The document summarizes a graduate student's research on applying chaos theory to art education pedagogy. It describes two lessons taught to 21 students - a nonlinear, chaos-friendly outsider art lesson and a linear, teacher-directed still life lesson. Students were more engaged and produced higher quality artwork in the nonlinear lesson based on Likert scale assessments, instructor observations, and artifact analysis. Case studies of four students who performed better in one lesson or the other provide additional context. The student hypothesized that integrating chaos theory and neurodiversity would increase student engagement and creativity, which the study provided statistical support for.

1. Chaos in the art room
The journey
of a curious
graduate
student, and
her
penchant for
chaos

2. It all began by asking the
question,
“What is the value of the
aesthetic experience of making
art?”
Munson
Bird
yana
“Oh,
dear!”
“… down went Alice after it, never
once considering how in the world
she was to get out again.”

3. I read and I read, and I drank them all in.
“What,” you may ask, “is my answer, then?”
The value of the aesthetic experience of making art is in the
process. It requires us to be present, intentional, focused and
fully alive. By engaging and reckoning with our material world,
we are expressly human, yet also communing with the Divine
in the act of creation. It is mutual capture: the artist capturing
life, as she, too, is captured.
Early Brainstorming
Session
Alice came to a fork in the road. “Which way do I
go?” Alice asked. “That depends on where you
want to go,” said the cat. “I don’t exactly know,”
said Alice. “Then it doesn’t matter.” said the cat.

4. “Have I gone mad?”
Asked Alice.
“I’m afraid so, but let
me tell you
something, the best
people usually are.”
• The science of unpredictability
• Applies to complex (non-linear) systems
• Weather systems (Edward Lorenz asked, “Does the flap of a
butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?”), the
brain, epidemics, crowds, making art!
• Patterns and predictable behaviors
• Outcome is unpredictable
• Properties of Chaos
• Initial Conditions – minute conditions/factors yield dramatic
differences upon the outcome
• Interconnectedness (networking, ecosystems), transition
between order and disorder
• Emergent Properties
• Tolerance for Randomness
• Feedback Loops
• Self-Organization –self-directed
• Steering a hot air balloon
“How do
you mean?”
“What exactly is chaos theory?”

5. “How can I apply chaos theory to art education?”
• Unpredictability – The art room is unpredictable!
• The art room is a complex system, making art is a dynamic process!
• Patterns– how materials are used, learner tendencies, routines, artist’s
block, flowing in the zone – all patterns in chaos!
• Properties of Chaos
• Initial Conditions – (Neurodiversity!) the students, personalities, strengths
and weaknesses, the environment, the lesson
• Emergent Properties – unexpected happenings, happy little accidents,
tangents
• Tolerance for Randomness – following a new direction, student led inquiry,
being open to change, flexibility
• Feedback Loops – from the students, from the materials, from the world
(news, happenings, events, etc.)
• Self-Organization –self-directed learning, autonomy, stability
• Creativity – the chaotic state of creative problem solving and subsequent
self-organization (divergent -> convergent thinking)

6. What is my hypothesis?
Integrating chaos theory and neurodiversity in the pedagogy and curriculum will
increase student engagement and creativity.
What is being measured?
How can we know they’re learning…authentically?
• Emotional and Behavioral indicators
• Engagement v. Disaffection
• Quality of artwork
• Creativity
What is the design?
Two lessons were taught. First a non-linear,
chaos friendly art lesson. Then, a linear,
teacher directed lesson. Engagement,
creativity, and preference were assessed
during both lessons.
The chief difficulty
Alice found at first
was in managing
her flamingo.

7. Evaluation
Quasi-Experimental, Mixed-Methods Research
The Quantitative Data
• Fig. 1 -Students were given a pre and post Likert scale
assessment of the two lessons.
Adapted from Schibeci, R.A., (2006)
• Fig. 2 – Semantic Differential Assessment. Instructors
observed and evaluated students to assess their level
of engagement or disaffection in both lessons.
Adapted from Skinner, et al. (2010)
• Fig. 3 - Artwork was evaluated (using semantic
differential) on the basis of Composition (Es&Ps),
Aesthetics, Craftsmanship, and Content Originality.
Adapted from Candy, L., and Bilda, Z. (2009)
Figure 1
Figure 3 Figure 2

8. Qualitative Evaluation
Fig. 4
The students wrote a final comparative evaluation of the
two lessons. They chose which they preferred and
explained why.
The questions asked:
• Which art lesson did you prefer and
why?
• What did you like about the lesson your
preferred?
• Which of your artworks do you like
better? Why?
• Which of your artworks do you think is
more creative?

