What Did They Say? A Content Analysis of Art Education, 1948-1984

National Art Education Association

What Did They Say? A Content Analysis of Art Education, 1948-1984Author(s): Elizabeth Ann ShumakerSource: Art Education, Vol. 39, No. 6 (Nov., 1986), pp. 37-44Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192974 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:00

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 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192974?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


TIME-LINE INFORMATION Presidents, NAEA Executive Director Editor

Ziegfeld None De Francesco Goss None De Francesco

1954* Dix None Arends Ivan Johnson None Arends

1959 Reid Hastie Beelke Beelke Robertson Beelke Beelke

192 * Halvorsen Beelke Beelke

Mattil Dorn Dorn

1965 Beelke Dorn Dorn * Ebken Dorn Dorn

1968 Bealmer Dorn Dorn

1971 Hoffa Mahlmann Mahlmann Lockhart Mahlmann Mahlmann

1975 Dorn Mahlmann Mahlmann Mahlmann

1978 Eisner Mahlmann Mahlmann K. Anderson Mahlmann Mahlmann

1980 Feldman Mahlmann Mahlmann T. Anderson Dobbs

1982 * MacGregor Cannon Dobbs

1984 MacGregor Hatfield Clark Curtis Hatfield Clark

* Women presidents of the National Art Education Association

Table 1. A table listing all Presidents, Executives of the NAEA and Editors of The Journal of Art Education by representative sample years.

What Did They Say? A Content Analysis of Art

Education, 1948-1984 Elizabeth Ann Shumaker

Aquantified content analysis of the journal, Art Educa- tion, will be presented using representative years and a

general outline of the intent, content, context, and format of the magazine. This paper offers a framework for specific study of individual issues of other art education publications.

Separately, the approach of the his- torian (Erickson, 1984), communication approach of the media analyst (Schramm & Roberts, 1971), and a theoretical approach of the art educator do not adequately describe the enormous global content of Art Education. To adequately describe the journal, more is needed than a simple

November 1986

I

Art Education 37



KEY CATEGORIES OF ART EDUCATION ARTICLES BASED ON COMMUNICATION MODELS WHY HOW philosophy of communicating about art sociology of communication theory politics of communication instruments psychology of channels of communication economics of communication technology ...................................... . .system s

WHO artist artist/teacher art teacher classroom teacher museum educator art education professor art teacher trainer women in art

WHAT content of art art criticism art history aesthetics education art in the environment content of art education case reports

TO WHOM pre-school student elementary student junior high student high school student gifted and talented college student women in art adult student handicapped student teacher trainee administrative trainee supervisory trainee

HOW curriculum theory curriculum models curriculum diagrams instructional units lesson plans praxis technique use of art materials

EFFECT evaluation of art worc evaluation of programs evaluation of teachers testing of students' knowledge testing of student preferences surveys survey of teacher attitudes survey of community attitudes attitude formation

WHEN history of art history of art education historical contexts history of associations past present future

WHERE geographical setting institutional setting school setting classroom setting ......................................

OTHER 1 advocacy public relations descriptive politics survival

OTHER 2 dialogue opinion editorials opinion-letters poetry poetic prose humor

Table 2. A combined list of the Lasswell communication theory together with a list of subjects written about in The Journal of Art Education.

history, compilation of publication details, or theory from art educators. Therefore, the question was asked: How can I invent a method to present a quantified content analysis of Art Education? In addition, I asked, what is the relationship between the editorial organization of the magazine and the NAEA? To answer, the essays, a time

line, and publication details were studied, using twelve years as a representative sample. General Publication Information

First, in order to arrive at a broad outline of the scope of general publication information in Art Education, issues from 1948 through 1984 were scanned visually. Wide variations in format, content, total pages, quantities of visuals, and kinds of graphics were immediately apparent. For this paper, quantities of essays, visuals, advertisements, and association news are reported as general publication information. The information is presented in bar graphs for totals in selected years from 1948 through 1984 (see Figure 1).

Second, in order to group issue years, it was necessary to reconstruct staff and publication organization. From scant organizational information found in the journal, a time line was made relying on editorial data.

