Facilitating Choice

Through
Painting
Without
Paintbrushes Lauren Rago

I used to offer students little choice within a teacher-directed classroom.

While some options existed, the outcomes of most of my lessons were foreseeable. The art room
was often quiet as my students worked on their assignments. When complete, these pieces would
line the hallways, displaying pleasant yet uniform groupings of portraits, landscapes, and still lifes.
Because I modeled each lesson in a step-by-step manner and left little room for exploration, inquiry,
and personal expression, students were aware of what their final products might or should look like.
As a result, student work was aesthetically and conceptually predictable. I already had a picture in
my mind of what the artmaking process should look like, so there was little space for exploration and
authenticity.

Art education scholars noted that this uniform approach is
characteristic of traditional “school art style” (Efland, 1976, p. 38;
Gude, 2013, p. 6). These teacher-directed art projects, although
praised by many onlookers for their pleasing and pictorially
recognizable forms, merely teach children to blindly copy and
accept the realities, views, and methodologies of others as their
own. By doing this, students are not making decisions based off
of their experiences and are not learning or expressing anything
about themselves and the world around them (Efland, 1976;
Gude, 2013).
As an elementary art educator fairly new to the field, I felt
that this traditional classroom culture, still widely accepted
among art educators, was not reflective of qualities that I valued
as an artist and educator. I realized that these qualities, such
as personal, authentic expression and exploration of processes
and ideas, could not be attained through strict, teacher-directed
instruction. Students, in order to operate like artists, needed
to have agency and control over the choices that they made in
the processes and products of their artmaking. In an effort to
facilitate an environment that values learner-centered artmaking
with student-driven outcomes, I decided to implement a unit
that I researched using qualitative methods. In the unit, “Painting
Without Paintbrushes,” 1st-graders crafted and used nontraditional
tools as paint applicators. I focused on 1st-graders because of their
rapid cognitive growth as well as their honesty when providing
me with feedback on lessons and units. Because I wanted to
implement a learner-centered approach within my teaching and
research, I chose qualitative research, as it allowed me to gather
data based on formal and informal interviews I conducted with
my students, direct observations of them working, and a collection
of their artwork. This humanistic aspect of qualitative research
fit my interest in moving away from teacher control. Qualitative
researchers must learn from their participants and see each as a
“constructor of knowledge rather than receiver” (Rossman & Rallis,
2012, p. 5).

