|
Mentors
and Models:
Introduction: Genesis and Issues In 1945 Penn State’s art education program was situated in the
Department of Home Economics. Amy Gardner, an associate professor of
home economics and art education went looking for a colleague and found
Viktor Lowenfeld. The Austrian art educator and researcher who had studied
the art of the blind and wrote on artistic creativity (Lowenfeld,
1939) before fleeing the Nazis, was then teaching at Hampton Institute.
Lowenfeld served as a visiting professor at Penn State during the summers
of 1945 and 1946 and at the end of the second summer he was asked to
organize and head a Department of Art Education. The publication of
his Creative and Mental Growth (1947) with its psychological
foundation of haptic and visual creative types, empirically grounded
developmental stages, and progressive pedagogical practices was the
book for its time. The stir the text caused in art education placed
Lowenfeld in the spotlight. As he lectured around the country and met
bright young art teachers the invitation he gave was “Why don’t
you come to Penn State and do a doctorate?” Many did, and some
stayed on at Penn State to continue Lowenfeld’s legacy after his
death in 1961. In 1951,
Just five years after Lowenfeld’s apointment, Ruth M. Freyberger
was awarded the first Penn State art educational doctorate for her study
of “Differences in the Creative Drawings of Children of Varying
Ethnic and Socio-Economic Backrgounds in Pennsylvania.” In 1952
Lambert Brittain received a doctorate for his test to determine “Aspects
of Creativity in the Visual Arts” and Kenneth Beittel was granted
a doctorate in 1953 for his study of “Experimental Approaches to
the Aesthetic Attitudes of College Students.” These first dissertations
reflect Lowenfeld’s research interests and his desire to have his
beliefs confirmed through his students’ research.[1] There is a
lesser known aspect of Lowenfeld’s broad educational and social
concerns revealed in John Biggers’ dissertation, one of seven completed
in 1954. Biggers’ doctorate was awarded for a mural “The Negro
Woman in American Life and Education” and inquiry relating to its
creation. The mural was painted for the Blue Triangle YWCA in Houston,
Texas. Interestingly, the mural and the dissertation have the same title.
From the
beginning, doctoral candidates investigated topics that conformed to
Lowenfeld’s conceptions of art education—things such as children’s
artistic development, factors affecting art program outcomes, and the
nature of creative abilities and process. Like Biggers, several early
doctoral candidates also created murals as a part of their doctoral
study. Only a small handful, however, were granted doctorates based
on the artworks they created.[2] At Penn State, doctoral inquiry consisted
of two primary options.[3] First, there were studies based on the testing
and measurement of artistic and educational behaviors—the kind
of inquiry favored within the College of Education where the department
came to be housed. Second, there was inquiry that centered on the creation
of artworks pertaining to educational issues and social inequities.
The option to base a dissertation on the creation of an artwork was
probably unique within art education at that time.[4] Nevertheless,
this alternative is perhaps not altogether surprising in a department
where faculty members taught most of the studio courses taken by its
graduate and undergraduate majors and where most of the faculty members
were both artists and scholars. By the
year 2000, nearly a half century after the conferral of the first Penn
State doctorate in art education, over 300 D.Ed.s and Ph.Ds have been
awarded. There are questions both about Penn State and about art educational
research in general that are raised by these 303 dissertations and the
factors that contribute to their character. What subjects, topics, issues
and problems have young researchers and their faculty mentors deemed
important to investigate and resolve? What realms of discourse and methodologies
have doctoral researchers used to conduct their investigations? What
relationships exist between art education and its traditional foundational
disciplines such as education, psychology, philosophy, and history and
its emerging foundations—visual culture, performance pedagogy,
semiotics, and various forms of cultural criticism? What does Penn State
research tell us about how our field has been conceptualized and reconceptualized
over the decades? Is there any aspect of the initial character of the
Program established by Lowenfeld that persists today? To address
these and related questions I have gone to the dissertations and I have
permitted their titles to speak for themselves, “in their own words.”
