Sunday, December 29, 2019

Learner Centered Teaching Approaches in Education and Art Education, circa 2020

This blog post includes an overview of beliefs about how young people learn, how they learn to make art, and a discussion of the movement in art education toward learner-centered approaches. In the essay portion of this blog post, I focus primarily on psychological, developmental, and cultural theories about young people and their art that have directly impacted the field of art education, along with some of the most prominent art educational curricular and instructional approaches from the late 20th and early 21st centuries that relate to this blog. Approaches mentioned below include Discipline Based Art Education, Multicultural Art Education, Visual Culture Art Education, and Teaching for Artistic Behavior.
Following my essay I list a variety of orientations and approaches relevant to the profession of art education and that have been or are currently in use today, along with links to information about these orientations. These include Culturally Responsive Teaching; Studio Thinking; Teaching For Artistic Behavior and Choice Based Education; Interdisciplinary Curricula, STEAM, and Maker Spaces; Flipped Classroom; Project Based Learning (PBL); Problem Based Learning (PBL); Inquiry Based Learning; Differentiated Instruction; Montessori; Reggio; Forest Schools; Walden Schools; and a section on my favorite topic, Play. The thread that connects all of these beliefs, curricular practices, and instructional approaches is an interest in learner-centered teaching.

Although I and many other art educators have studied and written about dramatic impact of new technologies and new and emerging digital and social media on art education (Delacruz, 2004, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2011, 2014), technology, although highly important and greatly needing attention, remains outside the scope of this blog post. Also outside of the scope of this blog post, but greatly deserving our attention is the growing Community Based Art Education movement with its focus on learners and programs not necessarily tied to or occurring within traditional K-12 schools, and the myriad of sites, events, programing, and endeavors that bring art education to people of all ages, abilities, and interests and living in communities throughout the US.

             Photo by Sharon McCutcheon from
How to reference and cite this blog post in APA Style
(Delacruz, 2019) 
Delacruz, E. M. (2019, December 29). Learner-centered teaching approaches in education and art education, circa 2020. E.Delacruz: Art Education in the 21st Century.
A Brief Synopsis of the Movement Toward Learner-Centered Teaching in Art Education
     Learner-centered teaching and learning is based on the belief that teachers don't give or pass down knowledge to learners. Rather students construct knowledge for themselves.  Also known as active learning in educational discourse and as constructivism in cognitive psychology, this view of learning  posits that learning occurs through learners' direct experience with the environment and social interaction with peers and mentors (Delacruz, 1997). They learn by doing, as educational philosopher John Dewey (1934) would sayas they build new knowledge on their prior knowledge through active engagement with the processes of education and the contents of the curriculum.
     Learner-centered educational approaches (aka student-centered approaches) are currently in favor in schools across the US. They also have a long history in educational theory and practice. In the 18th century in Europe, in opposition to education practices where the teacher was positioned as an authority who conveyed knowledge and skills according to a pre-determined curriculum, German philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau first advanced an alternative  view of education that both impacted other educational thinkers at the time and still resonates today (Bertram, 2017; Doyle & Smith, 2013). In the mid 1700s Rousseau set forth his belief that education should be in harmony with the development of the child’s natural capacities and carried out through a process of autonomous discovery (Bertram, 2017; Doyle & Smith, 2013). (For a link to extracts from Rousseau's Emile, 1762, see my references). In 1837, influenced by Rousseau's ideas, German educator Friedrich Froebel opened his Child Nurture and Activity Institute, which he later renamed the Kindergarten, or “garden of children" (Curtis, n.d.). Froebel's teaching approach encouraged children's  self-expression through play rather than drill or indoctrination (Curtis, n.d.). "Froebel devised circles, spheres, and other toys—all of which he referred to as 'gifts' or 'occupations'—that were designed to stimulate learning through play activities accompanied by songs and music (Curtis, n.d, para 6). (For an autobiography of Froebel, see my references. See also In 1894 Froebel's ideas were brought to and adopted in the US by US philosopher and educator John Dewey (Curtis, n.d.). The enormous and lasting influence of Dewey on education in the US is discussed further down in this summary.
     In the early 20th century in the US, educational theories and practices were influenced by the growing discipline of psychology, with its focus on human motivation and behavior (Delacruz, 1997). As educational theorists moved away from the deterministic tenets of behaviorism (a prominent view of human behavior emanating from the discipline of psychology and based on the work of B. F Skinner) research in cognitive developmental psychology gained prominence in educational theory and practices in the mid  20th century (Delacruz, 1997). Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget's "genetic epistempology", the study of the growth of knowledge in humans (1968), was particularly influential on education (Delacruz, 1997). According to Piaget, learners advanced to higher states of cognitive development as they encountered new information that did not fit their existing conceptual frameworks, they experienced a form of cognitive disequilibrium between what they knew and what they were now encountering, and they reorganized their cognitive frameworks to accommodate the new information. In Piaget's age-stage framework, development toward higher levels of intelligence was described as universal, innate, progressive, and invariant (1968). Piaget further asserted that human cognitive (intellectual) growth occurred naturally and could be mapped hierarchically (1936). The purpose of schooling, from a Piagetian view, was to facilitate the individual's natural development (Kitchener, 1986). This view was reinforced in the pioneering work of art educator Victor Lowenfeld (Delacruz, 1997). Since its first publication in 1949 and for the next fifty years, Victor Lowenfeld's wildly popular book, Creative and Mental Growth, shaped art education theories about children's artistic development. At the same time as Piaget's views were promulgated in educational theory, the work of Russian developmental theorist Lev Vygotsky was also gaining interest amongst educators (Delacruz, 1997). Vygotsky's (1929) social-learning theory proposed that rather than being innate and universal, human development was inseparable from language and culture, and propelled by social interaction with more knowledgeable/competent peers (such as fellow students) or mentors (such as teachers). For Vygotsky, learning best occurs when the material to be learned is within what Vygotsky termed a learner's zone of proximal development. Vygotsky's zone of proximal development was the optimal time for the introduction of new material, in that within their zone of proximal development the learner was equipped with adequate knowledge to make sense of such new knowledge (1978). Teachers now recognize this concept as student readiness or developmentally appropriate educational practice. Currently popular cooperative learning approaches in the classroom (Johnson & Johnson, 2018), based on the notion of student collaboration, group work, peer-mentoring, and peer interaction, aligns with a Vygotskian framework. Much has been written and should be said here about Vygotsky's lasting impact on educational thought and practices in the US, but I will only briefly return later in this essay to how Vygotsky's writings about the social and cultural contexts of human mental activity impacted another influential psychologist, Jerome Bruner.
Movement Away from Developmentalism   

