Observing is becoming: social learning theory, creativity, and 21st century art education


Material Information

Observing is becoming: social learning theory, creativity, and 21st century art education
Physical Description:
Project in lieu of thesis
Wilke, Janice
College of Fine Arts, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date:


The reality of instantaneous, global communication is redefining notions of time and space. Students can electronically travel beyond the school walls to reach across the neighborhood, the country, and the globe, to access ideas, further their inquiry, and potentially problem-solve. To use this capacity to its fullest, however, in addition to technical proficiencies, I suggest twenty-first century learners will have particular need for affective skills and dispositions: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, compassion, and cultural understanding among them. It is arguable how highly these skill sets are valued in current educational systems, but as these skill sets have points in common with broadened definitions of creativity, I propose the art studio classroom as an advantageous setting for the two concepts to surface and merge. I explore social learning theory has an effective lens through which to develop affective skill sets and broadened definitions of creativity. With its components of modeling, observational and vicarious learning, reinforcement, and cognitive self-regulation, social learning theory leads to the idea of self-efficacy: the belief that one is capable of performing a specific task. It is this point in particular that I connect with broadened ideas of creativity and the development of affective and dispositional learning outcomes for twenty-first century learners. Through a set of individual but closely linked essays, I portray relationships between social learning theory and creativity, crystallized teaching moments in my art studio classroom, my own identification with the subject, and a petition for an elevated status of affective dispositions within education. My focus is an examination and comparison of the properties of social learning theory (modeling, observation and vicarious learning, self-regulation, and self-efficacy) with expanding roles and definitions of creativity (fluency, flexibility, resilience, elaboration, cross-disciplinary thinking, motivation, and persistence). Through this writing, I present the studio art classroom and the process of art-making as a central point in an educational agenda that acknowledges teaching and learning for affective dispositions and the discrete properties of twenty-first century creativity.
General Note:
Art Education terminal project

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


1 Observing is Becoming : Social Learning Theory, Creativity, and 21 st Century Art Education Janice Wilke University of Florida August 2012




3 List of Illustrations: Figure 1 (Key Terms) Figure 2: (Cross Current of Ideas) Figure 3: (The Broa d Premise) 21


4 ABSTRACT OF PROJECT OR THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRA DUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLME NT OF THE REQUIREMEN TS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Observing is Becoming: Social Learning Theory, Creativity, and 21 st Century Art Education By Janice Wilke August 2012 Committee Members: Dr. Jodi Kushins chair Dr. Leslie Gates co chair M ajor: Art Education Abstract : The reality of instantaneous, global communication is redefining notions o f time and space. Students can electronically travel beyond the school walls to reach across the neighborhood, the country, and the globe, to access ideas, further their inquiry, and potentially problem solve. To use this capacity to its fullest, however, in addition to technical proficiencies, I suggest twenty first century learners will have particular need for affective skills and dispositions: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, compassion, and cultural understanding among them. It is argua ble h ow highly these skill sets are valued in current educational systems, but as these skill sets have points in


5 common with broadened definitions of creativity, I propose the art studio classroom as an advantageous setting for the two concepts to surface and merge. I explore s ocial l earning t heory has an effective lens through which to develop affective skill sets and broadened definitions of creativity. With its components of modeling, observational and vicarious learning, reinforcement, and cognitive se lf regulation, s ocial l earning t heory leads to the idea of self efficacy : the belief that one is capable of performing a specific task. It is this point in particular that I connect with broadened ideas of creativity and the development of affective and di spositional learning outcomes for twenty first century learners Through a set of individual but closely linked essays, I portray relationships between social learning theory and creativity, crystallized teaching moments in my art studio classroo m, my own identification with the subject, and a petition for an elevated status of affective dispositions within education. My focus is an examination and comparison of the properties of social learning theory (modeling, observation and vicarious learning self regulation, and self efficacy) with expanding roles and definitions of creativity (fluency, flexibility, resilience, elaboration, cross disciplinary thinking, motivation and persistence). Through this writing, I present the studio art classroom and the process of art making as a central point in an educational agenda that acknowledges teaching and learning for affective dispositions and the discrete properties of twenty first century creativity.


6 Observing is Becoming: Social Le arning Theory, Creativity, and 21 st Century Art Education Key Words: social learning theory, vicarious learning, reinforcement, self efficacy, creativity affective behaviors motivation, persistence, resiliency, cross disciplinary thinking Introduction The effects of globalization, the increased speed and access of communication, and the growing need for complex problem solving skills puts new demands on the students of today and t he workforce of tomorrow. In addition to technical proficiencies, the twenty first century learner will profit from a corresponding behavioral intelligence. Collaboration, communication, compassion, cultural understanding, critical thinking, and creativity (Bassett, 2004) will be required skills to navigate compressed notions of time and space The art studio and the thinking and behavioral issues inherent within it, could play an increased role in a more holistic versio n of education. My researc h involves finding an effective teaching strategy to develop creative behaviors I believe this strategy involves social learning theory; a theory that, through


7 mod eling and reinforcement, allows a ffective issues to surface, be recognized, and be addressed At the same time, c reativity has been redefined and expanded to include a wide array of behaviors and choices (Zimmerman, 2009 ; Freedman 2010 ) leading to the development of the same dispositional skills Bassett (2004) advoca tes for twenty first century l earning Teaching for these dispositional behaviors is a different issue from teaching for the development of cognition and the accumulation of knowledge, which I believe many schools are already doing well. Teaching students the dispositional ability to a pply knowledge to a new situation is a different challenge altogether; one I am afraid we are not meeting nearly as well. The dispositional abilities I hope to see in my art room resiliency, flexibility, elaboration, persistence and motivation, and their correlating cognitive abilities fluency, critical thinking, and divergent thinking -are necessary accompaniments to technological proficiency and scientific mathematical and linguistic prowess. In this paper and accompanying project, I advocate for a bal anced educational approach that includes these dispositional learning outcome s. My research presents various layers of thought and analysis. I explore s ocial l earning t heory as a teaching framework for a studio art classroom. I consider contempor ary definitions of creativity and use these definitions to directly relate aspects of s ocial l earning t heory with studio art learning outcomes. I mine my action research journal for examples of these theories surfacing in my studio art classroom. I use ref lective writing to ruminate about how theory and practice have add ed to my self knowledge, growth, and abilities as an artist and teacher. Figure 1 (Key Terms) lists and categorized much of the vocabulary I will be using in my writing. The ideas bound up in social learning theory unravel through a few key


8 phrases: modeling, observational learning, vicarious learning, reinforcement, self efficacy, and reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1977). We can begin talking about social learning theory through two concepts that occur in a group situation: modeling and observational/vicarious learning Vicarious experience is based on modeling (a person exhibiting or acting out behavioral and affective patterns) and observation (another person paying attention it and remembering it ). Social learning theory emphasize s interaction in the classroom, and Albert Bandura (b. 1925) gives a central role to modeling. That model could be the teacher other students, or both. Younger students see older students doing "harder tasks fearlessly, and they too will be more willing to try them "Acknowledgement that human thought, affect, and behavior can be markedly influenced by observation, as well as by direct experience, fostered the development of observational paradig ms for studying the power of socially mediated experience" (Bandura, 1977, p. 76). The phrase "socially mediated" rings true with me for my responsibilities a s a teacher. The students are looking to me as a model, and framing my thoughts through the lens o f social learning theory helps me keep that thought in mind. Another aspect to social learning theory is the self regulatory process. People do not react to external influences alone. We have self produced influences as well : we select, organize, an d transform the stimulus around us. We are the shapers of our own experience. As such, i ndividuals are the principal agents of their own change This part of social learning theory appeals to me I want to model to my students that they are the princi pal


9 agents -the power behind -their own change by being the principle agent of my own change. The changes I am looking for in my own behavior and awareness and in that of my students are culled from the writings of Freedman (2010), Zimmerman (2009), a nd Lehrer (2012). While studying creativity these three writers have redefined it for the educational community by including subsets or individual characteristics of what was once thought of as a si ngle frame of mind. (MacKinnon, 1 964). These individual c haracteristics are: elaboration (the willingness to add details and take an idea further); resilience (the ability to bounce back from setbacks and obstacles); flexibility (the ability to deviate from a set plan); fluency (the ability to combine ideas and envision multiple or innovative solutions); motivation (the energy to engage); and persistence (the ability to keep working despite obstacles and delayed rewards). I believe using a social learning theory framework in the classroom, stressing modeling, vic arious learning, and reinforcement, will help develop these dispositional behaviors Finally, I believe these creative behaviors and tendencies along with a social learning theory lens, will assist in the desired twenty first century learning outcome s as articulated by Patrick Bassett president of the National Association of Independent Schools. (Bassett, 2004; 2011). These learning outcomes can be summarized by the phrase the Six : communication, compassion, critical thinking, collaboration, crea tivity, and cultural understanding. These learning outcomes are both affective and cognitive; they are both individual and social. Twenty first century education will need a balanced approach which gives all dispositions their full weight and measure.


10 Figure 1: Key terms


11 Re levance to M y S ituation I am a studio art teacher, department head, and interim arts director in an independent school for girls. My school is currently in the process of revising its curriculum from one based on the A dva nced P lacement program to one of pro ject oriented interdisciplinary c lasses focused on individual inquiry As the school administrators and the Board of Directors call for more creativity in the classroom (without a clear definition of what that is), I am through my administration position, in an advantageous position for integrating my particular interests in studio art learning with other subjects. I participate in core committee meetings to revise the school curriculum. As an art educator and as a paint er I feel my responsibility and my calling is to help my colleagues think beyond adding arts type projects to standard academic content. My research attempts to understand creativity in terms of discrete modes of thought and action and how to develop these modes in studio work. I will then bring this understanding to my administrative work. I believe if teachers of all subjects understand and discuss the nature of creative thought and action more thoroughly, there will be greater likelihood of it becoming a n integral part of twenty first century learning I will advocate for the role studio art teachers and the type s of learning we espouse, can play as the faculty collaboratively plan s our new interdisciplinary classes. If discrete components of c reativity are teachable in an art studio, and if these discrete components of creativity are internalized through art making, then students should be able to apply creative behaviors to other content Creativity occurs in all domains, but the art studio being as open ended as it is offers particular opportunities for creativity to surface and flourish. F or some students the application of creativity to other domains is


12 perhaps a greater use of studio art learning as it resul t s in a change of behavior as well as art making knowledge. At the same time, I believe my own ability to teach the art making knowledge, through recognition of affective issues and moments, and the compassion, vocabulary, and behavior with which to immediately and effectively address them, will be significantly enhanced. My school is also entering its self study year for the Pennsylvania Association of Independent Schools re certification. I am on a committee to study innovative teaching This group will provide a natura l outlet for sharing my research on the overlaps between social learning theory, creativity, and the needs of twenty first century learners. This committee is making a presentation at the 2013 Convention of the National Association of Independent Schools and my research will be part of that presentation. The National Art Education Association has a sub group for independent school teachers, and perhaps my work will find an outlet there. In addition, I harbor the private goal of continuing my research and w riting into the form of a publishable article for a n academic journal S tatement of the Problem Even as schools are calling for greater creativity in the classroom, the disciplines of science an d mathematics continue to hold sway as the bastions of academic rigor. This emphasis and their high stakes performance tests, along with a growing concern for digital proficiency, may be relegating affective behaviors and creative dispositions to a subordi nate position within the curriculum. Many educational theorists tout creativity as a twenty first century need (Robinson, 2001/20011 ; Gardner, 1999 ; Langer, 1997 ), however, I am interested in seeing creativity assert its rightful place within the education al system in general and in my school in particular


13 My first step in achieving this goal is finding an effective practice with in my own discipline for teaching dispositional needs and for developing creative behaviors thought, and outcomes. I wish to use my classroom as a theater for the teaching methods aligned with social learning theory: modeling, observation, reinforcement, vicarious learning, the development of self efficacy, self regulatory behaviors, and the creation of innovative thinking pa tterns, among others. I believe these social learning objectives dovetail with reconceptualizations of creativity to create specific crystallized teaching moments These moments are separated from the more or less standard procedure of the working studio c lass and lead to the development of affective behaviors and creative dispositions. I believe a platform exists for an art education al philosophy dedicated to the blending of creativity with the discipline of master ing a medium in essence, the working studi o classroom -t o hold an integral position in the curriculum of the most rigorously academic school. theory of self efficacy will help make this blending possible. Bandura centers on the issue o f self efficacy -th e belief one is capable of performing a certain task (Bandura, 1977, p.3) and its relationship with environment. How important is a str o ng sense of self efficacy in the construction of knowledge and the possibility of originality? Can an art studio e nvironment have a efficacy? Will an increased sense of self efficacy achieve the desired twenty fi rst century learning outcomes? A nother question surrounding my stated problem is the nature of creativity i tself. Part of the problem is that creativity is notoriously hard to define and may differ between cultures. A standard notion of creativity in Western


14 tive in Creativity Creativity Research Journal in 2010. Klausen presents the novelty, production, a mental contrast, and function or value. Although Klausen goes onto add to and refute aspects of this generally accepted definition, the major components of it are what I seek in my classroom. Can creativity be taught? Some older studies say no (MacKinnon, 1964); it is an external inspiration. More recent research says yes (Lehrer, 2012 ; Klausen, 2010; McIntrye, 2008; Robinson2001/2011 ) and deciphers creativity as insight that must then translate to action. Can this internal insig ht be studied, broken down into steps and characteristics, and be something that gets learn ed, achieved, and externalized? How does it relate to the use of a medium? What prerequisites might there be for creative insight to occur? Will creativity have a gr eater practical importance in the light of solving twenty first century problems? I am also interested in ways post modern and post feminist researchers have expanded notions of acceptable forms of presenting research. In that vein, I present sel f reflective writing, interpreting, and thinking. Do I express a personal voice in my writing, teaching, and researching and does it hold interest for others ? At the same time, however, I want my writing to be grounded in educational theory and psychologi cal insights: how much art/artifice can one use to discuss and teach art and ideas and when might it become a self indulgent distraction ? Must all points be definitively made or can they be intuitively felt to achieve an acknowledged sense of validity?


15 My subject holds many potential foci. F igure 2 (Cross current of Ideas ) illustrates specific overlap s between social learning theory, affective dispositions, and subsets of creativity which hold special interest for me. Vicarious learning to want to do what others do is a part of motivation A history of past accomplishment couples with verbal reinforcement can lead to self efficacy (the belief that one is capable of performing a certain task). Self efficacy is also a motivational factor in a redefinitio n of creativity : the ability to envision what is not seen, and having the motivation to implement it step by step. Flexibility is a desirable trait for recognizing and following a better contingency. It is these ideas, traits, and relationships that I wis h to more fully understand in my classroom, my students, and me.


16 Figure 2 : Cross current of ideas Limitations of the Study M y study is limited by using social learning theory as a single focus as the conduit to teaching creativity within my own classroom I fe lt that exploring additional teaching methods would have made the study unwieldy I have accep ted the idea of social learning theory as a useful guideline for teaching for creative outcomes and I have explored the


17 ways they coincide. During the course of this study I hav e re thought the critique process and how I c a n use it as a reinforcement measure, but in general I did not attempt to design tailored studio assignments for the purpose of creating teaching moments for dispositional outcomes I wan ted the issues of creative dispositions to arise through the process of drawing and painting. My intent ion was to dramatize the making of a drawing or painting as it involves or elicits creative choice and further s the development of affective dispositions. As I teach in an independent school for girls, my study may be infl uenced by how girls learn and interact as opposed to boys. My students are in the grade levels of ni ne through twelve and are taking art as an elective. Most, but not all, of the students come from privileged backgrounds, travel widely, and already have a wealth of experience behind them. They are well read for high school students, are enrolled in rigorous academic classes, and most feel parental pressure to succeed. It might be argued their motivation comes more from their parents than from an internal se nse of well being, although I am less likely to experience that pressure in the art room. Perhaps one or two students a year go on to major in studio art, with perhaps another one or two choosing architecture as a course of study. Many are also star athlet es, sometimes holding a national ranking. In other words, although the student population is ethnically diverse, the general intelligence accomplishment, and energy level is not. My students are articulate and high f unctioning ; I am not working with a stu dent population at risk They are ready and willing to work with each other and with me. I do not have to overcome distrus t or feelings of alienation


18 Supporting Literature My reading began with selected twenty first century educational theorists (Robinson, 2001/2011 ; Gardner, 2011 ; and Lang e r 1997). I wanted to read what I knew my administrators were reading In order to influence any of the current and developing cha nges in the school, I fe lt it necessary to be able to relate my specificities and interests to the over it is influenced by these types of writers I wanted to know what my colleagues meant whe n they use terms such as creativity, dispositional behaviors, and innovation. Robinson (2001/2011), Gardner (1999; 2011), and Langer (1997) discuss creativity and affective dispositions in broad philosophical terms within an educational paradigm. T hey do not focus on individual subject domains or the specificities of classroom management. As such, the reading provided me with an idea of how creativity and affective dispositions are considered from a more administrative or educational psychology poin t of view, but not from the daily workings of an art classroom. A source which more closely links the behavioral dispositions to the workings of the art classroom Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Art Education Creativity has been the subject of many art education oriented articles and articles within the field of psychology in recent years. Creativity Research Journal is an invaluable resource, a lthough many of its articles are quantitative and test oriented; not my major interest(Kee, 2006; Ruscio & Amanile, 1999; Smith & Faldt, 1999). Others seem more in the realm of philosophy (Aymen Nolley, 1999; Klausen, 2010), and while interesting, is not e asily applied to a classroom setting. Sources for theories of creativity


19 from the last half of the twentieth century (MacK i nnon, 1962;64; Low enfeld, 1968; Fryer & Collings, 1001) present creativity as more of a single mindset or individual characteristic, sometimes referring to the Greek inspiration, and should remain free from adult inter vention The majority of contemporary writing divides creativity into separate functions which manifest itself i n a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes (Klau sen, 2010; McIntyre, 2008; Lehrer, 2012). From a more art education based framework, I considered recent research on creativity and how it was being redefined in the process. (Zimmerman, 2 009; Friedman, 20 1 0 ) Lehrer (2012) dissect s creativity into d iscernable steps, processes, and functions I was interested in how the art studio amplifies these definitions, steps and necessitating conditions. I then considered creativity through the lens of psychology (MacKinnan, 1964; Smith, 2008) to view it in a c ontext beyond art and art education. I focused on the characteristics of creative people and the changing theories of creativity from a solitary activity to a more social, collaborative orientation for problem solving. Even the redefinitions of creativity, however, do not address the specific feelings, moments, and opportunities for learning presented in a working studio class. This is my goal: a work of synthesis between theory, practice, and my own creative self reflection. I predicted the overlappi ng fields o f education, creativity, and psychology coalesce in the field of social learning theory, and indeed they did T he founders of s ocial l earning t heory are Albert Bandura (b. 1925) and Lev Vygotsky (1896 1934) V ogotsky focuses primarily on the fie ld of language acquisition and the zone of proximal development efficacy and reciprocal determinism that most relate to my current study. Bandura


20 discusses the terms I woul d be acting out and promulgating in my classroom: modeling, attention, reinforcement, observational learning, vicarious learning, self efficacy, and reciprocal determinism. Pajares (2002) is the current leading expert on Social learning Theory and has auth ored and gathered together a trove of past and current research on his website www.des.emory.edu/mpf/self efficacy.html Much of the research centers on issues of students and self efficacy, but mostly in the realm of music, health, and athletics (Pajares, 2002); very little on the subject of self efficacy and visual art h as been published. (The website www.des.emory.edu/mpf/self efficacy.html lists two dissertations in progress: one by Francesca Cridland of the Univeristy of Tasmania, Australia, on The Influence of a Visual Arts Program on Self Efficacy and Achievement and the other by Gabriel Cimaomo, from the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain, on Self Efficacy, Motivation and Creativity. ) I have not found scholarship c onnecting the three ideas (social learning theory, redefintions of creativity, and the needs of twenty first century learners) to the specificities of art making itself.


21 Research De sign Figure 3 : The Broad Premise Figure 3: The Broad Premise summarizes my reading and my research design. I 4 /2011) outcomes for twenty f irst century learning. I then moved to the writ ers on creativity and


22 how they are redefining it in the process. Finally, I tackled the specificities of social learning theory from the primary source of Albert Bandura. My goal was to transform theory into p raxis; to find ideas I could translate into my studio teaching life. From this reading, I wanted to be deliberately speculative and reflective to make my own connections between the classroom, the primary source reading in psychology, and the newer researc h on creativity. As I continued my research, I was both delighted and dismayed to uncover articles similar to my own thinking. The articles I found, however, (Prabhu, Sutton & Sauser, 2008; Carlsson, 2002) differ in one major respect from my work: my class room. My work remains its own as it unfolds in the specific context of place. I initially envisioned my writing about these explorations as taking shape within three discrete sections: a report like research paper about social learning theory and its potential as a teaching framework in the art studio; stories from my action research journal; and self reflective essays about my teaching and my thinking about my teaching. As I continued to question and be questioned, however, the separate categories beg an to break down and re arrange themselves. Ideas began to build in terms of subject matter as opposed to style. I wondered if each essay -my term for a short, non fiction piece of writing circumnavigating a central topic -could contain all three elem ents: factual background information when needed, examples from the classroom floor, and my ruminations and experiences combining the two. That's when I decided on a series of linked essays about creativity, social learning theory, and the needs of twenty first century learners to describe my project.


23 There is certainly a chance for failure in a s eries of linked essays. I t is somewhat amorphous, to be sure, but the freedom in this moniker allowed me to initially tackle the corners of my research as se parate elements, and then, through time, find the driving narrative or force that held them together Will it, in the end, add u p to a whole and have meaning? C onversely, can I ask anyone else (i.e., my students) to take a risk if I am not willing to do so myself? I defend my choice by rationalizing that if I want my students to take risks, I m ust model the same willingness. I also defend my choice my acknowledging that these essays were written for me, as a foray into a different way of thinking and as a w riting experiment. These essays are the residue of my research into social learning theory and its potential applications to creativity and my particular way of teaching. The linking -between the essays and between the ideas -comes from me; I wanted t o be somewhat playful with the writing. I wanted to create a personal but credible tone with my words and shape them into voices; I also wanted them to be carried along on a cadence so they would ring in your head as you read them. My writing is meant to b e an acknowledged conversation between me and you, whoever you might be. If we acknowledge there is a reader, then we are forced to acknowledge there is also a writer. This acknowledgement between reader and writer is expressed by my use of two typef aces. My more objective writing is expressed through a plain typeface: this is the explanation of social learning theory terms, ideas, and how they can relate to affective learning. My boldface type in italics is more subjective: it is indicating ruminatio ns, personal experiences, or my asking the reader or myself direct questions.


24 The printed page isn't a given; there is a person at the other end of those words with a pen in her hand. I am that person now, and I wanted my writing and my voice to find various connections, and how I might wish to use them, between three fields of study: s ocial learning theory, creativity, and the needs of twenty first century learners. This thinking turned into writing is in itself an act of creativity. I am creating th e whole: I am weaving together, through words, strings of an imagined three dimensional cobweb. The primary subject of my essays is my teaching process itself, and I wanted, at least temporarily, to think about expanding my teaching by looking at my art studio through the disciplinary lens of psychology and social learning theory. This lens focuses on affective and behavioral outcomes. Affective outcomes are ones based on emotions, and I am interested in developing the emotional stamina which makes pe rsistence and resilience possible. My interest in teaching for positive affective and behavioral outcomes has grown steadily over the years and is now accompanied by an interest in the role teaching for affective outcomes plays in education. I wanted to ex plore my teaching process as based not only on symbols (words and the language of drawing and painting), but on social learning theory's other categories of communication and experience: direct, vicarious, and self regulatory. I kept an action researc h journal from November through May. I recorded many instances of social learning theory ideas, crystallized teaching m o ments, and affective dispositional behaviors surfacing in the classroom In the true spirit of Vygotsky (1978), I tried to see the class room as a complete narrative and put the individual voices (the students and mine) into this larger context. I was looking at all times for the interstices between the subjects that would focus my project into a whole, if only for a few fleeting


25 moments. T he classroom is nothing if not fluid; moments come and moments go; to be replaced by another situation, another student, another need. We (the students and I) focus on these moments, label them, discuss their function in the evolution of personal art makin g and cultural change, and project how they can be used in othe r subjects and in life at large. I use these instances and words throughout my accompanying project. M y essays are to be taken as writing to be thought about, chewed over, a nd each teacher is an individual, I feel I have to mention the connection between theory and practice; the glue, or the will, that is holding this precarious balance o f ideas together: me. My research design includes personal essays about my research evolution, my identification with the subject, and though ts that arose during the process. Although my goal is to explore social learning theory as a best practi ce for desired twent y first century learning, I do not think there is one definitive answer for all situations; I explore this framework as a very useful paradigm, but I would not presume to present it as one that fits every circumstance. Every situation i n the classroom is dealt with anew on a case by case basis. I bring my questions about my own process out onto the studio floor: I did the same with the research project For precedents of this nature I turned to the recent examples of post feminist sociologists Richardson (2010), McCormack (2000), and Law rence Lightfoot & Davis (1997). All four writers drop the omniscient voice of a supposedly pure, objective research and allow their own voices to be part of the process; all four writers acknowledge research as an interactive exchange. I wanted my research practice


26 to echo my teaching process, and I wanted my teaching process to be influenced by my research, writing, and thinking. Conclusion The primary purpose of my study was to invigorate my cl assroom teaching. I started my questioning by keeping an action research journal. After a month or two of entries I realized the subject which kept surfacing again and again was affective dispositions: a the flexibility to follow divergent paths or explore unpredicted opportunities, her belief in her ability to do specific tasks, her resiliency to recover from setbacks, and her ability to envision her own path. After systematically researching back archi ves of art education academic journals, I found the subject of social learning theory resonated with the observations of my action research journal. Social learning theory fit the bill on two levels: it addressed the dispositional tendencies which are part of the contemporary, enlarged definitions of creativity, and it supplied me with a fresh way of thinking about the relationships between myself and my students. My school is in the process of changing from the vertical flow of knowledge (from teacher to student and back again) inherent in the Advanced Placement program to a more horizontal exchange of knowledge between teacher, student, and resources learning, reinf orcement, and self efficacy allows more inclusion of outside the school sources without losing the intimacy and teacher student bonding which is a of an independent school.


27 I was left with the question of how these new ideas would merge with my subject matter: the specificities of drawing and painting. The combination of primary sources in psychology, scholarly articles in creativity research and art education, and my own teaching experience coalesced to offer several directions. I see w ays to translate self efficacy in both beginning and more advanced levels: through the liminal skill acquisition of drawing and design specific problem solving geared toward conceptual blending, and a more student led critique process at the beginning and advanced level. My classroom, consisting as it does of multiple grades, is almost a Petri dish for vicarious learning. The natural process of making art offers opportunities for resiliency, flexibility, fluidity, persistence, and innovation ; we will all e xperience them for ourselves and see others go through them as well, including the teacher. My research, findings, and approach will find its way to the core curriculum committee of the school, thanks to my administrative position. I look forward to d iscussing my work with my fellow department chairs as we create inter disciplinary classes I am on a committee for innovative teaching for our Independent School self accreditation year, and I am part of a Powerful Learning Practice group making a present ation at the 2013 National Association of Independent School Convention. More than those formal opportunities, however, I look forward to joining ad hoc discussions around the school, where so much groundswell of feeling and change occurs. In the lunchroom at the fitness center, at early morning coffee gatherings; it is these unforeseen, chance encounters which are vital to the energy and life of a school. I look forward to being a positive element in these exchanges, and to being open to what these


28 exchan ges bring to me. This attitude is a direct result of my study; it is the emotional valence I wish to model to my students and my colleagues.


29 REFERENCE LIST Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Barrett, T. (1994/2000). Criticizing art: Understanding the contemporary New York : McGraw Hill. Ca rlsson, I. (2002). Anxiety and flexibility of defense related to high or low creativity. Creativity Research Journal 3(4), p. 341 349. Freedman, K. (2010). Rethinking creativit y: A definition of contemporary practice. Art Education, 63 (2), p. 8 15 Journa l of Creative Behavior, 25(1), p. 75 81. Gardner, H. (1983; 1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences N ew York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implication s of the theory of multiple intelligence. Educational Researcher, 18 (8), p 4 9. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed New York: Basic Books. Gardn er, H. (2011). Truth, beauty, and goodness reframed: Educating for virtues in the twenty first century. New York: Basic Books. Grader, S. (2007). Ecology of place: Art education in a relational world. Studies in Art Education, 48 (4), p. 392 411. Kee, K. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrence tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), p. 3 14. Klausen, S. The notion of creativ ity revisited: A philosophical perspective on creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), p. 66 78. Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: DaCapo Press. L awrence Lig htfoot, S. & Davis, J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.


30 Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain, W. (1964/1987). Creative and mental growth New York: Macmillan. MacKinnon, D. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 1 7, p. 484 495. MacKinnon, D. (1964). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American P sychologist, 20 (4), p. 273 281. McCormack, C. (2000). From interview transcript to interpretive story: Part 2 Developing an int erpretive story. Field Methods 12 (4), p. 298 315. McCutcheon, G. & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspective on action research. Theory into Pra ctice, 29 (3), p. 144 151. Pajares. F. (1997). Current directions in self efficacy research. In M Maehr and P.R.Pintren (Eds.) Advances in motivation and achievement Greenwich, CONN: JAI Press, p.1 49. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self Efficacy. Retrieved 11/07/11 fr om https: //www.emory.edu/EDUCATION?mpf/eff.html Richardson, L. (1993). Poetics, dramatics and transgressive validity: The case of the skipped line. The Sociological Quarterly 34 (4), p. 695 710. Prabhu, V., Sutton, C. & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: U nderstanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal 20 (1), p. 53 66. Schlewitt Haynes, L., Earthman M. & Burns, B. (2002). Seeing the world differently: An analysis of descriptions of visual experiences provided by visual artists and nonartists. Creativity Research Journal, 14 (3 4), p. 361 372. Smith, G. & Faldt, E. (1999). Self description or projection: Comparison of two methods to estimate creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12 (4), p. 297 301. Smith, G. (2008). The cr eative personality in search of a theory. Creativity Research Journal, 20 (4), p. 273 281. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harva rd University Press. Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role of creativity in art education theory and practice. Studies in Art Education 50( 4), p. 382 399.


31 Janice Wilke Education: 1985 1989 Pennsylva nia Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, PA certificate: Painting 1976 1980 New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL BA in Humanities Professional Experience: 2006 present: The Baldwin School, Bryn Mawr, PA Chair, art depart ment; Teacher, Art I, Painting/Drawing, AP Art History 2004 2006 Philadelphia University, Philadelphia, PA Adjunct Professor: Design I, II, Drawing for Interiors 2005 2006 Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA Adjunct Professor: Design I and II 2004 2006 Community College of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Adjunct Professor: Drawing I, Painting I Selected Exhibitions: Woodmere Art Museum, Philadel phia State Museum of PA, Harrisburg Gallery, Philadelphia University, Roanoke, VA Person Exhibition Art Center, Wayne, PA Awards: 2011 Anne Shoemaker Award, Simon Grant for Science and Humanities, Baldwin School 2007 Baldwin Benefits Grant, The Baldwin School 2004 Work on Paper Prize, The Wayne Art Center 2003 Fellowship Prize, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts 1999 Leeway Foundation Grant 1997 Purchase Prize, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts Bibliography: Scott, Bill The Pastels of Janice Wilke, American Artist September, 2004 Syzanski, Edward, Gallery Review, The Philadelphia Inquirer, May, 2002 Collections: Bryn Mawr College Collection of Women Artists The Community College of Philadelphia The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts The State M useum of Pennsylvania The Woodmere Museum of Art