Teacher as Researcher || Bridging the Gap between the University Researcher and the Classroom Teacher

National Art Education Association

Bridging the Gap between the University Researcher and the Classroom TeacherAuthor(s): Liza M. Bergman and Nancy C. FeiringSource: Art Education, Vol. 50, No. 5, Teacher as Researcher (Sep., 1997), pp. 51-56Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193661 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:49

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 195.78.108.147 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:49:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193661?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Bridging the Gap between the

tSuV1FSSSM, r

and the

TEACHER

i

BY LIZA M. BERGMAN AND NANCY C. FEIRING

you log on to the Interet, the e-mail window reads...

From: [email protected] To: ClassroomReality@[email protected] Subj: RE: Collaboration between university researchers and classroom teachers imperative! Wanted: Cooperating team members for vital educational research collaboration.

Teachers in the Phoenix area responded to an invitation from Arizona State University's Dr. Mary Erickson to collaborate on research which would establish the vital link between the university professor and the "real" classroom.

In 1992, three state universities-Northern Arizona State University, Arizona State University, and

SEPTEMBER 1997 / ART EDUCATION



the University of Arizona-the Arizona State Department of Education and the Arizona Commission on the Arts cooperated in forming the Arizona Arts Education Research Institution (AAERI). This organization offers grants to groups that collaborate on educational research. Participation in these collaborations requires that university researchers work with classroom teachers. Our research group grew out of one of these grants.

A search of the literature reveals that many educators, such as Day (1996), encourage researchers and teachers to work together. He recommends:

Formal and systematic study by practitioners and researchers in collaboration is needed.. .if the best curriculum practices and most salient curriculum issues are to become part of professional knowledge and, ultimately, inform the preparation of art teachers and professional development for practicing art teachers. (p. 38) Over the last 5 years of working in

collaborative groups we have experienced success in bridging the gap between the university researcher and teachers in the classroom. In this article we will chronicle the evolution of our research group over the course of five studies. As we experimented with aspects of the various collaborative models, our group selected those elements that we found to be more conducive to an effective research process. We will then present our reflections on the development of our collaboration.

MODELS OF COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

Clark et al. (1996) describe three models for collaborative research. They are the researcher-driven, the

participant-driven, and the co- investigational.

In the researcher-driven model, the lead researcher, usually a university professor, has final responsibility for all aspects of the investigations. The lead researcher initiates the research question, obtains and manages funding, determines methodology, oversees evaluation, and publishes results. Presenters are teacher-participants who convey information to the lead researcher and gather data.

Asa collaborative

group we have

moved along the

continuum from a

researcher-driven

model toward the

co-investigational model.

In a participant-driven model, the facilitator, a university professor, and field researchers (usually a combination of teachers and administrators) work together to determine the direction of the research. They establish the research question, determine methodology and evaluation strategies, and publish results by consensus.

In a co-investigational model, the lead investigator, a university professor, and field investigators, a combination of teachers and administrators, contribute their expertise to the research project.

The lead investigator initiates the research question and secures funding. However, methodology, evaluation, and publication are issues negotiated within the group. Investigators divide the workload into manageable units depending on their skills and interests.

We propose that these models exist on a continuum, with the researcher- driven and participant-driven models serving as anchors, and the co- investigational model somewhere in the middle. As a collaborative group we have moved along the continuum from a researcher-driven model toward the co- investigational model.

COLLABORATIVE ROLES EVOLVE THROUGHOUT THE RESEARCH AGENDA

Erickson's research focuses on how people understand and interpret artworks in their historical context. This interest led her to write a curriculum entitled "Stories of Art: An Art Curriculum Resource" (manuscript in preparation). It is an inquiry-based, thematically organized art curriculum containing 'Ten Big Ideas" about the role of art in culture. Individual research projects have been designed to field test instructional modules taken from the curriculum.

Erickson has recruited teachers from the community to help her refine the curriculum so it can easily be used by teachers and their students. This partnership of educators has grown into a collaborative effort as teachers were encouraged to contribute to the instructional process and other aspects of the research study.

