Personalisation and creative engagement in Visual Art

A literature review

February 2019

2

3

Jacob Watson

Jacob Watson

Context This literature review has been written by Jacob Watson and reviewed by Cyrus Iravani, Latifa Hassanali and Benedict Hren. Jacob Watson is an artist, educator, and facilitator with roots in Chicago and Boston. He is currently a Research Assistant at Project Zero and a Learning Lab Fellow at Harvard's Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. His research focuses on how theatre and creative practice can expand thinking and advance solutions to social and civic problems. Jacob most recently worked as Animateur with the Lyric Opera of Chicago on their Chicago Voices initiative, transforming the real stories of community groups into original works of musical performance. Prior to this, he spent four years at the Center for Community Arts Partnerships at Columbia College Chicago, where he managed a series of federally funded arts learning initiatives. Through this work, he explored the impact of integrating arts and media practice into the curriculum, instruction, and culture of K-12 schools across Chicago. He has designed and led professional development for classroom teachers nationwide and taught with renowned arts organizations including Albany Park Theatre Project, Redmoon, and Urban Gateways Jacob is a founding member of the FYI Performance Company, where he recently co-conceived and directed Gray Area: a new play about consent. He has staged performances in theatres across Chicago, as well as in homes, churches, and schools. Jacob holds an Ed.M. in Arts in Education from Harvard University and a B.A. in Theatre from Northwestern University. Through the Centre for Inspiring Minds, ACS Cobham International School, High School Art teacher, Cyrus Iravani, is leading an action research project investigating how the use of academic language and learning outcomes focused on “Habits of Mind of Creative Engagement” in Grades 9 and 10 Visual Arts classes affects students’ self-reported development and teacher-assessed development of learning behaviors associated with creative engagement. To follow the progress of this research project or to learn more about the other practitioner-led research projects at ACS International Schools, visit our website at http://cim.acs-schools.com

4

Introduction How should the visual arts be taught in a high school context? With the movements for national arts learning standards in the United States and England less than 30 years old, it’s easy to forget that any agreed-upon answers to this question are relatively recent developments (National Core Arts Standards, 2014; National Curriculum in England, 2014). Educators, policy-makers, students, parents, researchers, and school leaders have throughout recent decades adopted alternating — and at times, contradictory — responses to this question. Embedded in each explanation are ideas about what the visual arts are for, why they matter for students, and how the particular skills and knowledge of this domain are best developed. Generally speaking, questions about the delivery of arts education in schools can be divided into at least three categories:

1) what should be taught (curriculum and standards), 2) in what ways (instruction), and 3) how “success” should be measured (assessment).

Decisions made in each category require careful attention to one’s resources, intentions, and understanding of effective pedagogy. To the extent that teachers themselves are in command of making such choices, they must seek guidance from policy documents, school leaders, other educators, and of course, their own students. The task of sorting out a promising approach is further complicated by the way that cultural attitudes and perspectives within the field of visual arts education have changed over time. Recently, broader trends toward personalized learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2017), self-directed learning (Gibbons, 2002), and student self- and peer-assessment (Andrade, 2010) have challenged long-held beliefs in sequential, disciplinary, standards-based arts curricula (Dobbs, 1992). Additionally, the establishment of entities such as the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) and the recent attention to so-called “non-cognitive” learning outcomes has elevated public interest in creativity, much of which has converged on the role of arts instruction (National Education Association, 2012; Schönau, 2012; Burnard, 2016). To understand how these new trends affect today’s arts educator, it will be important to first consider how current norms in arts education developed and where its future might be headed.

