ARE 6641: Contemporary Issues in Art Education
Making Meaning: Experiences with Visiting Artists
Significance
I originally questioned what intrigues us about other artists? How do they create, gather ideas, and why are experiences with them meaningful? I chose to collect research based on experiences with meaning making and visiting artists largely because of the associated costs. I wondered if it was worth the time, effort, and money of individuals and groups to create these experiences. I wanted to find out if these experiences were more than a time out of class or a line on a resume. Does bringing in working artists from the community or around the world have a deep resonating impact on those who experience it? Does this experience go beyond the classroom? Does it create meaning in their lives for the moment, or for the rest of their lives? How important is the experience right now and do they predict they will consider it important or use it later in life?
I found it important to ask and attempt to answer these questions because of the limited funds for schools and groups. I thought it was important to have some research associated with this topic. Graham and Zwirn discussed creating meaning in the classroom and the struggle that faces educators today. Faced with this struggle I can see why educators might think of visiting artists as a positive and meaningful experience. Carpenter (2002) suggests “Visiting artists workshops play and important role in the art education of students, pre-service teachers, and veteran art educators.” (p. 18) Chappell (2005) suggests that using local artists might help in a campaign against anti-bullying. Many artists and educators in the twenty-first century support visiting artist programs. My question is is this worth it?
Model
I am a part of H.O.T. Clay a ceramics group at the University of Florida who brings in a visiting artist each semester. I decided to use our planned event for the spring semester as the location to distribute surveys to the individuals in attendance.
I used a paper survey for this research because I needed to collect data directly from the individuals attending the NCECA Pre-Conference. The event lasted from 9AM-4PM with demonstrations as well as an artist lecture from 6-7PM. The advantage to a paper survey was that it gave the participants time during and after the conference to complete it. It was also practical to collect the data all at once during the same time of day and after an equal time of experience with the artists. It was organized to include quantitative data at the top and qualitative data on the bottom.
Aims
The specific aims for this study were to find out who attends artist workshops? Do they create meaning? Are they meaningful later in life? Ultimately, I collected data that would help show whether or not it is worth the cost associated with bring in visiting artists? I chose to focus on these questions because I felt they best encompassed my goals for the study. Due to the limited events planned for the semester I chose the NCECA Pre-Conference because I was already involved in planning and would be attending the event.
Materials
For this project I chose to use a survey to collect data. I printed the survey on bright orange colored paper. I passed out a pencil and candy with each survey to the participants when they returned to the demonstration room after lunch. I had a box in the back of the room to collect the surveys so that participants who left early could drop them off before they left. The survey included a full page of questions coving both demographics and meaning making. The full list of questions is provided in Appendix A.
Research Design & Methods
I designed this study as a survey. The survey was passed out to approximately 32 participants and was returned by 31. The population surveyed included 10 males and 21 females. Of the 31 participants 26 were currently studying art. They ranged from undergraduate, post baccalaureate to graduate students.
The original conference was to include Nan Smith, Kathy King, and Kevin Snipes. Nan became very ill and was unable to attend the conference so Kathy King and Kevin Snipes were moved to the same room. The surveys were all passed out in the room where both artists were demonstrating.
The second portion of the survey presented the participants with an opportunity to reflect on their experiences at this event as well as past experiences with meaning making and visiting artists. I interpreted each answer individually and scored them by placing similar comments into categories.
Predictions
I thought the survey form was simple and participants would have no problem answering the questions. I assumed that each participant had an individual definition for meaning. I thought they would be able to answer the questions based on their own experiences with meaning making.
For years H.O.T. Clay along with other large universities have sponsored visiting artist programs in a variety of the arts. With this information I assumed that these events must create meaning that goes beyond the initial experience. I believed that participants in these events would be invested and would have high levels of engagement.
Results
When asked, did your experiences with these artists have an impact on you? Participants responded: 18 strongly agree, 13 agree and 0 disagree. When asked, how likely are you to draw on this experience later in life? Participants responded: 15 strongly agree, 16 agree, and 0 disagree. When asked, how likely are you to attend a visiting artist workshop/lecture in the future? 24 responded strongly agree, 7 agree, and 0 disagree.
