Instructional Styles in Art Education

National Art Education Association

Instructional Styles in Art EducationAuthor(s): James HutchensSource: Art Education, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 20-23Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192905 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 17:18

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 [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192905?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Instructional Styles i n A r t d u c a t i o

In this article .. . Hutchens relates

four orientations to teaching to the

needs of naive and sophisticated art students. "Skill

development requires a dominative

instructional style while creativity and

expressiveness often require an integrative

instructional style. Both are important

for effective art education."

James Hutchens

In this paper, I will describe four hypothetical orientations to instructional styles characterized by dominative and integrative be-

haviors and attempt to align the four instructional styles to descriptions of instructional needs of "naive" and "sophisticated" art students. Finally, I will relate these instructional styles to some prominent teaching models in art education literature. The question of appropriate instructional style to exercise in a teaching situation is made problematic by several conceptions of art education (Efland 1979) that may lead to different ways of teaching the arts. The central question in the teacher's choice of an instructional style is: how much freedom and how much control do I exercise in this teaching situation?

Instructional style is characterized by two dimensions of teaching: dominative behaviors that represent student control and direct influence by the teacher, and integrative behaviors, perceived by students as freedom or indirect influence (Anderson 1939). Dominative behaviors minimize differentiation between a student's art making and perceiving goals and those of the teacher, while integrative behaviors aim to maximize this differentiation.

The concepts of domination and integration often have been couched in other terms, such as authoritarian or democratic (Lewin, Lippitt & White 1967), direct or indirect (Flanders 1967), or traditional or progressive (Westbury & Bellack 1971). Also, teaching models such as those offered by Joyce and Weil (1972), Clark and Zimmerman (1978, 1981), and Efland (1979) also represent relatively unique styles of instruction that can be characterized as either relatively dominative or integrative.

Dominative styles of instruction are characterized by direct influence by the teacher. Direct influence "consists of stating the teacher's opinions or ideas, directing the pupil's action, criticizing his behavior, or justifying the teacher's use of authority" (Silvernail 1979, p. 12). In contrast, integrative styles of instruction "consist of soliciting the opinions or ideas of the pupils, apply- ing or enlarging on those opinions or ideas, praising or encouraging the par- ticipation of pupils, or clarifying or accepting their feelings" (Silvernail p. 12). One marked tendency in research about instructional style has been to view styles of instruction dichotomously. This either-or tendency has been challenged by Dawson (1970) and Hersey and Blanchard (1977), who suggest that dominative and integrative dimensions of instructional style are orthogonal: behavior in one dimension does not preclude behavior in the other. It is possible, in other words, for a teacher to display

both high dominative and high integrative instructional behaviors. Moreover, studies in art education suggest that both dimensions of instructional style may be requisite for leading a student from an entering state of naivete to an exiting state of sophistication at performing art making and ap- preciating tasks. Eisner (1961) has found that a polarized orientation to styles of instruction may lessen teacher effectiveness. He also found that teacher domination resulted in few choices and less cue formation by students although the dominative instructional style assisted students in making better decisions affecting visual problem solutions.

The history of art education includes shifts between instruction that can be characterized as either dominative or integrative. Neither a traditional, teacher-dominated approach to visual arts instruction, as in the late 19th cen- tury, nor a student-centered, integrative approach, as in the progressive era, has proven to be a panacea. In- terest in various professional roles in the visual arts (artists, critics, historians, and aestheticians as role models for art education) (Clark & Zimmerman 1978, 1981) requires both patterns of instructional styles. Skill development requires a dominative instructional style, while creativity and expressiveness often require an integrative instructional style. Both are important for effective art education. Further inquiry into dominative and integrative teaching behaviors may shed light on why neither alone will suffice.

Dominative and Integrative Teaching Behaviors Dominative instructional behaviors are characterized as establishing instructional objectives for students, asking students to follow rules and procedures in accomplishing assigned tasks, and evaluating students according to teacher-determined criteria. Observ-

Art Education January 1985 20



Ui

0 0

CU. U,- CU

(Low) Dominative Behavior - (High)

SS SnS SN SN/NS Ns NSN

(High)

NN

(Low)

Student's level of sophistication

Key: Student's Level of Sophistication (Clark & Zimmerman, 1978, 1981)

NN = Student's Level of Sophistication (Clark & Zimmerman, 1978, 1981)

NsN = Naive state encompassing some germinal understandings

Ns = Decreased naivete and emerging sophistication

NSSn = Relatively unequal naive and sophisticated understandings, knowledge, and skills.

