High quality visual arts education k 8 the student the principa

Seattle Pacific University Digital Commons @ SPU Education Dissertations Education, School of Summer July 7th, 2015 High Quality Visual Arts Education K-8, The Student, The Principal, and The Teacher Patricia A. Hayes Seattle Pacific University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/soe_etd Part of the Art Education Commons, and the Curriculum and Instruction Commons Recommended Citation Hayes, Patricia A., "High Quality Visual Arts Education K-8, The Student, The Principal, and The Teacher" (2015).edu/soe_etd/4 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Education, School of at Digital Commons @ SPU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Education Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ SPU. 1 High Quality Visual Arts Education K-8 The Student, the Principal, and the Teacher Patricia A.

Hayes Seattle Pacific University Table of Contents List of Figures. iv List of Tables. v List of Appendices. vii Abstract Chapter One: Introduction.

2 Current national support. 2 Current national problems. 4 Purpose and significance. 8 Terms and Definitions.

9 Outline of Remainder of the Study. 13 Chapter Two: Review of Literature. 14 HQVAE and the Student. 14 Children’s Growth and Development in Visual Arts.

17 Lowenfeld’s stage theory. 17 Hurwitz and Day (1958-2011). 19 History of discipline-based art education (DBAE) approach. 23 The principal, teacher, and the school.

33 Chapter Three: Research Methodology. 39 Operational Definitions of Variables. 42 Luehrman Analyses Framework. 45 Reliability and validity.

50 Chapter Four: Results. 51 Description of Study Sample. 58 Principals’ data and analyses. 58 iii Research question 3.

62 Teachers’ data and analyses. 65 Principals and Teachers Combined Data and Analysis. 80 Chapter Five: Summary and Discussion. 85 Summary and Interpretations of Key Findings.

86 Theory and Research. 92 Research Questions 2 and 3. 94 Current National Problem Statement and Implications. 95 Threats to Validity and Reliability.

103 iv List of Figures Figure 1. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix. 78   v List of Tables Table 1 School Districts, Level and Model. Total Teachers, Principals, and Student Enrollment.

40   Table 2 Questionnaire parts, question-types, and context. 44   Table 3 Proposed Sample: Districts, Schools, Levels, Teachers, and Principals. 52   Table 4 Final Schools and Participant Sample. 53   Table 5 Cronbach's Alpha Internal Consistency Reliability for Arts Education Attitude Scale, Principals (n = 4).

59   Table 6 Descriptive Statistics: Arts Education Attitude Scale, Principals (n = 6). 60   Table 7 Cronbach's Alpha: Arts Education Attitude Scale, Teachers (n = 44). 63   Table 8 Partial Table of Questions 1-25 Frequencies and Percentages of Teachers. 64   Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations for Arts Education Attitude Scale, Teachers (n = 44).

65   Table 10 Relationship between Art Education Attitude Scale Scores and Art Experience Variables Pearson's Correlation (r), Teachers (n = 44). 66   Table 11 Analysis of Variance Run on Teachers (n = 44) and Attitudinal Questions 1-25. 68   Table 12 Q47 Classroom Teaching Experience K-8 Principal and Teacher (n = 38, 5 skipped). 69   Table 13 Q52 What Is Your Gender? K-8 Principals and Teachers (n = 48, 2 skipped) 69   Table 14 Q49 Content and Grade Level Certifications of Principals and Teachers (n = 50).

70   vi Table 15 Descriptive Statistics for Principals and Teachers (n = 50) Arts Education Attitude Scale. 72   Table 16 Analysis of Variance: Principals and Teachers (n = 50). 74   Table 17 Arts Education Attitude Scale Scores and Art Experience Variables Pearson's Correlation (r) of Teachers Only, and Principal and Teacher Responses. 76   vii List of Appendices Appendix A IRB APPROVAL.

111   Appendix B Arts Education Attitude Scale Survey Instrument. 112   Appendix C Email Sent to Administrators February 19, 2015. 125   Appendix D Email Sent to Principals March 18, 2015. 126   Appendix E Second email sent to principals March 24, 2015.

127   Appendix F Survey Timeline and Response Graph, March 4-April 2, 2015. 128   Appendix G Agreement/Disagreement Table Scores (4) for Each Question 1-25. 129   Appendix H Frequency and Percentages Questions 1-25 of Teachers. 130   Appendix I Descriptive Statistics for Teachers- Arts Education Attitude Scale.

132   Appendix J Principals, Teachers and Principals Pearson’s Correlation (r). 133   Appendix K Table 18- Inter-Item Correlation Matrix- Principals and Teachers. 135   viii Acknowledgements I would like to recognize and acknowledge three disciplines of the mind that kept me going from the start to completion of this educational degree: goal setting, perseverance, and independence. These habits and personal ethics allowed me to pursue, work rigorously, and achieve the discipline, requirements, and final success, independently, to complete this dissertation and doctoral degree.

Both independence and collaborative, moral support are foundational to completing the lengthy research, culminating study, analysis within this dissertation, and the honors of receiving a final degree. Especially important are the seminal, surrounding people I worked with past and present and their connections, or not, to the topics of high quality visual arts education and necessary learning engagement and environments for students K-8. In particular I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the following people for their expertise, encouragement, and patience towards my passion and career, visual arts and high quality teaching. Thank you to my professor and committee chair Dr.