I have charted the dissertations’ chronologies, classified their
topics and methodologies, and examined their realms of discourse. I
have also interviewed individuals who have led the program and worked
in it during various phases of its development.[5] Finally I have based
my explanations and interpretations on my own experience of working
in the Penn State doctoral program for a quarter century. An Overview of Five Decades of Doctoral Inquiry The
artistic inquiry of Biggers and three other candidates who received
their Penn state degrees for painting murals notwithstanding, doctoral
research in the decades of the 50s, 60s and the first half of the 70’s
was largely empirical. Indeed, approximately three-quarters of the dissertations
completed in the 1950s, eighty percent in the 1960s and two-thirds completed
between 1970 and 1975 reflected modes of inquiry derived specifically
from psychology or educational studies modeled after psychological inquiry.
The dissertations presented descriptive data: “The variability
of children’s responses to color stimuli” (Cororan 1953),
and “Question types, patterns, and sequences used by art teachers
in the classroom” (Clements, 1964). The theses characterized relationships
among variables: “A study to determine the relationships between
the creative products of children, ages 11 to 14, and their adjustment”
(Mattil, 1953), and “The effect of class size and room size
upon the creative drawings of fifth grade children” (Lansing, 1956).
Occasionally dissertations presented the results of experimental studies:
“An experimental study on various methods in art motivations at
the fifth grade level” (McVitty, 1954), “An experimental study
of workbook influence on the creative drawings of second grade children”
(Heilman, 1954), “An investigation into the effect of art training
on judges’ decoding of selected spontaneous and divergent process
drawings done by arts students and non-arts students” (Hardiman,
1967), and “The effect of various visual stimuli on the drawings
of college students [Mahlman, 1970]). In short, the scientific model
of inquiry prevailed. Variables were to be identified, related to one
another, and manipulated. What counted most was what could be observed
and quantified. It
is instructive to classify the topics and subjects of those first decades
of Penn State doctoral research. In the 1960s when 77 doctorates were
awarded, half were directed to some aspect of art-making and artistic
expression (for example, Kantner’s “Commonality in the use
of drawing styles and certain ambiguous stimuli,” 1967).
A quarter of the studies had topics relating to creativity and problem
solving (Flannery, “Art education and the interplay between intellect
and imagination in artistic creation,” 1967). Nearly a quarter
of the dissertations were directed to some aspect of curriculum, instruction,
and pedagogy (Hurwitz, “A supervisor’s analysis of the initiation
of a curriculum development project in art appreciation for the sixth
grade,”1972). And nearly another quarter of the studies were directed
to artistic preferences, aesthetic response, and perception (Schwartz,
“The effects of conditioning upon children’s color choices
and color usage,” 1960). (My tabulations total over 100 percent
because individual dissertations sometimes extended across several of
these classifications.) By the 1970s and 1980s art-making and creative
expression had declined from half to between 26 and 30 percent of the
dissertations. Creativity and problem solving topics that were so popular
in the 1960s practically disappeared during the 1970s and 1980s—only
four of 93 dissertations in the 70s and two of 60 in the 80s were directed
explicitly to creativity. Curriculum and instruction persisted as a
popular topic during the 1970s (in nearly a quarter of the dissertations)
but by the 1980s only nine of the 60 dissertations completed were directed
to the topic (15 percent). In
the middle-70s art educational research at Penn State changed with surprising
abruptness. The quantification of variables relating to artistic and
pedagogical behaviors, although not totally abandoned, was dramatically
reduced. These changes call for explanations. There are several possibilities.
The seeds for the coming changes had been planted in the 1960s; Robert
Saunders completed the first history of art education dissertation,
“The contributions of Horace Mann, Mary Peabody Mann, and Elizabeth
Peabody to art education in the United States,” in 1961, and three
more historical dissertations followed in the second half of the decade.
Philosophy as a realm of discourse in art education began at Penn State
in 1965 with Wellington Maidenfort’s “A phenomenology of the
esthetic and art education” and became one of the principal realms
of discourse at Penn State; between 1975 and 1980, ten philosophical
dissertations were written—a quarter of the total.[6] The titles
of the dissertations reveal something of the enthusiasm with which philosophy
was embraced by the doctoral candidates: “The referential and operational
grounding of phenomenology as a method of describing inner art experiencing”
(Kobisz, (1975), “Ontological inquiry in art education: Hermeneutic
interpretation of a drawing serial” (Stapleton, 1976), “Maritain’s
creative intuition and child art” (Jones, 1978), “Hegel’s
Phenomonenology of Spirit: An explication of the work, how it grounds
the objective moment, and the necessity of artist” (Thompson, 1979).