20 Art Education
 “My whole self is a stamp!”
During the unit, students explored nontraditional materials
at centers both indoors and outdoors, constructed and utilized
handmade paintbrushes, and crafted and experimented with
handmade stamps. Each of these lessons encouraged learner-
centered artmaking through open-ended, playful prompts.
Throughout each lesson, students were permitted to collaborate,
play, and walk around the room. As a teacher-researcher, my main
interest was noticing how the students responded when given
opportunities to make choices about the process and products of
their artmaking and how I could best facilitate this environment.
What I found through my research was that when given choices,
the students engaged in artmaking that was diverse and not
confined to my teacher-directed limitations. Art educators can
promote an environment more authentic to artists’ ways of working
in which students have more opportunities to make decisions
about their artmaking by loosening teacher control of procedures
and outcomes, valuing process over product, permitting—not
stifling—dialogue, promoting play through open-ended prompts,
and rethinking the layout of their classrooms.
Conditions for Authentic Artmaking
Through Choice
Teacher-Facilitator Versus Teacher-Dictator
Assuming the role as facilitator of student learning required
me to take an honest and critical look at my previous methods of
classroom management, teaching, and curriculum design. There
were times when I steered clear of cultivating a bustling, complex
classroom culture to maintain the institutionalized order favored
within traditional K-12 schools. Many of these systematized
methods encourage educators to teach and plan in ways that are
prescriptive, one-dimensional, and tidy. At times, teachers “avoid
stages of problem finding altogether” by forgoing discussion and
assigning problems with little room for students to inquire and test
boundaries (Jaquith, 2011, p. 16). Instead of nurturing a spirit of
inquiry and critical thinking, prescriptive lessons and one-sided
teaching leave little to no room for student innovation and deep,
divergent thinking (Hathaway, 2013).
During one class of our “Painting Without Paintbrushes” unit,
I encouraged students to create a composition in their sketchbooks
using handmade stamps, paint, stamp pads, and other materials of
their choosing. I incorporated printmaking processes as a means
for painting because within contemporary art practices, hybridity
of materials and art forms are embraced and representative of
postmodern complexities (Heartney, 2008). I felt that this wider
notion of painting lent itself to expanding students’ views of
painting as something that they might define for themselves in
nontraditional ways. I prompted the students to experiment and
explore the capabilities of these materials, but I did not prescribe
an outcome or product. I also did not model process for students.
Instead, I invited their processes to emerge by encouraging them
to experiment with materials and ideas. As a result, some students
focused on mark making while others produced representational
images.
During one class, Danny, after dipping his finger in a stamp
pad, called me over with excitement. “Look at what I stamped!”
he exclaimed. I replied by confirming that his finger was, in fact,
a natural stamp. After a moment of looking at his finger and the
print that it made, he replied, “My whole self is a stamp!” He
examined and stamped other areas of his hand that might make
interesting marks in his sketchbook. Other students around
him followed suit, and the array of marks made by knuckles,
palms, and fingernails grew to be quite impressive and diverse.
By loosening control through allowing students to paint with
their hands and not stifling this moment of “coloring outside of
the lines,” I provided students with permission and support to
think divergently, make meaningful discoveries, and learn from
each other. When I simultaneously supported Danny and took
a step back, he took the lead and presented his classmates with
inspiration. Through embracing the emergence of my
students’ ideas and not telling them how or what to
create, I let them take the lead. In order to let go of the
one-sided teaching practice of finding and solving art
problems for students, educators must loosen up and
allow students to explore.
Valuing Process Over Product
During our exploration of nontraditional painting
tools, students were neither pressured to create
something polished nor expected to know their
destination while making. Often, I prompted students
to test the capabilities of their materials and to think
about the various marks and designs they could make
through experimentation.
Danny discovers that his finger is a natural stamp.
Photo by Lauren Rago.
September 2018 21
 This freedom... encouraged students
to create in ways that were
authentic through play,
experimentation, and collaboration.
This freedom and lack of needless extrinsic factors encouraged
students to create in ways that were authentic through play,
experimentation, and collaboration. Matthew, for example,
experimented with various processes during the lesson in which
students could utilize handmade stamps to create compositions
in their sketchbooks. After I asked him what he was doing with
his stamp, he stated, “This is just me playing around and I think it
is a good idea so far, but I really don’t know what I’m doing yet.”
Because Matthew spent the time in class experimenting with his
materials and ideas, he was then motivated to come into the art
room in his free time to work on and eventually complete this
sketchbook piece. After he completed the piece, he presented it to
me and explained that it was one of his favorites.
Ann Hamilton (2009) wrote about the importance of allowing
oneself to be unsure of a destination while making art and urged
artists to trust and appreciate the vast array of possibilities and
Matthew experiments with handmade stamps and other materials
in his sketchbook. Photo by Lauren Rago.
22 Art Education
potentialities of the process without a particular endpoint in mind.
Much of the student work created throughout “Painting Without
Paintbrushes” was process based because I encouraged students
to focus more on exploring materials and less on final outcome.
That being said, emphasis on process does not discourage students
from taking their artmaking and artwork seriously. “Surrendering”
oneself to the process through experimentation with materials and
ideas encourages students to approach artmaking in a way that is
both serious and playful (Gude, 2010, p. 32). Exploring “playfully
without a preconceived plan” can yield new and exciting processes
and products (Hetland, Winner, Veenema, & Sheridan, 2013, p. 6).
Through valuing process over product by keeping expectations
of outcomes open, I was able to cultivate a classroom environment
where students were not stressed to create something “cookie
cutter.” Educators, through appreciating the unique processes of
their students, can nurture creativity and originality.
Encouraging Dialogue
Peer-to-peer dialogue played a large role in student learning
throughout “Painting Without Paintbrushes.” Because I did not ask
students to remain quiet throughout class, and instead provided
them with encouragement and permission to engage in dialogue
naturally, students frequently chose to discuss what they were
doing and asked each other questions. For example, when utilizing
handmade paintbrushes, Danny and Matthew worked alongside
each other and often discussed the differences and similarities
of their brushes and what each of the tools could do. The boys
also collaborated by trying out each other’s paintbrushes. After
noticing the thick marks that Matthew’s “sponge attachment”
made, Danny exclaimed, “Wow! Your brush is so nice, Matthew!
Can I test it out?” The boys enjoyed experimenting with each
other’s paintbrushes, and this exchange prompted others to discuss
their own brushes and begin trading. By taking part in dialogue
and sharing brushes, the students learned from one another and
appreciated each other’s work.
Throughout “Painting Without Paintbrushes,” I learned that
a silent classroom is not necessarily a productive learning space.
Judith Burton (2000) noted the importance of student-to-student
and student-to-teacher collaboration through dialogue, which
encourages students to understand and appreciate the processes
of others while simultaneously increasing the complexity of their
own artmaking procedures. Teachers can, through somewhat
Socratic methods, stimulate critical thinking within students,
prompting them to think deeply about the world around them
(Burton, 2000). By engaging students in discussions, teachers excitement and pride as their color transformed. Collaboration
might catalyze divergent thinking or exploration of many different through dialogue allowed students to share ideas and support each
solutions (Jaquith, 2011). It seemed that when I gave students other. By not requiring students to remain quiet while working,
choice and freedom, they worked in a variety of ways, and were art teachers not only allow students to engage in more complex
then curious to compare, contrast, and learn from one another. exploration but they also cultivate community in their classrooms.
Their conversations were expansive and not limited to discussing
predetermined steps. Promoting Play Through Open-Ended Prompts
Throughout “Painting Without Paintbrushes,” I facilitated
In addition, when students share their work and processes with
various lessons in which students were encouraged to explore
others, they situate themselves within a community of other artists
materials and ideas in reaction to an open-ended challenge
and creative thinkers (Gnezda, 2009). I found that allowing my
or provocation. The open-endedness of these prompts invited
students to move around and work alongside each other not only
students to engage in play that was both imaginative and
nurtured social interactions but also encouraged them to cultivate
explorative. During our outdoor materials exploration lesson,
their own communities as they engaged in meaningful artmaking
I prompted students to utilize nontraditional tools such as brooms,
processes. For example, while exploring nontraditional tools at
mops, spray bottles, and squeegees as paintbrushes. After exploring
centers, Danny and Matthew worked together with a few other
several of the materials, Emily, with squeegee in hand, turned to
classmates. I asked the group what they were doing, and Matthew
me, saying that she was “washing windows.” She and her partner
confidently stated, “We are mixing the best green ever.” Eager to
turned this “window washing” into a bit of a game, reaching up
hear more, I asked him how they were doing this. He answered,
as far as they could to cover the entire span of their paper. In no
“We are adding more blue to it.” Danny, with sponge in hand,
time, other students were pretending that they were washing car
quickly added, “And then we are turning it into turquoise!” For
windshields and painting houses with their squeegees and spray
nearly half of the class period, these students dedicated themselves
bottles in similar, full-bodied motions.
to collaboratively mixing turquoise and delighted in shared