5

The 1980s and 90s: standardizing art learning In 1988, discipline-based art instruction (DBAE) was “undoubtedly the most discussed and written about perspective in art education” (Hamblen, 1988, p. 23). Fueled by an initiative from the J. Paul Getty Trust, arts educators in the United States sought to “legitimize” visual arts education through assimilation to the standardizing practices championed by a reform-minded public. DBAE proposed a rigorous curricular model consisting of written lessons, sequential organization, sample works of art, balanced content, and developmentally-appropriate teaching (Dobbs, 1992). Assessment was based on process portfolios — not standardized tests — allowing teachers to make “a qualitative judgment about improvements in students’ artwork over time” (p. 47). According to Hamblen (1988),“it is, in fact, helpful to think of DBAE as part of the larger back-to-basics reform movement of general education wherein there is an emphasis on definable content and observable skills and on accountability, predictability, and efficiency of educational means and outcomes” (p. 23-24). Twenty years before the 4 C’s (critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration) of the 21st Century Learning movement appeared, DBAE had its own 4 C’s. Citing a 1988 report from the NEA entitled Toward Civilization, Dobbs (1992) claims that DBAE has four broad goals: civilization, creativity, communication, and choice. These goals, according to Dobbs, would disrupt art education’s preoccupation with studio practice based solely in “self-expression” (p. 12) and redirect attention toward the careful study of art as a formal discipline. Despite celebrating creativity in visual arts as the “purposeful exercise” of turning “private visions into public realities,” Dobbs rejects claims for the value of arts education based on “romantic notions of creativity and the personal and social development of the student artists” (p. 11, p. 55). As we will see, definitions of what constitutes “creativity” in arts education — and beyond — have continued to evolve over the last thirty years. Critics of DBAE have characterized it as aesthetically inflexible (Hamblen, 1987) and largely ignorant of social contexts for learning (Stankiewicz, 2000). Such cultural critiques may illuminate why policymakers soon discarded civilization and choice in favor of their 21st century counterparts collaboration and critical thinking. Yet, while the language may have changed the intentions remain similar. Instead of developing “multicultural literacy” of different civilizations (Dobbs, 1992, p. 10), for example, we now encourage collaboration and the ability to “work

6

effectively and respectfully with diverse teams” (National Education Association, 2012, p. 20). The need for choice in learning to become critical, “discriminating consumers” took a 21st century pivot toward the kind of personal reflection and analytic proccesses that characterize the broad domain of critical thinking. Indeed, while cultural attitudes have shifted noticeably over time, many core components of DBAE (including its focus on art study and critique) continue to hold relevance for today’s art educator (Balsley, 2016). The 90s saw a solidification of DBAE’s ideals in the form of the first-ever set of national arts learning standards in the US. Established in 1994, these goals stated that students should learn how to apply various artmaking techniques, evaluate and critique works of art, and recognize the role of art within and across cultural contexts (National Standards for Visual Art, 2007). Despite the breadth of learning described in these standards, many remained skeptical of their ability to capture what truly matters in arts learning. Writing in 2010, Gude protests:

“today’s content standards for arts education reinforce a tendency to overlook actual processes associated with creative behavior. These standards are inventories of content (such as media and formalist vocabulary) and sometimes contain mechanisms of instrumental creativity (i.e. methods and activities for finding solutions to problems posed by someone else). The standards do not represent the deep experiences of immersion, wonder, and not knowing that are described by creative individuals.” (p. 33)

Gude would later serve on the writing committee for 2014’s revised U.S. arts learning standards, a new framework that reflected a growing sea change for creativity in education (Sweeny, 2014).

The new millenium : a renewed focus on creativity As rapid technological growth promised new horizons of economic development in the early part of the 21st century, an interest in “innovation” began to emerge across various disciplines (Florida, 2004; Galenson, 2010; Willerson & Mullet, 2017). This “creative turn” (Harris, 2014) saw a movement away from discrete technical skills and toward more adaptive, personalizable, and open-ended forms of education. A 2004 report from England’s National Foundation for Educational Research argues for a focus on “thinking skills as opposed to motor

7

skills,” as earlier curricular models were accused of overlooking “more conceptual approaches and notions of creativity” (Downing & Watson, p. 120). Indeed, many arts educators felt that a shift toward creativity would allow the field of visual arts education to more effectively mirror the practices of contemporary, working artists (Kalin & Barney, 2014). It was in this milieu that a new curricular model for visual arts education began to emerge, known first as “choice-based art” and later as “teaching for artistic behavior,” or TAB. The broad concept was to treat young learners like professional artists themselves, replete with the attendant choices and freedoms of a contemporary adult artist working in their studio (About Teaching for Artistic Behavior, 2019). This approach engages four core practices:

1) students as artists who make real choices, 2) responsive pedagogy, 3) stimulating classroom context, and 4) ongoing, collaborative assessment in the form of journals, conversations, surveys, and rubrics.

