Learning to Look/Looking at Learning || Self-Regulation in Japanese and American Art Education

National Art Education Association

Self-Regulation in Japanese and American Art EducationAuthor(s): Jean Ellen Jones and Melanie DavenportSource: Art Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, Learning to Look/Looking at Learning (Jan., 1996), pp.60-65Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193580 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 10:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:39:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193580?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


0 11 11

0 - I

0

0

t 4,0 4,4,

4,0

k 04, A

BY JEAN ELLEN JONES MELANIE DAVENPO]

rt teachers in the United States have traditionally sought to increase student choice and autonomy in the art-making

process, using the self-motivated artist as their model. Recently, educators from other disciplines have shown interest in a similar model, the self-regulated learner. Their research offers insights and opportunities for the art -Aacher, particularly in the form ofgiiportfolio lassesisment teaching strgies. We propose that art edLcator may . so profi:flronr st udng oflier eiJerts oni -e i

ART EDUCATION / JANUARY 1996



cation

subject of self-regulation- the Japanese. First, we will clarify what is meant by "self-regulation" and explain why it is important.

SELF-REGULATION Self-regulated learning is most often

described as a problem-solving or goal- directed process orchestrated by the individual student but influenced at several points by others in the student's

environmeIM. t:ISocial cogn i I reseachers (Bandura, 1991; Zimi merman,ii989) have biieen iacilve in developing theory about the process. Their ::iiSeari ells us ihat st::ents must set goals or accept goals suggested by others. These goals must be challenging, yet seem attainable. As students perform goal-oriented activity, they assess results and get feedback from others. The students convert the assessment into an estimation of ability to achieve the goal, and adjust their

LEFT a igA tVEit -:a anese thi y1 iyear studets

at ShinIs Middle Sc l)1 work iindividiL

projects c iring a twc-" ur elec v? class.

JANUARY 1996 / ART EDUCATION j



go-n::fdid effort aordily. If se'-" .: confidence?is strong eno g:h, the

dei-en peform- mo-e goal- oi.ented- :tivity . i.-

e-assessmeBtres is and getting feedback from others are pivotal activities, and so is an understanding of the total self- regulating process. Both components will be discussed in this article. The term "self-regulation" will mean the total self-motivational process; the term "self-reflection" will be used to describe the student's use of personal judgments of performance.

Self-regulated learning is not just a model for out-of-school achievement. Evidence is building that students simply learn better when taught to use self-regulated learning skills (Resnick, 1989). They are also motivated, even when only parts of the process are targeted. For example, Gerhart (1986) found that self-evaluation by art students, a major self-regulated learning activity, promoted continuing interest in art, but evaluation by the teacher or peers stifled it. When King (1983) gave children in art class more choice of objectives, activities, and evaluation, their achievement, self- concept, and attitude toward art improved compared to students who had no such choices.

SELF-REGULATION IN JAPAN Japanese students have earned a

reputation for achievement that can De attributed in part to the fact that they know how to take responsibility for : their own learning. Davenport saw students conduct their own orderly, productive classes in the complete absence of the teacher. Jackson (1991) has noted that even in extracurricular club programs, large groups of students "organize and perform orderly

-iacice sessions fr seve-a consecul days writh abolutely mo; aiult supervision '(,. p. 194) . In Japanese society, jima (85) exlains, th 'oncept i'youn ihildr"en as

autonomous learning beings is one of the chief characteristics of the traditional view of children" (p.80). Teachers and parents expected children "to regulate their own behavior by themselves toward goals which were set by adults" (Kojima, 1985, p. 64).

Modem Japanese education is still shaped by an emphasis on giving primary learning responsibility to the student. Instruction in self-regulation begins in preschool, where use of rotated monitors is routine and children direct class activities as much as possible (Peak, 1991). Interestingly, the writings of American educational philosopherJohn Dewey (1916; 1933/1986), which advocate attention to self-directing and self-reflective skills in schools, have enjoyed a wide readership in Japan since the end of World War II (Kojima, 1985; Dobbs, 1983).

It appears thatJapanese schools build self-regulatory skills through an emphasis on process, effort, and self- reflection. For example, Nakamura (1980) has explained that "in fine arts, the outcome of a child's learning activity takes the form of an actual product. But in promoting children's creative activities, te learning process bec'iomesa-or e t am a"t 'art tre anli' finl oput" (. 64. ̂Asstudents en-gageini a learnigi proIble anc get to the point of reflecting on their success, they are taught to be sure to reflect on the effort they expended. Peak (1992) has observed that "effort is so consistently portrayed to children as the key to success that ability is rarely mentioned" (p. 27). She goes on to note that in Japan, awards are given for effort

as w!el :aS achievement. Holloway (1988). Ias speculated that in Japan, unlike i-e United States, not only are

|ieffort a id process emphasized, but the eoncep:of effort "includes a positive

i-,oriention toward the intrinsic benefits o:f:suh persistence" (p. 331).