     By the mid to late 20th century, developmentalism (a view emanating from the discipline of psychology and largely based applications of Piaget's age-stage framework in education and Lowenfeld's age-stage framework in art education) was the dominant paradigm that shaped art education in the US (Delacruz, 1997). But developmental theory was not without its critics. The movement away from developmental determinism in art education theory was forecast by Brent and Marjorie Wilson in 1981. Wilson and Wilson argued that Lowenfeld's Piaget-inspired age-stage theory of universal artistic development was simplistic, inaccurate, misinformed, and inadequate. The Wilsons' view was reflected in the work of developmental psychologist David Henry Feldman, who in his studies of the development of child prodigies noticed that unrelated to age, young people moved at varying speeds through stages of development of competence within a specific disciplinary practice or domain of knowledge, that they sometimes skipped stages, and sometimes even reverted to previous stages (1980). Notably, Feldman concluded from his studies of child prodigies that the determining factor in mastery within a discipline was not age but time invested. That is, regardless of who the learners were or how initially talented they were, advancement to higher levels was a function of the amount of time they invested in acquiring the knowledge and skills they needed within their particular pursuits. Feldman further described human development as multifaceted, not singular, and occurring along a continuum: from universal development, to cultural development, to discipline-specific development, to idiosyncratic, to unique. For Feldman, all individuals acquire some universal knowledge, just by virtue of being human and interacting with their environment. According to Feldman, all humans then develop cultural knowledge through social interaction, each in response to their specific cultures. Within their respective cultures, then, some humans learn specific things that are embedded in human domains of knowledge knows as disciplines (philosophy, psychology, history, the sciences, the humanities, the arts, etc.) Within those disciplines, some individuals advance to higher levels of knowledge, and they may then push the boundaries of their respective subject areas, offering idiosyncratic and sometimes contradictory views. Finally, in Feldman's multifaceted developmental continuum, some of those idiosyncratic individuals offer such radical and powerful ideas that they bring about a disruption and reformulation of the discipline itself (Galileo and Picasso, for example). Readers may notice that this idea of disruption and and subsequent reorganization of knowledge has a Piagetian-like character, in that Piaget claimed something similar to occur as individual learners advanced to higher levels of understanding in their cognitive development. Interestingly, this idea of disruption and reorientation of what is known and believed to be true is reflected in the well known book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (1969). In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn refuted the commonly held notion amongst philosophers of science that scientific knowledge advanced as a steady, cumulative, progressive march in search of greater understandings of the natural world (Naughton, 2012). In Kuhn's version, science develops in alternating phases of normalcy and turmoil, marked not by steady progress, but by revolutions, upheavals, and transitions to new sets of beliefs (Naughton, 2012). Kuhn's work, in and of itself, was a game changer in terms of how philosophers of science understood scientific knowledge to advance (Naughton, 2012).

     Returning to the main concerns of this blog post, learner-centered educational approaches, I note that Kuhn's claims about how the ways that experts understand their disciplines is changed by radical new ideas is exemplified in the work of Harvard Graduate School of Education scholar and educational psychologist, Howard Gardner, with his landmark theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983). Now commonly accepted by most educators, forty years ago Gardner's Multiple Intelligences theory was in direct opposition to prevailing beliefs at the time about what intelligence is and how one measures it. In 1983 Gardner noted, like D. H. Feldman, that human intelligence is multi-faceted, not singular. For Gardner, there is/was no such thing as "general intelligence". Rather, for Gardner, human intelligence is pluralistic, it takes many forms (originally, seven, according to Gardner): verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Gardner later added naturalistic, existential, and moral to his list of intelligences. Arguing that schooling was traditionally limited to verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical forms of intelligence, but that learners had much broader and more diverse capacities, Gardner called for educators to expand their notions of intelligence, to better understand their students' intellectual capacities, and to present multiple ways (options, aka choices) for learners to engage curriculum content and demonstrate what they know and are able to do. Gardner was calling for a learner-centered approach to teaching, curriculum, and assessment. Since first appearing in 1983, Multiple Intelligences theory "has been put to use in the ensuing years in classrooms all over the world" ( (See also A side note worth mentioning here is the fact that Gardner was adamant that his identification of multiple intelligences not be conflated with students' purported "learning styles", a popular construct in education that Gardner finds to be incoherent and for which he claims that there is no empirical evidence as to their actual existence (Strauss, 2013).
The Importance of Historical Context in Understanding Educational Theories and Practices

     Going back a bit further for a moment and picking up the question in educational theory about how knowledge is organized and transmitted to the next generation, propositions about the nature and role of education was of great interest in the Post WW2 era in the US. The 1960s were a time of intense national interest in education due in part to the post-WW2 ascent of Russia as a military power, Russia's launch of the first rocket, Sputnik, into outer space, concerns about US economic competitiveness in the international arena, and publication of the report "A Nation at Risk" (1963), a scathing indictment of the failings of the US educational system (Delacruz, 1997). This influential report led not only to a reconceptualization of how education theorists both understood and then set forth proscriptions for how school subjects should be organized and taught (Delacruz, 1997), it also fueled the growing accountability and assessment movement in US education, including the congressional No Child Left Behind act of 2002 (Duff, 2020). The 1960s were ripe for a reconceptualization of US curricular and instructional practices and education theorist Jerome Bruner posed such a reconceptualization in his influential book The Process of Education (1960). For Bruner, knowledge is structured within the scholarly or professional disciplines and therefore teachable to children. He said to look at the disciplines themselves and to then base educational programs on the knowledge and skills exhibited by practitioners and experts, presumably adults, in those disciplines. For Brunner, the ways that experts and practitioners in a discipline understand that "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development" (1960, p. 33), provided that the learner was developmentally ready for such knowledge. The task of the teacher, for Bruner, was to understand and teach that disciplinary structure of a subject area (as defined by experts and practitioners in the disciplines) to learners at developmentally appropriate times, so that learners may create their own mental structures (or conceptual frameworks, a Piagetian concept) in order to understand such disciplinary knowledge. For Bruner, this was to be accomplished by initially introducing complex knowledge systems to young people in a simplified manner, gradually building complexity by revisiting earlier conceptualizations throughout a child's schooling, each time adding increasingly advanced ways of understanding within a subject area, and eventually leading children to solve problems independently. He referred to this approach as the spiral curriculum. Bruner believed that engaging new and increasingly complex information systems (the disciplines underlying school subject areas) in this spiral fashion helps children to organize knowledge within a school subject area into an internal mental structure that makes those information systems both increasingly accessible and applicable in beyond the immediate learning taking place in schools. Bruner's work had a powerful impact on education and ultimately changed how educators, including art educators, conceptualized their task of teaching.