Sn = Sophisticated understandings and skills begin to predominate those that are more naive.

SS = Ideal end state at which students achieve highly sophisticated understandings, knowledge, and skills.

able dominative behaviors include lec- turing, giving directions, justifying authority by making decisions concern-

ing what should be taught, when and how it should be taught, how evaluation should take place, proposing solu-

tions, stating opinions and beliefs, maintaining definite standards of performance, emphasizing the meeting of deadlines, encouraging the use of uniform procedures, and seeing to it that students are working up to capaci- ty (Flanders 1967; Hersey & Blanchard 1977).

The optimum level of domination and its results may vary. Anderson (1939) has noted, for example, that dominative behaviors may result in conflict between student and teacher or domination with evidence of working together. Obviously, the proper or im- proper use of dominative instructional style depends upon the teacher's under- standing of relationships between students and teacher. French and Raven (1968) define authority as the potential ability of one person (teacher) to get another person (student) to behave in a certain way. Authority is therefore potential influence, and teaching inevitably involves the ability to influence students. Several types of authority have been distinguished by their bases of power, but two power bases seem especially useful in the classroom: referent power and expert power.

Referent power has as its basis the identification of a student with his or her art teacher. This identification in- vests the teacher with ability to influence the student because the student's identification with the art teacher leads students to model their beliefs, values, and behavior after those of the teacher.

Some art teachers have been remiss in accepting authority roles that actually form the basis of the ability to teach. Teachers should center on the ability to use authority in a productive manner, rather than believing that the use of authority is antithetical to goals of art education and the nature of creative development. It is possible for students to feel comfortable and secure because of the dominative dimension in instructional style. This occurs when there is domination with evidence of working together, characterized by interdepen- dence rather than conflict.

Integrative behaviors by teachers in- dicate feelings of warmth and trust to the student. Through integrative behaviors, authority is actually transferred by degrees to the student. In an art class, this is characterized by collaborative efforts between students and teacher in establishing objectives, deciding how objectives should be reached, and determining how success

Art Education January 1985

I ._

'C

4 -C

o

._>

0-?

S3 LD/HI (Delegating) S2 HD/HI (Collaborative)

Advanced experiences and Rudimentary experiences and educational encounters based educational encounters based upon student-stated goals. upon teacher's perception of

student needs through col- laboration with student.

S4 LD/LI (Noninterventionist) Sl HD/LI (Directive)

Nonintervention by the Introductory preinstructional teacher. Student is free to and readiness experiences and make choices in problem con- educational encounters based ception and solution. upon the student's needs as

determined by the teacher.

21



is to be measured. In other words, student interests are given greater consideration by the teacher when deciding what to teach, how to teach it, and how learning will be evaluated. Observable integrative behaviors include asking for student opinions, making it possible for all students in the class to make contributions, doing things that make it pleasant to be a member of the class, listening to individual students, sup- porting students in their actions, being willing to make changes, and putting suggestions made by the group into operation (Hersey & Blanchard 1977). Integrative behaviors also help to maintain the class as a viable social group. In the extreme, known as laissez-faire, all decision-making is delegated to students.

As the levels of integrative behaviors vary, results will differ. There may be integration with evidence of student/ teacher conflict or with evidence of working together. Conflict exists when the teacher obstructs goals and wishes of the student. In contrast, working together is characterized by the teacher and students pursuing the same goals or attempting to find a common purpose.

Research evidence indicates that both dominative and integrative dimensions of instructional style play important roles in task accomplishment and goal achievement by students. Amidon and Hough (1967) demonstrated that the integrative dimension is associated with higher incidence of pupil talk and more thought pro- voking questions. They also found that students retained more information when taught by predominantly integrative teachers. Flanders found general support for integrative styles but also reported mixed results. In a study designed to assess the effects of integrative and dominative styles of instruction on reading comprehension, vocabulary, and creativity, Soar (1968) concluded that there was no clear evidence in favor of either style of instruction. He hypothesized that the level of thinking/reasoning required in different learning tasks was related to different levels of integration by the teacher and suggested the existence of an upper limit to the degree of integration associated with pupil gains. No optimum level was found for growth that requires complex and abstract thinking on the part of pupils. In contrast, optimum levels were found only for less complex tasks such as reading comprehension. On the basis of Soar's study, and others, it appears that a single in-

structional style is not appropriate for all learning tasks or pupils.

