2014 halverson&sheridan arts education and the learning sciences

31 Arts Education and the Learning Sciences Erica Rosenfeld Halverson and Kimberly M. Sheridan

In this chapter, we review research on how people learn disciplinary knowledge and practice in the arts. Learning in the arts is distinct from the other subjects discussed in this handbook (math, science, history, and lit-eracy) for three core reasons. First, the arts are centrally a representational domain and learning in the arts involves becoming increasingly aware of how representational choices communicate meaning to different audiences (Halverson, 2013). Second, form and meaning are deeply integrated in the arts; artistic representations are saturated with meaning, and subtle varia' tions in aspects such as line quality, tone, inflection, and tempo are consid, ered consequential to that meaning. Third, work in the arts often involve~ explicitly exploring and examining identity and culture, because artistic: cognition is intertwined with both. We argue that these three distinctive lures of arts learning have potential implications for our undcrstandin learning more generally.

There is a long history of research in arts education (for reviews, see D. 2002; Fiske, 2000; Gadsden, 2008). However, this chapter is the first r~ of what we know about learning in the arts from a learning sciences p ~ tive. We consider four complementary questions:

What do we know about the arts within educational contexts? What do we know about learning in and through the arts?

What are the features of designed learning environments for the~t How can an arts-based perspective contribute to the learning sci~

.-i To address these questions, we look at arts in K-12 art education~ environments identified as "arts-based" and the types of learnhi therein. Arts education is often associated with four primary 'a drama and narrative arts, music, dance/movement, and visual ai:,t, 2010; Gadsden, 2008). More recently, digital media arts ha~e; conversation as both a component of contemporary practice 10 ~ art forms and as a fifth arts-based discipline in education (PepJ1j

The desired learning outcomes of arts education across th~1s plines are for learners to be able to produce and critically re1Jl works. Learners develop the ability to represent ideas through~~ manipulating diverse materials, and the ability to analyze a11,

fd vi tq t9 ai id

' rr\ to:

' ot 1d

I de

'ul {: .:1 taQ

,1 al

. '.~

Arts Education and the Learning Sciences 627

6ther artists have created throughout history and across cultures. In the arts, tools include two- and three-dimensional visual media from paint )pture, physical and digital. Theater includes .a~y art form designed municate a story: staged theater, creative wntmg, performance art, ore recently) digital video/audio narratives. Dance involves moving poseful and rhythmical ways and learning to choreograph the move-sof others. Music involves learning to use, compose, and perform with lsuch as instruments and voice and to appreciate the performances of s. The digital media arts typically refer to creating using digital techno-

illy enabled modes for representation including video, audio, graphic gn, multimedia, virtual design, videogames, and digital stories. "arning in and through the arts often involves multiple art forms simulta-usly- particularly in digital media arts. Hip-Hop, for example, stretches 6ss the visual arts (tagging and clothing design), music (producing beats 'rhymes), theater (live performance of storied music), and the digital

(lia arts (recording and producing albums) (Hill & Petchauer, 2013). While ditional arts education has separated artistic media into domain-specific ~es, it is clear that contemporary learning in the arts is often a multidis--linary act that requires understanding how the tools of a given medium 'ord representation and communicate meaning. 'In the next section, we discuss how the arts have been studied within edu-'tional contexts, beginning with a brief history of the study of cognition )d learning in the arts. We review studies of learning in each of the five _t forms, and then identify and discuss four broad themes: creating rep-esentations, engagement in identity processes, language development, and i'eativity and design thinking. We then describe the key design features of

dio arts learning environments: the role of audiences, critique, authentic ssment, and opportunities for role taking. Last, we discuss how these key ign features can yield new insights and directions for the learning sciences

ore broadly.

-~- Defining the Arts w~in Educational Contexts A Brief History of the Arts and Learning Psychologists have been studying arts since the founding of experimental

psychology itself, with early experiments on aesthetic perception conducted by William James and Gustav Fechner. At the dawn of the emergence of cognitive psychology, Goodman (1976) argued that cognition in the arts involved mental processing of symbolic representations. This influential work led cognitive psychologists to study how children develop the ability to read and speak those languages of art (Goodman, 1976). Across artistic domains, these researchers have shown how children create intuitive schemas

',1',

628 Halverson and Sheridan

and notational systems to bootstrap themselves to bnild more complex rep-resentations before using more formal or conventional musical notational systems, story structures, and visual schemas (e.g., Bamberger, 1991; Hanna

' 2008; Karmiloff-Smith, 1992; Winner, 1982). For instance, Karmiloff-Smith demonstrated how young children learning to draw a figure or play a tune first develop behavioral mastery, but with implicit representations. Then

' through a gradual systematic process she terms representational redescrip-tion, the representations become increasingly explicit and accessible to learn-ers as they manipulate the representational forms with greater flexibility, such as deciding to play a portion of a tune at a faster tempo for a particular effect, or changing the position of the arms on a previously rote drawing of a figure (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). Many academic competences - such as liter-acy and numeracy - generally show linear progress with age and experience. In contrast, artistic development is more ambiguous. For instance, Gardner and Winner (1976) argued for steady development in expressiveness and inventiveness in metaphoric language, pretend play, visual arts, and musi-cal composition until about age five, and then a downward trend through middle childhood as children become more literal and conventional, result, ing in a plateau through adulthood without further training in an art forw (Gardner, 1982; Gardner & Winner, 1976). These assertions about artiStjc development are not without controversy. For instance, looking at the sa middle childhood drawings, expert judges in China who value a traditio ' ist approach to visual art see a growth, whereas judges in the United St' and Europe are more likely to see a loss in expressiveness and originalit~: Sheridan & Gardner, 2012). .