     In 1965 art educator Manual Barkan applied Jerome Brunner's discipline-centered ideas to art education in a presentation at a conference hosted by the art education department at Pennsylvania State University. Barkan's ideas subsequently became the basis for the Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) movement that emerged in the 1980s in the US (Delacruz, 1997). DBAE proponents posited that art education content should be structured after the concepts and inquiry processes as practiced by experts and practitioners in the disciplines of studio art, art criticism, art history, and aesthetics (a branch of philosophy dealing with theories of art and aesthetic experience) (Clark, Day, Greer, 1987; Eisner, 1987). Supported in great measure by the J. P. Getty Trust's "Center for Education in the Arts" (an entity in the 1980s through the 2000s of the Getty that has since been shuttered). For nearly 20 years, DBAE was presented in countless professional conferences of the National Art Education Association, and taught in universities and DBAE institutes throughout the US, the Discipline-Based Art Education Movement of the late 1980s and 1990s became the prevailing paradigm in art education theory and practice. The sheer number of publications appearing in art education journals, both for and against the DBAE model, is staggering and far too extensive to list here. (For a very brief discussion of criticisms of DBAE see Delacruz, 1996). But setting aside long past debates over DBAE, readers may be interested in some of the products of the Getty's involvement with art education. Two products of the Getty's involvement with art education that were quite good (in my opinion) included: (1) the still available 2001 publication of Discipline-Based Art Education: A Curriculum Sampler, which was written by art teachers and for art teachers, and is currently available through Google Books (see my references for a link) and (2) the publication by the Getty of their well-researched Multicultural Art Prints series, aka MAPs, (four sets comprised of four large prints of contemporary culturally/racially diverse artists each, with printed information on the back of each print containing information about the artist, their art, and how one might engage in students studio, art history, art set criticism, and aesthetic inquiry in the classroom). It appears that the Getty's MAPs I, II, III, and IV are out of print. One could argue here that another positive, longstanding outcome partly attributable to the J. P. Getty Trust's interest in art education includes the underlying research and theories that shape the growing Teaching for Artistic Behavior (TAB) approach in art education, as will be discussed briefly below.
From Development to Dispositions as a Framework for Understanding how Young People Learn and Make Art

     Discipline-Based Art Education, and to a great degree, the Teaching for Artistic Behavior  (TAB) model in art education, and the notion of the dispositions and behaviors of artists articulated in the popular Studio Thinking books (Hetland, Winner, Veema, & Sheridan, 2007; Hetland, Winner, Veema, & Sheridan, 2013; Hetlund, Winner, Hohgan, & Jaquith, 2018) have each in their own way, been built on the ideas emanating from many of the individuals and ideas mentioned in previous paragraphs of this blog post. That is, DBAE, TAB, and TAB's underlying framework, Studio Thinking, hold (a) a high regard for the forms of knowledge and ways that experts and practitioners do what they do and (b) a belief that, under the right conditions, students may learn such knowledge and skills. But there are important distinctions that need to be made between these two approaches. For DBAE proponents, the right conditions were predominantly teacher-designed curricula involving direct teaching. In a DBAE oriented curriculum student inquiry and project work were largely predetermined by the teacher, and the teacher was the ultimate authority regarding curriculum content selection, student inquiries, and art projects to be completed. In contrast to DBAE, for TAB proponents the right conditions means that the teacher's role shifts from ultimate authority over curriculum content to that of role model, facilitator, and resource. In a TAB classroom, student learning is largely a matter of student choice, and inquiries and art making are the result of student independent research, discovery learning, and autonomy. Studio Habits of Mind (SHoM), the framework articulated in the Studio Thinking books, provide guidance (see The dispositions and behaviors described in SHoM, dispositions and behaviors said to be those of practicing artists (adult disciplinary experts in this case), are the kinds of dispositions and behaviors needed by learners, that is, young art makers inhabiting K-12 art programs of study. And I would further argue here, these practices and dispositions are reflected in the National Core Arts Standards.  Interestingly, Studio Habits of Mind were the result of the Studio Thinking project, a Getty-funded multi-year (2001-2007) investigation that described "eight dispositions students are taught so that they learn to think like artists" The Studio Thinking project was one of many projects of Harvard's Graduate School of Education's "Project Zero", a multi-year research centre founded in 1967, co-directed for 28 of its now 50 years by Howard Gardner (see
     As a result of the work of many of the aforementioned scholars and educators, we (art educators) don't currently talk about or envision what happens when learners learn to make and understand art in terms of "stages of artistic development" very much these days. Rather, we talk about students' and artists' dispositions (see anything related to Studio Thinking), artists' creative strategies (articulated in the writings of Olivia Guide (2004) and Julia Marshall (2008, 2009) for example), developmental readiness to learn, and levels of proficiency (see the National Visual Arts Standards). The idea is how we engage curriculum content, and as it turns out, how students actually learn about art in our classrooms is as important as what content we include in our K-12 art programs of study (or as my colleague Craig Roland posed in his curriculum courses "What's worth teaching in art?). As I (Delacruz, 1997) and many others have previously noted, the way we teach is as important as what we teach. Put another way, the how becomes the what, so to speak.

A Cultural Turn

     All of this teaching and learning, of course, takes place within particular cultural contexts, in particular educational settings and communities, and with particular learners and teachers, each with their own multi-faceted cultural backgrounds and identities. And with this complexity in mind, my blog post about learner-centered teaching approaches in art education is meandering, by necessity, as I have tried to make sense of the history of, the many conceptualizations within, and the constantly moving parts comprising the discipline of art education. It is useful to note that art education is actually an applied discipline that borrows from other, parent disciplines: psychology (developmental theory), education, studio practice, art history and criticism, philosophy, anthropology, and more recently, cultural studies and critical social theory, to name a few.

