Running Head: Technology in Art

Technology in Art Education Literature Review

Claire Burgoyne ETEC 500 University of British Columbia

Technology in Art Education

Introduction After reading about school reform in Ken Robinsons The Element, (2009), and Creating and Sustaining Arts-Based School Reform, Noblit, Dickson Corbett, Wilson & McKinney (2009), I began to examine how I can improve learning for students in the online visual arts courses I teach. I recognize from experience teaching visual arts in the classroom during the 1990s that it can be challenging to teach using a self-directed, student-centered model, but I concur with multiple sources that describe a stimulating learning environment as one that engages students in creative open-ended problem solving activities and encourages interaction, community, and sharing. (Black, 2009; Bryant, 2010; Delacruz, 2004; Mayo, 2007; Noblit et al. 2009; Robinson, 2009; Roland, 2010). My students from the 1990s were conditioned to learn using a traditional information delivery model and they were challenged by expectations to think critically. However, todays students seek learning in both real and virtual environments, need stimulation, and are bored in the traditional classroom (Black, 2009). It seems that students who have grown up with technology have acquired some of the skills required for self-directed learning (Black, 2009; Rosen, 2009). In order to gain some insight as to how I might create this type of learning opportunity in an online environment I conducted a search for literature focussing on the incorporation of Web 2.0 tools in art education programs. Through an exploration of selected literature written since 2004, the year that officially separates Web 2.0 from Web 1.0, I sought to discover how incorporating elements such as podcasts, online galleries, social networks, and virtual classrooms into studio art courses

Technology in Art Education

increases opportunities for students to employ critical thinking skills, work collaboratively, and to arrive at creative solutions to problems within an online community (Black, 2009; Bryant, 2010; Delacruz, 2004; Roland, 2010). In the summary and discussion that follows I outline the benefits of incorporating technology tools with visual arts studio courses for the purpose of encouraging students to interact, collaborate, and share as they discover innovative solutions to open-ended questions. Summary In the first article, Teachers Working Conditions and the Unmet Promise of Technology, Delacruz (2004), a study of technology in art education over a period of seven years from 1997 - 2004 was conducted. Through surveying teachers attending her graduate classes at the University of Illinois, visiting teachers in schools, and talking to district administrators, principals, and technical support personnel, Delacruz (2004) learned that art education research concerning technology implementation does not consider teachers comfort levels, values, school culture, technological ability, or availability of training. Teachers learn new technology with help from senior students, a spouse, children, by building on what other teachers are doing, and during technology training sessions provided by a technology support teacher. The article focussed on using technology for art instruction with the goal of helping teachers become technologically competent. In her graduate classes Delacruz (2004) included an assignment for teachers to assess school technology resources and staff policy, and to determine how much technology support is available. A second assignment required teachers to write a proposal for a student-centered art and technology project to fulfill schools technology goals using tools available at the school.

Technology in Art Education This project needed to be an improvement to the traditional method of teaching. A third assignment was to obtain the school principals approval of the technology proposal. In assigning these tasks Delacruz (2004) provided the opportunity for teachers to experience the

benefits of both technology integration in a visual arts program and student-centered learning. The author concluded that the success of technical implementation depends on teachers motivation and support from administration and administrative policies. In the next article Necessity is the Mother of Invention: Changing Power Dynamics Between Teachers and Students in Wired Art Classrooms, Black (2009) described technology as an art education tool for student communication, and for personal, artistic expression. From 1997-2000 two schools were included in a four year case study. Both schools used state of the art technology and technology was well integrated within the curriculum (p.102). Six teachers from each school were selected based on their ability to reflect and articulate (p.101). Of the 12 teachers chosen for the study eight were visual arts teachers and four were other class teachers with all teachers including visual arts in their teaching. Data collected over a period of two and a half years consisted primarily of interviews, including both semi-structured and openended styles, as well as observations of participants, field notes, and archival information. This data was analyzed during the two year period from 2000-2002. The first school, Glen Manor, was a traditional private school which viewed teachers as experts. The school had two art teachers offering courses in graphic arts, traditional arts, and art history and theory. The school began a laptop program in September 1998 with each teacher and student receiving a laptop. Technology training for teachers included initial instruction on how to use their laptops and continued with weekly workshops and training through an IT

Technology in Art Education

department. Additionally, support was offered to allow teachers to attend technology courses. Teachers used PowerPoint and internet text and images on whiteboards, while students used their computers for note taking and research for assigned work. Software was not used in creative ways in classes, however in extracurricular classes students taught themselves how to use visual art software. Pleasant Dale public school offered an alternate program staffed by visual arts teachers with technology experience. Technology was used to enhance the visual arts curriculum meaning students completed both traditional projects and projects which incorporated the use of computers and software. Ongoing technical training didnt occur after the first year as there was little financial support for the program. There were no extra funds for teacher training or equipment and IT consisted of one full time person. The result was that learning became student-centered with students following the prescribed curriculum and relying on teachers for structure and management. The shift from traditional teaching to student-centered learning meant a change from instruction to collaboration. Another example of student-centered learning is provided in the article A 21st-Century Art Room: The Remix of Creativity and Technology, Bryant (2010). For this qualitative case study the author used a high school computer animation unit to study the effect of incorporating critical thinking strategies with technology. Technology was considered another media for the artist to demonstrate technical skill. The study included five strategies as follows: - the creation of open-ended assignments allowing for flexibility and individuality; - pre-production planning, mind mapping, brainstorming, and story boarding;

Technology in Art Education - the inclusion of symbolism or metaphor with the purpose of communicating subtle yet distinctive messages; - peer conversations including consultation and collaboration; - whole class critiques to consider areas that worked and areas that could be improved.