It was then possible to delineate characteristics of several periods in the life of the publication. These classifi- cations are verified by parallel changes in editors, NAEA presidents, staff, boards, NAEA organization, and trends in art education. A representative sample of issue years was selected as 1950, 1954, 1959, 1962, 1968, 1971, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1982, and 1984. The complete number of issues presented by the NAEA through 1984 has been 300. The journal has evolved from a four-page association newsletter (four times a year) to a fifty- page journal (nine times a year, eight times a year, and in 1984, six times a year). These selected years were based on divisions of time and editorships:

De Francesco: 1948-1953 Arends: 1953-1956 Mahoney: 1956-1957 Beelke: 1957-1962 Dorn: 1962-1970 Mahlmann: 1970-1981 Dobbs: 1981-1983 and Clark: 1983-1986

The representative sample, based on changes in NAEA editorial organization, reveals general publication information telling only part of the story. The specific content of each of the three hundred issues tells the rest. Essay Content Analysis Specific content from individual issues was sought. Three bibliographies have been published (Luca, 1975; White,

Art Education November 1986 38



1977; Gunter, 1978) that are not adequate because titles of articles do not always describe the content. Re- taining qualities of a newsletter, Art Education has evolved, over a period of thirty-six years, into a collection of essays that is a major part of art education literature. Content of association news in the journal could be the subject of another historical study: here, only the quantity of news is reported.

Hamblen (1984) has outlined major trends treated in Art Education as an indication of art education history. Each issue, however, contained essays other than those pointed out by Ham- blen: a theoretical basis for categorization of the essays was needed. Several art educators have attempted to classify art education content for curriculum purposes. Efland's papers about curriculum (1979, 1983, 1984), curriculum structures by Feldman (1979) and Kuhn (1984), the Penn State papers (Mattil, 1966), an editorial by Clark (1984), and an article by Russell (1982) gave clues to the global scope of art education. A global categorization system was developed based on Lass- well's (1948) classic communication model. The Lasswell Formula is Who, Says What, In Which Channel, To Whom, With What Effect? This model has been enlarged upon to include In What Situation and With What Immediate Response? Forsdale (1955) suggests that Lasswell Formula can be shifted to purposes of education without distortion, a view shared by Havelock (1971). Using a systems approach, Ruben and Kim (1975) made variations on the Lasswell Formula. An expanded version can be: Why, Who, Says What, In Which Channel (How), To Whom, With What Effect, When, and Where?

Communication models like this have been used in education (Havelock, 1971; Heinich, 1982; Schramm & Roberts, 1971), but only rarely in art education. The Penn State papers (Mattil, 1966) begins by using a portion of the Lasswell Formula. Nevertheless, the Lasswell Formula seemed too simplistic to categorize writing about a complex field such as art education. Therefore, a Key using terminology more common to art education was constructed. A system for clarifying essays was developed by combining a list of art education topics

ADVERTISEMENTS

ESSAYS NEWS

1950's

1960's

1970's

1980's

TWELVE I YEAR

AVERAGE

GRAPHICS art schools

41 28 4

41

53

62

15 17

5 13

1 15

49 12 12

book reviews, supplies instructional equipment materials

3 9

4 12

2 19

6 10

4 13

15

11

8

6

10

PERCENTAGES of COLUMNS, PUBLICATION DETAILS from twelve sample years THE JOURNAL OF ART EDUCATION: 1948-1984

Table 3.

CATEGORIES based on LASSWELL Formula to

COLUMNS why who what whom how effect when where other

Raw 1130 695 1980 740 1025 370 370 560 440 Totals

Percentage of 15.5 9.5 27 10 14 5 5 7.5 6

Essays

COLUMNS of ESSAYS: Twelve sample years THE JOURNAL OF ART EDUCATION, 1948-1984

An Interpretation

Table 4.

with an expanded model from commu- nications. Methodology

Each column for every issue of the twelve representative years was tallied to compile publication details. Those tallies are reported as bar graphs and by percentages. Essays were interpreted by two descriptors from the Key headings, then reported on scattergrams. Both the two descriptor scattergrams and individual categories demonstrate general trends in content of the essays. Data about content of the essays, general publication information, and a time line of NAEA organization directly affecting Art Education are cornerstones toward building content analysis of the journal. Report of the Data

General observations about the data can be developed from the graphs, charts, and tables compiled by counting each issue's pages and columns from the twelve representative years (see Table 3).