The other dissertations completed during this fascinating five-year
period included six using anthropological, ethnographic, participant
observation, and introspective methodologies (“African-American
artists and art students: A morphological study in the urban black aesthetic”
[DePillars, 1976], “Passage through communitas: An interpretive
analysis of enculturation in art education” [Wilson, 1977]). Seven
other studies from this period used critical methodologies or were directed
toward theory development. In
searching for explanations, however, the most convincing is probably
found in the difference between Kenneth Beittel’s Mind and Context
in the Art of Drawing published in 1972 and his Alternatives for Art
Education Research, published in 1973. Beittel’s Mind and Context
summarized his research conducted in during the 1960s—some with
support from the U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project.
In Penn State’s Drawing Laboratory, Beittel, his colleague
and former student Robert Burkhart, and research assistants including
James Johnson, Larry Kantner, John Mahlman, and Charles Steele had photographed
individuals as they made drawing seres. Photographs of serial drawing
processes were used in conjunction with interviews to gain insights
into subjects’ thinking processes, problem solving, and other higher
mental processes. These studies reflect as rigorous an application of
the scientific method as there is to be found in art education. In
searching for explanations that would account for marked changes in
research topics and dissertations in the mid-seventies, it is also necessary
to look beyond evolving beliefs of faculty members and conditions within
society. We must look to changes in the doctoral students themselves
and one of the most obvious places to look is to the gender of the candidates.
During the first two-and-one-half decades, fewer than 20 percent of
the candidates were female (32 of 165). In the decade between 1975 and
1985, 45 percent of the candidates were female and from 1975 to 1999
half of the candidates have been female (69 of 138). It would take an
analysis far beyond the scope of this chapter to determine the extent
to which the interests and insights of female doctoral candidates may
have altered research topics and modes of inquiry during the last quarter
of the century. Nevertheless, when Elizabeth Garber joined the faculty
in 1989, building upon the broad base of foundational readings provided
by faculty member Patricia Amburgy, she encouraged feminist inquiry,
and influenced the teaching and research of other faculty members. Garber
also mentored doctoral candidates such as Yvonne Gaudelius whose
dissertation introduced French feminist theory to art education (1993).
Gaudelius, who now holds a joint appointment between Women’s Studies
and Art Education continues the work that Garber began, mentoring students
such as Peg Speirs (1998) who interviewed and studied the artists and
teachers who founded the feminist movement in art in the United States. Penn
State dissertations of the late 1970s and the 1980s were directed toward
application of theories from anthropology, philosophy, and history to
the creation and teaching and study of art. These studies reveal a broadening
of the subjects seen to have connections to art education and they become
increasingly difficult to classify both with regard to the methodologies
used and the topics investigated. One of the first feminist dissertations,
for example, is related to both anthropological and psychological factors
(“Myth, stereotype, taboo, and self-esteem of the woman artist”
[Connors, 1985]). Case study and introspection are connected to psychological
and philosophical factors. Elmer Day’s dissertation was titled
“A study of dreams and dreaming and the transformation of dream
themes in drawing and paintings” (1976), and Cathy Brooks’
dissertation was “The meaning of childhood art experience: A dialectical
hermeneutic” (1980). Rousseau’s criticism of society is connectedto
romantic views of children and their art (Baker, 1982). Hypnotism is
used to study the relationship between childhood art experiences and
works of adult artists (Raunft, 1982). In-depth study of Inuit culture
is placed in dialogue with curriculum design (Sturges, 1981). Doris
Rogers studied the mobility of imagery—from Africa to Surinam’s
“Bush Negros” (1980). At
the same time that doctoral researchers were exploring new topics, the
dissertations also reveal a continuity of interest in the study of art—its
creation and its teaching. Larry Jordan, one of Beittel’s last
students, for example, investigated “The art of claying” (1980)—the
creative dance Jordan employed in making his unique mammoth ceramic
forms. Robert Troxell’s dissertation was titled “Poetic consciousness:
A phenomenological videoiconographic investigation” (1987), and
Mary Lou Stokrocki (1981) studied Beittel’s ceramics teaching.