When asked to rank your experience at the conference? 30 participants checked high, 1 neutral and 0 negative. The one participant who checked neutral commented, “Sunday’s experience could have been achieved more efficiently on my own and at no cost. The main reason I signed up was to see Nan Smith. I would never have paid this amount of money had I known she wouldn’t be there; HOWEVER, I was delightfully surprised by Kathy King. Excellent presenter.” When asked to rank your engagement at this conference? Participants responded: 15 high, 12 medium, 3 low and 1 did not answer.
The next section provided qualitative questions focused on meaning. The first question was, did this conference help you create meaning? If YES what kind? Or how so? The results varied and I separated them into categories 18 answering yes, 6 no and 7 did not answer. A few of the responses included: “Yes, it caused me to begin thinking about incorporating text into my work to make meaning more obvious. Reiterated the intellectual possibility in clay,” as well as, “Yes, I learned about how other artists create meaning in their work.” The following question asked, how will you use this experience? I grouped participant’s responses as 25 positive, 2 neutral, 1 negative and 3 did not answer. Within the group of positive responses included ideas about narrative, techniques, and meaning in work. When asked, in what ways was this experience meaningful to you? Of the 21 who wrote a response all were positive and included learning different techniques, gaining knowledge, conversations and the interaction with the artists. When asked, in what ways was this visiting artist helpful of unhelpful to your education and development as an artist? 18 participants answered positive describing several ways they are helpful: inspirational, ideas for research, and techniques. When asked, how many workshops have you attended in the past that had a positive or negative impact on you? Only two answered they had a negative experience, one preferred not to list names and the other provided a name.
One observation I made while going through the survey’s was that those who paid for the conference were more invested and spent more time responding in the survey than those who came for part of a class or HOT Clay. This was reflected in their answers as well as their attempt and thoughtful responses.
In comparing two questions I found that engagement at this specific conference had no effect on the over all experience. The responses are listed in Table 1 and 2 below. This comparison shows that even though 15 participants ranked their engagement medium of low 30 still considered the conference a positive experience.
Table 1
High 15
Medium12
Low 3
No answer 1
Table 2
Positive 30
Negative 1
Neutral 0
When looking at the questions regarding meaning making, I compared the responses to, did this conference help you create meaning and how will you use the experience? The responses are listed in Table 3 and 4 below. I noticed that the individuals who believed the experience to be a positive one did not necessarily associate it with being a meaningful experience.
Table 3
Yes 18
No 3
No answer 10
Table 4
Positive 27
Negative 1
No answer 3
Limitations
Limitations to this survey include the fact that a majority of those surveyed were students. The results included few conference participants that were not currently studying and no professors. Another restriction is that my results were limited to three categories under each question for example: positive, neutral and negative. This limits the participant’s opportunity to think deeply about their experience. It would have been better to provide them with a scale and ranking system from 1-10. This would have provided a more precise way to measure the results.
Nan Smith’s unanticipated sickness changed the environment and experience. I am unsure if this was a limitation but it was unexpected. This changed the location, the amount of people in each room interacting with each artist and how the surveys were handed out and collected. Another limitation that effected the actual collecting of data was that as a part of H.O.T. Clay I was required to play a role in the conference. I was Kevin Snipes assistant for the day and this meant I was required to stay in the front of the room for most of the conference.
I predicted that most people attend and plan visiting artist workshops with the goal of meaning making. Yet, I never defined meaning making. I considered that it might mean different things to different people but I should have asked a question that asked each participant to define meaning for him or herself.
I did not consider was how many questions to ask. With a whole page full of questions many participants chose not to answer several questions especially on the bottom half. It also would have been helpful is I had numbered the questions to help them as they moved through the survey as well as myself in recording the data.
Strengths
This was the first survey that was used to investigate meaning making in conjunction with H.O.T. Clay at the University of Florida. This preliminary study could serve to inform future research on this topic.
Another strength is that it was a paper survey that could be filled in by hand at the time of the experience. It did not require a computer for access and could be completed during or soon after the completion of the workshop.
Future Implication
I believe that the future implications for visiting artist are a positive one. People enjoy learning from visiting artists and the majority found it meaningful to experience them. I suppose that even with tightened funds schools and groups will continue to bring in artists.