Art Education November 1986

I a I I

39



GENERAL PUBLICATION DETAILS

100.

90. 80. 70. 60. 50.

N 40 N U 30. M B 20. E 10_ R S 01

V 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 55 6 7 7 7 8 8 ye 50 45 S 8 I 8 0 2 4

ESSAYS

250. 200.

C 0 L U M N S

_ m

1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 9999 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 years 049258158024

NEWS associations

-1T- hLm-m I 1 99 1 1 1 1

~ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 y^ers 0 4 9 2 5 8 * 5 8 0 2 4 049258158024

ADVERTISEMENTS

book reviews, Instructional materials

C 0 L U M N S

250, 200, 150.

100.

50. __r- I .-H- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 999999999999 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 years 0 4 9 2 5 8 15 8 0 2 4

VISUALS art work, graphics, photographs

250. 200. 150.

100. 50.

r--

--, .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 55 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 years 049258158024

ADVERTISEMENTS

supplies, equipment

C 0 L U M N S

200_

150, 100_

50_

O

' '- ----- -

99999999999 * I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1

5 5 6 6 7 7 788 8 years 49 2 581 5 8 024

ADVERTISEMENTS

art schools, colleges

C

U M N S

550.

500.

450.

400.

350.

300.

250,

200.

150.

100.

50.

0 r

I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 9 99 9 9 99999

5 6 6 8 7 7 8 8 8 r 0 4 9 2 5 8 1 5 0 2 4

ESSAYS

I add one zero for column inches I

Figure 1. General publication details of The Journal of Art Education.


2

C

L U M N S

150. 100.

50 0

250. 200. 150. 100.

50. 0.

C 0

tu M N S

I

il I - -

U V I et vf

L

mm k m1

-

,Ira

-f

-I..

40



60

50

40

30 P A G 20 E S

10

0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 0 4 9 2 5 8 1 5 8 0 2 4

Average Pages per Issue

Figure 2. The Journal of Art Education

The most substantial changes have been in quantities of essays and amount of NAEA news. The numbers and columns of essays per issue has grown steadily from 20 columns in 1954 to as many as 90 columns in 1984. NAEA news grew from as few as three columns in 1954 to as many as 25 columns in the early 1960's, then de- creased to as little as zero in the 1980's. Many photographs, art work, and graphics have been used in all the journals. Black and white photographs were used until the early sixties, when more elaborate art work was done. In the middle sixties, art reproductions and color photographs were presented. In the early seventies, graphic designers were listed on the editorial staff, and their work was quite colorful, but not

always appropriate. The journal returned to the use of black and white photographs in the early eighties. The average pages per issue increased from four in 1948, 22 in 1954, 28 in 1959, 30 in 1962, and 50 in 1965. There was a decrease to 40 pages in 1975 and 32 pages in 1978 before increasing again to 48 pages in 1982 and 1984. An estimated 11,000 columns of essays were printed in the 36 years from 1948 to 1984. When quantified by two descriptors found on the Key, the content of the essays shows a wide variety of emphasis (see Figure 3). However, when compiled by percentages over decades and larger time spans, the journal seems to have balanced columns of essays as follows: Why, 15 z V%; Who, 9/2 %; What,

27%; To Whom, 10%; How, 14%; Effect, 5 %; Where, 7 2 %; and Other, 6%. By individual years or by individual issues, the percentages fluc- tuate widely.