Students were initially resistant to planning but soon realized how this step ensured details would not be overlooked, and allowed for completion of projects without interruption as there were few surprises. Students benefited from sharing their ideas with one another, solutions were often stronger, and students self-esteem was boosted as they encouraged each other. The fourth article was written by Craig Roland, a University of Florida art education professor, who has been writing about technology in art since the 1990s. His article, Preparing Art Teachers to Teach in a New Digital Landscape, Roland (2010), referenced data gathered from an online survey, 2nd Annual Internet Survey for Art teachers: Summary of the Results Roland (2007). The online survey indicated that the Web is being used primarily to gather information rather than to design websites, share content, and collaborate. Roland (2010) noted that while at school students use the internet for information gathering but after school and on weekends these same students participate in online activities including visiting social networks and gaming sites, and creating and sharing content. The author discussed the need for traditional hands on media to be used in conjunction with technology to encourage students to engage in art education while using media theyre familiar with and use in real-life situations. Discussion Each of the four articles described the benefits to student learning and motivation that occur with student-centered learning. The emphasis of some of the research is on the need for

Technology in Art Education technology training for teachers however, it is worthwhile to note that Black (2009) found a

correlation between funds and teaching style. She concluded that a high level of funding resulted in more training for teachers and allowed teachers to remain in authority and to continue with the traditional teaching method of instruction. A lack of funds meant that teachers were not adequately trained and required the teachers to rely on collaboration with students resulting in a constructivist approach to learning. Black (2009) comments that since the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies more research in the area of the creative use of technology in visual arts is required. In addition, results of the study conducted by Bryant (2010) found that with a shift to student-centered learning motivation became a non-issue. Students were fully engaged and attendance in after school tutorials increased. Engagement increased with participation in collaborative problem solving and critiques. Students altered and adjusted ways of thinking about common concepts and individual assignments became personal, telling each students story. There was no boredom or confusion and students were busy with projects. Bryant (2010) suggested that more study is needed to encourage using technology as a technique to communicate creatively. Roland (2010) writes that with the introduction of Web 2.0 tools the web changed from a source of information to an interactive environment that can encourage participation and community. Web 2.0 tools can be used to communicate, collaborate, share, and create by using blogs, wikis, podcasts, media sharing, social networks, and virtual worlds. There is a need for challenging curriculum goals and sound pedagogical practices (p. 17) to make effective use of technology.

Technology in Art Education

As an art educator I recognize a need for research that examines not only the benefits of using Web 2.0 technology as a way to interact, collaborate, and create but that also reminds art educators that teaching technique to allow students to express ideas occurs when using traditional media (pencils, paint, crayons). If, when incorporating technology, the focus shifts from technique to technology and from creativity to instruction, art making can lack purpose or stop all together resulting in technically correct work that lacks creativity and is therefore meaningless (Bryant, 2010). A focus on technology training for teachers seems to result in teachers continuing to provide information and instruction. What is needed are educational programs that help art educators find innovative ways to support art education that combines technology and traditional art forms. Conclusion Prior to Web 2.0 students and teachers viewed the web as a giant library Roland (2010, p. 19), and in many cases this is still the case with education continuing to follow the traditional information delivery model (Delacruz, 2004; Halverson & Smith, 2010). Without a conscientious choice to shift to student-centered learning with technology integration we continue to provide content based instruction overlooking the opportunity to reform with readily available technology tools. Research comparing how student participation, motivation, and creativity varies between content delivery teaching and student-centered learning is valuable but there needs to be an emphasis on developing new pedagogy and aiding teachers as they learn how to teach in a new environment of student-centered learning. This is an exciting time to be an art educator as some of the expense of incorporating technology into a visual arts program has been eliminated with

Technology in Art Education

the introduction of Web 2.0 tools. There are opportunities to incorporate free online tools with devises that are commonly used by todays students including; smart phones, ipods and MP3 players, digital cameras, and web cams (Rosen, 2009). We have the opportunity to create truly innovative programs for students to collaborate, share, interact and creative problem solve. All of which are skills required for success after graduation.

Technology in Art Education

10

References Black, J. (2009). Necessity is the mother of invention: Changing power dynamics between teachers and students in wired art classrooms. Canadian Review of Art Education: Research and Issues, 36, 99-117. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Bryant, C. (2010). A 21st-century art room: The remix of "creativity" and technology. Art Education, 63(2), 43-48. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Delacruz, E. (2004). Teachers' working conditions and the unmet promise of technology. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education, 46(1), 6-19. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 49-54. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Mayo, S. (2007). Implications for art education in the third millennium: Art technology integration. Art Education, 60(3), 45-51. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Noblit, G. W., Dickson Corbett, H., Wilson, B. L. & McKinney, M. B. (2009). Creating and sustaining arts-based school reform: The A+ schools program. New York, NY: Routledge. Robinson, K. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. New York, NY: Viking. Roland, C. (2007). 2nd annual internet survey for art teachers, the results. Retrieved March 23, 2011 from http://www.artjunction.org/atgi/teachers/Internet_survey07.html

Technology in Art Education

11

Technology in Art Education

12

Roland, C. (2010). Preparing Art Teachers to Teach in a New Digital Landscape. Art Education, 63(1), 17-24. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Rosen, L. (2010). Welcome to the iGeneration!. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 75(8), 8-12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.