Four Hypothetical Styles of Instruction For analytical purposes, it is possible to describe four combinations of dominative and integrative instructional behaviors that are perceived by students and others as instructional styles.

Style 1 (S1), high dominative/low integrative (HD/LI), is characterized by a directive method of instruction in which all decision making and authority rest with the teacher. The teacher decides what needs to be learned, appropriate methods for learning information or skills, and methods of evaluation. Motivation for task accomplishment and goal achievement is considered extrinsic to the student. This style therefore, suppresses differences between teacher needs and goals and those of the student. When used inappropriately, Dawson has demonstrated that students view the teacher as auto- cratic and unpleasant. When used appropriately, the teacher may be viewed as having well-defined methods for accomplishing goals and skill development that are helpful to students.

Style 2 (S2), high dominative/high integrative (HD/HI), involves less control by the teacher and more by students and is a collaborative instructional style. Students are permitted to collaborate in decision-making and evaluation processes. When used inappropriately, Dawson demonstrated that the teacher may be viewed as in- itiating more structure than is needed and often is insincere in interpersonal relationships with students. When this style is used appropriately, the teacher is viewed as satisfying needs of students for establishing and accomplishing interesting and helpful objectives and providing high levels of reinforcement.

Style 3 (S3), low domination/high integration (LD/HI), is characterized by a delegating instructional style in which students are permitted to make their own decision concerning what is to be learned and how learning will be accomplished and evaluated. As students assume responsibility for decision-making, the art teacher pro- vides less structure and more psychological stroking and reinforcement. The teacher may provide only necessary resource materials. When this style of instruction is used inappropriately, Dawson suggested that the

teacher may be viewed as interested in preserving a good person image but un- willing or incapable of providing structure and direction needed by students. When the style of instruction is used appropriately, the teacher is viewed as having confidence in student abilities and as concerned with student growth and development through their own expressed needs.

Style 4 (S4), low domination/low integration (LD/LI), is characterized by the laissez-faire or noninterventionist instructional style. All authority and decision-making is transferred to students. This is hypothetically a non- teaching style. Motivation to task accomplishment and goal achievement is considered to be intrinsic to the student. Student spontaneity and self- expression are generally the only objectives of a teacher who utilizes this instructional style. When this style of instruction is used inappropriately, the teacher is viewed as providing too little structure and no teaching where needed by students. If the style is appropriate, the teacher is viewed as appropriately delegating decision-making to students and as providing appropriate psychological stroking or reinforcement as needed by students.

It is possible to view these styles of instruction more systematically. In their model of visual arts education, Clark and Zimmerman (1978, 1981) provide a basis for the application of these instructional styles to the developmental levels of students. Educational encounters can be cited where each of the four styles of instruction may be used appropriately or inappropriately.

Styles of Instruction and the Developmental Levels of Students The appropriate application of the four instructional styles under discus- sion is dependent upon each student's relative level of naivete or sophistication at performing particular tasks associated with the roles of artists, critics, historians, and aestheticians. Descriptions of these four professional role models and tasks required of students at various levels of student sophistication have been reported by Clark and Zimmerman (1978). Only "teacher interventions and educational encounters" (p. 38) are discussed here. Changes from one level of sophistication to another occur on a continuum from low to high in the healthy per- sonality. Hersey and Blanchard have demonstrated that the naive student ex-




hibits passivity, requires coercion to engage in art tasks, is teacher- dependent for decision-making, will not take necessary experimental risks in problem solving, displays shallow and erratic interests in art experiences, displays a short time perspective by not perceiving the sequencing of skills and knowledge from past to future experiences, assumes a subordinate posi- tion in the teacher-student relation- ship, and waits for all decisions to be made by the teacher. Clark and Zim- merman (1978) posit the following descriptor of the naive learner relative to art education:

Naive, uninformed understandings, e.g.; unskilled art work; subjective reactions about art work and works of art based upon psychological reports; uninformed judgments and preference statements that are expressed primarily in private arenas and accompanied by a lack of awareness of works of art in historical context (p. 36).