Quantification of subject content is difficult, and the difficulty is compounded because certain issues had guest editors who collected articles about a single topic. The journal's 300 issues should be analyzed individually: such a count is beyond the limits of this paper, but could be done with instruments invented for this study. Twelve issue years, one third of the total, offer a clear outline of content of essays at an interpretive level. The data should be verified to a higher validity by more than one individual, perhaps a corroborative panel. The data, in a


years

I

13

41



- !. I I I

r I I I I

why who what to whom how 00 when ? where effect other

why who what to whom how ?

when where effect other

why who what to whom how 4

when where effect other

why who what to whom how when o where effect other

why who what to whom how when o

effect other

why who what to whom

other

I I I -

I I I I I

u O J D 2 z E U 0 z^ D S Z


why who what to whom how t when ' where effect other

why who what to whom how 0 when where effect other

why who what to whom how when where effect other

why who what to whom how when where effect other

why who what to whom how v- when where effect other

why who what to whom how when O where effect other

- I I i I I I I

Figure 3. Distribution of essay content according to Key in The Journal of Art Education. Horizontal layout.

I 1"' i T

42



ttl o m

mi Z H C H o

?* * WHY

WHO

eeeee e*- a @ * * *--- WHAT

-c- *c*o ee TO WHOM

.g.** * ***-ee

e* ~ ~ * HOW

* .

EFFECT

WHEN

WHERE

00'0.0 ? "'..~OTHER OTHER

Figure 4. A scattergram showing the frequency of essays counted by two descriptors in the Lasswell Formula. Each dot indicates 50 columns rounded off to the nearest 50. From The Journal of Art Education, twelve representative years: 1948-1984.

temporal context, reveals information about quantities that are in a pattern of growth, decline, and a return to former levels. Discussion

If the intent of Art Education is to strengthen and improve art teaching at all levels, the expanded communication model should provide a series of questions answered by essays found in the journal (De Francesco, 1948; Beelke, 1963). Some examples can be reported in a chronology, to include intent and content.

In 1949, the question "Who teaches art?" was answered by three essays concerned with training art teachers. Two essays answered the question "Why have art teachers?" One essay answered "What should be taught?" and one article suggested a "happy medium" for instruction between talk- ing about and making art.

In 1954, questions about "how" were concerned with art supervision, curriculum, placing art in the educa- tional curriculum, art teacher training, and individual reports of implemen-

tation. According to Johnson (1975), art teachers and art supervisors dominated the association during this time.

In 1957, when Beelke assumed the editorship, some of the issues were concerned with "Who shall teach art?" and this continued into the 1960's, along with other concerns re- lating to teacher recruitment.

While Dorn was editor, the "what" question was answered most of all as what (art) should be taught about?" The new developing involvement of the


I ,

43



Federal government in curriculum pro- jects was the subject of many articles. Many of the issues of the late sixties are remembered as attractive and colorful.

Quantities while Mahlmann was editor were mixed. For reasons un- determined, quantities of answers in essays wavered and declined. Quantities of advertisements also wavered and declined, especially for instructional materials. During the eleven years Mahlmann was editor, the categorical thrust of the questions being answered was diffused.

While Dobbs was editor, "Why have art teaching?" seemed very important; quantities in that category skyrocketed. Dobbs was the first editor elected who was not a National Art Education Association officer.

Continuing with that editorial organization, Clark has been editor through 1986, answering "What is taught?" more than any other category. In the early 1980's, art teacher oversupply, cutbacks, and career alternatives are implied with advocacy and related topics. Humor appeared in the journal for the .first time.

Based on quantified, historical data, some observations about publication of Art Education are possible. The journal has varied widely from its beginning as an association publication. It experienced steady growth, peaking around 1968 as a 40- page publication. Changes in publication quantities are parallel to changes in editors and organizations of the editorship. In some instances, changes in editorial board organization are parallel to visible changes in the journal.

The journal has no evidence of long range planning or consistency in its intent. Without a conceptual framework, the content of Art Education has not been clear. It has meandered from subject to subject throughout its history, emphasizing areas not always responsive to a majority of the NAEA membership. Without some conceptual framework by which to balance the content of Art Education, it is not possible to monitor the publication either in quantity or subjects.

For the purposes of analyzing Art Education, the Key proposed in this article and instruments derived from the Key are appropriate to classify

contents of the publication. Other instruments invented for the paper adequately measure quantities of publication details. Some categories of the Key have been ignored, creating gaps in the literature as well as weak- nesses in the teaching field. With What Effect, the evaluation category, for example, is not strong in quantity. It is encouraging to note that association leadership by Feldman, Hatfield, MacGregor, and Curtis is sensitive to recent inadequacies of the journal and has taken steps toward its improvement. One step is restructuring of the editorship and editorial board. Another step, addition of a curriculum oriented instructional resource insert, is an example of acts taken to upgrade the appearance, quality, and quantity of the publication (Clark, 1985).