Self- reflection is considered to be the key element in reaching a goal (Peak, 1992; Holloway, 1988). Even though Japanese students focus more on their weaknesses than do students from other developed nations (Kashiwagi, 1986; Burstein & Hawkings, 1986), this self-critical emphasis does not appear to dampen students' enthusiasm for learning. Kojima (1985) describes these tendencies as "characteristic ways of evaluating their own and others' performance" which are "more reflective than their American counterparts" (p. 68).

A number of observers from the United States (Beauchamp, 1991; Frost, 1991), have proposed that Japanese education, driven by competitive entrance exams, relies heavily on teacher lectures and rote memorization and is more teacher- centered than education in the United States. This appears to be only partly true, especially in the art classroom. Jackson (1991), in comparing middle school instruction between the two countries, found that differences in the amount of formal, teacher-centered

i 'ists tion were present, but "not to an overc ielming degree" (p. 184), aspelally when the extensive extraiurricular program was considered. Among Japanese art teachers, formal lectures and fact- oriented assessment methods are not common. In a survey of Japanese




Table 1

A COMPARISON BETWEEN JAPANESE AND AMERICAN APPROACHES TO SELF-REGULATION

JAPAN

(Nakamura, 1980, pp. 49-50)

"Idea sketching ...is encouraged in order to make children search for better ideas for production."

"Children proceed to develop a production plan, after deciding for themselves what they are going to express and produce, and prepare the neces-

sary materials and tools."

"Pupils are encouraged to review and devise ways of using materials more effectively...[and] over- come the difficulty by using their own devices and

creativity."

"Children confirm what they have studied and review their activities ...appreciate ... individual

aspects of each other's work."

middle school art teachers (Davenport, 1993), fewer tLh - 4% of responding Japanese teaclYers felt that art programs shodlc provide rreasurable results involvilnEg emoriz on and a:::: testing.

SELF-REGULATION IN TTHE JAPANESE APT ROCMLI ,l

In Japan, art|p-ojects tend1iettioi.I& be lengthy, narrow in focus, and process- oriented, with art history incorporated primarily as it relates to art production activity. During her year teaching in a Japanese middle school, Davenport observed students working for extended periods of time on a single project, each step of which was carefully recorded, planned, and commented upon in sketch books. A typical project, such as painting a design for a calendar illustration, took 12 to 15 hours of art classes over

UNITED STATES, PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT

(PROPEL, 1992, pp. 3-10)

[The student] tries out more than one way of repre- senting a certain idea, theme, or feeling, making multiple exploratory sketches..

[Students] set a direction with respect to selection of materials or techniques, choose materials

appropriate to goals, articulate own artistic goals.

[The student is engaged in] revising one project foi an extended period, revising a work in progress, being persistent in the face of obstacles.

[Students] assess their own work, evaluate fin- ished pieces, learn from other's works, assess other's works.

several weeks. Even if an entire grade level shared a similar assignmrent, each student was expected to set |is or her own persona goial for the proJect, whicW0as the 'n used as criten |afor evalat|ing the success of the ar'wor.

CAIe notable projet focusing on i col gradation was: repeatedl w II slight nriations at very grace -evel, so that by ii endoft-ree years inmiddle school, students had a record of their yearly progression and skill development, including a very highly crafted third-year effort. Students commonly asked each other for advice as work progressed; the teacher became involved only if a student requested specific technical help.

In addition to an after school art club, the middle school offered third- year students a two-hour elective course for two quarters. Those interested in art were allowed to select their own projects and determine artistic goals, subject matter, pace, and criteria for success.

Students seemed to get daily practice in self-reflection and getting feedback from others. At the middle school where Davenport made her observations, the main decorations in any classroom were signs that declared each student's personal goal for the quarter. These ranged from "I will try to get to school on time" to "I must study English harder." Every day, students were expected to reflect upon the events of the school day, the effort and behavior of themselves and their peers, and even their personal problems, through written entries in their journals. Sometime during each school day, homeroom teachers would sit down with 35 to 40 student journals and read and respond to each one.

SELF-REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Recent interest in self-regulation in the United States has received impetus from research over the past two

:decades supporting the nfion that studenfs construdt heir knowlege throug' meaningf, active, probeem- solving iResnick, :1987; 1989).A :

numbe| ofAmericai educators ;ave called :o0 direct i truction in e

:learnir process i:ef (McCobs 1984; Glaser, 1988).

Teachers themselves, particularly writing instructors, have provided much of the leadership. In one case, the Bay Area Writing Project in the early 1970's asked successful writing teachers to come together to share ideas, study research, and further develop their skills as teachers (Gray, 1986). Their work evolved into the National Writing Project, which encouraged experimentation with portfolio-based teaching and assessment practices (D. Gitomer,

JANUARY 1996 / ART EDUCATION

: 00 00 00 00 0* 0* 000 00 00 00 00 00 0* 000 00 00 00 09 00 0*



personal communication, August 30, 1993). By the 1980's, teachers in other disciplines, including mathematics, the sciences, and the arts, were developing the idea. Today, students from settings as varied as elementary schools, adult literacy programs, and teacher education programs use the portfolio format.

Although each teacher and each discipline have adjusted the process to suit their own situation, portfolio processes retain self-regulated learning at the core of instructional practice. Paulson, Paulson, and Meyer (1991) have proposed this general definition:

A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the student's efforts, progress, and achievements in one or more areas. The collection must include student participation in selecting contents, the criteria for selection, the criteria for judging merit, and evidence of student self- reflection. (p. 60)

Portfolio experiments in the visual arts (Winner & Simmons, 1992; Gitomer, Grosh, & Price, 1992; Taylor, 1991) have enlisted students in the problem-solving process by setting up relevant, in-depth problems that require planning, reflection, and revision. A.majKorrole of the teacheris:

.... ......* to engige tshe - uen i in a dia e og .... ... ..................

abo t-tthe student' s-oogresstlrough intews,:i nornals, group crint es, and formal tests. SIdents are enc3iaged througjout the :3Dcess to .. seek Ifedback fr:-fellow si:ents,-t.:-:-..:::.... other te:ahers, and even resource-i.. persons in the community.

Results from use of the portfolio teaching and assessment process in the visual arts are promising. Art teachers who have experimented with it (Taylor, 1991; Gitomer, Grosh, & Price, 1992)

describe self-motivated students and classroom environments very much like those found in Japan. It is no surprise, then, that a study of aesthetic education in Japan (Nakamura, 1980, pp. 49-50) describes practices that are nearly identical to those developed by PROPEL Researchers at Harvard Project Zero (1992, pp. 3-10). Table 1 illustrates just how similar Japanese self-regulated learning and American portfolio assessment approaches are.

REFINING PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES

As with any new educational approach, the portfolio process represents a challenge to teachers trying to use it. Even art teachers report difficulties with the very student- centered, self-reflective instructional system. Plus, American art teachers do not have the Japanese advantage of working with students already socialized from early childhood in self- regulation.

As a guide for interested educators, we would like to review "what works" according to both Japanese and American instructors and observers. Given similarities between Japanese self-regulation and portfolio strategies, and successful experimentation in the United States already, cross-cultural applicatio- sho:guassis meri.can:.. teachers: i .

:

Vetera s of portfolio cxperimealtion in the Ut :ed States have nameci a number of stategies thac are import to the process. (Portfolio News, 19|99 Gitomer, G M'-h, & Price, '1992; Tayl, 1991). Firsd -iand foremos, teachers must be willing to experiment. Following self-regulated learning theory, teachers must set their own goals, use creative problem-solving, and

engage in frec ,ent se--reflectio to devise the method thawrks:best fo them. A short in-service workshop or attendance at a conference presentation will not be sufficient for making changes necessary to implement portfolio-based instruction. Teachers must obtain good support from others as they try the new methods.

In the classroom, teachers must learn to explain the goals of a lesson or unit clearly, give examples of good and bad performance, and model good and bad problem-solving strategies. Students seem to have the greatest difficulty writing self-reflective observations. Consequently, whenever possible, the teacher should model good and bad self-reflective statements and use students who do well as models and tutors. Teachers should reward attention to good problem- solving habits, despite outcomes, and place emphasis on personal goals and progress. And, contrary to much practice in middle schools and some high schools in the United States, teachers need to offer in-depth, connected art investigations so that students have the opportunity to revise and build expertise.

Several successful Japanese prad-ties can help American art teachers focus their efforts. A large number of Ameican students operate with t:e belief :a: arnii fingi a matter of a:bily or tale , not effort, abelief that se.iously u: cdermines thei:t williness to risk and persis: the face iM ifficulty l )weck, 199i,: The iJapa: ese teac ' ::::at hard wo' . s the Japmese teach:a hara woJc,s the

key to success.: :Students are required to reflect on their effort, they get awards for effort, and they are asked to consider the intrinsic benefits of effort. As teachers in the United States promote attitudes necessary for self- regulation, they should be mindful of




|.. . . .ii|iiiiiiiii ...|....

t he Ame.aan viw and e imrortance oflpromong e rt ove- bility.''