Following the pattern first set by John Biggers, Edie Pistolesi’s
dissertation was the creation of an artwork, but in the place of Biggers’
mural, Pistolesi wrote a play titled “Part Super” about the
“creative process” “and childhood fantasy.” At
the same time dissertations were presented that consisted primarily
of artworks created by the inquirers (and analyses of the processes
of art making), there was a continuation of the empirical strand of
investigations that began in the Lowenfeld era. Under Brent Wilson’s
guidance Kayed Amr studied “The interaction of cultural and natural
factors in the drawings of Jordanian children (1982), and Hetta Kauppinen
presented “A model for educational evaluation” directed to
“a program of basic art objectives in the Finnish Comprehensive
School System” (1980). Thomas Ritenbaugh investigated “Artist,
teacher, scholar, organizational leader, administrator, collector: Art
educators’ beliefs about roles and status (1989) and Mary Ellen
Connelly studied “The relationship between art teachers levels
of professionalization and openness to change” (1988). One
of the best ways to grasp the research topics of the 1990s is to examine
the Penn State doctoral candidates who received Getty Education Institute
Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships (ten of the 42 fellowships awarded
by the Getty went to Penn State students). Constance Baumgarner conducted
an extensive qualitative and policy study of “Artists in the classroom:
An analysis of the Arts in Education Program of the National Endowment
for the Arts” (1993). Gaye Green experimented with “A semiotic
approach to the interpretation of art in art education” (1994)
directed particularly to the artworks of Leonora Carrington. John White’s
dissertation was “Truth and community: Constructing the cultural
self” (1994), the application of neo-pragmatist thought to art
and art education. Stephen Darnell’s dissertation was directed
to “Reading Nineteenth-century landscape representation as cultural
code and historical text” (1996). Melinda Mayer (1999) and Juliet
Moore (1997)—following in the tradition of museum education inquiry
established by faculty member Robert Ott and continued by Charles Garoian—examined
emerging theoretical and practical paradigms that affect art museum
education, and Barbara Suplee analyzed the “Barnes Foundation’s
aesthetic theory” (1995). Billie Sessions constructed a paradigmatic
model for a “multi-dimensional high school ceramics curriculum”
(1998) and Pamela Taylor experimented with electronic hypertexts as
means for “liberatory learning” in the high school art classroom
(1999). To these Getty Fellow dissertations I must add three other important
studies: Bonnie MacDonnald’s critical interpretation of cinema,
“Here’s to you Mrs. Robinson: Representations of sexual initiation
in coming-of-age films and how they limit the imaginary domain of youth”
(1998), Stephen Carpenter’s “A meta-critical analysis of ceramics
criticism for art education: Toward an interpretive methodology”
(1996), and Christine Morris’s “Roots, branches, blossoms,
and briars: Cultural colonialism of the mountain arts of West Virginia”
(1996). Taken as a group these studies are built on theoretical, historical,
philosophical, pedagogical foundations and frequently offer critiques
of the bases on which they are built. Semiotics, the new art histories,
postmodern critique, and knowledge of contemporary artworlds are at
their cores. Gender, visual cultural, critical pedagogical, and digital/technological
issues appear regularly. As a group these dissertations and others completed
during the 1990s combine the study of pedagogical practice with critical
interpretation and judgment. The dissertations reveal that there are
diverse ways of knowing—ways that have evolved and deepenedat Penn
State over a half century. An
Evolving Community of Scholars and Artists and Teachers In
charting Penn State dissertations through five decades it is also possible
to conclude that art education at Penn State has reinvented itself several
times. Nevertheless, if doctoral study at Penn State has a unique character,
and I think it does—its emphasis of art in art education, then
how is that uniqueness to be explained? It requires the interweaving
of several factors—faculty mentors and mentoring, the attention
that Penn State faculty members and doctoral candidates have directed
to the intersecting and diverging worlds of art, education, and art
education,ways of knowing and inquiring, and changing conceptions of
the disciplines that are foundational to art education. When
Lowenfeld established the Department of Art Education, his vision was
comprehensive. Professors of art education at Penn State would be teachers,
scholars, and artists simultaneously. They had to be. From its inception
art education undergraduates and graduate students received virtually
all of their studio instruction within the department. Studio courses
taught within art education included basic design, ceramics, sculpture,
printmaking, watercolor painting, mural painting, weaving, and metals.
Oil painting was virtually the only course that art education students
needed to take in the Art Department. In practical terms this meant
that Lowenfeld taught mural painting, Ken Beittel taught ceramics,
William Bradley taught sculpture, David Van Dommelen taught weaving,
Paul Edmonston taught printmaking, Albert Anderson taught metals, Yar
Chomicki taught watercolor and mural painting, and Brent Wilson taught
ceramics. Faculty members also continued to make art; Hoffa carved abstract
figures in wood, Beittel gained an international reputation for his
ceramics, and other faculty members kept an active exhibition schedule.