If positive directions are to continue, mistakes of the past should be avoided. Failure of the membership and leadership of the association to closely monitor the publication will certainly result in an imbalance of content. Restated positively, yearly evaluation of the publication by NAEA can lead to more effective uses, if the leadership is willing to accept and act upon such as assessment. Conclusions and Recommendations

Quantified study of 36 years of Art Education reveals development of a field of art teaching at all levels and of ideas and people that are in the field. To say that quantities have been incon- sistent, some essay categories have been neglected, the perceived needs of all art teachers have not been met fully, and that advertising has not always fit the objectives of the journal is not to diminish positive aspects of the history of the journal, 1948 through 1984. Not to monitor the content in the present is a greater mistake than any committed thus far.

Because this interpretive quantification indicates inconsistencies of balance in essay content, an effort to remedy the imbalance is suggested. At- tractiveness of the publication, if monies are available, could be improved by addition of more color and visually interesting layout useful to the readership. To insure a balance in general publication details, a yearly evaluation by quantified data gathering could be submitted to the appropriate editorial structure of the NAEA. This study includes one-third

of the total magazine publication: the other two-thirds could be studied as well.

Elizabeth Ann Shumaker is presently a graduate student at The Ohio State University. She has been a teacher at Marion Catholic High School in Marion, Ohio.

References Beelke, R. (1963). Towards professional

maturity. Art Education, 16(7), 4-10. Clark, G. (1984). Editorial. Art Education, 37

(3), 4. Clark, G. (1985). New beginnings. Art

Education, 38 (5), 4. De Francesco, I. (1948). Editorial. Art

Education, I(1), 2. Efland, A. (1979). Conceptions of teaching in

art education. Art Education, 32 (6), 21-26, 28, 30-33.

Efland, A. (1984). Curriculum concepts of the Penn State seminar. Studies in Art Education, 25 (4), 205-211.

Efland, A. (1983). Curriculum inquiry in art education: a models approach. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University.

Erickson, M. (1984). Styles of historical inves- tigation. Studies in Art Education, 26(2), 121- 124.

Feldman, E. (1979). Varieties of art curriculum. In Engel, M. & Hausman, J. (Eds.) Curriculum and instruction in arts and aesthetic education. St. Louis: CEMREL.

Forsdale, L. (1955). Helping students observe processes of communication. Columbia Teachers College Record, 57(2), 120-128.

Gunter, M. (1978). Index to "Art Education": 1961-1967. Art Education, 30 (3), 30-36.

Hamblen, K. (1985). An art education chronology: A process of selection and interpretation. Studies in Art Education, 28 (2), 111-119.

Havelock, R. (1971). Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor: The Univ. of Michigan.

Heinich, R., Molenda, M. & Russell, J. (1982). Instructional media. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson, I. (1975). Professionalism. Art Education, 28 (5), 25.

Kuhn, M. (1984). Restructuring the future of art education curricula. Studies in Art Education, 25 (4), 271-275, 281.

Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In Schramm, W. & Roberts, D. (1971). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana, Illinois: Univ. of Illinois.

Luca, M. (1975). Art education index: 1968- 1974. Art Education, 27 (4), 23-30.

Mattil, E. (1966). A seminar in art education for research and curriculum. University Park: The Pennsylvania State Univ.

Ruben, B. & Kim, J. (1975). General systems theory and human communication. Rochelle Park, N.J.: Hayden Book.

Russell, C. (1982). A content analysis for classroom use. Art Education, 35 (1), 15.

Schramm, W. & Roberts, D. (1971). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana, Illinois: Univ. of Illinois Press.

White, D. (1977). Art education index. Art Education, 30(3), 20-22.

Art Education November 1986 44



Documents

What Did They Say? A Content Analysis of Art Education, 1948-1984