If students could learn to think like artists, the logic went, they would therefore be more successful in guiding and monitoring their own progress. “It is unlikely that students will become knowledgeable about their own artistry unless they have the means to self-direct their work,” assert Douglas & Jaquith (2001), in their well-cited guide to “Choice-Based Art Education” (p. 3). This was a self-proclaimed grassroots movement, led by K-12 teachers and scholars at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design. Then, in 2006 came a landmark research study from Harvard’s Project Zero on “studio habits of mind,” an exploration of the kinds of thinking students learn and practice in the visual arts classroom. The study built on earlier claims about dispositional theories of intelligence, which proposed that students need not only ability, but also sensitivity and inclination to apply good thinking practices (Perkins & Tishman, 2001). Here as well, there was a desire to move beyond consideration of students’ technical skill in painting or drawing to ask, “what else do they learn?” in art class (Winner, Hetland, Veenema, Sheridan, & Palmer, 2006). The resulting framework of eight habits — develop craft, engage & persist, envision, express, observe, reflect, stretch & explore, and understand art worlds — paved the way for educators interested in thinking about the impact of arts learning across and beyond disciplinary boundaries. After all, these were creative skills that could be applied in a

8

number of settings. Despite spotty research on the effectiveness of “transfer” to other academic settings (Winner, 2001), the studio habits made it clear that the arts have a role to play in the cultivation of “important kinds of general cognitive and attitudinal dispositions” (Winner, Hetland, Veenema, & Sheridan, 2007, p. 5). This was not the only place in which connections were being forged across disciplines. In 2014, the crafting of a new national “core” of U.S. arts learning standards saw the gathering of all art forms under one roof, highlighting four key practices: create, perform/present/produce, respond, and connect. The old 1994 standards were absorbed into this new framework, which sought to bring greater unity to the teaching happening across artistic disciplines in U.S. schools. Most notably, there was a shift away from particular artmaking techniques (e.g., acting, or painting), and toward broader collections of skills artists need to be successful in their work. Of the changes Hamlin and Fusaro (2014) write:

“While both the 1994 and the new standards share an emphasis on knowledge, skills, and philosophical foundations, there is a new focus on contemporary approaches to art-making and [...] on process rather than products.” (para. 8)

In the five years since, educators around the world have adopted these standards to meet the unique demands faced by schools in the 21st century. Meanwhile, new research on the role of creativity in education has further extended and complicated the visual arts “curriculum wars.” The second half of this review concerns the question of creative engagement in a visual arts context.

Supporting creative learning in the arts For all the newfound enthusiasm and rhetoric around the “creative process,” definitions of creativity — and the arts’ relative ability to encourage such behaviors — have been hotly debated (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Eisner, 2002; Gardner, 2006; Kauffman & Sternberg, 2010; Clapp, 2017). One area of consensus seems to be that “creativity” can mean different things depending on context. For example, Kaufman & Beghetto’s (2009) 4-C model of creativity usefully distinguishes between everyday creative acts and larger, more substantive applications of creativity in a particular field or domain.