9. The Subjects:
21 Students in an 8th grade high
school credit art class
L1 = Non-Linear, Chaos
Friendly Outsider Art
Lesson
• Outsider Artists
• History of genre
• Exemplar artists
• Focus on self
expression
• Choice of exemplar artist
• Choice of materials
• Choice of technique
• Include something that
represents self
Judith Scott
Gilles Trehin
Howard Finster
Joseph Yoakum
“No, no! The adventures
first, explanations take
such a dreadful time.”

10. L1
Artwork

12. L2 Artwork
• Linear – teacher
directed
1. Subtractive
Drawing
2. Underpainting
3. Full color
painting
• Focus on Value
1.
2.
3.
Mr. Skeletony Bones

13. 45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
L1 Engagement V
Disaffection
L2 Engagement V
Disaffection
Engagement V. Disaffection
Students, on average, scored higher (more engaged) during the
Non-Linear lesson (L1). There was an average decrease in
engagement from L1 to L2 of 16%. Hudson, Leanna, and
Hannah’s scores increased from L1 to L2. Gabby and Stevie’s
scores remained the same.

14. Artifact Analysis
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Caroline
Becca
Vanessa
Casey
Ryan
Hudson
Spencer
Leanna
Averi
Angelica
Katy
Amanda
Hannah
Gabrielle
Megan
Alena
Natalie
Avianah
Lisa
Christina
Stevie
Average
L1 Artifact Analysis
L2 Artifact Analysis
Students, on average, created higher quality artwork during the Non-Linear lesson
(L1). There was an average decrease in artwork quality from L1 to L2 of 9%. Five
students’ scores increased from L1 to L2. Two students showed significant
increase: Hudson and Hanna. Gabby’s scores stayed the same.

15. Engagement v. Disaffection
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test shows significance for
both sets at .05.
Artifact Analysis
The hypothesis, that non-linear methods increase student engagement and work
quality is statistically supported in this experiment.

16. Case Studies
Students performing better during the LINEAR lesson (L2)
#13 Hannah, F – Linear Preference
9pt. (29%) increase in engagement, 14pt. (48% increase in work quality
Lesson 1
Engagement/Disaffection – 31
Art Analysis - 29
Lesson 2
Engagement/Disaffection – 40
Art Analysis - 43
1. Which art lesson did you prefer? Why?
The still life skeleton lesson because I enjoy painting.
2. What did you like about that lesson?
Using all the different colors and testing out the
shading/shades.
3. Which of your artworks do you like better? Why?
My skeleton painting because it looks neater and more put
together.
4. Which of the artworks do you think is more
creative?
The outsider art because everyone got to go their own
#13 Hudson, M – Non-Linear Preference
2 pt. (5%) increase in engagement, 12 pt. (33%) increase in work quality
Lesson 1
Lesson 2
Engagement/Disaffection – 38
Engagement/Disaffection – 40
Art Analysis - 36
Art Analysis - 48
1. Which art lesson did you prefer? Why?
I preferred the lesson on outsider art because I found it
interesting to learn about people who had made art without
any formal training.
2. What did you like about that lesson?
Afterwards when doing the project we had much more free
reign over what supplies to use. We were able to choose
our own mediums.
3. Which of your artworks do you like better? Why?
I prefer my outsider art project because of my use of color. I
enjoyed mixing together new shades given the colors I had.
4. Which of the artworks do you think is more creative?
I think my outsider art is more creative because of my
colors.