One way to ground discussions of artistic development has been to{ the "end state" of expert-level ability in various art forms. Experts app their art form in qualitatively different ways from novices-in particul, think about the whole piece in relationship to its components wit . fluidity and flexibility (e.g., Ericsson, 1996). With advances in ne; ing, researchers have identified neurological substrates for arts expef instance, Solso (2001) described evidence from neuroimaging data,' fMRI) that suggests that novices tend to approach drawing as a Tf!:~ whereas experts' brains process it as a higher-order task.. J

A key line of arts learning research has been to examme ho"'.t a particular art form transfers to non-arts skills, competences, (Deasy, 2002). In meta-analytic reviews of these transfer stu,. and Winner (2000, 2001) found support for some instances ~{ primarily asserted that claims for transfer to non-arts ski!ls.. the findings. .

This foundational cognitive psychological work has prov1.~, the kinds of cognition involved in the arts, the developme?t ?fl ing, and the nature of expertise in different artistic domamy: learning processes, noncognitive learning outcomes, and ll~

. ..

ppproa ~\!Jar, they ~h greatet 11 .

1wo1mag; rrtise. For EEG and loric task

r . . ;rnmgm iutcomes

!Hetland sfer, but

exceed

ght into b think I on arts fultural


]nents shape arts learning. Contemporary arts research in the learn-nces is exploring how to weave these dimensions together.

hnarv Research on Learning in the Arts of this research explored the cognitive structures and processes shared '.the arts. In addition to this type of research, there is a substantial

,

0[ research on arts learning that is focused on each of the five distinct

{rns. In visual arts, researchers have described how visual arts develop 'utegrate habits of mind such as observing, envisioning, expressing, '.eflecting (e.g., Eisner, 2002; Hetland, Winner, Veenema, & Sheridan,

and have studied giftedness in children and extraordinary artistic evernents to understand high-level performance and creativity (e.g., ~ner, 1993; Simonton, 1994). Arts education research has evolved to with changes in conceptions of visual art, the art world, and practices tare prevalent in arts education. For instance, early accounts of visual

. \development focused on representational accuracy (e.g., Lowenfeld, 0]), but soon after visual arts learning became conceptualized as facility Ka symbolic and communicating language (e.g., Goodman, 1976) rather 'ha mimetic ability, developmental outcomes such as how flexibly chil in learned to use media and techniques to represent and communicate ~re increasingly studied (e.g., Golomb, 2002; Kindler, 2004; Sheridan & rdner, 2012).

'Research in the narrative arts has focused primarily on how young people e rn to create and share original narrative art. Dyson's (1997) work with irnentary schoolchildren has demonstrated that kids use dramatic play nd their knowledge of popular culture as key tools for meaning making rough creative writing. Research focused on older learners and creative

'riting explores niche communities - such as fan fiction Web sites - and escribes how writers iterate through composition (Magnifico, 2012), use he composition process for language learning (Black, 2008), and engage in (list-century creative production activities (Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigler, & Robison, 2007). Beyond creative writing as a narrative art form, research explores the dramaturgical process: the telling, adapting, and per-:forming of narratives of personal experiences (Halverson, 2009, 2012; Wiley ;&Feiner, 2001). This work focuses on how young people extend their narra-tive production from the written word to multimodal forms of communica-,tion including live performance and digital production.

Research on drama in learning is often differentiated by the degree of ; spontaneity present in the comp~sition process. The most informal, creative

drama is defined as "an improvisational, non-exhibitional, process-centered ' form of drama" (Davis & Evans, 1987, p. 262) enacted in learning environ-

ments by field pioneers Dorothy Heathcote and Viola Spolin (Heathcote & Johnson, 1991; McCaslin, 1995). Research on process-oriented drama has


demonstrated that drama leads to learning gains on reading and writing assessments (DuPont, 1992; Moore & Caldwell, 1993; Podlozny, 2000).

Cognitive scientists have studied music extensively. One stream of research has explored how children acquire skills to sing, play, notate, appreciate, and interpret the cultural forms of music to which they are exposed and taught (e.g., Bamberger, 1991; Stalinski & Schellenberg, 2012). Researchers have also characterized the effects of musical training, such as how music instruc-tion impacts neurological and cognitive outcomes (e.g., Schlaug et al., 2005) and how receiving musical training earlier rather than later in life improves cognitive and neurological processing and integration of musical compo-nents such as pitch, rhythm, and synchronization (see Penhune, 2011, for a review). McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner (2012) followed more than 150 children through their musical learning, showing how music education extends beyond developing instrumental skill to deeper, more conceptual aspects of musical understanding. They document shifts in motivation, emoi tional expression, and identity development as young music students weave:; together the different aspects of their musical lives. Given the centrality ofi: .. music in the lives of adolescents outside formal education, research aJSi'l.'''. documents more informal music learning, such as how playing music-base videogames such as Guitar Hero helps to develop music performance ski( without formal musical training (Miller, 2009).

Hanna defined dance as "htunan behavior composed of purpose intentionally rhythmical, and culturally influenced sequences of nonver body movements and stillness in time and space with effort" (Hanna; p. 492). Neuroscientific evidence indicates that moving develops lea capacity for conceptualization, creativity, and memory in the same engagement with verbal poetry and prose (Grafton & Cross, 2008):'.', (2008) outlined the differences in knowledge and skills reqnired for l ing (learning/imitating someone else's dance) and choreographing ( up your own dance), and argued that these two tasks are substantive! .. ent teaching and learning enterprises. From a learning sciences perf dance provides an opportunity to engage with embodied forms. ing and learning and to use the body as a conduit for the devefo. symbolization (Hanna, 1987; see Abrahamson & Lindgren, Cha~. volume).

