National Art Education Association

An Evaluation of Art Education ProgramsAuthor(s): Philip JamesSource: Art Education, Vol. 27, No. 4/5 (Apr. - May, 1974), pp. 5-7Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3191907 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 17:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:23:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AN EVALUATION

OF ART EDUCATION PROG RAMS

Philip James How well are we doing in art education? Are we accomplishing those objectives that art educators have identified as being important? Are we able to obtain the teaching time, resources, and materials necessary to be successful at our task? Is the elementary classroom teacher as successful at teaching art as the art teacher?

These questions, among others, can often be answered by each teacher as he evaluates his own program. But how would an outside evaluator see the same program? And what would be the picture when the evaluations of many schools are compared?

Maintaining a perspective on the state of art education is a necessity if we are going to be able to plan for the future. A periodic look at the schools is a must if we are going to stay alert to changes being made. While evaluations of secondary schools by accrediting associations benefit those individual districts, a report on the status of all the art programs evaluated is not available. And while state offices of education evaluate school programs, the results are not generally reported.

During the 1972-73 school year, the Illinois Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction made evaluations of the art programs of 102 elementary schools, 84 junior high/middle schools, and 56 senior high schools. Art educators on the college and public school levels acted as evaluators and used a check sheet as an aid in their evaluations of the programs. The evaluations were made primarily to assist in the improvement of each individual school district. However, when the ratings of many districts are compared, some interesting information is obtained. While the results of the evaluators' judgments lack the control and precision of a research study, the information obtained can still be of some value. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the same information in other ways be- cause of the amount of money needed to fund on-site evaluations.

The check sheet the evaluators used had 22 items that were to be rated on a five-point scale from "needs improvement" to "excellent." Items 1 through 13 were traditional art objectives and objectives related to general goals defined by the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The other items dealt with teaching materials, time allotments, inservice train- ing, and similar concerns. The form also asked for written com- ments related to "commendable features of the art program," "areas of concern," and "recommendations." This latter section will not be reported in this article.

A third section of the form provided an indication of who did the art teaching: the classroom teacher, an art teacher with a classroom teacher, or an art teacher.

The evaluations of all the schools were combined. Only one high school art program was conducted by a non-art teacher. The other 55 were taught by art specialists. At the junior

2D-3D skills

Art knowledge

Criticism

Art appreciation

Appreciation of other cultures

Relationships: art-other subjects

Self-expression creativity

Attitudes toward art

Attitudes of adequacy, self worth

Problem solving

Flexibility

Vocational and avocational possibilities

Good citizenship

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

TABLE I Success with objectives,

all teachers.

5

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:23:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

high/middle school (junior high) level, most of the 84 art pro- grams were taught by an art teacher. In 16 other junior high schools, the classroom teacher taught art. In 5 schools, the classroom teacher and the art specialist worked together. At the elementary level, the classroom teacher has total responsi- bility for the art program in 41 out of the 102 programs viewed.

In 35 schools, both the elementary teacher and art specialist taught art. In only 26 schools did the art teacher teach all of the art.

It can be seen, in those schools surveyed, that where art is taught in the high school, it is taught by an art teacher. Most of the junior high programs are headed by an art specialist. In

2D-3D skills

Art knowledge

E I H

E I H

E J H

Criticism

Art appreciation

Appreciation of other cultures

Relationships: art-other subjects

Self-expression creativity

Attitudes toward art

Attitudes of adequacy, self worth

Problem solving

Flexibility

Vocational and avocational possibilities

Good citizenship

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

T hI* m-; i

E

H J H

E H

E

H

H

E

H H

H

E

H

E

H

E

H

E

H

2.5

Curriculum guide E available -

H

Adequate planning E takes place J

H

Time allotment E J -

H -

Students taking art E J , H

Transitions E/J between levels J/H _

Student work E displayed J

H

Teaching materials for art appreciation

Amount and quality of materials

E

H

E J H

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

TABLE III Teaching conditions,

art teachers.

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Classroom

Classroom/art

Art

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

TABLE II Success with objectives,

art teachers.

TABLE IV Inservice program for the

elementary classroom teacher, by teaching responsibility.

4.5

6

I ?

I

I

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:23:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

most of the elementary schools, the elementary classroom teacher either teaches all of the art or has some responsibility for the art program.

How successful were the art teachers and classroom teachers? When the scores of all teachers on each level are taken to- gether, it clearly indicates that high school art programs are generally more successful in achieving the objectives evaluated. The highest mean rating was obtained for the high schools for all objectives except the development of "the rela- tionship between the visual arts and other areas of the cur- riculum." The elementary and junior high levels were similar in their success on all objectives. The only great difference between elementary and junior high was on the objective re- lated to "problem solving and individuality of products." The elementary programs scored considerably lower.

TABLE I How do art teachers on the different levels compare? To find this out, the evaluations of the elementary and junior high programs listed as taught by art teachers only were matched with the scores of the high school programs. The means of the judgments indicate that art teachers on all levels were about equally successful. However, elementary art teachers received top rating for the three levels on 8 of the 12 objectives and tied for highest on two other items. On the remaining three items, the elementary art teachers rated the lowest of three levels. Those items dealt with art appreciation, appreciation of other cultures through art, and vocational and avocational possibilities.

TABLE II What objectives receive the highest ratings for the art teachers? Skills and general art knowledge rate fairly high, but the highest scores are for good citizenship, self-expression and creativity, positive attitudes toward art, and attitudes of adequacy and self-worth. These results may point out the general benefits of art for everyone as contrasted with the type of program that is beneficial to a few talented students.

The portion of the check sheets dealing with time allotments, teaching materials, and similar concerns were also compared. The art teachers on all three levels worked under similar con- ditions in most cases. The greatest difference noted was with the percentage of students taking art. The results reflect the usual pattern of required art in elementary, required or elec- tive art in junior high, and elective art in high school. The time allotment for art was generally considered less than desirable for all three levels with the lowest rating for high school. This is interesting because class time in most high school programs is determined on the basis of Carnegie units. The "availability of teaching materials to support an art appreciation program" received a low rating. This may have reflected a low priority with this objective on the part of teachers, or the non- availability of materials may have inhibited success with the related objective.

TABLE IV

The lowest rated of the 22 items on the check sheet was the one dealing with inservice programs for the elementary classroom teacher. While the classroom teacher is generally given the re- sponsibility for art, this survey reveals a low level of success in teaching, and inadequate inservice opportunities that might improve the classroom teacher's skills or knowledge in art. When the programs taught by the elementary classroom teachers are compared with those using the assistance of art teachers or those taught by art teachers, it points out that the poorest rating for inservice experiences is with those schools placing the total responsibility on the classroom teacher.

In summary, many generalizations can be made. When art teachers do all of the teaching, the programs generally get a high rating. When an art teacher works with elementary class- room teachers, the ratings are higher than those taught by classroom teachers alone. Art appreciation, appreciation of other cultures through art, and vocational and avocational pos- sibilities are not successful parts of most of the art programs that were evaluated. Attitudes toward art, attitudes of adequacy and self-worth, self-expression and creativity, and good citizen- ship are successful aspects of these programs.

Teaching materials for art appreciation are not generally available. This may help to account for the low results of the appreciation objective.

Inservice programs for elementary classroom teachers are practically non-existent in the schools where they need them the most, those relying completely on the classroom teacher. On the basis of this survey, it can be seen that art teachers can be successful at achieving art objectives. They can also improve elementary art programs by accepting part or all of the teaching responsibility.

Philip James is visiting lecturer at Illinois State University, Nor- mal, Illinois.

7

I

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:23:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions