Mireille Falardeau et Michel Loranger Le choix de stratégies ... - CSSE

ART, IMAGINATION, AND TEACHING 367
imagination (Egan, 1992; Egan & Nadaner, 1988; Eisner, 1983, 1985). That,
however, is precisely the case with some influential and long-standing empirical
research into “effective teaching.” The research in question is known as “processproduct”
research, and its main objective is to identify teacher behaviours that
bring about improvements in student learning (Westbury, 1988). O’Neill (1988)
reviews over 150 primary and secondary sources of teacher effectiveness
research to list “the 20 most promising instructional research factors” (p. 164),
citing, for example, such things as “teacher organization,” “instructional mode,”
and “teacher clarity.” Imagination is not mentioned in this survey, nor is art.
Indeed, as O’Neill points out, “application [of the research] is limited, for the
most part, to the teaching of basic skills in mathematics and reading at the
primary and intermediate levels” (p. 177). Porter and Brophy (1988) review the
recent work of the Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University
and contribute a list similar to O’Neill’s. Their accompanying diagrammatic
model includes a box for the teacher’s knowledge of content without any explanation
of how this affects the quality or character of the teaching. Again, there
is no mention of art or imagination, as the research focuses on the teaching of
reading, mathematics, and science. This state of affairs is repeated in a lengthy
review of the literature on effective teaching by Hawley, Rosenholtz, Goodstein,
and Hasselbring (1984).
Art and imagination aside, it may be asked whether educators really need
empirical research of the costly process-product variety to convince them that,
for example, in the words of O’Neill, “the amount of time spent on a task
powerfully predicts student achievement” (p. 173); that there is a “positive
relationship between teacher clarity . . . and pupil achievement” (p. 170); or that
“research findings clearly reveal that well-organized teachers are the most
effective teachers” (p. 166). As Egan (1988) points out, the “findings” of
educational researchers are all too often covertly conceptual rather than
straightforwardly empirical; this seems to apply to the examples cited. That time
spent affects student achievement is no surprise. “Achievement,” in reference to
both quantity and complexity of learning, implies persistence. That teacher clarity
promotes student achievement is no surprise either, for to be clear means to be
easily understood. So too, in the last example, being well-organized in matters
of planning and presentation of subject-matter is, at the very least, a precondition
of effectiveness, for order lies at the heart of understanding, and understanding
is the principal aim of teaching. Despite the limited subject-matter focus of
teacher effectiveness research, O’Neill encourages teachers to apply its
conclusions to the teaching of art, music, and health, while trying, as he says, to
“optimize as many factors as possible” (1988, p. 177).
But besides a few homilies about praising students for good work, about
having worthy but realistic expectations, or about the value of supporting
students’ efforts (O’Neill, 1988), what use is this research to art teachers per se?