     I return briefly to questions about theories of learning in the arts and their subsequent implications for teaching and learning in art education. As I previously mentioned, in addition to challenging developmentally deterministic models of artistic development Brent Wilson's impact on art education offers an alternative view now accepted by many art educators across the US. Describing social and cultural influences on artistic development, Brent Wilson's research and writings from the 1980s to the present have posed a cultural framework for understanding the motivations and art making practices of young people that persists to today.  Similar to the Wilsons, Darras and Kindler also rejected models that attempted to explain children’s artistic development as universal and linear. During the 1990s, Darras and Kindler set forth their own explanations in a series of articles. Darras and Kindler proposed a map-like model that focuses on social and cultural aspects that shape children’s use of pictorial imagery (1994). Wilson's cultural framework, or popular culture framework, I should say, posits that children's art is greatly influenced by exposure to images and other cultural productions (movies, books, magazines, videos, stuff on the internet) found in and shaping their everyday lives. Tavin observed that this socio-cultural framework builds on the antecedent writings of art educators June King McFee, Laura Chapman, and Vincent Lanier (Tavin, 2005). I would add Karen Hamblen to such a listing of art educators whose research and writings challenged then-popular cognitive developmental models in favor of a view that embraces what Hamblen referred to as the lifeworlds, everyday/local art expressions, and cultural experiences of young people (1993a, 1993b).

     In the interrelated worlds of psychology and education at large, the movement toward cultural explanations about learners and learning is attributable in part to Jerome Bruner, who after publishing his landmark book The Process of Education in1960 went on to write important sequels, Towards a theory of instruction (1966), The Relevance of Education (1971), The Culture of Education (1996), and several other influential books, Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language (1983)Actual Minds, Possible Worlds (1986), and Acts of Meaning (1990). Observing a shift from cognitive to cultural psychology, Bruner set forth the belief that the rather than functioning as an information processor, the human mind actually creates meaning (1990), and that this happens through interaction with others in within specific environments, including but not limited to "the schoolroom situated in a broader culture" (1996, p. 44).  As Bruner explained, "the cultural contexts that favor mental development are principally and inevitably interpersonal, for they involve symbolic exchanges and include a variety of joint enterprises with peers, parents, and teachers. Through such collaboration, the developing child gains access to the resources, the symbol systems, and even the technology of the culture" (1996, p. 68). "How well the student does in mastering and using skills, knowledge, and ways of thinking will depend upon how favoring or enabling a cultural 'toolkit' the teacher provides for the learner. Indeed, the culture's symbolic toolkit actualizes the learner's very capacities" (1996, p. 67). 

          The notion of young peoples' artistic learning and behaviors as impacted by everyday (popular) culture and as culturally-situated is reflected in the more recent research and writings of proponents of Visual Culture Art Education (VCAE), including but not limited to art educators such as Brent Wilson (2000), Kerry Freedman (2003), Deborah Smith-Shank (2004), Kevin Tavin (2003), and Paul Duncum (2001). Although not someone I would label a strict VCAE-er, Art educator Christine Thompson's lifetime work has also focused on the culture(s) of children and social interactions that occur in the classroom, social interactions that include informal and formal conversations between students and between students and teachers in classroom settings (Thompson & Bales, 1991; 2006, 2009, 2009b, 2013a, 2013b, 2017, Schulte & Thompson, 2018). This focus on young peoples' classroom dialogues and social interactions is further reflected in the research and writings of art educator Christopher Schulte (2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2018). The importance social interaction amongst students in their (learning) environments, an idea largely credited to Dewey and Vygotsky, are embedded in current popular approaches in the larger field of education, including but not limited to cooperative and collaborative learning, in project-based and problem-based learning, and methods promulgated in Reggio Amelia and Montessori schools and programs.  
    A cultural view of learning, with its focus on the individual's experience of and within the the larger cultural arena is not new. Rather, it is easily traceable to John Dewey. Dewey's ideas about direct experience with the environment and within a community, and his ideas about learning by doing, are central to currently popular educational approaches found in Montessori schools, Reggio schools and programs, project-based and problem-based learning, inquiry learning, design thinking, choice-based education and TAB, flipped classroom, cooperative and collaborative learning, and the many other learner-centered approaches. The brief history of ideas about education provided in my summary today leads to a conclusion that educational theory still embraces constructivism as an explanation for how humans develop and learn, as a guide for teaching, and with an abiding reverence for learning what is deeply connected to community. As mentioned earlier, constructivism posits that students are not empty vessels into which teachers pour knowledge, rather, learners construct knowledge for themselves. Paolo Friere's landmark book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968) (see and John Dewey's numerous writings about education, society/community, and art in the early to mid 1900s articulate such a view and remain longstanding influences today. As mentioned above, Dewey's writings about progressive education, learning by doing, democracy, and the deep connections between the individual and their community, nearly 100 years after their first appearance, still resonate today. See some of Dewey's writings at and
  to get started. And read John Dewey's  Democracy and Education (1916) available at and Art as Experience (1934) available at (Links to an external site.)Then see art educator June King McFee's  Art Culture, and Environment: A Catalyst for Teaching  (1977), Laura Chapman's Approaches to Art in Education (1978), Vincent Lanier's article, "Teaching Art as Social Revolution" (1969) and pretty much everything else Lanier wrote, Doug Blandy's and Kristen Congdon's Art in a Democracy (1987), and anything every written by Karen Hamblen, starting with her still relevant 1984 article "Cultures of Aesthetic Discourse (CAD): Origins, Contradictions, and Implications" written for the Journal of Social Theory in Art EducationI would argue here that most, if not all of the historic and currently popular writings in art education about culture, multi-culture in America, social justice, and social action, including the entire contents of the January 2020 issue of the National Art Education Association journal, Art Education, derive  from (with or without crediting the historical basis of the ascent of both multicultural education and social theory in the profession of art education) to the work of these individuals.
     As evidenced above, a focus on culture in the classroom has a long history in art educational thought and practice. As educators and art educators move toward curricular and instructional approaches that recognize the powerful influence of culture on learners, communities, and societies, it is important to highlight here both the multicultural education movement that gained prominence in the US in the 1980s and Culturally Responsive Teaching, the current permutation of multicultural education.  According to the US Census Bureau the US minority race population was 38 percent in 2015. By 2020, "more than half of the nation’s children are expected to be part of a minority race or ethnic group" and "by 2060, just 36 percent of all children (people under age 18) will be single-race non-Hispanic white, compared with 52 percent today." In 2044, the U.S. population will become majority-minority" and by 2060 "the minority population is projected to rise to 56 percent of the total" ( (Links to an external site
      Writing about the multicultural education movement in the early 1990s, Daniel and Delacruz talk about the expansive and evolving nature of the movement, noting that "multicultural education has been characterized at various stages in its development as nonracist, gender fair education; culturally inclusive instruction; curriculum for cultural tolerance; and curriculum for social change" (Daniel & Delacruz, 1993, p. v). Building on that framework, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) is a student-centered approach that embraces and elaborates on the idea of cultural diversity in the classroom. CRT "respects and honors students’ individuality as well as their cultures, experiences, and histories" and "involves engaging in critical self-reflection about one’s values, biases, strengths, and limitations, and how these can affect one’s effectiveness with students of diverse backgrounds" (Nieto, n.d.). The ideas/ideals underlying both multicultural education and culturally responsive teaching embrace the notion of multicultural America, and, local cultures and communities in particular and respect for/direct engagement with individual students' based on their unique backgrounds.
Some Final Thoughts  