9

Of primary interest to the field of education are two questions: how might educators hope to foster creativity, and how might the success of such interventions be evaluated? To the latter question, divergent answers have emerged. Social-personality approaches attempt to categorize creativity along the “big five” personality traits of: openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Feist (1998) concluded that creative artists and scientists shared certain kinds of cognitive and behavioral tendencies. “Creative people,” he wrote, “are more autonomous, introverted, open to new experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive” (p. 299). While social-personality approaches provide fascinating insight, they offer little guidance to the educator who hopes to encourage creative thinking in all learners — regardless of their fundamental personality. Psychometric approaches, by contrast, build on the work of Guildford (1967), and have coalesced around the Torrance (1981) test, which evaluates ideas for their: fluency (number of different ideas), flexibility (number of different categories), originality (statistical rarity), and elaboration (level of detail). Several recent studies employing the Torrance test have found a correlative relationship between visual arts instruction and certain measures of creativity. Parker (2008) found that high school students in Tennessee participating in an introductory visual arts course outperformed a control group receiving music instruction on measures of creativity as determined by pre- and post-tests. Though this data is encouraging, the measured impact may reveal more about curriculum design than visual arts itself: while the students in the visual arts treatment group observed artworks and kept a self-reflective portfolio of their own work, those in the music group only ever listened to pre-recorded music. A possible explanation for the findings could be the differences in art production and self-reflection across the experimental and control groups. In fact, van de Kamp, et. al. (2015) found that explicit instruction in metacognition — the practice of thinking about one’s own thinking — led to increased performance on Torrance measures of creativity, specifically in the realm of divergent thinking, among high school art students in the Netherlands. Divergent thinking is a particular aspect of creativity that involves generating multiple responses for an open-ended problem (Guilford, cited in van de Kamp, et. al., 2015). This research builds on previous studies that detail the benefits of explicit instruction in metacognition, noting the relevance of these ideas in a

10

visual arts context: “it takes many art reception and production tasks before students have built a rich knowledge base that supports the further enhancement of creativity and divergent thinking. [...] Misconceptions about creativity are not easily corrected, and we expect that explicit instruction is required to correct these” (p. 49). A more recent study by Chen, et. al. (2017) confirmed that criteria-referenced formative assessment in the arts had a positive impact on student achievement, as measured by New York City Benchmark Arts Assessments (BAA): “The results of this study suggest that student learning in the arts is measurably deepened when students know what counts, receive feedback from their teachers, themselves, and each other, and have opportunities to revise” (p. 308). In other words, like the theories behind TAB and the Studio Habits of Mind, new research suggests that in order for students to develop creative thinking patterns, they must first come to learn and know what these processes are for themselves. Indeed, Dweck’s (2006/2016) now-famous theory of “growth mindset” and the recent attention to so-called “non-cognitive” skills have directed interest toward the relationship between thinking patterns and student achievement. Other studies have suggested particular curricular models that might be more conducive to creative thinking. Ulger (2018) found that a “problem-based learning” (PBL) approach in an undergraduate visual arts context increased students’ levels of creative thinking, as measured by the Torrance test. According to the author, “uncertainty is essential for creativity (Sternberg, 2003). By encouraging openness and uncertainty, PBL can meet the needs of students in a visual arts learning environment. Open goals that are used in education can be provided by using PBL techniques such as brainstorming, teacher facilitation, and self-directed learning” (p. 12). Still, in reviewing these data it is important to remember that the Torrance test is one particular measure of creativity and may not accurately capture the broad range of creative behaviors many educators hope to nurture: Baer (2011) writes: “The Torrance Tests suggest two things that I think are dangerous ideas: 1. Creativity is all about coming up with wild ideas, and 2. Creativity is one thing, so if you’re not creative in one area, you probably won’t be in other areas” (p. 312). Another psychometric approach to assessing creativity comes from German psychologist Klaus K. Urban, whose drawing-based “Test for Creative Thinking/Drawing Production” (TCT/DP) involves asking children

11

to complete an image based on a few ambiguous figural fragments. Hungarian researchers Karpati & Gyebnar (2013) found this to be a “reliable, flexible and culturally neutral creativity assessment tool that can be administered by teachers” interested in assessing students’ creative growth (p. 40). However, since all students in their study received visual arts instruction, there were no claims made about the relationship between arts instruction and students’ creative development. Additionally, a recent meta-analysis of creativity research in education (Willerson & Mullet, 2017) critiqued the field’s focus on quantitative methods, arguing that “resting our understandings of creativity solely in quantitative studies leaves out the human element of creativity that is best observed through observation, interview, self-reflection and review of creative products (Beghetto, 2009; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014)” (p. 15). This report also cited the need for more research specific to the high-school context. One example of this is a qualitative study done by Lassig (2013) on metacognition and creativity with high school students in Australia. She analyzed student interviews to identify four different approaches to creativity, which she linked to prior creativity research: adaptation, transfer, synthesis, and genesis. The study found that prompting students to think explicitly about their own creative processes provided valuable insight for monitoring their own learning: “[b]y providing opportunities for students to think metacognitively about their creativity, teachers can encourage them to experiment with applying different approaches to different tasks, and self-assess the outcomes of their creative experiences” (p. 21). In this case, it was up to the students — not a standardized measure — to determine what creativity might look like. The particular implications of this for practitioners are beginning to emerge in some compelling new curricular models.