Future Research
Future research might include surveys with questions that would rate the participants interest level. To put into consideration someone’s interest with the subject matter if they were attending the artist workshop as part of a requirement for a class or for their own personal reason. I would also consider asking questions that will help discover what meaning is and how one makes meaning?
I believe we should continue to support artists in the world by brining them to environments where people will be able to be influenced by them. However, this is a broad topic that requires much more research.
References
Arnold, A. (1994) Building community through arts experience. Art Education, 47(3): 47-51.
Carpenter, S. (2002) The stories of Flo Oy Wong: A look at a visiting artist workshop. Art Education, 55(1): 17-24.
Chappell, S. (2005) Toward art-making as liberatory pedagogy and practice: Artists and students in an anti-bullying school reform initiative. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 25: 112-133.
Chung, S. (2009) An art of resistance from the street to the classroom. Art Education, 62(4): 25-32.
Dean, W. (1969) Museum without walls. Art Education, 22(1): 28-31.
Franklin, E. (2005) Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching Artists Journal, 3(3): 148-157.
Graham, M. & Zwirn, S. (2010) How being a teaching artist can influence K-12 education. Studies in Art Education 51(3): 219-232.
Hatfield, T. (2007) Why teaches art? What is learned? Arts Education Policy, 108(5): 7-8.
Lackey, L., Chou, C. & Hsu, P. (2010) Seeking coalitions between certified and non-certified art educators. Studies in Art Education, 51(4): 315-326.
Luehrman, M & Unrath, K. (2009) Bringing children to art- bringing art to children. Art Education, 62(1): 41-47.
Walker, H. (2001) Interviewing Local Artists: A Curriculum Resource in Art Teaching. Studies in Art Education, 42(3), 249-265.
Appendix A: Survey
Appendix B: Collected Data
Visiting Artist Survey Data
Survey (conducted Monday, March 29, 2011; reported March 30, 2011)
Participants in the NCECA Pre-Conference at the University of Florida (data collection by Jennifer Hansen; reported by Jennifer Hansen)
Significance
I originally questioned what intrigues us about other artists? How do they create, gather ideas, and why are experiences with them meaningful? I chose to collect research based on experiences with meaning making and visiting artists largely because of the associated costs. I wondered if it was worth the time, effort, and money of individuals and groups to create these experiences. I wanted to find out if these experiences were more than a time out of class or a line on a resume. Does bringing in working artists from the community or around the world have a deep resonating impact on those who experience it? Does this experience go beyond the classroom? Does it create meaning in their lives for the moment, or for the rest of their lives? How important is the experience right now and do they predict they will consider it important or use it later in life?
I found it important to ask and attempt to answer these questions because of the limited funds for schools and groups. I thought it was important to have some research associated with this topic. Graham and Zwirn discussed creating meaning in the classroom and the struggle that faces educators today. Faced with this struggle I can see why educators might think of visiting artists as a positive and meaningful experience. Carpenter (2002) suggests “Visiting artists workshops play and important role in the art education of students, pre-service teachers, and veteran art educators.” (p. 18) Chappell (2005) suggests that using local artists might help in a campaign against anti-bullying. Many artists and educators in the twenty-first century support visiting artist programs. My question is is this worth it?
Model
I am a part of H.O.T. Clay a ceramics group at the University of Florida who brings in a visiting artist each semester. I decided to use our planned event for the spring semester as the location to distribute surveys to the individuals in attendance.
I used a paper survey for this research because I needed to collect data directly from the individuals attending the NCECA Pre-Conference. The event lasted from 9AM-4PM with demonstrations as well as an artist lecture from 6-7PM. The advantage to a paper survey was that it gave the participants time during and after the conference to complete it. It was also practical to collect the data all at once during the same time of day and after an equal time of experience with the artists. It was organized to include quantitative data at the top and qualitative data on the bottom.
Aims
The specific aims for this study were to find out who attends artist workshops? Do they create meaning? Are they meaningful later in life? Ultimately, I collected data that would help show whether or not it is worth the cost associated with bring in visiting artists? I chose to focus on these questions because I felt they best encompassed my goals for the study. Due to the limited events planned for the semester I chose the NCECA Pre-Conference because I was already involved in planning and would be attending the event.