The long-range goals of Erickson's research agenda are to refine "Stories of Art" and to develop a theory that explains how young people interpret artworks in their historical context. As lead researcher, she used qualitative

- ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1997



Table 1-Collaborative Research Studies

Study One: Study Two: Study Three: Interim: Study Four: Study Five: 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97

Research Topics Various Cultures Ten Big Ideas: When Cultures Publications Conservation and Culture and Various Cultures Meet: Meso- Restoration: Artworld:

American and Ancient Egypt Ancient China Renaissance and Native and Ancient Europe American Greece

Research Qualitative: Qualitative: Qualitative: Qualitative: Qualitative: Methods Identifying model Identifying model Identifying model Identifying model Identifying model

cases. cases. cases. cases. Quantitave: cases. Quantitative: Quantitative: Quantitative: Descriptive Quantitave:

Descriptive Analysis of MANOVA Statistics Undetermined Statistics Variance

Populations 800 2nd grade- 2nd and 6th 4th and 8th 4th and 8th 4th and 8th 4th, 8th, high adult grades school adults

and quantitative methods to determine students' abilities to interpret artworks in their historical context. She interviewed students after the instructional unit. These responses are used as anecdotal evidence to support her theories about how children understand artworks. The researcher used an unfamiliar artwork to pretest students' interpretive skills prior to instruction and a post-test using the same unfamiliar artwork to measure increases in their interpretive skills resulting from instruction.

Table 1, Collaborative Research Studies, summarizes the products resulting from our collaborative involvement. The research team in our study, made up of a university professor, teachers, and an administrator from the public schools, has worked together for five years to produce four studies, eight articles, two public forums, two presentations at state level conferences, and a presentation at the 1996 NAEA National Convention in San Francisco.

Both authors of this article entered this collaborative group during its third study. We will recount earlier events told to us by the original core of participants and trace the group's evolution to its present state. Table 2, Collaborators and Their Roles, documents the increased participation of teachers in the study.

STUDY ONE: 1991-92 There was no formal collaboration in

this study. Erickson, the lead researcher, worked informally with cooperative teachers who provided access to students.

STUDY TWO: 1992-93 RESEARCHER-DRIVEN MODEL

This study marked Erickson's first formal collaboration. Erickson, as lead researcher, was responsible for all decisions pertaining to the research. The elementary presenter contributed advice on curriculum matters, taught supplemental lessons with artmaking activities, and collected data. STUDY THREE: 1993-94

In this study a growing network of contacts provided Native American and Hispanic populations to enrich Erickson's field testing. Two middle- school and two elementary teachers acted as presenters in this researcher- driven model.

A new role was added during this study which proved to be pivotal to the success of our later collaborative efforts. A school district administrator stepped in to take the role of communications liaison. This role remained constant throughout the phases of the researcher and co- investigational models. The communications liaison provided

administrative support by setting agendas, organizing meetings, communicating with the participants, and managing details not directly related to the curriculum.

Erickson's role as lead researcher began to shift as she solicited input from teachers on decisions relating to classroom and instructional issues. Teachers began to expand their role as presenters by writing lesson plans, creating artmaking activities, and initiating a museum experience.

INTERIM 1993-94: A BREAK IN THE SEQUENCE, BUT NOT IN THE WORK

In the interim between the third and fourth studies Erickson took a leave of absence from her university to work as Visiting Scholar at the Getty Education Institute for The Arts. Participants from the previous study maintained contact by collaborating on other projects, sharing teaching ideas and project information unrelated to the formal study. This collaboration resulted in the conception and publication of two articles (Erickson 1995a; 1995b).The collaborative research team was beginning to recognize the benefits of new-found professional relationships.

STUDY FOUR: 1995-96 During this study the team began to

witness the most noticeable changes in




roles. Teachers became more active in lesson planning and related artmaking activities. The team learned to use efficiently the strengths of its members. Individuals stepped forward to take charge of creating effective instructional activities to reinforce objectives, predicting how changes in the instructional intervention might affect data collection, collecting historical information, and planning activities to assist in achieving transfer. One teacher shifted from the role of presenter to that of a scorer. She had training in scoring and proved she could better serve the research team in this capacity.

A parallel collaboration developed in response to AAERI's insistence on dissemination of research results. Erickson initiated a forum, as part of Study Four, with a collaboration involving several museum educators, representatives of school districts, and the Phoenix Boys and Girls Clubs. The teachers in the continuing collaborative team presented results at the first forum, and are presently planning their participation in a second regional forum.