     The history of educational theories about teaching and learning, about how and why young people make art, and their subsequent role in shaping educational policies, curriculum decisions, and instructional strategies in art education is important. We owe it to ourselves to know where our ideas came from. Possibly one of the best explanations of the underpinnings of theories about children and their art was written in 1989 by art educator Jo Alice Leeds in her seminal paper "The History of Attitudes towards Children's Art". Here, Leeds provides a systematic, concise, and convincing historical analysis of the evolution of thought about children and children's art, from Medieval times to the mid-late twentieth century. For me, two of Leeds' most relevant conclusions were (a) that notions and explanations of child art reflected the writers'/researchers' preconceived beliefs about children and their own (rather than the children's) aesthetic tastes, and (b) that "attitudes toward children's art remain varied and controversial, both in and outside of the field of art education" (1989, p. 102).

     Lingering questions, unanswerable by me, concern the movement toward cultural explanations about how learning takes place, and about how the practices of artists are embedded in and shaped by culture. It seems that we have moved over the past century from behavioristic models, to developmentalism, to a form of cultural determinism in our explanations. But optimistic writings about the autonomy, agency, and idiosyncratic nature of the individual (something teachers have figured out on their own a long time ago) give hope that what we think we know about knowledge, practice, education, and so on is embedded in its historical moment and cultural context, subject to scrutiny and debate, constantly changing, and never fixed.

     I close this blog post with some concluding remarks about the evolution of ideas about teaching art. One can't help but notice the shifting trajectories in the enterprise of art education from an endeavor aimed at teaching the individual child to become a well developed adult, to assimilating and cultivating the tastes of the masses, to training for industry, to engaging and contributing to the wider community, to attending to the psychological well being of the individual, to taking ones place amongst globally competitive nations, and currently, to a regard for the preparing the individual for life in a complex, rapidly changing, deeply interconnected and interdependent world.  It is here where Dewey's lasting impact includes educators' recognition of the importance of the idea of learners as active agents in their own learning and the belief that learning occurs within and to some degree on behalf of the learner's larger community beyond the school walls.
Talking about teaching as if it were something that occurs on its own, Dewey warns, is like supposing one could eat without food. The contents of our teaching practices are not only the curricular areas in question (art, history, science, mathematics, language arts, etc.) but the specific people, the specific contexts, and the historical moments through which our educational goals are set forward.

     In the final analysis, art and art making are about conveying experiences and aspirations, creatively. Art is about ideas. I note the importance of the new National Visual Arts Standards ( and the impact of curricular/instructional models such as Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, n.d.), both with their focus on designing curricula around big ideas and enduring understandings. I take the concept of big ideas to mean the stuff of life, that is, the themes, values, hopes, and fears found in the arts and humanities. Art certainly reflects the stuff of life. Readers interested in themes found in the arts and humanities may be interested in my blog post on that topic (Delacruz, 2020).

     In closing, my purpose in writing this blog post has been to recount our abiding interest in embracing and facilitating the potential of the individual in educational programs, aka learner-centered teaching. The educational approaches appearing in this blog post share high regard for the myriad of human interests and domains of knowledge of importance to us today: the ideas and values contained within arts and humanities, the importance of freedom of choice, active engagement of learners with the problems of society, and the role of schools in creating a better world for all.

End Notes and Acknowledgements:
Portions of the above have been excerpted (but also updated here) from my NAEA book, Design for Inquiry: Instructional Theory, Research, and Practice in Art Education (Delacruz, 1997).

Thanks to Christopher Schulte and to Craig Roland for their thoughtful reading, critique, and recommendations regarding this blog post. I have tried to implement most all of their recommendations.

Thanks also to Katherine Douglas for providing me with thoughtful feedback, suggesting TAB-related resources for this blog post, offering corrections, and for a great Facebook Messenger conversation about TAB, teachers and some of the amazing art educators we mutually admire. 

References for the above 

A Nation At Risk. The Imperative for Educational Reform. (1983). Report of President Ronald Regan's National Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from 

Barkan, M. (1966). Curriculum problems in art education. In K. R. Beittel & E. L. Mattil (Eds.) A seminar in art education for research and curriculum development (pp. 240-258).  The Pennsylvania State University.Retrieved June 15, 2019 from
      Note:  The Penn State Seminar referenced above was held in 1965. 

Bertram, C. (2017). Jean Jacques Rousseau. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Blandy, D., & Congdon, K. G. (1987). Art in a democracy. Teachers College Press. 

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.  Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Belkapp Press. 

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. 

Bruner, J. S. (1971). The relevance of education, New York: Norton. 

Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Norton.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press .

Chapman, L.  H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Clark, G., Day, M., Greer, D.(1987). Discipline-based Art Education: Becoming students of art. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21,129-193.

Clements, A. (March 25, 2013). Reconsidering John Dewey’s Art as Experience. Hyperallergic. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and learning. (2004). WNET|Education. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Curtis, S. J. (n.d.). Friedrich Froebel: German Educator. Encyclopedia Britannica.Retrieved June 15, 2019 from 

Darras, B., & Kindler, A. M. (1994). Artistic development in context: Emergence and development of pictorial imagery in the early childhood years. Visual Arts Research, 20(2), 1-13.

Delacruz, E. M. (2004). Teachers’ technology working conditions and the unmet promise of technology. Studies in Art Education, 46(1), 6-19. 

Delacruz, E. M. (2009a). From bricks to mortar to the public sphere in cyberspace: Creating a culture of caring on the digital global commons. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 10(5). Available at:

Delacruz, E. M. (2009b). Art education in the age of new media: Toward global civil society. Art Education, 62(5), 13-18.

Delacruz, E. M., Carlos, J., Danker, S., Flugelstad, T., Roland, C., & Stokrocki, M. (2011). Do-it-Yourself professional development through online personal learning networks as a 21st century form of self-initiated, non-hierarchical participation in communities of practice. Canadian Art Journal, 9(2), 38-53. 