Learning in digital media arts is a natural topic for learnitf because the learning sciences is centrally concerned with how-t, are used in distributed cognitive systems. In fact, the digital me4 reinvigorated an interest in the role of art making more gen~r~; for productive learning. For example, Ito and her colleagues nographic studies of kids' technological lives identified "ere. ti on" as a core form of participation in the digital world; 2010). There is now substantial research on specific form,. making including video game design (e.g., Salen & Zimmerm,

', ~ ,\

~na,-.2 1 s: learn ~e wayt

~8). Hah ~'!:per/or ', ~(making

f~ely differ/ erspective, of think- ' opment of ter 18, this

scientists, hnologies arts have as a path

nded eth-' b produc-

~e & Ito, iigital art 04), radio


ron (e.g., Chavez & Soe~, 2005), video produc.tion (e.g., Halverson, ''nd computational textiles (e.g., Buechley, Eisenberg, Catchen, & tt, 2008). k;

idci i>eople Learn in and through the Arts? ;:J/_,.,-_. - .- .

'"In the following, we identify four broad themes that apply across all a\sciplines: creating representations, engagement in identity processes, kge development, and creativity and critical thinking .

. '

i~g Representations )-; ~tructionism, a theoretical framework central to the learning sciences

.'


Halverson (2013) proposed that digital art-making processes can be understood as "representational trajectories" that culminate in the creation of digital artifacts. To successfully create a digital artifact, a learner must understand the relationship between the idea to be communicated and how the tools of the digital art medimn can be used to communicate that idea. This process mirrors the progressive formalization of representations valued in math and science education (Azevedo, 2000; Enyedy, 2005), which results in metarepresentational competence (MRC) that marks deep engagement with complex content ( diSessa, 2004).

Learning in the digital media arts has a close connection with learning in technology, because digital media arts production requires a fairly sophisti-cated ability to use computer technology, in some cases even computer pro-gramming (Clark & Sheridan, 2010; Peppler, 2010). Learning environments in STEM disciplines have begun to incorporate rich representational forms, for instance by incorporating digital video production into science inquiry as a method for measuring competence with scientific constructs and sci-ence identity (Calabrese-Barton & Tan, 2010). In learning to produce digital media arts, young people engage with technological tools that support the representation of complex ideas over time, and this is a goal of many reform~ oriented learning sciences curricular efforts (see Songer & Kali, Chapter this volume).

Engagement in Identity Processes

Studies of the role of the arts in learning have described the psychos' benefits of arts participation in broad identity terms, such as how p. pation in arts organizations supports positive developmental trajectori' young people, especially those who do not affiliate with mainstrea demic settings (Ball & Heath, 1993; Heath, 2000). Specifically, parti,c in arts-based activities supports identity exploration by "placing o the center of a work as observer and actor" (Gadsden, 2008, p. 35): there is evidence that this form of identity exploration is relevant fo1; . starting in early childhood, the primary focus of identity explor.a;~1 is in adolescence. For example, at Teen Talk, a theater program rp~j 1 a Boys and Girls Club, McLaughlin and colleagues described th~'fq one actress over the course of a given performance:

During the next half hour Rosa is, in turn, a pregnant mothe1!'.~~~ bereaved friend of a drunk-driving victim, and the child of -t~H parents. When not portraying one of these characters she t~~'., -turn as both backdrop and stagehand while other players 9f; (McLaughlin et al., 1994, pp. 76-77). _,{'

,','i,''l

Drama provides Rosa with the opportunity to experiment,i' ? Rosa' selves: What would it be like to be a pregnant teen. .:

-:->

rners

ark ough

ihof

es

htial step


!shoes without actually having to go through a pregnancy. In addi-tlers are free to take on roles that they would not likely be given ftunity to take on in "real life." In their community-based theater [);youth, Wiley and Feiner described how one youth with multiple had the opportunity to try on a different kind of physical self: "She the opportunity to shed her reputation as a klutz, and the rest of the ~pported her in taking on the ~hallenge of adapting a rol~ with few

;Xtialogue but tremendous physical presence" (Wiley & Femer, 2001,

l' tfty explorations through the arts have proven especially productive .ulations who feel marginalized from mainstream institutions. Ball : ~ath (1993) demonstrated that, through dance, young people embraced 'pressed their ethnic selves. Halverson (2005) demonstrated that queer

. ;explore possible selves as they perform the narratives of their peers, lly trying on identities that they had never before imagined for them-:'. Artistic production also supports youth as they engage in detypifi-n; a mechanism for affiliating with a traditionally stigmatized identity ~ositive way (Halverson, 2010a). Fleetwood's (2005) work with adoles-participating in digital media production demonstrates that art making urages discussions about the construction of stereotypes, their function rt, and how these stereotypes reflect individuals' experiences. 'jnally, participating in art-making processes can support both individu-Jic and collectivistic conceptions of identity (Halverson, Lowenhaupt, bbons, & Bass, 2009). Researchers who study identity development tend to jfceive of "identity" as a property of an individual (e.g., Fleetwood, 2005; \fey & Feiner, 2001; Worthman, 2002). However, in some communities, J,collective group itself has a prominent role in both the process and the oducts of students' art (Bing-Canar & Zerkel, 1998; Mayer, 2000). In more

e&llectivist-oriented communities, groups (as opposed to individuals) often tletermine the topics of youth art and co-compose the products, taking over tom one another based on availability, expertise, and interest. Halverson ~nd colleagues provided evidence that adolescents use artistic production (o explore collective identity development, specifically in rural communities

Jhat orient their young people toward community-oriented visions of iden-)ity. In their study, one artistic director describes youth film as "not only \ .. the story of the individual artist, but it also has this indigenous sense in )hat it is a collective story of the community and of the people, and of the

, i timelessness of a lot of the stories that are within there" (Halverson et al., . I 2009, p. 32).

l '

Language Development . ~'l .. While engaging in arts practice, arts learners work with the tools of the ~ medium to communicate to an imagined audience. Across narrative artistic f'

'~ :t ' ""


forms, language is a core tool for communication, and participation in arts practice provides unique opportunities for language development (Heath, 2004; Soep, 1996; Werthman, 2002). Heath (2004) pointed out the wide vari-ety of oral and written language activities that learners participate in while engaged in arts practice, including group composition, journal writing, and editing. Members of arts organizations learn to be flexible in their use of language, as the different roles they take on in performance and within the organization require a variety of language resources.

