Implications of DBAE for University Education of Teachers

Abstract

Discipline-based art education, an extension of Penn State Seminar model, has implications for art and classroom teacher education. This article (a) reviews definition and distinguishing characteristics of discipline-based art education; (b) compares these characteristics with those of current practice in public schools; (c) examines national standards for art teacher education programs in relation to theory and practice; and (d) draws implications from this inquiry for making recommendations for changes in preservice classroom and art teacher education programs. From inception of art (drawing) in public schools in service of industry to improve design of manufactured goods in 1870s, to centering on art as a discipline in 1960s, and its extension to discipline-based art education in 1980's, process of value clarification and of self-definition as a field of study continues to be a major focus in art education. Significant progress was made towards redefinition of field as a result of federally funded 1965 Penn State Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development. At Seminar a consensus was achieved regarding character and purpose of art education. Since 39 participants and 20 observers at Seminar were representative of leaders in fields of art education, education, visual arts, art criticism, and aesthetics, reaching a consensus was a remarkable feat. Efland (1984) in his retrospect and evaluation of Seminar, concludes that the most pervasive theme of Seminar was notion that art or art education is a discipline in its own right, with goals that should be stated in terms of their power to help students engage independently in disciplined inquiry in arts (p. 207). Professional scholars in art - historians, artists, and critics - were identified as models for inquiry. Curriculum in art education, it was agreed, should derive its structure from processes that artists, historians, and critics use in their work, Content in art education would consist of language, concepts, and processes derived from fields of studio practice, art history, and art criticism. Concepts of sequence, continuity, and integration from area of curriculum theory in general education were identified as useful in developing art curriculum. Twenty years have passed since Penn State Seminar. The concepts that emerged from Seminar differentially affected theory and practice in art education. Although art education concepts from Seminar permeated literature and were bases of large-scale federally or privately funded curriculum development projects, practice in field lagged behind movement. With recent national focus on excellence in education, concern for