Delacruz, E. M. (2009c). Mapping the terrain: Globalization, art, and education. In Delacruz, E. M., A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.), Globalization, art, and education (pp. x - xviii). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Delacruz, E., Brock, D., Fuglestad, T., Ferrell, K., Huffer, J.  (2014). Teaching art in the age of social media: Firsthand accounts of five technology-savvy art teachers. Texas Trends. Texas Art Education Association.

Duff, N. (2020). The A Nation at Risk report [Video].YouTube. Retrieved from

Eisner, E. W. (1987). The role of Discipline-Based Art Education in America's schools. Art Education,40(5), 6-45.

Frederich Froebel. (n.d.). Britannica. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Daniel, V. A., & Delacruz, E. M. (1993). Art education as multicultural education: The underpinnings of reform. Visual Arts Research, 19(2), v-ix.

Delacruz, E. (2020, January 18). Themes in  Art. The Stuff of Life [Blog post]. Retrieved from

Delacruz, E. M. (1997). Design for inquiry: Instructional theory, research, and practice in art education. National Art Education Association.

Dewey. J. (1916).  Democracy and education.Berkley Publishing Group.

Dewey. J. (1934). Art as experience. Berkley Publishing Group.

Doyle, M. E., & Smith, M. K., (2013). Jean-Jacques Rousseau on nature, wholeness and education. Infed [Online encyclopedia]. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Duncum, P.  (2001). Visual culture: Developments, definitions, and directions for art education. Studies in Art Education, 42(2), 101-112.

Eisner, E. W. (1987). The role of Discipline-Based Art Education in America's schools. Art Education,40(5), 6-45.

Frederich Froebel. (n.d.). Britannica. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Ablex.

Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art. Teachers College Press. National Art Education Association.

Froebel, F. (1889). Autobiography of Friedrich Froebel [Translated by Michaelis, E., & Moore, H, K.]. C. W. Bardeen, Publisher. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. Harvard University Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Intelligence reframed. Harvard University Press. (Note: Gardner defined the first seven intelligences in Frames of Mind in 1983.  He added the last two in Intelligence Reframed in 1999.)

Genetic Epistemology (Jean Piaget). (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Gude, O. (2004). Postmodern principles: In search of a 21st century art education. Art  Education, 57(1), 6-14.

Hamblen, K. A. (1984). Cultures of Aesthetic Discourse (CAD): Origins, Contradictions, and Implications. Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 4, 22-34. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Hamblen, K. A. (1993a). Local art knowledge: Within children's art work and outside school culture. Visual Arts Research, 25(2), 14-24.

Hamblen, K. A. (1993b). Developmental models of artistic expression and aesthetic response: The reproduction of formal schooling and modernity. Journal of Social Theory Art Education, 13, 37–56. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. ( April, 2018). An overview of cooperative learning [Newsletter]. Cooperative Learning Institute. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Kitchener, R. F. (1986). Piaget's theory of knowledge: Genetic epistemology and scientific reason. Yale University Press.

Thomas Kuhn: The man who changed the way the world looked at science. (2012). The Guardian|Science. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.  (Note: In response to his critics, Kuhn added replies in a postscript to his book in 1969. In 2012, in honor of the 50th anniversary of this book, the University of Chicago Press published it again with an introduction by Canadian philosopher of science Ian Hacking.)

Lanier, V. (1969). The teaching of art as social revolution. The Phi Delta Kappan, 50(6), 314-319.

Leeds, J. A. (1989). The history of attitudes toward children's art. Studies in Art Education, 30(2), 93-103.

Marshall, J. (2008). Visible thinking: Using contemporary art to teach conceptual skills. Art  Education, 61(2), 38-45.

Marshall, J. (2009). Globalization and contemporary art. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, & A Kuo (Eds.). Globalization, art, and education (pp. 88 - 96). National Art Education Association.

McFee, J. K.  (1977). Art, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Wadsworth.

McLeod, S. A. (2018, June 06). Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Simply Psychology. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

McLeod, S. A. (2019). Constructivism as a theory for teaching and learning. Simply Psychology. Retrieved December, 2019 from

Naughton, J. (2012, August 18). Thomas Kuhn: The man who changed the way the world looked at science. The Guardian. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Nieto, S. (n.d.) Culturally responsive pedagogy: Some key features. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

O'Keeffe, V. (1970). History of the Term "The Structure of Disciplines". The Journal of Educational Thought, 4(1), 55-59.

Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child (translated by Margaret Cook).  Routledge & Kegan Paul. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks concerning The Language and Thought of the Child, and Judgment and Reasoning in the Child. Vygotsky Internet Archive. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Piaget, J. (1968). Genetic epistemology [Lecture delivered at Columbia Universiy, translated by Eleanor Duchworth]. Columbia University Press. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from
Piaget, J. (1955). The elaboration of the universe. In J. Piaget The Construction of Reality in the Child (translated by Margaret Cook). Routledge & Kegan Paul. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Rousseau, J. J. (1762). Emile. Or concerning education [Extracts. Translated by Eleanor Worthington]. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from  

Schulte, C. M. (2011). Verbalization in children’s drawing performances: Toward a metaphorical continuum of inscription, extension, and re-inscription. Studies in Art Education, 53(1), 20-34. 

Schulte, C. M. (2013a). Verbalization as a threshold in children’s drawing encounters. Visual Arts Research, 39(77), 54-69. 

Schulte, C. M. (2013b). Being there and becoming-unfaithful. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 14(SI 1.5). Retrieved June 15, 2019 from 

Schulte C. M., & Thompson, C. M. (2018). Communities of practice: Art, play, and aesthetics in early childhood. Springer.

Slavin, R. E.  (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning. National Education Association, Retrieved June 15, 2019 from Eric Clearninghouse ED 339 518 at

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.  

Smith-Shank, D. (2004). Semiotics and visual culture: Sights, signs, and significance. National Art Education Association.

Strauss, V. (2013, October 16). Howard Gardner: 'Multiple Intelligences' are not 'Learning Styles'. Washington Post [Online]. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Sunday, K., & Kaplan, H. (2019). Alan Kaprow and Manuel Barkan: 21st Century incarnations for the neoliberal era of art education. Transdisciplinary Inquiry, Practice, and Possibilities in Art Education. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Libraries Open Publishing. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Tavin, K.  (2003). Wrestling with angels, searching for ghosts: Toward a critical pedagogy of visual Cculture. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 197-213.

Tavin, K. (2005). Opening re-Marks: Critical antecedents of visual culture in art education. Studies in Art Education, 47(1), 5-22.