Arthur Ellis for believing in me and assisting with the process of a dissertation and insisting on the quality product of technical writing. Your curricula and instruction in classes expanded and aroused interest in my background historically and internationally on the topic of education. Thank you to Dr. Lumpe for believing in me and encouraging me to stay the course.

Beth Clothier, thank you for editing my work thoroughly and succinctly up until each deadline. My students at Conway K-8, thank you for unknowingly being patient with the struggles I may have been having focusing on two important jobs at once for the past three years. This past year doctoral work may have affected my quality teaching, keeping in mind, I knew the journey would be worth it. ix I would like to thank an amazing teacher and my brilliant, strong friend, Barb Sneva.

Without you’re listening, genuine feedback, and unending support during this journey I may not have met my ever-communicated goals. You reminded me through the rough, arduous times and the celebrations that I would finish this work. I would like to thank my immediate family of five siblings whom I owe my strength and resilience throughout our precious lives together as a close-knit, supportive, and creative family unit. Thank you to my arts-rich, brilliant son Max and my arts-rich, beautiful, smart daughter Ali for allowing me the necessary space to complete the work with their unconditional love, support, and trust that I needed to achieve this goal and get the job done.

They never questioned any possibility of not completing this work and accomplishment on time and on this important topic. I am also very thankful to my friends and colleagues near and far for their interest and consistent “check-ins” at the most necessary and encouraging moments along the way. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the freedoms and opportunities our nation allows for pursuing higher dreams and goals in education and professions. I will use this work and studies to continue to pay forward empowerment, discipline, and disseminate knowledge and experiences to many, many more students, learners, artists, and colleagues.

Abstract High Quality Visual Arts Education K-8 The Student, the Principal, and the Teacher By Patricia A. Hayes The national infrastructure of arts education shows continued rhetorical support, updated visual art standards, attributes in 21st century learning frameworks, and research affirming arts disciplines as a core subject still valued today. Concerns from the past, however, show and continue to portend a cloudy future for visual arts education against high profile national standards and high stakes assessments focused on mathematics, language arts, and science. This study provides four views of visual arts education: (a) current research, advocacy, and national and state standards supporting sustained high-quality visual arts education (HQVAE); (b) a renewed look at the Discipline-Based Art Education (Greer, 1984) approach to curriculum and pedagogy; (c) theoretical support of the art development stages in grades K-8; and (d) current analysis of the relationship between principal and teacher experiences and attitudes as they influence high quality visual arts education in northwest Washington State county schools (Catterall & Peppler, 2007; Winner & Hetland, 2007).

In addition, it is hypothesized that visual arts education correlates with students’ positive educational outcomes including indicators of student capabilities and motivation achievement to support learning across the curriculum (Arts Education Partnership, 2013). Keywords: visual arts education, student outcomes, HQVAE, DBAE 2 Chapter One Introduction According to recent Arts Education Partnership (AEP) announcements, arts initiatives go hand in hand with school improvement and student achievement, providing important advantages to student learning not seen in achievement through standardized tests (AEP, 2013). The arts are considered to be core academic subjects under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Educate America Act: Goals 2000 (Americans for the Arts [AFA], 2013). National Art Standards for K-8 were published in 1994, and include all components of the Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) approach.

Revised PreK-8 visual arts standards were previewed in February 2014 and launched in June 2014 (National Art Education Association [NAEA], 2014). Washington State Arts Standards, Visual Arts were first published in 1994 and more recently revised and published in August 2014 (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction [OSPI], 2015). The State of the States’ AEP Arts Education State Policy Survey (2014) shows that 50 states have adopted the National Art Standards and 45 states require arts instruction in elementary schools (AEP, 2014). The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities’ 2011 review of the condition of arts education included research that lends support to “positive educational outcomes associated with arts-rich schools” (p.

Background Current national support. Arts education advocates cite certain claims and benefits. Facts and figures from Americans for the Arts 2013 showed low socioeconomic status students with high participation and attendance in arts programs have a high school dropout rate of 4% compared to 22% among students with low participation in arts programs (AFA, 2013). When hiring, United States business leaders view creativity as a 3 primary skill (AFA, 2013).

The President’s committee review entitled Reinvesting in Arts Education (2011) claimed that the art educational attributes of creativity and critical thinking skills must continue with coordinated action and common purpose to benefit all schools with a creative and comprehensive education. More recently the President’s Committee’s Turnaround: Arts initiative are testing the power of the arts and seeking to create success in schools through the arts. Turnaround: Arts initiative is a public and private partnership facilitating the arts to boost achievement, motivate learning, and improve school culture (PCAH, 2013). “After years of crouching, arts education is raising its hand again” (Midgette, 2013).

The national curricula for high achieving Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) countries such as Finland, China, and Japan include the arts, aesthetics, and craft as quality education components (Winner, Goldstein, & Vincent-Lancrin, 2013). With academic issues and high stakes testing in the forefront of U. education reform, the Framework for 21st Century Learning urged American policymakers and leaders to include innovation skills encompassing critical thinking and creativity in public schools as tools to drive change (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011). In 2007, art education researchers Winner and Hetland constructed evidence- based analyses identifying art studio habits of mind and thinking dispositions observed in art classes.