Even after 1979, when the Department of Art Education was integrated
into the School of Visual Arts, art education faculty members continued
to teach studio courses—although with less frequency than before
the merger. More recently, art education faculty member (and now Director
of the School of Visual Arts) Charles Garoian developed and taught a
course in performance art, which continues to be taught in the studio
program. Other faculty members pushed the boundaries of media inquiry
in other directions—Alice Schwartz in video and Marjorie Wilson
in electronic media and hyptertextuality. This
coexistence of scholar and artist and teacher within a single individual
faculty member, and within an entire program that celebrated the three
roles, provided a complex role model for doctoral students. Many students
continued to make art throughout their residencies at Penn State and
a sizable number incorporated their own artwork into their thesis research.
The existence of art making within the program resulted in inquiry that
showed a deep awareness of art and the aesthetic and social issues explored
by contemporary artists. Nevertheless, the loss of many of the programs’
studios, as the result of its 1979 merger into the School of Visual
Arts, meant that doctoral students no longer had access to the laboratories
in which to create their own works. Although Penn State continues to
attract students who hold the master of fine arts degree, these students
more frequently set aside their studio inquiry than was the case in
the past. As art has become increasingly philosophical and critical,
so too, has the artistic inquiry of Penn State’s doctoral candidates. With
Edward Mattil’s appointment to succeed Lowenfeld in 1961, Kenneth
Beittel became the research mentor and over time also became a Lowenfeld-like
charismatic leader. When Harlan Hoffa (1959), one of the last candidates
to receive a doctorate under Lowenfeld’s guidance, became department
head in 1970, Beittel remained the research leader. Hoffa says that
he “didn’t come in thinking that the department needed changing.”
He encouraged continuation of the openness to research topics and methodologies
that were in place when he arrived. With
Beittel’s retirement in 1984, research leadership was distributed
more evenly throughout the faculty. And from the point of Beittel’s
retirement Penn State has been noticeably bereft of charismatic leadership.
From 1980 to 1989, the program headship rotated among faculty members.
In 1989 the practice of having rotating heads was discontinued and Brent
Wilson became permanent administrative head of both art education and
head of the graduate program. In 1999 Paul Bolin, who has special interests
in the history of art education and material culture, was appointed
program head while Brent Wilson continues to head the graduate program.
Wilson
has served on approximately 55 doctoral committees during his quarter
century at Penn state. Like the program itself, he has treated inquiry
in art education as an open concept that is infused with values and
likely to change. His students cover nearly the entire range of inquiry
options: policy analysis, philosophy of art, empirical studies of art
educators’ beliefs, classroom studies of critical pedagogy, art
therapy, museum education, ethnographic studies, art making and play-writing,
and occasionally his own special interest—cultural influences on
children’s artwork. Conclusion Returning
to the questions posed at the beginning of this chapter, I have pointed
to the positivist underpinnings of most of the early Penn State research
and to the radical change in the subjects, topics, issues, problems
and research methodologies that occurred after 1975. I have provided
an account of the changes that moved art education from the traditional
foundational disciplines of education and psychology, toward philosophy
and history, and then to its emerging foundations that include visual
culture, performance pedagogy, semiotics, and various forms of cultural
criticism. Indeed, Penn State research tell us a good deal about how
our field has been conceptualized and reconceptualized over the decades.