Thompson, C. M. (2006). The ket aesthetic: Visual culture in childhood. In J. Fineberg (Ed.), When we were young. (pp. 31–43) Berkeley: University of California Press.

Thompson, C. M. (2009a). Mira! Looking, listening, and lingering in research with children. Visual Arts Research, 35(1), 24-34. 

Thompson, C. M. (2009b). The global and the local: The hybridity of children’s culture. In E. M. Delacruz, A. Arnold, M. Parsons, and A. Kuo, (Eds.). Globalization, art, and education (pp. 164-170). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. 

Thompson, C, M. (2013). Child faber: Child the maker. National Art Education Association Lowenfeld Lecture. National Art Education Association. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Thompson, C. M. (2017). Listening for stories: Childhood studies and art education. Studies in Art Education, 58(1), 7-16.

Thompson, C. M., & Bales, S. (1991). "Michael doesn't like my dinosaurs”: Conversations in a preschool art class. Studies in Art Education, 33(1), 43-55.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (n.d.). Understanding by Design framework [Online White Paper]. ASCD. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Wilson, B. (2000). Of diagrams and rhizomes: Visual culture, contemporary art, and the impossibility of mapping the content of art education. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 214-229.

Brent Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1981). The use and uselessness of developmental stages. Art Education, 34(5), 4-5.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

See Also

Chalmers, G. (1981). Art education as ethnology. Studies in Art Education, 22(3), 6 - 14.

Chalmers, G. (Ed.). (1996).Celebrating pluralism: Art, education, and cultural diversity. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Dennison, G. (1969). The lives of children: The story of the First Street School. Random House. Get this amazing book.  See what Samuel Popper said about it 

Elkind, D. (1981). The hurried child: Growing up too fast too soon. Addison-Wesley.

Fulgrum, R. (2003). All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten. Penguin.  Retrieved June 15, 2019 from 

Gruber, H. E., & Voneche, J. J. (eds.) (1977). The essential Piaget. Basic Books. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from

Lippard, L. (1990). New art in a multicultural America. New Press.

Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6),771-781. 

Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to ethics and moral education. Teachers College Press. 

Postman, N. (1994). The disappearance of childhood. Vintage Books.
Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1971). Teaching as a subversive activity. Penguin.  See the introduction at 

Stuhr, P. (2003). A tale of why social and cultural content is often excluded from art education – and why it should not be. Studies in Art Education, 44 (4), 301–314.
Tarr, P. (2003). Reflections on the image of the child: Reproducer or creator of culture. Art Education, 56(4), 6–11.

List of Approaches

Multicultural Art Education and Culturally Responsive Teaching
Multicultural Education
  • Lippard, L. (1990). New art in a multicultural America. New Press.
  • National Association for Multicultural Education. (Links to an external site.)
  • Banks, J. (l984). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (3rd Ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  • Banks, J., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of research on multicultural education. Macmillan.
  • Gay, G. (2004). The importance of multicultural education. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 30 - 34.
  • Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the United States. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 421-445.
Multicultural Art Education
  • Adejumo, C. O. (2002). Considering multicultural art education. Art Education, 55(2), 33-39,
  • Ballengee-Morris, C., & Stuhr, P. L. (2001). Multicultural art and visual cultural education in a changing world. Art Education, 5(4), 6-13.
  • Blandy, D., & Congdon, C. G. (1991). Art and culture collections in art education: A critical analysis. Journal of Multicultural and Crosscultural Research in Art Education, 9(1 ).
  • Blandy, D., & Congdon, K. G. (Eds.). (1991). Pluralistic approaches to art criticism. Bowling Green State University Popular Press .
  • Chalmers, G. (Ed.). (1996). Celebrating pluralism: Art, education, and cultural diversity. The J. Paul Getty Trust.  
  • Daniel, V. A., & Delacruz, E. M. (1993). Art education as multicultural education: The underpinnings of reform. Visual Arts Research, 19(2), v-ix.
  • Delacruz, E. M. (1995). Multiculturalism: Myths, misconceptions, and misdirections. Art Education, 48(3), 57- 61.
  • Delacruz, E. M. (1995). Multiculturalism and the tender years: Big and little questions. In C. M. Thompson (Ed.),The visual arts and early childhood learning (pp. 101-106). National Art Education Association.
  • Delacruz, E. M. (1996). Multiculturalism in art education: ‘Business as usual’. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 3(1), 29-41.
  • Delacruz, E. M. (2003). Racism American style and resistance to change: Art education’s role in the Indian mascot issue. Art Education, 56(3), 13-20.
  • Deaai, D. (2010). The challenge of new colorblind racism in art education. Art Education, 63(5),21-28.
  • Desai, D.  (2000). Imaging difference: The politics of representation in multicultural art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(2), 114-129,
  • Erickson, M.,  & Young, B.  (Eds.). Multicultural artworlds: Enduring, evolving, and overlapping traditions. National Art Education Association.
  • Stuhr, P.  L., Petrovlcb-Mwanikl, L., & Wasaon. R. (l992). Curriculum guidelines for the multicultural art classroom. Art Education, 5(l),16-24.
  • Stuhr, P. L. (2003). A tale of why social and cultural content is often excluded from art education: And why is should not be. Studies in Art education, 44(4), 301-314.
  • Young, B. (Ed.). (2011).  Art, culture, and ethnicity. National Art Education Association.
Culturally Responsive Teaching
  • Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351-371. 
  • Chan, E. (2007). Student experiences of a culturally-sensitive curriculum: Ethnic identity development amid conflicting stories to live by. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 177 -194.
  • Cox, J. (n.d.).Culturally Responsive Teaching strategies.
  • Gay, G. (2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd Ed). Teachers College Press.
  • Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106 - 116. (Links to an external site.)
  • Garza, R. (2009). Latino and White high school students’ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we culturally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44, 297-321.
  • Goldstein, L. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647-673.
  • Gonzalez, V. (January 1, 2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching in Today’s Classrooms [Blog post]. National Council of Teachers of English. (Links to an external site.)
  • Hammond, Z. L. (2014). Culturally Responsive Teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin.
  • Harris-Murri, N., King, K., Rostenberg, D. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority representation in Special Education programs for students with emotional disturbances: Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education & Treatment of Children, 29, 4, 779-799.
  • Kozleski, E. B. (n.d.). Culturally Responsive Teaching Matters.  Equity Alliance. (Links to an external site.)
  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
  • Nieto, S. (2013). Finding joy in teaching students of diverse backgrounds: Culturally responsive and socially just practices in U.S. classrooms. Heinemann Publishers.
  • Nieto, S. (n.d.) Culturally responsive pedagogy: Some key features. (Links to an external site.)
  • Sheets, R. H. (1995). From remedial to gifted: Effects of culturally-centered pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 186-193.
  • Webb, J., Wilson, B., Corbett, D., & Mordecai, R. (1993). Understanding caring in context: Negotiating borders and barriers. Urban Review, 25(1), 25-45.
  • Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995).  A framework for culturally responsive teaching. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17-21.