STUDY FIVE: 1996-97 Our collaborative team expanded in

numbers with this last study. Two high school teachers and a new elementary teacher were added to our existing group. These additional members contributed fresh ideas to this study. Erickson was still initiating the research questions, as well as obtaining the funding for this study. The team, however, had taken on new responsibilities in curriculum development, instructional procedures, scoring, and determining appropriate statistical procedures.

As teachers developed appropriate instructional procedures they discovered that with this additional responsibility came accountability. The

challenges encountered in this present study continue to push teachers toward a co-investigational model. The focus of the present study is teaching the concept of "Artworld" in the context of ancient cultures and modem times. Relating this understanding to students' personal experiences, and the resulting transfer of learning, has motivated teachers to distribute work loads more appropriately. In grade level pairs, teachers modified the proposed instructional sequence for this study and made age-appropriate adaptations. Because of the expanded size of our group, common meeting time was at a premium. Two of the participants agreed to "rough out" a revised instructional sequence based on the suggestions of the group. To help teachers battle the time crunch, each teacher accepted responsibility to detail and elaborate on portions of the instructional sequence. The team's hope was for each teacher to do one or two components and do them really well, relieving stress and allowing for the highest quality of instruction. The team agreed to allow differences in the instructional sequence to accommodate different age levels.

BENEFITS OF COLLABORATION As our team began to participate in

research we had expectations of the benefits that we would receive from this collaborative effort. Erickson, as the researcher, needed contact with teachers in the classroom to establish credibility with university students and practicing teachers. She needed to field test her curriculum, "Stories of Art," and acquire grounding for a theory of the development of art historical understanding in young people. She also required raw material for articles for publication, which in turn would help to secure future funding and fulfill the research requirements of her university.

The team participants, both teachers and art supervisor, entered into the collaboration hoping to acquire curriculum and resource materials, and to stay current with innovations in the field. They wanted insights into, and a framework for, organizing art history into a meaningful curriculum in their classrooms and school districts.

Both the researcher and teacher participants hoped to establish a network of professional contacts which would benefit art-history-based instruction in their respective classrooms. The team's teachers desired to link with a respected scholar who, because of her expertise and experience, could provide contact with people and resources previously inaccessible to them. Several participants wanted to satisfy their curiosity about research in general and explore future avenues for graduate study.

In the area of professional development this collaborative project has given the teacher participants an opportunity to observe the many demanding tasks required for scholarship without having to be responsible for all of them. Various aspects of the research process have given teachers ideas for topics for future graduate study, an expanded teaching resume, and a good entry into the world of research and publishing.

Teachers have shared an increased art historical understanding with their students and have observed greatly improved artmaking. Reciprocally, Erickson has rediscovered how much she enjoys teaching young children and how informative individual student interviews can be. The administrator has witnessed a snowball effect on the art instruction in her district. Teacher participants have disseminated findings of the study to other art teachers.

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1997



Table 2-Collaborators and Their Roles

Study One: Study Two: Study Three: Interim: Study Four: Study Five: 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97

Lead Researcher Mary Erickson Mary Erickson Mary Erickson Mary Erickson Mary Erickson Mary Erickson

Communications None None Pat Jones Pat Jones Pat Jones Pat Jones Liaison

Art Teacher Cooperating Sue Raymond Sue Raymond Sue Raymond Sue Raymond Sue Raymond Participants Classrooms Participants Classrooms

Lorna Corlett Lora Corlett Lorna Corlett Lorna Corlett

Nancy Feiring Liza Bergman Liza Bergman Liza Bergman Liza Bergman Greg Patrenos Marissa Nadbornik

Chris Merriam Roxanne Thayer Michael Franklin Pattie Johnson

Scorer Graduate Graduate Graduate Nancy Feiring Nancy Feiring Assistant Assistant Assistant

Contact with research participants has stimulated other teachers to expand the depth of their art historical curriculum.

The benefits of working together collaboratively have also been personal. Participants in this research group have developed rich personal relationships and received professional validation as a result of our collaboration. This team has discovered the joys of working with and exploring ideas with others who are exceptional and inspiring art educators. Our feelings of isolation dissolved as colleagues shared frustrations, successes, and new teaching strategies. It has been refreshing for teachers to have their concerns recognized by a university researcher and to have had their ideas implemented.