Self-reflection is another major component of the Japanese approi'i that American art teachers are likely to underutilize. Conventional practice in American art rooms is to spend most of the time making art. Organized self- reflection may occur during a critique at the completion of a project but rarely on a daily basis, as is the case in Japanese art classes. Self-regulation in American art classrooms should improve when students are required to reflect frequently on their art work and the process of making it.

A third component of Japanese education that bears attention is the opportunity for students to engage in directed study classes and extracurricular art clubs. These already exist in some American art programs. Teachers would do well to view them as an excellent opportunity to foster student self-regulated learning.

Jean Ellen Jones, Ph.D., isAssistant Professor of The School ofArt and Design at Georgia State University. Melanie Davenport, M.A. Ed., is an ElementaryArt Teacher at Fulton County Schools in Atlanta, Georgia.

:REFERENCES 3andura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of

motivation through anticipatory and self- regulatory mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 69-164). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

I ;3eauchamp, E. R. (1991). Postscript: What can .. ........*.::i we learn from Japan?. In E. R. Beauchamp

* (Ed.). Windows on Japanese education (pp. 321-325). NewYork: Greenwood Press.

i 3urstein, L. & Hawkings, J. (1986). An ' *..' '* analysis of cognitive, non-cognitive, and

behavioral characteristics of students in Japan (Contract No: NIE-P-85-3036). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271-391).

.

Davenport, M. (1993). Middle school art education: A comparative study of teacher surveys from Japan andAmerica. Unpublished master's thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy & Education. NewYork, N. Y.: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1986). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. InJ. Boydston (Ed.),John Dewey: The later works: 1925-1953, Vol. 8, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1933)

Dobbs, S. (1983). Japan Trail '83: American art education odyssey to the Orient. Art Education, 36(6), 4-11.

Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In R. A. Dienstbier, (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 199-235). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Frost, P. (1991). "Examination Hell." In E. R. Beauchamp (Ed.). Windows on Japanese education (pp. 291-305). NewYork: Greenwood Press.

Gerhart, G. L. (1986). Effects of evaluative statements on artistic performance and motivation. Studies in Art Education, 27(2), 61-72.

Gitomer, D., Grosh, S., & Price, K. (1992). Portfolio culture in arts education. Art Education, 45(1), 7-15.

Glaser, R. (1988). Cognitive and environmental perspectives on assessing achievement. Proceedings of the 1987 Educational Testing Service Conference (pp. 37-43). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Gray, J. (1986). University of California, Berkeley: The Bay Area Writing Project and the National Writing Project. In R. Fortune (Ed.) Options for Teaching: No. 5. School-College Collaborative Programs in English (pp. 35-45). New York: Modern Language Association.

Holloway, S. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the United States. Review of Educational Research, 58, 327- 345.

Jackson, J. M. (1991). A comparative case study of grades 7,8, and 9 in the public school systems of Mure-Cho, Japan, and Elbert County, Georgia, (Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52/07,2346A.

Kashiwagi, K. (1986). Personality development of adolescents. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.),

Child development and education in Japan (pp. 167-185). NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Company.

King, A. (1983). Agency, achievement, and self-concept of young adolescent art students. Studies in Art Education, 24(3), 187-194.

Kojima, H. (1985). The influence of western philosophy and theories ofpsychology and education on contemporary educational theory and practice in Japan. (Contract No. NIE-P-85-3029). Nagoya, Japan: Nagoya University. Department of Educational Psychology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271 390).

McCombs, B. L. (1984). Processes and skills underlying continuing intrinsic motivation to learn: Toward a definition of motivational skills training interventions. Educational Psychologist, 19, 199-218.

Nakamura, S. (1980). Aesthetic education in Japan. Research Bulletin of the National Institute for Educational Research. Tokyo: National Institute for Educational Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 207 888).

Paulson, F. L., Paulson, R. R., & Meyer, C. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60-63.

Peak, L. (1991). Learning to go to school in Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Peak, L. (1992). Effort: The key to Japan's academic success. in T. Tomlinson (ED.), Hard work and high expectations: Motivating students to learn. Issues in education (Report No. PIP-92-1500, Stock No. 065-000-00496-8). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Portfolio News (1990-1994). LaJolla, CA: University of California at San Diego, Teacher Education Program.

PROPEL Researchers at Harvard Project Zero (1992). Assessment dimensions for visual arts portfolios. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, Learning, and Instruction (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Taylor, P. (1991). In the process: A visual arts portfolio assessment pilot project. Carmichael, CA: California Art Education Association.

Winner, E., & Simmons, S. (Eds.) (1992). Arts PROPEL: A handbook for visual arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social-cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329- 339.

JANUARY 1996 / ART EDUCATION N



Documents

Learning to Look/Looking at Learning || Self-Regulation in Japanese and American Art Education