Emily and her partner “wash windows” with squeegees and spray bottles. Photo by Lauren Rago.

September 2018 23
 A classroom reimagined and
restructured like an artist studio, inspires
students to explore process over
product and share ideas with peers.
During another class, after being prompted to explore various
nontraditional materials in centers around the room, Emily and
some classmates spent time painting with palette knives on large
sheets of paper. I listened as the group of students cheered each
other on and watched as they mixed and filled their paper with
orange, red, and yellow paint. After the group finished, I asked
Emily what she and her friends were working on. Emily stated that
they were “cutting the vines.” After I asked her to explain this a bit
more, she added, “We were like pushing the vines so we could, um,
find those things. Since we were using red paint we were finding
the edge of the world.” Through exploration and collaboration,
Emily and her friends created their own imaginary and playful
experience.
Explorative, playful prompts provide students with valuable
opportunities to test, understand, and connect with materials
(Salazar, 2015). During one lesson, I showed students how a small
piece of air-dry clay could capture texture and then invited them
to explore and test out any texture of any surface or material in
the entire art room. We had discussed and sorted a selection of
textured materials as a whole group, but students were not limited
to these items. During this exploration, Danny called me over to
see what he had discovered. “Look! My sweater is a little bumpy!”
he exclaimed as he raised up his small circle of clay for me to see.
The clay revealed the vertical, raised lines of his sleeve. Students
began to gather and peer at his newly textured piece of clay.
Inspired by Danny’s discovery, many began to test out the various
textures of their own clothing, revealing imprints of buttons,
sequins, and seams. Throughout “Painting Without Paintbrushes,”
I did not dictate the ways in which my students should work and
did not provide a model or end result for students to copy. Because
of this open-endedness, processes and products were student
driven, playful, and fun.
Rethinking the Layout of Classroom and Materials
During “Painting Without Paintbrushes,” it was clear through
feedback and observation that the students enjoyed and benefited
from the ability to walk around while planning and making their
art. Throughout the unit, I set up centers around the art room that
were organized by type of material or tool. These centers provided
students with an organized way of locating and testing out
materials. The layout of a classroom and the placement of materials
are important components in prompting students to explore.
A studio-like environment in which students are encouraged to
walk freely around the room and make choices based on their
24 Art Education
interests and ideas lends itself to this exploration (Longmore,
2012). A classroom reimagined and restructured like an artist
studio, with materials set up in an organized manner for students
to choose from and experiment with, inspires students to explore
process over product and share ideas with peers (Hathaway &
Jaquith, 2014). This laboratory environment would incorporate the
authentic choices and ideas of each individual.
As they walked around, my students engaged in productive
dialogue with each other and with me. In many instances, this
ability to interact and make observations was important for idea
generation. Students collaborated and learned by noticing and
observing the processes and products of others.
For example, Emily, during a lesson in which students were to
craft their own paintbrush, mentioned that after moving around
the room and seeing a group of classmates attach cloth flowers
to their handmade paintbrushes, she would do this as well. She
noted that by doing so, she could use the flower as a sort of stamp
and, thus, create a realistic flower painting, similar to the work of
her favorite artist, Georgia O’Keeffe. By being able to walk around
the room as she pleased, Emily observed her peers and created
something personally meaningful. During the next class, students
utilized their handmade paintbrushes. Emily, after walking
around and looking at her classmates’ brushstrokes, exclaimed,
“Look! Each of our marks looks different!” This simple yet very
important observation caused other students to walk around and
notice the marks of their peers. Emily’s remark acted as a catalyst
for conversations between the students about how they made
their mark or image and why they chose to do so, thus expressing
various interests and preferences.
Structuring my classroom with various materials organized
at centers encouraged students to walk around freely to gather
supplies, notice the work of others, and engage in meaningful
discussions. By thinking of an art room as an artist studio, teachers
can nurture creative behaviors and collaboration among students.
Concluding Thoughts
By loosening control, valuing process, encouraging dialogue,
promoting play through open-ended prompts, and rethinking
the layout of my classroom, I was able to facilitate conditions for
choice-driven artmaking with my 1st-grade students. I now work
alongside my students and cheer them on as they make authentic
decisions.
 Art educators can facilitate environments in which students are
free to experience art not as another task to check off their list but
as a meaningful and real part of their world. By taking a step back
and letting students take the lead, we as teachers can encourage
students to think, feel, and behave like artists. As educators, we
seek to prepare students for a world of choices and opportunities.
That being said, do we not also wish to inspire students to think
beyond what is already planned in order to create something new?
I believe that art teachers have the power and ability, through
seemingly small steps, to make strides in encouraging our students
to explore, inquire, and think divergently. ■