Materials
For this project I chose to use a survey to collect data. I printed the survey on bright orange colored paper. I passed out a pencil and candy with each survey to the participants when they returned to the demonstration room after lunch. I had a box in the back of the room to collect the surveys so that participants who left early could drop them off before they left. The survey included a full page of questions coving both demographics and meaning making. The full list of questions is provided in Appendix A.
Research Design & Methods
I designed this study as a survey. The survey was passed out to approximately 32 participants and was returned by 31. The population surveyed included 10 males and 21 females. Of the 31 participants 26 were currently studying art. They ranged from undergraduate, post baccalaureate to graduate students.
The original conference was to include Nan Smith, Kathy King, and Kevin Snipes. Nan became very ill and was unable to attend the conference so Kathy King and Kevin Snipes were moved to the same room. The surveys were all passed out in the room where both artists were demonstrating.
The second portion of the survey presented the participants with an opportunity to reflect on their experiences at this event as well as past experiences with meaning making and visiting artists. I interpreted each answer individually and scored them by placing similar comments into categories.
Predictions
I thought the survey form was simple and participants would have no problem answering the questions. I assumed that each participant had an individual definition for meaning. I thought they would be able to answer the questions based on their own experiences with meaning making.
For years H.O.T. Clay along with other large universities have sponsored visiting artist programs in a variety of the arts. With this information I assumed that these events must create meaning that goes beyond the initial experience. I believed that participants in these events would be invested and would have high levels of engagement.
Results
When asked, did your experiences with these artists have an impact on you? Participants responded: 18 strongly agree, 13 agree and 0 disagree. When asked, how likely are you to draw on this experience later in life? Participants responded: 15 strongly agree, 16 agree, and 0 disagree. When asked, how likely are you to attend a visiting artist workshop/lecture in the future? 24 responded strongly agree, 7 agree, and 0 disagree.
When asked to rank your experience at the conference? 30 participants checked high, 1 neutral and 0 negative. The one participant who checked neutral commented, “Sunday’s experience could have been achieved more efficiently on my own and at no cost. The main reason I signed up was to see Nan Smith. I would never have paid this amount of money had I known she wouldn’t be there; HOWEVER, I was delightfully surprised by Kathy King. Excellent presenter.” When asked to rank your engagement at this conference? Participants responded: 15 high, 12 medium, 3 low and 1 did not answer.
The next section provided qualitative questions focused on meaning. The first question was, did this conference help you create meaning? If YES what kind? Or how so? The results varied and I separated them into categories 18 answering yes, 6 no and 7 did not answer. A few of the responses included: “Yes, it caused me to begin thinking about incorporating text into my work to make meaning more obvious. Reiterated the intellectual possibility in clay,” as well as, “Yes, I learned about how other artists create meaning in their work.” The following question asked, how will you use this experience? I grouped participant’s responses as 25 positive, 2 neutral, 1 negative and 3 did not answer. Within the group of positive responses included ideas about narrative, techniques, and meaning in work. When asked, in what ways was this experience meaningful to you? Of the 21 who wrote a response all were positive and included learning different techniques, gaining knowledge, conversations and the interaction with the artists. When asked, in what ways was this visiting artist helpful of unhelpful to your education and development as an artist? 18 participants answered positive describing several ways they are helpful: inspirational, ideas for research, and techniques. When asked, how many workshops have you attended in the past that had a positive or negative impact on you? Only two answered they had a negative experience, one preferred not to list names and the other provided a name.
One observation I made while going through the survey’s was that those who paid for the conference were more invested and spent more time responding in the survey than those who came for part of a class or HOT Clay. This was reflected in their answers as well as their attempt and thoughtful responses.
In comparing two questions I found that engagement at this specific conference had no effect on the over all experience. The responses are listed in Table 1 and 2 below. This comparison shows that even though 15 participants ranked their engagement medium of low 30 still considered the conference a positive experience.