) The narrative arts are most directly linked to the development of language, In theater programs where students create their own pieces for performance, '' they use language as a meditational tool for sense making and empowerment .c (Werthman, 2002) to construct a representation of self and/or conununity .r that can be shared with a public audience. As a result, the majority of their/ work focuses on linguistic decisions: Should a new character be included to represent a certain aspect of the narrative? Should an individual's narra." tive be sacrificed for a broader cultural point through the combination of,' multiple languages or through changing one of the characters' core feature like gender? (Halverson, 2010a). These questions make clear that there.is' reciprocal relationship between the development of language and the del opment of self, as learners negotiate how to represent themselves thro . language.

The New London Group (1996) first argued that our conceptions o eracy should be expanded to include multiple forms of communication, digital media arts include not only language, but many other modalitK communication: still and moving images, sound, and music. This sjl thinking has been accelerated by the increasing accessibility of simp ., ta] media tools. There is ample evidence that learners build languag through their participation in digital media arts learning, includin ' storytelling (Hull & Nelson, 2005), filmmaking (Fleetwood, 2005; H: 2010b; Mayer, 2000), radio production (Chavez & Soep, 2005), al); priation - sampling and remixing media content (Jenkins et al., 20911.1

Creativity and Design Thinking Creativity is not unique to the arts; many national and interni dards docmnents for STEM education describe creativity as a, acteristic of learners across all disciplines (Sawyer, 2012). Here; dimensions that are central to inquiries at the intersection d learning sciences - the qualities of both individual and group cesses and experiences and insights into how creativity can i designed learning settings. /."

Historically, creativity has been thought of as an individual,\1' 1999; 2006). Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) influential work ~11!. focus from creativity as belonging to an individual, to identifY,

,r

!!


~ective experience that have ties to creativity. Flow refers to the phe-iiological experience of being deeply immersed in an activity, including

i~ of intense focns, agency, lack of self-awareness, and a distortion of perience of time (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow. is intrinsically reward-'nd flow encourages the deeper and more sustamed engagements that ort creative endeavors. '\le flow was initially conceptualized as an individual experience, artistic hvors often involve groups and creativity often emerges from collabo-h (Sawyer, 2003). For instance, Sawyer and DeZutter (2009) provided

bnce that creative arts processes are distributed cognitive endeavors by . Ing the development of group theatrical performance. tireativity and design thinking share many characteristics. Research in cre-''ity has focused more on original, novel outcomes and the kinds of think-'that cause or are associated with those outcomes, while acknowledging 6 that some artistic areas, such as traditional Indian dance, demand "ver-

creativity": small innovations on a common artistic form (Keiniinen, hidan, & Gardner, 2006). Research on design thinking has focused on the ?ative process involved in planning, creating, testing, and revising ideas .,d products for a variety of ends such as coherence, functionality, craft,

s)ability for audience, along with originality. One of the key contributions I the learning sciences has been to clarify the different components of the

ative process involved in design . . While the specifics vary across creative domains such as architecture g., Schon, 1988), digital and video narratives (e.g., Halverson, 2012), gineering (e.g., Campbell, Cagan, & Kotovsky, 2003), and game design

, alen & Zimmerman, 2004), researchers have identified common aspects an iterative process that moves from an initial phase of exploration and

eation - which often involves finding or describing a problem - to the 'construction of drafts, sketches, and prototypes that pose potential designs 'or solutions, to reflection on these through some process such as critique.

-This creative process is iterative, with a move toward a refinement of the design, often ending with some form of sharing the product either through use, exhibition, sale, or performance (Cross, 2011). Likewise, there are com-

- monalties across design problems and domains in the kinds of thinking encouraged at different stages in the creative process. For instance, in the ideation phase, educators and researchers have highlighted the importance of thorough exploration. In their classic study in the visual arts, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) found exploratory behavior before completing an artwork to be strongly associated with work that was judged to be more cre-ative, and furthermore with more general judgments of creativity and artis-tic success in later years. Hetland and colleagues (2013) identified "Stretch & Explore" as one of the habits of mind repeatedly encouraged by visual art teachers through strategies such as generating multiple drafts, working from multiple exemplars, explicitly trying out different techniques, shifting

ii:i

,'i


points of view, and mid-process critiques of multiple versions. Likewise ,

studies of more structured design problems describe the need for educators to support learners past an "early commitment pitfall" by allowing ample exploration time with tools and materials before posing explicit design problems (e.g., Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Puntambekar & Kolodner, 2005), In engineering design, researchers identify an analogous problem of "design fixation" where designers fixate on a less than optimal design decision and fail to envision meaningful alternatives (Jansson & Smith, 1991; Purcell & Gero, 1996). To overcome design fixation and early commitment, learn-ing environments should provide diverse exemplars and scaffolding tools that encourage multiple design generation (e.g., Pnntambekar & Kolodnet

' 2005; Purcell & Gero, 1996).

.~ ...