In contrast, the student possessing the highest level of sophistication at task accomplishment, according to Hersey and Blanchard, generally ex- hibits increased activity with regards to the particular endeavor, independence for decision-making in problem con- ception and solution, takes necessary risks in experimentation to discover solutions to a problem, displays an increased time perspective that includes past experiences and their relevance to future experiences, is capable of self- control, and is aware of self in the ar- ting experience. Similar characteristics generated by Clark and Zimmerman (1978) relative to learning about the visual arts are:

Sophisticated, professional understandings, e.g.; qualitative, exemplary works of the artist, art critic, aesthetician, and art historian; subjective and objective aesthe- tic reactions and interpretive understandings of works of art; skills, knowledge, per- sonal preferences, and objectified judgments expressed both privately and pub- licly and thus subject to external criticism (p. 36).

With these descriptors of observable task-relevant behavior of students we can speculate about alignment of instructional styles to student needs. In Figure 1, possible alignments among instructional style, student development level, and educational encounters are illustrated.

According to Figure 1, the student who displays less sophistication in task accomplishment (NN, NSN, NS) may require a more directive instructional style (HD/LI) and (HD/HI) than the student characterized as higher on the naive/sophisticated continuum. As the student becomes more sophisticated at accomplishing a particular art produc- ing or responding task (Sn, SnS, SS), the art teacher uses fewer dominative behaviors and more integrative behaviors (HD/HI and LD/HI). At the highest level of sophistication (SS), the student is generally teacher- independent, self-motivated, and no longer requires constant direction and reinforcement from the teacher (LD/LI). This level of sophistication is an ideal end-state at which the student displays the behaviors of professional role models of artists, art critics, art historians, and/or aestheticians. Theo- retically, systematic application of the four instructional styles may bring the student to a realm of self-teaching and learning. It is important to remember that task-relevant levels of sophistication refer to particular tasks to be per- formed by a student. For example, a student may become quite sophisticated at drawing with a particular medium, but the teacher may need to revert to more dominative instruction when the student is introduced to new art experiences requiring different skills, for instance sculpture or art criticism. As illustrated in Figure 1, those students possessing either sophisticated or naive levels of ability fall into quadrants 24 or 21 respectively. Interestingly, Dawson has reported that the majority of subjects preferred styles S3 or S2 in this order.

The four styles of instruction just discussed are related to the problem of pedagogical strategies appropriate for the developmental needs of students and for art education. While consider- able advances have been made in ex- plicating content for art education, pedagogical means have received less attention. Clark and Zimmerman's (1981) clarification of the appropriate content based on art as a body of knowledge, and form based on the discipline of education, represents such an advance in the movement toward a discipline of art education. In addition to the need for clarification of form and content, there exists a need for clarification of pedagogical means. The continued testing and evaluation of these means, including the dominative and integrative dimensions of in-

structional styles, is important if art education is to become a respected and basic discipline in education. a

James Hutchens is Assistant Professor of Art Education at The Ohio State University.

References

Amidon, E., & Hough, J. (1967). In- teraction analysis: theory, research and practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Anderson, H. (1939). The measurement of domination and socially integrative behavior in teachers' contacts with children. Child Development, 10(2), 73-89.

Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (1978). A walk in the right direction: a model for visual arts education. Studies in Art Educa- tion, 19 (2), 34-39.

Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (1981). Toward a discipline of art education. Phi Delta Kappan. 63 (1), 303-309.

Dawson, J. (1970). Consideration and in- itiating structure: instructor leadership in- fluencing student performance. East Lans- ing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Human Learning Research Institute.

Efland, A. (1979). Conceptions of teaching in art education. Art Education, 32 (4), 21-33.

Eisner, E. (1961). A paradigm for the anlaysis of visual problem solving. Studies in Art Education, 3 (1), 49-52.

Flanders, N. (1967). Some relationships among teacher influence, pupil attitudes and achievement. In E. Amidon and J. Hough (Eds.), Interaction analysis: theory, research and application. Reading: Mass.: Addison Wesley, 217-242.

Frensh, J. & Raven, B. (1968). The basis of social power. In D. Cartwright and a. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics, research and theory. New York: Harper & Row, 259-269.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). The management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1967). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates". In E. Amidon and J. Hough (Eds.), In- teraction analysis: theory, research and application. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley.

Silvernail, D. (1979). Teaching styles as related to student achievement. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Education Associa- tion.

Soar, R. (1968). Optimum teacher-pupil interaction for pupil growth. Educational Leadership, 26 (8), 275-280.

Westbury, I., & Bellack, A. (1971). Research in classroom processes. New York: Teachers College Press.




Documents

Instructional Styles in Art Education