Studio Thinking

Teaching for Artistic Behavior (TAB) and Choice Based Art Education (they're related but not identical).

Interdisciplinary Curricula, STEAM, and Maker Spaces

    Interdisciplinary art education is based on the belief that art and art making are creative human endeavors aimed at understanding and conveying ideas and experiences, and such, they transcend the art room and cross over into multiple domains of human knowledge and endeavors. Interdisciplinary art education and interdisciplinary education has been around for a very long time. Integrating the arts with other school subjects has been popular at different times throughout the history of American Education, most notably as part of the Progressive Education Movement of the early 20th century. In schools, and for many years, this crossing over and connecting  amongst multiple domains of knowledge (as represented in traditional school subjects) has been known by many names: Arts Integration, Interdisciplinary, Cross-Curricular, Trans-disciplinary, and more recently, efforts to build connections between the arts and other school subjects through the Common Core and STEM to STEAM movements. Maker-Spaces offers yet one more way to connect the arts to other subjects and disciplines/domains of knowledge. One of the problems with arts integration in schools is the tendency focus on using the arts to increase academic performance and knowledge in one or more core subject areas, while at the same time fostering greater understanding or performance in the visual or performing arts is viewed as less essential or as enrichment. But our goal as art educators implementing interdisciplinary lessons should always be to integrate art with other relevant domains of human knowledge and endeavor, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the art learning experience. Arts integration is also critically important in Community Based Art Education, where are education takes in place in sites beyond the school walls. What we do in these sites beyond the school walls should connect with the world outside of our studios, workshops, and art programs.
    • Arts Integration: Resource Roundup.(n.d.) Edutopia.
    • Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40-47.
    • Bradshaw, M. (2018). Natural connections: Forest Schools, art education, and playful practices. Art Education, 71(4), 30-35.  
    • Common Core and the Arts. (n.d.) Arts Education Partnership.
    • Damkohler, L. (2011, July 6) Arts integration isn’t enough. ARTSblog. 
    • Daniel, V. A. H., Stuhr, P. L., & Ballengee-Morris, C. (2006). Suggestions for Integrating the arts into curriculum. Art Education, 59(1), 6-11.
    • Davenport, M. (2005).  Reflecting on interdisciplinarity: A story of bits. In M. Stockrocki (Ed.), Interdisciplinary art education: Building bridges to connect disciplines and cultures (pp. 3-5). National Art Education Association. 
    • Cruz, B. C., & Smith, N. (2013). Mark Dion's troubleshooting: Empowering students to create and act. Art Education, 66(3), 29-38. &nbsp
    • Gettings, M. (2016). Putting it all together: STEAM, PBL, Scientific Method, and the Studio Habits of Mind. Art Education, 69(4), 10-11. 
    • Glass, D., & Wilson, C. (2016). The art and science of looking: Collaboratively learning our way to improved STEAM integration. Art Education, 69(6), 8-14. 
    • Graham, M. A. (2020). Deconstructing the bright future of STEAM and Design Thinking. Art Education, 73(3), 6-12. 
    • Gross, K., & Gross, S. (2016). TRANSFORMATION: Constructivism, Design Thinking, and elementary STEAM. Art Education, 69(6), 36-43. 
    • li>Guyotte, K. W., Sochacka, N. W., Costantino, T. E., Walther, W.,  & Kellam. (2014). Steam as social practice: Cultivating creativity in transdisciplinary spaces. Art Education, 67(6), 12-19. 
    • Hunter-Doniger, T. (2018). Art infusion: Ideal conditions for STEAM. Art Education, 71(2), 22-27. 
    • Keely, D. (2012, August 29). Lesson plans and resources for arts integration. Edutopia.
    • Leysath, M., & Bronowski, C. (2016). An adventure in full art integration. Art Education, 69(6), 28-34.  
    • Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Education, 69(6), 44-49.
    • Maeda, J. (2012, October 2).STEM to STEAM: Art in K-12 is key to building a strong economy. Edutopia. 
    • Marshall, J. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and art integration: Toward a new understanding of art-based learning across the curriculum. Studies in Art Education, 55(2), 104-127.
    • Patton, R. A., & Knochel , A. D. (2017). Meaningful makers: Stuff, sharing, and connection in STEAM curriculum. Art Education, 70(1), 36-43.
    • Riley, S. (2012, November 20). Use arts integration to enhance common core [Blog post]. Edutopia. 
    • Robbins, P. N., & Smith, S. (2016). Robo/graphy: Using practical arts-based robots to transform classrooms into Makerspaces. Art Education, 69(3), 44-51.
    • Rufo, D. (2016). STEAM-ing up the science fair. Art Education, 69(4), 12-16. 
    • Scott, T., & Twyman, T. (2018). Considering visual arts practices at the secondary level: Extending cross-curricular conversations among secondary educators. Art Education, 71(2), 16-20.
    • Stokrocki, M. (2005). Pros and cons of an interdisciplinary partnership based on the theme of patriotism. In M. Storocki (Ed.). Interdisciplinary art education: Building bridges to connect disciplines and cultures (pp. 159 – 168). National Art Education Association.  
    • Thompson, K. M. (1995). Maintaining artistic integrity in an interdisciplinary setting. Art Education, 48(6), 38-45. 
    • Van Duinen, D. V., & Sherwood, B. M. (2019). Co-equal arts integration: Lessons learned in using visual arts to respond to literature. Art Education, 72(3), 20-27. 
    • Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a steam + arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art Education, 65(5), 42-47.

Flipped Classroom
    Strongly aligned with a student-centered teaching and learning orientation, the Flipped Classroom is a form of "blended" instruction in which students learn both through  direct instruction and independently, typically through technology-enhanced resources and learning modules created or assembled by teachers. Based on a commitment to "active learning" instructional models, and providing wide latitude for student independent study, Flipped Classroom pairs well with TAB, Choice-Based, Collaborative and Cooperative learning, Problem and Project Based learning.

Differentiated Instruction 

No comments:

Post a Comment