The Design of Arts-Based Learning EnvironlTlent~;J~ ,,_ :J '',~-'._,_,_

Hetland and colleagues' (2013) intensive study of high school visti~Ul arts studio classrooms described three flexible studio structures that w i'i! characteristic of visual arts instruction: Demonstration-lectures, where pi:. !ems are posed and tools and techniques are shown; Students-at- Work, wli' students work on the posed problem while the teacher circles around qlfi ing individualized direction and feedback; and Critique, where student{ teachers pause to reflect on and discuss students' work-in-progress or pleted works. These structures were used fluidly in varying sequences" the bulk of time spent in students-at-work. A fourth overarching strti' Exhibition, where works are created and curated to be shown to outsidil~. ences, exists outside the classroom but informs work within it. Ad_gr insights into design features of arts classrooms have come from th_~;gI1 Kingdom, where media studies have made their way into the formM;8 ulum; these studies describe attention to audience, the role of reg(' lion, and use of media language as core components of the desig~~ (Sefton-Green & Sinker, 2000). . . .,('

In addition to these studies of school-based arts classes, there,,!i substantial study of arts learning in informal environments su?;' organizations, community centers, after school programs, a1)4,, (e.g., Chavez & Soep, 2005; Halverson, 2012; Heath, 2000; She. Sheridan, Clark, & Williams, 2013) and in self-directed arts le. munities on the Internet (Jenkins et al., 2007; Lange & Ito, 201H 2012; Sheridan, 2008). In both formal classrooms and in tThe arts learning environments, there are four features associated,; learning that we discuss in the following sections: attention lf'' audience, a focus on critique, authentic assessment embedd3 process and the product, and opportunities for role takmg-: .


hg is co-created by artists and their audiences. When people are !)}g to produce art, they often talk about how external audiences will e the product (Halverson, 2012; Halverson et al., 2009; Heath, 2004; & Feiner, 2001; Worthman, 2002). How will the product be perceived hderstood? What emotions, feelings, and ideas may the work evoke? '''arts, consideration of the audience is embedded throughout the crea-'focess. First, how art is conceptualized is in part based on who the art ~sumed to be for. Fleetwood (2005), for example, described her work African American youth who employ visual tropes as "racialized" ste-

yped images that make their social identities easily identifiable to an elhal audience. These visual tropes, while potentially offensive to com-nity insiders, serve a function for unfamiliar outsiders. Learners choose ~lher to include these potentially offensive images in their artwork as y consider who the final audience for their work will be. The decision ade early on, while engaged in compositional decisions. Second, arts

rning involves frequent peer and expert critique (e.g., Hetland et al., 13), where at each stage of the work, the learner must explain and fend the evolving work to this immediate audience. Finally, the sharing 'completed work with an audience often serves as an assessment or an 'aluation of the work itself (Buckingham, Fraser, & Sefton-Green, 2000;

)lverson et al., 2012).

,,

tudio art teachers dedicate large portions of instructional time to engaging arners in discussions of works-in-progress, specifically asking about the art-t's intent, talking about the apparent intent as represented in the unfolding

. ork (which is often quite different from the artist's intent), and providing .1uggestions for improvement (Hetland et al., 2013). Through critique, learn-.ers develop what Hetland and colleagues (2013) refer to as "Studio Habits of Mind," which include engagement and persistence, envisioning possibilities, observation, and reflection. Soep (1996; Chavez & Soep, 2005) has worked across media - from the visual arts to digital video and radio - and has

shown that when learners participate collectively in arts practice, they work together to learn the language of critique, developing a discourse similar to that of professional artists. These same conversations are apparent in com-munities of youth game designers as they evaluate the games created by other young learners (Peppler, Warschauer, & Diazgranados, 2010). Halverson and Gibbons (2010) fonnd that arts organizations offer "key moments" in the artistic production process where learners must stop and talk about the idea they intend to represent and how they plan to use the medium to repre-sent that idea. The use of critique as a form of authentic assessment has the


potential to transform the way we understand learning in many non-ar disciplines that involve the production of artifacts.

Authentic Assessment

A long-standing criticism of arts education is that there is no way to obje tively evaluate what and how people learn. Some have argued that schoo only value what can be objectively assessed, and this inability to objective assess arts production has destined the arts to remain peripheral in schoo (Eisner, 2002). However, in all arts disciplines, evaluation is central to t creative process. Sefton-Green and Sinker's (2000) collection of essays offe11 examples of how creativity is evaluated across artistic disciplines includin music, drama, and the digital media arts.

Arts-based learning environments design opportunities for feedbac throughout art making, and to have learners' finished works received by a external audience that is motivated to engage with the work. Each artist! discipline struggles with the question of how to evaluate arts learning an the relative emphasis to put on artistic process and products.

Process assessments include the critiques described earlier, "key momw\~ in art-making processes that afford reflection and articulation of progrit (Halverson & Gibbons, 2010), and the documentation of work over ti,.~ that can be used to create a post hoc construction of the art-making pro9~ All of these methods point to the creation of a trajectory of participa1J that values progress, failure, iteration, and reflection as learning outco '1 Treating process as a legitimate component of the assessment of learni~g' major contribution of arts-based learning environments to the broader!(, ing sciences discussion of innovative forms of assessment (see Pellf1 Chapter 12, this volume).

Coupled with a focus on the assessment of process must also be a fl.' what is produced. When creative products have been evaluated in.f Amabile's (1982) consensual assessment technique (CAT) - where more experts each rate the quality and creativity of diverse artistic Ji and assessed for blind inter-rater reliability- has been an importan~. sistently effective tool (Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile, 2004). ExpertN also used in standardized arts assessments such as the Advance( and the International Baccalaureate. ,

One of the challenges of assessing artistic products is that cJ1 or standards of quality in the arts are culturally situated an .. " often changing (Ito et al., 2008; Sheridan & Gardner, 2012). ;Ji be avoided, because developing, understanding, and applyin~ 9 .. uated evaluative criteria i~ oft~n ~ rn~rJrp.1" r.f ,...-t:r.t;,-. PVnP.ftJse".._c

"'l.011 ch, :or cts, ' 011-rt is ~nt rd/ I ~re

l~t 1. t-i

[~ ve I y


f. whether the films are produced by professionals (Sheridan, 2008) :~dents (Halverson et al., 2012). These criteria focus on locating the

sk within a genre, evaluating how successful the work is in embracing r ;:ndards of the genre, and whether the filmmaker innovates at all within fnre. Simply put, one powerful method for evaluating artistic products

,ihare final works with external, interested audiences.