Author Note
The research for this article was conducted as part of the author’s Master of

Master's
Arts in Art Education (MAAE) degree from the Maryland Institute College
of Art. Thanks are extended to MAAE faculty who facilitated the design,
implementation, and reporting of this research.

Lauren Rago is Art Teacher at St. Peter’s School, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. E-mail: laurenmrago@gmail.com
in Art + Design Education
Burton, J. M. (2000). The Hathaway, N., & Jaquith, D. (2014).
Fully Online and Blended options
Can be completed in 30 credits!
References

configuration of meaning: Learner Where’s the revolution? Phi Delta

centered art education revisited. In
L. H. Campbell & S. Simmons III
(Eds.), The heart of art education:
Holistic approaches to creativity,
integration, and transformation (pp.
1-15). Reston, VA: National Art
Education Association.
Efland, A. (1976). The school art style:
A functional analysis. Art Education,
17(2), 38-40.
Gnezda, N. M. (2009). The potential
Kappan, 95(6), 25-29.
https://niu.edu/art/graduate-programs/ms-art-education-online.shtml
Heartney, E. (2008). Art and today.
London, England: Phaidon Press.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema,
S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio
thinking 2: The real benefits of visual
arts education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Jaquith, D. (2011). When is creativity?
Art Education, 64(1), 14-19.
Longmore, T. (2012). Supporting

for meaning in student art. Art
Education, 62(4), 48-52.
Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity,
possibility. Art Education, 63(2),
31-37.
Gude, O. (2013). New school art
styles: The project of art education.
Art Education, 66(1), 6-14.
Hamilton, A. (2009). Making not
knowing. In M. Jacob & J. Bass
(Eds.), Learning mind: Experience
into art (pp. 68-69). Chicago,
IL: School of the Art Institute of
Chicago.
Hathaway, N. (2013). Smoke and
mirrors: Art teacher as magician.
Art Education, 66(3), 9-15.
Doctorate
young artists as independent
creators. In D. Jaquith & N.
Hathaway (Eds.), The learner-
directed classroom: Developing
creative thinking skills through art
(pp. 56-63). New York, NY: Teachers in Art + Design Education
College Press.
Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2012).
Learning in the field: An introduction Internationally Recognized
to qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. Faculty:
Salazar, S. (2015). Fiat lux: Creativity
through play. In E. Zimmerman Douglas Boughton
& F. Bastos (Eds.), Connecting
creativity research and practice in art Kerry Freedman
education: Foundations, pedagogies,
and contemporary issues (pp. 123- Richard Siegesmund
132). Reston, VA: National Art
Education Association. Kryssi Staikidis
Shei-Chau Wang
https://niu.edu/art/graduate-programs/ms-art-education-online.shtml

September 2018 25
Copyright of Art Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.