25" x 47.75"
Museum of Modern Art, New York......................................................
Vincent Van Gogh
The Sower With S ettin g Sun (1888)
Oil on canvas, 25.25" x 31.75"
Ri jksmuseum Kroller-Muller, O tterio, The Netherlands-----
PR
EVIEW

20. XXVII. Caspar David Friedrich
C lo ister Graveyards In The Snow (1810)
Medium not described, approx. 47" x 70"
Painting destroyed during World War I I ..................................... 208
XXVIII. Ivan Albright
Into The World There Came A Soul Called Ida (1929-1930)
Oil on canvas, 55" x 46"
The Art I n s titu te of Chicago........................................................... 227
XXIX. Edgar Degas
Dance Foyer At The Opera (1872)
Medium not described, 12.5" x 18"
Louvre, P a ris ........................................................................................... 238
XXX. George Bellows
Stag At Sharkey’s (1907)
Oil on canvas, 36.25" x 48.25"
Cleveland Museum of A rt..................................................................... 239
XXXI. Leroy Neiman
Willie S targell (1980)
Medium not described, measurements unavailable
Location not s ta t e d ............................................................................ 240
xvi i
PR
EVIEW

21. CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Few parents would send th e ir children to schools where teachers lack
understanding of the subjects they teach. I f teachers lack subject matter
understanding themselves, they are unlikely to fo ster i t in students.
However, in te re st in te a c h e rs’ subject matter knowledge is almost non­
ex isten t. The problem has become so severe in recent years, some
researchers have referred to i t as the "missing paradigm problem."
Shulman (1986) defines the missing paradigm as a "blind spot with respect
to content th a t now characterizes most research on teaching" (p. 8).
Instead of focussing on subject matter, the preponderance of
research has concentrated on other issues such as "how teachers manage
th e ir classrooms, organize a c t i v i t i e s , allo cate time and turns, structure
assignments, ascribe praise and blame.. . .and plan lessons" (Shulman, 1986,
p. 8). The majority of such studies focus on how these teacher behaviors
impact student learning.
Individuals outside the realm of teaching research are concerned
th at teachers do not know or understand enough about the content they
teach. Reports such as Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform (1983), suggest th a t decline in the quality of what American
students know may be the re su lt, in part, of teach ers’ deficient knowledge
1
PR
EVIEW

22. 2
and understanding of th e ir content area. The report questions how much
subject matter knowledge and understanding teachers can have when most
come from the "bottom quarter of graduating high school and college
students" (p. 22). Concern is also expressed th a t those who do choose to
become teachers are subjected to teacher preparation curricula which "is
weighted heavily with courses in ‘educational methods’ at the expense of
courses in subjects to be taught" (p. 22).
To remedy th is s itu a tio n , Nation at Risk, together with A Nation
Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (1986), and Tomorrow’s Teachers:
A Report o f the Holmes Group (1986) suggest higher educational standards
for future teachers. These standards would require teachers to
"demonstrate competence in an academic d iscipline" including an in-depth
understanding of subject matter knowledge (NCEE, 1983, p. 30; Carnegie
Report, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986).
As researchers began to study how teachers think about th e ir work,
i t was found th a t teacher subject matter knowledge largely determines what
is taught to students, including how courses are structured, how textbooks
are selected, and how instruction is conducted (Shulman & Grossman, 1987;
Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson, 1989).
Furthermore, what teachers know and understand about content determines
t h e ir a b ility to iso la te key ideas for students and find a lte rn a tiv e
explanations to accommodate classroom d iv ersity (Doyle, 1989; McDiarmid,
Ball, & Anderson, 1989). To accomplish these tasks, teachers must not
only possess a knowledge of fa c ts and concepts, they must also understand
how knowledge is organized within a domain and how ideas may be validated
(Barnes, 1989, p. 17). Considerable evidence suggests many prospective
PR
EVIEW

23. 3
teachers do not possess these understandings (McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson,
1989).
Pre-Service Teachers* Understanding and Teacher Preparation
Often future teachers not only lack knowledge of content, but they
are unfamiliar with the substantive and syntactic stru ctu res of th e ir
d iscip lin e. S pecifically, persons preparing for the teaching profession
often lack basic content knowledge about the major facts and concepts
within th e ir fie ld and how the two are related (Grossman, 1990). Many
prospective teachers cannot define the paradigms th at determine the
organization of knowledge and guide Inquiry within t h e i r chosen fie ld
(Schwab, 1964, 1978; Grossman, 1990). Research suggests these teachers
are unfamiliar with d isc ip lin e syntax which determines the canons of
evidence and standards of proof (Schwab, 1964; Grossman, 1990, p. 6). Yet
the problem of what pre-service teachers understand about a p a rtic u la r
discip lin e is rarely a fa c to r in teacher preparation (McDiarmid, Ball, &
Anderson, 1989).
Many teacher educators see no need to examine prospective te a c h e rs’
subject matter knowledge. They often assume th a t a ll majors within a
sp ecific fie ld possess comparable prior experience, and th a t those majors
who successfully complete university coursework also understand the
content of the courses they have taken (Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989,
p. 24). Recently however, such views have been called into question.
Studies indicate students from in s titu tio n s of higher learning often
manage to successfully complete course work without having attained a
clear understanding of course material (Nickerson, 1985; Perkins &
Simmons, 1988). In addition, course content and course requirements often
PR
EVIEW

24. vary, not only within a single academic major from the same university,
but from in s titu tio n to in s titu tio n . The resu lt is not a homogeneous
understanding of knowledge within sp ecific fie ld s of study, but widely
diverse understandings which re fle c t dissim ilar backgrounds. "These
backgrounds may d iff e r both q u an titativ ely , in the number of units
teachers have taken in a subject, and q u a lita tiv e ly , in the relativ e
coherence of th e ir subject matter coursework" (Grossman, Wilson, &
Shulman, 1989, p. 24). For these reasons, an examination of what
prospective teachers know and understand about the content they will soon
teach is needed.
Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Visual Art
The broad d iv e rsity of prospective teachers’ subject matter
knowledge and understanding may be clearly demonstrated 1n the visual
a rts . Here, background knowledge and experience can vary from emphasis in
studio to focus in a r t history, industrial design, commercial a r t , or
landscape arch itectu re. These sp ecializ atio n s rarely o ffer or require
courses in a esth etic s or a r t criticism . Art history students are seldom
required to take studio courses, and studio majors often discount the
relevance of a r t history. Each of these specializations is narrowly
defined, and each d ire c ts student thinking in p a rtic u la r ways.
Consequently, prospective teachers tend to d iff e r in the way they view
works of a rt and in th e ir understanding of the domain generally.
An example of how background experiences influence what pre-service
teachers consider important about works of a r t may be seen in two excerpts
from interviews conducted with two pre-service teachers. The f i r s t
student, "Ann," is a college senior majoring in a r t education while the
PR
EVIEW