Daniel Barney and Mark Graham, Art Education

Evaluation of how well the academic objectives of the proposal were met

The academic objectives of this research project reached further than the initial objectives. We believe it was a very successful project in terms of meeting our academic objectives. The study affected our curricula here at the university as we investigated our thesis questions for this project. We (Dr. Barney and Dr. Graham) primarily teach undergraduates who are interested in teaching art at the K-­‐12 levels and so there is a strong focus on what is important to know and teach at the K-­‐12 levels. AP Art Studio programs are directed at 11th and 12th graders while foundations programs are usually thought of as Freshman and Sophomore courses in higher education. Our original thoughts therefore, were to connect the learning of our teacher candidates from the mentored research experience with what was gleaned about these two age groups. However, we are finding the issues brought up in foundations programs at the higher education level and studio art programs at the high school level are perhaps relevant in all age groups. This broader reach impacts our teaching of teacher candidates, highlighting the need to discuss, and challenge if appropriate, subject matter content that is defined as foundational or elementary with age groups before 11th grade. The student researchers also indicated they were not aware of the conversations in our field about what might constitute foundations for general education or for disciplinary focus.

Dr. Barney and Dr. Graham published one article together in Foundations in Art Theory of Education (FATE in Review). We have also submitted another article under review, which was co-­‐authored by a graduate student involved in this grant.

Barney, D. T. & Graham, M. A. (2014). The troubling metaphor of foundations in art education: What foundations affords or limits in high school and college art programs. FATE in Review, (35), 2-7. We have presented at three national conferences, which were all peer-­‐reviewed. Graham, M. & Barney, D. T. (2014). Foundations and AP Studio Art: What Does It Afford and What Does It Limit? National Art Education Association. Secondary. Interactive Discussion. San Diego, CA. Graham, M. A. & Barney, D. T. (2013). New Directions in AP and IB Art. PostHaus (biennial conference), Foundations in Art: Theory and Education (FATE), Savannah, GA. Barney, D. T. & Graham, M. G. (2012). What is Foundational in Art Education? National Art Education Association. Secondary Education, New York.

Evaluation of the mentoring environment

This was Dr. Barney’s first mentoring environment project. It was a great learning experience for not only the student research assistants, but for Dr. Barney as well. With the help of Dr. Graham, Dr. Barney organized a successful mentoring environment of research. Our undergraduates involved in this project were instrumental in reviewing the research published within the field. They also helped develop questionnaires that were sent to practicing teachers in the field. They began to analyze responses and to contextualize those responses within the literature. These experiences will undoubtedly be significant to the growth and lifelong learning of the students involved, meeting our academic goals of this project to provide a meaningful mentored experience for these students.

The on-­‐site visits to local schools were incredibly important for the mentors of this project. We would have liked to have included more students in this empirical phase of the project, but were not able to for various reasons. However, the field notes were debriefed with student researchers, which were developed into case studies used in several of our undergraduate and graduate courses.

As described above, Dr. Graham and Dr. Barney presented at three national conferences. Student research assistants were helpful in preparing models and presentation materials for two of the presentations (2013 and 2014).

List of students who participated and what academic deliverables they have produced or it is anticipated they will produce

Number of undergraduate students mentored: 4

Production: These students gathered significant articles from the field, which were pertinent to the thesis statement described in the research. They helped develop a short questionnaire that was sent to practicing teachers identified as significant to our research in foundations and AP Studio art. These students also helped prepare models and presentation materials used in the national presentations given by Dr. Barney and Dr. Graham.

• Jenna Riggers
• Tyrel Hanby
• Deanna Scanlon
• Cora Pack

Number of graduate students mentored: 2

Production: Bart Francis has co-­‐authored an article with Dr. Barney and Dr. Graham regarding a curricular response relevant to the topic of foundations. It is currently under review. Clark Goldsberry was instrumental in helping to analyze theoretical approaches paralleling data collection and analysis by the undergraduate students.

• Bart Francis
• Clark Goldsberry

Description of the results/findings of the project

Foundations discourses are primarily focused on Bauhausian tenets. The high school teachers who responded to pilot study questionnaires have a variety of positions as to what a foundations program should include, but the majority focused on skill development, invoking the elements and principles. Discourses are broader in higher education, where foundations professors value conceptual development. However, several foundations professors indicated they feel pressure from regular studio faculty to standardize programming. The literature for secondary educators seems to be promoting a move away from the normalized focus on the elements and principles as foundational, while the literature in higher education seems to be divided even though formalism is a primary emphasis in the field’s scholarly discourse. Dr. Barney and Dr. Graham suggest new metaphors for foundational knowledge within the art classroom and programs may help bridge theoretical gaps found in the literature.

Description of how the budget was spent

Personnel Budget

Number of undergraduate students mentored: 4

• Jenna Riggers
• Tyrel Hanby
• Deanna Scanlon
• Cora Pack

Amount used for undergraduate wages: $1,200

Number of graduate students mentored: 2

• Bart Francis
• Clark Goldsberry

Amount used for graduate wages: $500

Project Budget

Supplies: $1,600 (data gathering and analysis supplies)
Travel: $12,400 (researcher, co-­‐researcher, and BYU student researchers to non-­‐ local school sites)

Total: $15,700