Secondary Teacher Perceptions and Approaches to Visual Art Talent Development Using Semiotics as a Lens

Abstract

Problem : In 1972, the Marland Report included visual arts in the federal definition of giftedness, yet service for those with artistic aptitude remains elusive (Rinn, Mun & Hodges, 2022). This qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study (Creswell, 2014; Finley, 2009; Leavy, 2017; Marmé Thompson, 2014; Van Manen, 1990) explores the experiences of secondary visual art teachers working with high ability visual artists (HAVAs) and the issues inhibiting gifted and talented identification and program inclusion. Issues from the literature include definitions, traits, and programming (Alexander, 1981; Clark & Zimmerman 2004a; Curkierkorn, 2008a; Hurwitz, 1983; Pariser & Zimmerman, 2004; Sabol, 2006). And with social semiotic framing, underlying problems intersecting the fields of gifted and art education are interrogated and interpreted (Smith-Shank, 2014).

Procedures : This hermeneutic phenomenological study addresses the central question : “What are the experiences of secondary visual art teachers working with award-winning, high ability visual artists (HAVAs) in a Midwest state?” (Creswell, 2014). Data collection methods included a Qualtrics© survey, an arts-based method (i.e., the visual metaphor), a ranking activity, a face-to-face semi-structured interview, and researcher journal (Creswell, 2014; Leavy, 2019; Seidman, 2013). In Vivo and Descriptive coding were used to categorize the data, and Pattern coding for generating three themes (Saldaña, 2014). Each implemented to support triangulation. Reflexivity (i.e., hermeneutic circle) afforded reliability and member checking (i.e., respondent verification) to determine accuracy (Creswell, 2014; Finlay, 2009; Leavy, 2017).

Findings : The findings answer the research question summarized in three themes : 1) personal definitions of giftedness, 2) observable behavioral attributes from the literature, 3) program choices and teaching approaches employed within talent development stages. Intuitive teacher attention to student psychosocial and motivational factors was also noted. Further, situating findings within semiotic wonderings (i.e., about relationships, background knowledge, and elaborative reasons) afforded interpretation of historical contradictions in policy and the signifying orders in teaching beliefs and habits (Smith-Shank, 2014).

Conclusions : The themes affirm knowledge about gifted definitions and observable behavioral traits from the literature, and inform practice explicating talent developmental stages and teaching with motivational research. These add to a research agenda by extending lines of inquiry enumerating gifted attributes and high-performance benchmarks, and inform research gaps about applicable developmental and motivational research. Also noted was the need for exploration of current art program realities (i.e., scheduling, time, staffing, resources).

Recommendations : As a result of this study, I recommend pre-service and teacher training include talent developmental models, motivational research, and psychosocial strategies. I encourage replicating earlier historical research to examine current secondary art program conditions. I also recommend new research about the psychological impacts of belonging in school and continued marginalization on high ability visual artists and their teachers. I suggest refining observable behavioral attributes from the literature to inform high-performance benchmarks within national and state standards. These may also be employed at a practical level as teacher assessments and identification rating scales