Table 1
High 15
Medium12
Low 3
No answer 1
Table 2
Positive 30
Negative 1
Neutral 0
When looking at the questions regarding meaning making, I compared the responses to, did this conference help you create meaning and how will you use the experience? The responses are listed in Table 3 and 4 below. I noticed that the individuals who believed the experience to be a positive one did not necessarily associate it with being a meaningful experience.
Table 3
Yes 18
No 3
No answer 10
Table 4
Positive 27
Negative 1
No answer 3
Limitations
Limitations to this survey include the fact that a majority of those surveyed were students. The results included few conference participants that were not currently studying and no professors. Another restriction is that my results were limited to three categories under each question for example: positive, neutral and negative. This limits the participant’s opportunity to think deeply about their experience. It would have been better to provide them with a scale and ranking system from 1-10. This would have provided a more precise way to measure the results.
Nan Smith’s unanticipated sickness changed the environment and experience. I am unsure if this was a limitation but it was unexpected. This changed the location, the amount of people in each room interacting with each artist and how the surveys were handed out and collected. Another limitation that effected the actual collecting of data was that as a part of H.O.T. Clay I was required to play a role in the conference. I was Kevin Snipes assistant for the day and this meant I was required to stay in the front of the room for most of the conference.
I predicted that most people attend and plan visiting artist workshops with the goal of meaning making. Yet, I never defined meaning making. I considered that it might mean different things to different people but I should have asked a question that asked each participant to define meaning for him or herself.
I did not consider was how many questions to ask. With a whole page full of questions many participants chose not to answer several questions especially on the bottom half. It also would have been helpful is I had numbered the questions to help them as they moved through the survey as well as myself in recording the data.
Strengths
This was the first survey that was used to investigate meaning making in conjunction with H.O.T. Clay at the University of Florida. This preliminary study could serve to inform future research on this topic.
Another strength is that it was a paper survey that could be filled in by hand at the time of the experience. It did not require a computer for access and could be completed during or soon after the completion of the workshop.
Future Implication
I believe that the future implications for visiting artist are a positive one. People enjoy learning from visiting artists and the majority found it meaningful to experience them. I suppose that even with tightened funds schools and groups will continue to bring in artists.
Future Research
Future research might include surveys with questions that would rate the participants interest level. To put into consideration someone’s interest with the subject matter if they were attending the artist workshop as part of a requirement for a class or for their own personal reason. I would also consider asking questions that will help discover what meaning is and how one makes meaning?
I believe we should continue to support artists in the world by brining them to environments where people will be able to be influenced by them. However, this is a broad topic that requires much more research.
References
Arnold, A. (1994) Building community through arts experience. Art Education, 47(3): 47-51.
Carpenter, S. (2002) The stories of Flo Oy Wong: A look at a visiting artist workshop. Art Education, 55(1): 17-24.
Chappell, S. (2005) Toward art-making as liberatory pedagogy and practice: Artists and students in an anti-bullying school reform initiative. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 25: 112-133.
Chung, S. (2009) An art of resistance from the street to the classroom. Art Education, 62(4): 25-32.
Dean, W. (1969) Museum without walls. Art Education, 22(1): 28-31.
Franklin, E. (2005) Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching Artists Journal, 3(3): 148-157.
Graham, M. & Zwirn, S. (2010) How being a teaching artist can influence K-12 education. Studies in Art Education 51(3): 219-232.
Hatfield, T. (2007) Why teaches art? What is learned? Arts Education Policy, 108(5): 7-8.
Lackey, L., Chou, C. & Hsu, P. (2010) Seeking coalitions between certified and non-certified art educators. Studies in Art Education, 51(4): 315-326.
Luehrman, M & Unrath, K. (2009) Bringing children to art- bringing art to children. Art Education, 62(1): 41-47.
Walker, H. (2001) Interviewing Local Artists: A Curriculum Resource in Art Teaching. Studies in Art Education, 42(3), 249-265.
Appendix A: Survey
Appendix B: Collected Data
Visiting Artist Survey Data
Survey (conducted Monday, March 29, 2011; reported March 30, 2011)
Participants in the NCECA Pre-Conference at the University of Florida (data collection by Jennifer Hansen; reported by Jennifer Hansen)