;itunities for Role Taking tier in this chapter, we described the important role that the arts can play darners' engagement with identity processes. One of the key psychosocial hanisms for identity is role playing, both within the context of the per-

., ance arts and in the organizational work of many arts-based learning fronments. Particularly during out-of-school time, learners take on vary-~iroles within the environment, often assuming leadership and mentor-g.,positions (Chavez & Soep, 2005; Heath, 2000, 2004; Jenkins et al., 2007;

.~ridan et al., 2013). Many of these learning environments are communi-8 of practice (see Greeno & Engestrom, Chapter 7, this volume) where articipants move from legitimate peripheral participants to central lead-tship figures over time (Wenger, 1998). Heath (2000, 2004) described the lcessity of role taking for arts organizations that depend on artistic perfor-ance or showcase for sources of revenue that keep organizational practices ~live. Without youth leadership across a variety of tasks, from ticket sales to litrketing, the organizations would not continue to survive. Most arts-based ptoduction work encourages (and sometimes requires) learners to generate

.,.their own production ideas, developing reciprocal relationships with adult 'mentors who can offer professional expertise around idea development and

;;l\se of tools for representation (Halverson, 2012). This form of role taking ''emerges frequently in arts-based learning environments, and requires nego-

' J tiation as young people seek to balance participation in these settings with I: their prior experiences that separate adult-controlled and youth-controlled 2fspaces (Ball & Heath, 1993; Chavez & Soep, 2005; Sheridan et al., in press). -!:

r~9 ,~l --".- ,., '-~. ~< :{'

Contributions to the Learning Sciences We began this chapter with a focus on three concepts central to

arts: the centrality and richness of representation in arts, the integration of form and meaning, and the examination and exploration of identity and culture in arts learning. Each of these concepts has both a cognitive and a sociocultural component, made seamless in arts practices, and the elucida-tion of each lends important insights to the learning sciences. Likewise, we have argued that the learning sciences perspective has added to arts learning research by integrating sociocultural theory, noncognitive learning processes

' ! ~ ,


and outcomes, and explicit accounts of the design of learning environments into our growing understanding of learning and the arts.

In terms of representation, we see across the arts a consistent focus on how the tools of each medium influence the representations that are cre-ated, and how the generation of successive representations demonstrates a growing understanding of what is being represented. It is through this pro-cess that artists develop metarepresentational competence (diSessa, 2004) and through which they develop a sense of the social and cultural context for their work through critique and the presence of audiences. Learners' representational trajectories chart their paths from initial conception to final piece, highlighting how successive representations are both opportu- ! nities to assess progress and themselves and evidence of a growing under :. standing of the importance of representations for "getting smart" in theJ arts (Halverson, 2013). . ..

Representations in art are relatively replete (Goodman, 1976) with form;! and meaning inseparable. In addition, art representations regularly shift witht changes in arts practices, tools, and media. These features suggest a need fdf" learning environments that are likely to be different than those associatef~ with STEM disciplines. Key practices in arts learning environments - suc!.lf as analyzing professional works of art in relation to the problems youth{. working on, ongoing individualized and iterative support from teachers{' ing the work process, and mid-process critiques - support youths' unqJ) standing and development of artistic habits of mind {Chavez & Soep, r Hetland et al., 2013). As new media design tools - for video, interactive design, or music - have become increasingly accessible, they are often u tools for learning across the academic disciplines. Insights from tmdi studio arts environments on how to support the design process in 4 media are critical, but often underused (Peppler, 2010; Sheridan, 2011;' & Sheridan, 2010).

Finally, identity plays an important though often neglected rolei ing (see Nasir, Rosebery, Warren, & Lee, Chapter 34, this volume);; argued that the arts add depth to our understanding of how learne. with identity. Through artistic production, young artists explorf selves and engage in detypification. Art making can potentially ace both individualistic and collectivistic conceptions of identity ( 2009). Exploring possible selves is one form of role taking; anotM taking that occurs as artists move from legitimate peripheral pa,f,, central participants, and eventually become mentors (Sheridanl' Arts environments provide opportunities to understand ho')'! explored and constructed through participation in learning envL

Learning scientist Seymour Paper! said that watching an ar\t0 original inspiration for his influential writings on construct19J sioned how other academic areas could attain the same level g with an external, public, and evolving representation of le,.

Arts Education and the Learning Sciences

,.saw as children carved soap sculptures (Papert & Hare!, 1991). We ~chapter as building on Papert's initial inspiration, identifying further Jal for the learning sciences and education from studying arts learning,

,;entifying ways a learning sciences perspective can broaden and enrich . derstanding of arts education.

bile, T. M. (1982). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. ;~do, F. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-represen-

. tational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 443-480. e[;J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual

assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113-117.

\1, A., & Heath, S. B. (1993). Dances of identity: Finding an ethnic self in the arts. In S. B. Heath & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Identity and inner city youth: Beyond

ethnicity and gender (pp. 69-93). New York: Teachers College Press. '~berger, J. (1991). The mind behind the ear. How children develop musical intel-

ligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ing-Canar, J., & Zerkel, M. (1998) Reading the Media and Myself: Experiences

in critical media literacy with young Arab-American women. Signs, 23(3), 735-743.

'lack, R. (2008). Adolescents and on/ine fan fiction. New York: Peter Lang. 'uckingham, D., Fraser, P., & Sefton-Green, J. (2000). Making the grade: Evaluating

student production in media studies. In J. Sefton-Green & R. Sinker (Eds.), Evaluating creativity: Making and learning by young people (pp. 129-153). London: Routledge.

,Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008). The Lily Pad Arduino: Using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing ;ystems (CHI) (pp. 423-432). Florence, Italy, April.

Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin! Agency, identity, and science learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 187-229.

Campbell, M. I., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2003). The A-design approach to man-aging automated design synthesis. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 12-24.

Chavez, V., & Soep, E. (2005). Youth radio and the pedagogy of collegiality. Harvard Educational Review, 75(4), 409-434.

Clark, K., & Sheridan, K. (2010). Game design through mentoring and collabora-tion. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(2), 125-145.

Cross, N. (1993). Science and design methodology: A review. Research in Engineering Design, 5(2), 63-69.

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

641

',-,

1\ I, ,:.1 '1 ' '

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). How: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.

Davis, J. H., & Evans, M. J. (1987). Theatre, children, and youth. New Orleans, LA: Anchorage Press.

Deasy, R. J. (Ed.) (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State Schoo] Officers.

diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentational competence: Native competence and tar-gets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-33 I.

DuPont, S. (1992). The effectiveness of creative drama as an instructional strategy to enhance reading comprehension skills of fifth-grade remedial readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(3), 41-52.

Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing superheroes. New York: Teachers College Press. Eisne1; E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University ;

Press. :, :.'.f(:--. -',:1< Eisne1; E. W, & Day, M. D. (2004). Handbook of research and policy in art edil'i'

'--!'IF cation: A project of the National Art Education Association. Mahwah, NJ:, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collec ' problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23( 4), 427-466.

Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.) (1996). The road to excellence: The acqul,ition of expert formance in the arts and sciences, sports and games. Mahwah, NJ: La~i'. Erlbau1n Associates.

Fleetwood, N. (2005). Authenticating practices: Producing realness, per~ ing youth. In S. Maira & E. Soep (Eds.), Youthscapes: The p9Jf the national, the global (pp. 155-172). Philadelphia: Univers' Pennsylvania Press. --n

Fleming, M. (2010). Arts in education and creativity: A literature review. Ne'l'' Upon Tyne, UK: Arts Council England.

Fiske, E. B. (2000). Champions of change: The impact of the arts on t Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership. . .: ,,

Freeman, N. H. (2004). Aesthetic judgment and reasoning. In E. W Eisne,; Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp.'3 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ,

Gadsden, V. (2008). The arts and education: Knowledge generation, ped, the discourse of learning. Review of Research in Education, 32.~;:

Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to cii, York: Basic Books. /

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen thr~ Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gh~f. Basic Books. Jr'

Gazzaniga, M. (2008). Arts and cognition: Findings hint at rel~['~ deLong & T. Wichmann (Eds.), Learning, arts. and the . 1 Consortium Arts and Cognition report (pp. 7-11). New Yor

Ue


::J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal Jstudy of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley. 'ir c. (2002). Child art in context: A cultural and comparative perspective. : 'washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. fuan, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. . Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company. ~n, s., & Cross, M. (2008). Dance and the brain. In C. Asbury & B. Rich (Eds.), , Learning, the arts, and the brain: The Dana Consortium Arts and Cognition ' report(pp. 61-70). New York: Dana Foundation. i;son, E. R. (2005). InsideOut: Facilitating gay youth identity development through a performance-based youth organization. Identity: An International

Journal of Theory & Research, 5(1 ), 67-90. lterson, E. R. (2009). Artistic production processes as venues for positive youth develop1nent. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formacion del Profesorado

(Jnteruniversity Journal of Teacher Education), 23(3), 181-202. Iverson, E. R. (2010a). Detypification as identity development: The dramatur-' . gical process and LGBTQ youth Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(5), " 635-668.

, 'Iverson, E. R. (2010b). Film as identity exploration: A multimodal analysis of youth-produced films. Teachers College Record, 112(9), 2352-2378.

alverson, E. R. (2012). Participatory media spaces: A design perspective on learn-ing with media and technology in the 21st century. In C. Steinkuehler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games learning & society: Learning and meaning in a digital age (pp. 244-270). New York: Cambridge University Press.

, alverson, E. R. (2013). Digital art-making as a representational process. The '' Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 121-162.

alverson, E. R., & Gibbons, D. (2010). "Key moments" as pedagogical windows into the digital video production process. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 69-74.

Ialverson, E. R., Gibbons, D., Copeland, S., Andrews, A., Hernando Llorens, B., & Bass, M. (2012). What makes a youth-produced film good? The youth audi-ence perspective. Learning, Media, & Technology, 1-18.

Halverson, E. R., Lowenhaupt, R., Gibbons, D., & Bass, M. (2009). Conceptualizing identity in youth media arts organizations: A comparative case study. E-Learning, 6(1), 23-42.

: Hanna, J. L. (1987). To dance is human: A theory of nonverbal communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hanna, J. L. (2008). A nonverbal language for imagining and learning: Dance educa-tion in a K-12 eurriculum. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 491-506.

Heath, S. B. (2000). Making learning work. After School Matters, 1, 33-43. Heath, S. B. (2004). Risks, rules, and roles: Youth perspectives on the work oflearningfor

community development. In A. Perret-Clermont, C. Pontecorvo, L. Resnick, T. Zittoun, & B. Burge, (Eds.), Joining society: Social interaction and learning in adolescence and youth (pp. 41-70). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heathcote, D., & Johnson, L. (1991 ). Ed. C. O'Neill. Collected writings on education and drama. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2013). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.

: I'

:''i Ii i, I' , I

"

I

i


Hill, M. L., & Petchauer, E. (2013). Schooling Hip-Hop: Expanding Hip-Hop educa-tion across the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224--261.

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittani, M., boyd, d., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., & Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weiglet; M., & Robison, A. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Building the field of digital media and learning. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.

Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3-11. Kafai, Y B. (2006). Constructionism. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of

the learning science;: Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Kafai, Y, & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and

learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbamn Associates. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cog-

nitive science. Ca1nbridge, MA: MIT Press. Keiniinen, M., Sheridan, K., & Gardner, FL (2006). Opening up creativity: The lenslJ.1 .. :

of axis and focus. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason: in cognitive development (pp. 202-218). Cambridge: Cambridge Universit' Press.

Kindler, A. M. (2004). Introduction: Development and learning in art. In E. Eisner. M. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in arts education (pp. 2~ 232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lange, P. G., & Ito, M. (2010). Creative production. In M. Ito et al. (Eds.), Ha out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new -(pp. 243-293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lowenfeld, V. (1957). Creative and mental growth. Third Edition. New'~ MacMillan.

Magnifico, A. M. (2012). The game of Neopian writing. In E. R. Hayes Duncan (Eds.), Learning in videogame affinity spaces (pp. 212-234) York: Peter Lang. '

Mayer, V. (2000). Capturing cultural identity/creating community. Inte Journal of Cultural Studies, 3(1 ), 57-78. . .

Mccaslin, N. (1995). Creative drama in the classroom and beyond. Addison McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W, & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music: ht_.

Rethinking musical ability, development, and identity. Oxfot University Press. _ ,'.

Miller, K. (2009), Schizophonic performance: Guitar Hero, Rock Bartd;t, Virtuosity. Journal of the Sodety for Americ:an Music, 3( 4), 39_

Moore, B. H., & Caldwell, H. (1993). Drama and drawing for nana,t primary grades. Journal of Educational Research, 87(2).' 100~.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designu! Harvard Educational Review, 66(1). J&i

Papert, S., &Hare!, I. (1991). Situatingconstructionism. In I. H~~el . , Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub is 11,,

fl s. c. ~). New ~ational resley. ['. lives: !Oxford

rirtual I . . ltmg m

utures.

I (Eds.), ~ti on.

Arts Education and the Learning Sciences

' V. B. (2011). Sensitive periods in human development: Evidence from musi-f'cal training. Cortex, 47(9), 1126-1137. ~;J{. A. (2010). Media arts: Arts education for a digital age. Teachers College /Record, 112(8), 2118-2153. /r J(., Warschauer, M., & Diazgranados, A. (2010). Game critics: Exploring \'the role of critique in game-design literacies. E-Learning, 7(1), 35-48. i p., Saccuman, M. C., Scifo, P., Spada, D., Andreolli, G., Revelli, R., Baldoli, l' c., & Koelsch, S. (2010). Functional specializations for music processing in

the human newborn brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . of the United States of America, 107(10), 4758-4763.

Jhzny, A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills through the use of classroom drama: A clear link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3-4), 239-276.

tambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaf-folding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.

icell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, f 17(4), 363-383.

Jen,[(., & Zimmerman, E. (Eds.) (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. ;,. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. \iiyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah, NJ: - Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

alvyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. ~\vyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective ere-. ations emerge from collaboration. Journal of Aesthetics, Creativity, and

the Arts. bhlaug, G., Norton, A., Overy, K., & Winner, E. (2005). Effects of music training ' on the child's brain and cognitive development. Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences, 1060, 219-230. D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design studies, 9(3), 181-190.

efton-Green, J. (2000). From creativity to cultural production: Shared perspectives. In J. Sefton-Green & R. Sinker (Eds.), Evaluating creativity: Making and learning by young people (pp. 216-231). London: Routledge.

efton-Green, J., & Sinker, R. (Eds.) (2000). Evaluating creativity: Making and learn-ing by young people. London: Routledge.

Sheridan, K. M. (2008). Reading, writing and watching: The informal education of film fans. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, & S. B. Heath (Eds.), Handbook on teach-ing literacy through the communicative, visual and performing arts. Second Edition (pp. 259-269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

: Sheridan, K. M. (2011). Envision and observe: Using the studio thinking framework for learning and teaching in digital arts. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(1 ), 19-26.

Sheridan, K. M., Clark, K., & Williams, A. (2013). Designing games, designing roles: A study of youth agency in an informal education program. Urban Education, 48(3), 734-758.

Sheridan, K. M., & Gardner, H. (2012). Artistic development: Three essential spheres. In A. Shirnamura & S. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science: connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 276-296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

645

'I I'


Shimamura, A. P., & Palme1; S. E. (2012). Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford.

Simonton, D. K. (1996). Creative expertise: A life-span developmental perspective. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert per-formance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 227-253). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. '

Soep, E. (1996). An art in itselt' Youth development through critique. In New Designs for Youth Development, 12( 4), 42-46.

Solso, R. L. (2001 ). Brain activities in a skilled versus a novice artist: An fMRI study. Leonardo, 34(1), 31-34.

Stalinski, S. M., & Schellenberg, E. G. (2012). Music cognition; A developmental perspective. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 485--497. ;

Sternberg, R. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity; The first 25 years. Psychology of,: Aesthetic; Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 1-12.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiley L., & Feiner, D. (2001). Making a scene: Representational authority and' community-centered process of script development. In S. C. Haedicke &:. Nellahus (Eds.), Performing democracy: International perspectives on urb community-based performance (pp.121 142). Ann Arbor, MI: University A Michigan Press.

Winner, E. (1982). Invented worlds: The psychology of the arts. Cambridge; Harvard University Press.

Winne1; E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts in education: Evaluating the eviden a causal link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(314), 3-10.

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (Eds.) (2001 ). Proceedings from beyond the soundbite: the research actually shows about arts education and academic outcoin --Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Trust. .

Worthman, C. (2002). "Just playing the part": Engaging adolescents in drd . literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.

2014 halverson&sheridan arts education and the learning sciences

Documents