REFLECTIONS ON THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORT

Based on our team's experience, we offer the following six suggestions for a collaborative team. First, selecting your team members carefully is essential. Participants must share compatible educational philosophies and beliefs. Our team believes that the study of art history is vital to a viable art curriculum, and that students are capable of interpreting artworks in their historical context. Researchers

and teachers must be flexible and possess negotiation skills, because work loads need to be distributed evenly. Accountability of each participant for the completion of all tasks is mandatory.

Second, the role of communications liaison has been essential to the success of our collaborative team. Our liaison made contacts with community agencies from whom the team drew valuable support. Time and adequate secretarial services were necessary to oversee the organizational aspects of the research agenda. Realistically collaborative teams using the co- investigation model require significantly more time to reach consensus in areas of curriculum and instructional procedures.

Third, long-term participation in the studies contributed to the success of our collaborative effort. To get the full benefit of collaboration, participants need to view membership in the group as a commitment to a ongoing research agenda rather than to individual studies. As participants begin to feel more comfortable working together, they generate multiple ideas to expand and refine the research. The cumulative effect of on-going participation creates richer studies with broader application to real life.

The following suggestions apply to university researchers. Fourth, please

be aware of the school year cycle of deadlines! Classroom educators do not share the same freedom in academic structure as university professors. Fifth, whenever possible, build in fringe benefits to compensate for the teachers' lack of freedom in their academic day, such as release time, substitute pay, or graduate credit for participation in the study. Finally, for greatest personal growth, shift research tasks around to different participants so that all may gain from taking a variety of roles.

As our research team has evolved, struggled together, and succeeded in reaching common goals, we have come to build trust and respect in each other. Experience led us to shift from a totally researcher-driven model toward a co- investigational one. While the participants in our team feel we have a special and unique collaborative group, the lines of communication and cooperation can be opened between other similarly motivated researchers and classroom teachers. We have concluded that university professors and classroom teachers can work together to build a bridge that will result in effective educational research.

In summary, no matter what model is chosen, the need for collaboration between university professors and classroom teachers is imperative if research is to be




relevant to, and successfully impact, the real world of the classroom. Erickson, for her part, has readily accepted the invitation from teachers

to sample this reality. As teachers, we have realized that we can benefit from collaboration in developing effective classroom instruction. As a research

team, professors and teachers can augment their strengths and forge better curriculum that, in most cases, captures the interest of students and results in sound learning. The gap between [email protected]. and RealityClassroom@[email protected] can be bridged.

Liza M. Bergman is a junior high art teacher in the Cartwright School District in Phoenix, Arizona. Nancy C. Feiring is an elementary art teacher in the Cartwright School District in Phoenix, Arizona.

REFERENCES Clark, C., Moss, PA., Goering, S., Herter, R. J.,

Lamar, B., Leonard, D., Robbins, S., Russell, M., Templin, M., & Wascha, K (1996). Collaboration as dialogue: Teachers and researchers engaged in conversation and professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 193- 195.

Day, M. (1996). Curriculum. In NAEA Commission on Research in Art Education, Creating a visual art research agenda toward the 21st century. pp. (3240). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Erickson, M. (1995a, March). Why stories? School Arts Magazine, 94,18-19.

Erickson, M. (1995b, April). Then and now rites of passage. School Arts Magazine, 94, 38-39.

AUTHORS' NOTE Funding was obtained from the following

institutions: Arizona Art Education Research Institute; Cartwright Elementary School District, Paradise Valley School District, Gila River School, Estrella Mountain School, South Mountain High School, and Kayenta School District; The National Art Education Association Foundation.

A multimedia CD-ROM for the Mac that teaches color, composition, design, and W- Fp ainting. Phone/Fax (516) 654-1911, Web

sRe: http//idt.net/-cbernard/artinstruction.html - Art Instruction Software, 38 Balsam $6995

i Drive, Dept.22, Medford, NY 11763 $3.0 Shlipping

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1997



Documents

Teacher as Researcher || Bridging the Gap between the University Researcher and the Classroom Teacher