The openness to inquiry options that were few, but nevertheless extreme,
during the Lowenfeld era are celebrated today and doctoral inquiry at
Penn State continues to break boundaries. For its first three decades
doctoral research was built on the foundation originally constructed
by Lowenfeld and then reconstructed by Beittel. Interestingly, the two
professors who most prized individuality, Beittel and Lowenfeld, had
the most passionate disciples who often patterned their dissertations
after the interests of their mentors. Today’s faculty members,
perhaps even more than the program’s founders, resist type-casting
art educational research. The program has been sufficiently elastic
to embrace its own opposite. (Brent Wilson’s and Marjorie Wilson’s
studies of cultural influences on children’s imagery were the antithesis
of Lowenfeld’s philosophy.) Like the program’s first mentors,
today’s faculty members encourage doctoral students to infiltrate
the university, continually expanding the already broad nurturing
community of students, teachers, scholars and artists. Philosophers,
psychologists, artists, historians, anthropologists, and even educatologists
(especially if they are critical pedagogues like Henry Giroux and Joe
Kinschlow) have become “adopted” or de-facto members of the
art education faculty. There is a half-century pattern of openness to
knowledge regardless of how it is obtained—whether through description,
experimentation, introspection, conceptualization, philosophizing, theorizing,
or through the creation of art. Perhaps the most salient character that
can be attributed to contemporary Penn State research is the critical
stance that it encourages students to take, to which I must add the
program’s continuing attention to the artworld, to the philosophy
of art, to changing definitions of art, to societal blind-spots and
inequities, and to the consequences that these issues and factors have
for art education. At the same time that the program has looked back
on the history of the field with its three international conferences
on the history of art education—in 1985, 1989, and 1995—it
has looked forward with international conferences on performance and
pedagogy in 1996, and another, “Performative Sites: Intersecting
Art, Technology, and the Body” in October, 2000. The program continues
down the alternative paths toward which Lowenfeld pointed, Beittel walked,
and that today have been transformed into electronic, digital, and hypertextual
trajectories. References Amr,
K (1982). The interaction of cultural and natural factors in the drawing
of Jordanian children. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Baker,
D. (1982). Rousseau’s children: An historical analysis of the romantic
paradigm in art education. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Beittel,
K. (1953). Some experimental approaches to the aesthetic attitudes of
college students. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Beittel.
K. (1972). Mind and context in the art of drawing. New York: Holt, Reinhart
and Winston. Beittel.
K. (1973). Alternatives for art education research. Dubuque: Wm. C.
Brown Biggers,
J. T. (1954). The Negro woman in American life and education, a mural
presentation. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Brittain,
W. L. (1952). Experiments for a possible test to determine some aspects
of creativity in the visual arts. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State
University, University Park. Brooks,
C. A. (1980). The Meaning of childhood art experience: A dialectical
hermeneutic. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Bumgarner,
C. (1993). Artists in the classroom: An analysis of the Arts in Education
Program of the National Endowment for the Arts. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. Carpenter,
A. S. (1958). Some aspects of the growth and development of teacher
education in West Virginia as depicted through a mural. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Carpenter,
B. S. (1996). A meta-critical analysis of ceramics criticism for art
education: Toward an interpretive methodology. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. Clements,
R. D. (1964). Question types, patterns, and sequences used by art teachers
in the classroom. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Connelly,
M. E. (1988 ). The relationship between art teachers’ levels of
professionalization and openess to change. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park.children’s responses to
color stimuli. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Connors,
K. (1985). Myth, stereotype, taboo, and self-esteem of the woman artist.
Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Corcoran,
A. L. (1953). The Variability of Children’s Responses to Color
Stimuli. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Dambekalns,
L. (1996). Curriculum and the collective mind: Changing paradigms in
The Pennsylvania State University’s Department of Art Education
1960-1970. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Darnell,
F. S. (1996). Art education and environment: Reading Nineteenth-century
landscape representation as cultural code and historical text. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Day,
E. S. (1976). A study of dreams and dreaming and the transformation
of dream themes Into drawings and paintings. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. DePillars,
M. N. (1976). African-American artists and art students: A morphological
study in the urban black aesthetic. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State
University, University Park. Edmonston.