17. Case Studies
Students performing better during the NON-LINEAR lesson (L1)
#5 Ryan, M – Non-Linear Preference
Lesson 1
Engagement/Disaffection – 40
Art Analysis - 39 Lesson 2
Engagement/Disaffection – 21
Art Analysis - 30
#1 Caroline, F – Non-Linear Preference
1. Which art lesson did you prefer? Why?
I preferred the outsider art lesson because I like having more
freedom in art and it was a lot more exciting to create.
2. What did you like about that lesson?
For the project I did I had mostly total artistic freedom.
3. Which of your artworks do you like better? Why?
The outsider art, because I had fun making it and it can be
interpreted many different ways.
4. Which of the artworks do you think is more creative?
The outsider art, because with the realism lesson, you have
to follow what you’re making.
Lesson 1
Engagement/Disaffection – 38
Art Analysis - 40
Lesson 2
Engagement/Disaffection – 23
Art Analysis - 35
1. Which art lesson did you prefer? Why?
I preferred the outsider art lesson because it gave me more
freedom to do what made me happy.
2. What did you like about that lesson?
It allowed us to explore different styles and artists and
materials, we could do what spoke to us. We were allowed to
do our own form of beauty.
3. Which of your artworks do you like better? Why?
I liked my outsider art project better because messing up could
always be formed into something better because it was my
idea, no one else’s. 4. Which of the artworks do you think is
more creative?
The outsider art because there was no set limitations such as
proportions and values and position.
47.5% decrease in engagement, 23.1% decrease in work
quality
39.5% decrease in engagement, 12.5% decrease in work quality

18. Case Studies
Two students who performed better during the NON-LINEAR lesson (L1)
#4 Casey, F– Non-Linear Preference
Lesson 1
Engagement/Disaffection – 40
Art Analysis - 39
Lesson 2
Engagement/Disaffection – 29
Art Analysis - 35
#15 Megan, F – Non-Linear Preference
1. Which art lesson did you prefer? Why?
I prefer the outsider because it was better.
2. What did you like about that lesson?
I liked that everyone had a different pattern or color in their
projects.
3. Which of your artworks do you like better? Why?
I like the outsider art more because it was more me.
4. Which of the artworks do you think is more creative?
I think both of them were very creative and I like how
everybody’s will turn out different.
Lesson 1
Engagement/Disaffection – 39
Art Analysis - 35
Lesson 2
Engagement/Disaffection – 29
Art Analysis - 31
1. Which art lesson did you prefer? Why?
I preferred the outsider art lesson. I think that I got more
freedom in that project and I just overall liked it better.
2. What did you like about that lesson?
I liked how we got to be creative with our project and none of
us had the exact same idea.
3. Which of your artworks do you like better? Why?
I liked my outsider artwork better. It has more color to it and I
like how it turned out better.
4. Which of the artworks do you think is more creative?
I definitely think my outsider art is more creative. My realism
art is based off of a picture, which is fine, but I think my
outsider art is more creative because it was non-objective.
27.5% decrease in engagement, 10.3% decrease in work
quality
25.6% decrease in engagement, 11.4% decrease in work quality

19. < Non-Linear Preference
Linear Preference >
Post-Test Narrative
Assessment
Wordles
“Begin at the beginning," the King said,
very gravely, "and go on till you come
to the end: then stop.”

20. Is there a relationship between the level of student engagement and the
quality of artwork?
According to my research data, there is a moderate positive correlation between quality of
artwork and student engagement.
X= engagement v. disaffection scores
Result Details & Calculation Y= artifact analysis scores
X Values
Σ = 1326
Mean = 31.571
Σ(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 1700.286
Y Values
Σ = 1426
Mean = 33.952
Σ(Y - My)2 = SSy = 1613.905
X and Y Combined
N = 42
Σ(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 927.143
R Calculation
r = Σ((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 927.143 / √((1700.286)(1613.905)) = 0.5597
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.5597
The value of R is 0.5597. This is a moderate positive correlation,
which means there is a tendency for high X variable scores go
with high Y variable scores (and vice versa).
The value of R2, the coefficient of determination, is 0.3133.
http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/pearson/Default2.aspx

21. CHAOS!
with special education classes
“WHO'S BEEN PAINTING MY ROSES
RED? Someone will lose their head!”

22. “I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different
person then.”