Innovations in curriculum design The way we conceptualize and measure creativity has obvious implications for the curriculum and instruction we design to support its development. While psychometric approaches like the Torrance test focus primarily on individual behaviors, recent scholarship has begun to question whether this is even the appropriate place to be looking for creativity.

12

Surveying the creativity research in education to-date, Clapp (2017) argues for a systems-based view, claiming that creativity resides in the ideas themselves, not the individuals behind them. In other words, creativity is not what you are, but what you do — collectively. For Clapp, an idea is creative because many people contribute to it over time, and in different ways. Clapp cites Weisberg’s (2006) claim that much of our contemporary understanding of creativity is actually an understanding of cultural value; after all, “why should we assume a priori that different cognitive processes are involved in the production of the valued versus the non-valued innovations?” (p. 22). Duckworth (2006) makes a related claim regarding the usefulness of students coming up with their own “wonderful ideas,” regardless of whether the ideas are novel in a global sense. Innovations in curriculum design over the last ten years have taken a similar turn toward the participatory, offering new space for individuals and groups of students to guide their learning in directions that are meaningful for their own creative purposes. “If enhancing creativity is to convincingly be an important goal of art education, projects must be designed to open out into unexpected possibilities, not narrowed into pre-determined channels” (Gude, 2013). One aspect of this is the growing focus on self- and peer-assessment in learning. Schönau (2012) articulates how self-assessment in visual arts can support a plethora of 21st century, creative skills, including problem finding, problem solving, responsibility for learning, communication, and cultural understanding. Rather than a teacher assessing a student’s technical skill, Schönau argues that true assessment of arts learning involves comparing one’s intentions with their results: “Self-assessment has always been an intrinsic quality of any artistic activity: the artist is always his or her own critic” (p. 55). Trends in the design of curriculum have also taken a turn toward student leadership. The goal-based curricular planning process known as “backwards design” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) has dominated curriculum design in the U.S. since the early 2000s. Now, challenges in the form of a kind of “forward” design have appeared, bearing names like “living” or “negotiated” curriculum (Grotzer et. al., 2019; Pennisi, 2013). Rather than pre-determining a particular set of rigid learning goals at which students should arrive, the teacher works with the students to co-construct an evolving curriculum that is designed to uniquely interest and challenge their learning.

13

Grotzer et. al. (2019) praise the development of backwards design as a necessary step toward more meaningful learning; their portrait of a living curriculum builds on this, positioning the learner to develop a set of necessary self-directed skills. Students in this vision “tend to work at the edge of their competence; engage in progressive problem‐solving; and view failure or errors as steps in a process towards success. They focus on techniques for upping their game/ process and set evolving and revisable paths towards learning.” Finding that “learning edge” may well be the key to effectively gauging one’s own creative growth. Kalin & Barney (2014) similarly write about a “curriculum-as-lived” that intends to mirror the forward-looking, critical, and iterative processes of professional contemporary artists. The authors point to practices such as bricolage as a metaphor for how visual arts curriculum might mirror emerging trends in the field toward relationality and improvisation: “Predetermining learning outcomes ignores that experience is the basis for learning and that this experience is an interactive process. What a student brings to such an interaction is beyond prediction and it then follows that what a student might get out of such an interaction is also beyond prediction” (p. 21). Like an artist in the studio hoping to catch inspiration, the visual arts teacher might begin to recognize that creative learning — while encourageable — is similarly beyond prediction.