P. (1961). A Method of Inquiry into one’s own studio processes.
Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Flannery,
M. E. (1967). Art Education and the Interplay Between the Intellect
and the Imagination in Artistic Creation. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. Freyberger,
R. M. (1951). Differences in the creative drawings of children of varying
ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds in Pennsylvania based on samplings
of grades one through six. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Gaudelius,
Y. (1993). Art-iculating women’s voices: An exploration of women’s
subjectivity in contemporary women’s visual art, feminist pedagogy,
and French feminist theory. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Green,
G. L. (1994). The oval lady: A semiotic approach to art interpretation
in art education applied to the work of Leonora Carrington. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Hardiman,
G. W. (1967). An investigation into the effect of art training on judges’
decoding of selected spontaneous and divergent process drawings done
by arts students and non-arts students. Unpublished dissertation, Penn
State University, University Park. Heilman,
H. F (1954). An experimental study of workbook influence on the
creative drawings of second grade children. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. Hoffa,
Harlan E. (1959). The relationship of art experience to some attributes
of conformity. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Hurwitz,
A.(1972). A supervisor’s analysis of the initiation of a curriculum
development project in art appreciation for the sixth grade. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Jones,
C. A. (1978). Maritain’s creative intuition and child art. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Jordan,
L. (1980). On the journey of claying. Unpublished dissertation, Penn
State University, University Park. Kantner,
L. A. (1967). Commonalty in the use of drawing styles and certain ambiguous
stimuli. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Kauppinen,
H. (1980). A model for dducational evaluation: The evaluation and assessment
of a programof Basic Art Objectives in the Finnish Comprehensive School
System. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Kobisz,
V. (1975). The referential and operational grounding of phenomenology
as a method of describing inner art experiencing. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. Lansing,
K. M. (1956). The effect of class size and room size upon the
creative drawings of fifth grade children. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. Lowenfeld,
V. (1939). The nature of creative activity. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul. Lowenfeld,
V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. New York: The Macmillan Company. Madenfort,
W. J. (1965). A phenomenology of the esthetic and art education.
Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Mahlmann,
J. J. (1970). The effect of various visual stimuli on the drawings of
college students. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Mattil,
E. L. (1953). A study to determine the relationships between the creative
products of children, ages 11 to 14, and Their Adjustment. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Mayer,
M. M. (1999). Precious minds and precious objects: Implications of the
new art histories for art museum education. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. McVitty,
L. F. (1954). An experimental study on various methods in art
motivations at the fifth grade level. Unpublished dissertation, Penn
State University, University Park. Morris,
C. B. (1996). Roots, branches, blossoms, and briars: Cultural colonialism
of the mountain arts of West Virginia. Unpublished dissertation, Penn
State University, University Park. Pistolesi,
E. (1990). Part super: A play, the creative process, and childhood fantasy.
Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Raunft,
R. (1982).A daseinsanalytc-hermeneutic study of the significance of
the childhood art experiences of two mature artists/teachers: A dialectic
hypnotic age regression. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Ritenbaugh,
T. D. (1989). Artist, teacher, scholar, organizational leader, administrator,
collector: Art educators’ beliefs about roles and status. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Rogers,
D. E. (1980). A critical analysis of the serpent symbol as it is relevant
to the perpetuation of the Djuka art tradition. Unpublished dissertation,
Penn State University, University Park. Saunders,
R. J. (1961). The contributions of Horace Mann, Mary Peabody Mann, and
Elizabeth Peabody to art education in the United States. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Schwartz,
A. M. (1960). The Effects of Conditioning Upon Children’s Color
Choices and Color Usage. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Schwartz,
B. (1964). The effect of instruction, duration of working time, and
predicted creative level upon the over-all aesthetic quality and process
characteristics of art works. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Sessions,
W. P. (1998). A new Case for clay: Multi-dimensional high school ceramics
education. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Speirs,
P. (1998). Collapsing distinctions: Feminist art dducation as research,
art and pedagogy. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Stallings,
C. W. (1954). Some aspects of the evolution of Negro colleges in America
as depicted by the execution of a mural. Unpublished dissertation, Penn
State University, University Park. Stapleton,
D. J. (1976). Ontological inquiry in art education: Hermeneutic interpretation
of a drawing serial. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Stokrocki,
M. L. (1981). Spheres of meaning: A qualitative description and interpretation
of an art learning environment. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State
University, University Park. Suplee,
B. P. (1995). Reflections on the Barnes Foundation’s aesthetic
theory, philosophical antecedents, and “method” for appreciation.
Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Taylor,
P. G. (1999). Hypertext-based art education: Implications for liberatory
learning in high school. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park. Thompson,
K. M. (1979). Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: An exposition of
the work, How it grounds the objective moment and the necessity of artist.
Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Troxell,
R. T. (1987). Poetic consciousness: A phenomenological cideoiconographic
investigation. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Wallin,
E. C. (1958). The history of care for the mentally ill in Pennsylvania
as depicted by the execution of a mural. Unpublished dissertation, Penn
State University, University Park. White,
J. H. (1994). Truth and community: Constructing the cultural self. Unpublished
dissertation, Penn State University, University Park. Wilson,
M. (1977). Passage-through-communitas: An interpretive analysis of enculturation
in art education. Unpublished dissertation, Penn State University, University
Park. Clare
Grosgebauer |