Conclusion and further recommendation While much has changed in the landscape of visual arts education over the last 30+ years, a great deal has stayed the same. Students continue to examine, create, and reflect upon works of art, and educators — depending on their goals and purposes — structure these activities in diverse and varied ways. In many cases, such choices are grounded in new research developments, other times in policy, and still others in the spirit of the cultural moment. Creativity — though written about broadly — continues to be an elusive concept, difficult to capture with a standardized assessment or set of criteria. However, scholars and educators have had some success in defining particular aspects or types of creativity and thinking specifically about how to introduce them in the classroom. When such language is shared with students and used to guide their choices as artists, the potential for growth is strong.

14

While many of the contemporary approaches to visual arts education referenced here lean heavily on the role of student choice, it is important to consider that students also need a solid set of skills upon which to construct such creative decisions. Gude (2013) reminds us that learners lacking this foundation “tend to fall back on hackneyed, kitschy image-making techniques.” She continues,

“it is not realistic to assume that most art classes in school settings can (at least initially) functionas open studios in which each student re-invents his or her own methodologies of making—discovering artistic precedents, materials, and methods on a need-to-know basis, supported by teacher input when needed.” (p. 6-7)

Thus, arts educators must consider both how they are encouraging students’ free creative exploration and how such exploration might be supported by access to a range of techniques, strategies, and aesthetic traditions that spark new approaches to meaning-making. Perhaps the biggest change in visual arts education over time concerns the question of value: why study art at all? This is a question that cannot be satisfactorily answered; yet it continues to be interrogated in increasingly complex ways. While those favoring rigorous attention to disciplinary skills paved the way for deeper engagement with artistic processes, their succesors have built on this foundation to establish the visual arts as a place where important attitudes and dispositions can also be developed. As the world grows increasingly complex, interconnected, and information-rich, this is a welcome step forward. After all, while many students will enjoy creating art in the classroom, not all students will become artists. We might then ask, what of the ones who do not? Pennisi (2013) answers, “[i]f a required art class can be reconceptualized as a place for philosophical, cultural, and critical inquiry, then perhaps art can be understood as a site where adolescents have opportunities to question, reflect on, and interact with the world” (p. 137).

15

16

References About Teaching for Artistic Behavior (2019). Retrieved January 25, 2019 from http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/what-is-tab/about-us

Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baer, J. (2011). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: are the torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century? The division 10 debate. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), pp. 309–313.

Balsley, J. (2016). 4 reasons why DBAE isn’t dead. Retrieved January 25, 2019 from https://theartofeducation.edu/2015/09/06/4-reasons-why-dbae-isnt-dead/

Burnard, P. (2016). (Re)positioning creativities in relation to effective arts pedagogy: UK perspectives on teaching for creativity and teaching creatively in the arts. In J. Fleming, R. Gibson, & M. Anderson (Eds.), How arts education makes a difference: research examining successful classroom practice and pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Chen, F., Lui, A. M., Andrade, H., Valle, C., & Mir, H. (2017). Criteria-referenced formative assessment in the arts. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(3), pp. 297–314. Source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9259-z

Clapp, E. P. (2017). Participatory creativity: introducing access and equity to the creative classroom. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Dobbs, S.M. (1992). The DBAE handbook: an overview of discipline-based art education. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Douglas, K. & Jaquith, B. (2001). Engaging learners through artmaking: choice-based art education in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Downing, D. & Watson, R. (2004). School Art - What’s in it? Exploring visual arts in secondary schools. National Foundation for Educational Research.

Duckworth, E. (2006). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning (3rd ed). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2006/2016). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), pp. 290–309. Source: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5

Florida, R. (2004). America’s looming creativity crisis. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), pp. 122-136.

Galenson, D. (2010). Understanding creativity. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved January 25, 2019 from https://www.nber.org/papers/w16024

Gardner, H. (1993/2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York, NY: Perseus Book Group.

Gibbons, M. (2002). The self-directed learning handbook: challenging adolescent students to Excel. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grotzer, T.A., Vaughn, D., Wilmot, B. (2019, March). Living curriculum: how does it change the definition of education? Reimagining Schools Special Edition, Independent School Magazine. Washington DC: NAIS.

Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity, possibility. Art Education, 63(2), 31–37. Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2010.11519059

Gude, O. (2013). New school art styles: the project of art education. Art Education, 66(1), pp. 6–15. Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2013.11519203

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

17

Hamblen, K. A. (1987). An examination of discipline-based art education issues. Studies in Art Education. 28(2), pp. 68-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320784

Hamblen, K. A. (1988). What does DBAE teach? Art Education, 41(2), p. 23. Source: https://doi.org/10.2307/3193109

Hamlin, J., & Fusaro, J. (2018). Contemporary strategies for creative and critical teaching in the 21st century. Art Education, 71(2), pp. 8–15. Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1414529

Harris, A. (2014). The creative turn: toward a new aesthetic imaginary. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2007). Making the case for the arts: why arts education is not just a luxury. In Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. pp. 1-8.

Kalin, N. M., & Barney, D. T. (2014). Hunting for monsters: visual arts curriculum as agonistic inquiry. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(1), pp. 19–31. Source: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2014.01774.x

Kárpáti, A., & Gyebnár, V. (2013). The test for creative thinking: an authentic tool for art education to assess creativity through visual expression. Visual Inquiry, 2(1), pp. 27–42. Source: https://doi.org/10.1386/vi.2.1.27_1

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: rhe four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, pp. 1–12.

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lassig, C. J. (2013). Approaches to creativity: how adolescents engage in the creative process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, pp. 3–12. Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.05.002

National Core Arts Standards (2014). Retrieved January 25, 2019 from https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/

National Curriculum in England (2014). Retrieved January 25, 2019 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4

National Education Association (2012). An educator’s guide to the “four cs.” Retrieved January 25, 2019 from http://www.nea.org/tools/52217.htm

National Standards for Visual Art (2007). Retrieved January 25, 2019 from http://www.maswcd.net/National%20Visual%20Arts%20Standards.pdf

Parker, J. S. (2008). The impact of visual art instruction on student creativity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved January 25, 2019 from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1639&context=dissertations

Pennisi, A. C. (2013). Negotiating to engagement: creating an art curriculum with eighth-graders. Studies in Art Education, 54(2), pp. 127–140. Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2013.11518888

Perkins, D. N., & Tishman, S. (2001). Dispositional aspects of intelligence. In J. Collins, S. Messick, & U. Schiefele (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement, pp. 233-257.

Schönau, D. W. (2012). Towards developmental self-assessment in the visual arts: Supporting new ways of artistic learning in school. International Journal of Education Through Art, 8(1), pp. 49–58. Source: https://doi.org/10.1386/eta.8.1.49_1

Stankiewicz, M. A. (2000). Discipline and the future of art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), p. 301. Source: https://doi.org/10.2307/1320675

Sweeny, R. (2014). Assessment and next generation standards: an interview with Olivia Gude. Art Education, 67(1), pp. 6–12. Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2014.11519252

Torrance, E. P. (1981). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 6(3), pp. 136-140.

Ulger, K. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning on the creative thinking and critical thinking disposition of students in visual arts education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1). Source: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1649

18

U.S. Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved January 25, 2019 from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

van de Kamp, M.-T., Admiraal, W., van Drie, J., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Enhancing divergent thinking in visual arts education: Effects of explicit instruction of meta-cognition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), pp. 47–58. Source: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12061

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Willerson, A., & Mullet, D. R. (2017). Creativity research in education from 2005-2015: a systematic review and synthesis. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 27(2), pp. 5-21.

Winner, E. (2001). The relationship between arts and academic achievement: no evidence (yet) for a causal relationship. A summary of a meta-analytic study. In Beyond the soundbite: arts education and academic outcome. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Center. (Conference proceedings, August 24-26, 2000.) pp. 17-31.

Winner E., Hetland L., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio thinking: the real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Winner E., Hetland L., Veenema, S., Sheridan, K., & Palmer, P. (2006). Studio thinking: how visual arts teaching can promote disciplined habits of mind. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, L. Dorfman, & D. Leontiev (Eds.), New Directions in Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (pp. 189-205). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.

The Centre for Inspiring Minds ACS International Schools West Lodge Portsmouth Road Cobham, Surrey KT11 1BL On-line at http://cim.acs-schools.com On Twitter @acscim