View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Toward an Aspirational Learning Model Gleaned from Large-Scale Assessment

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Toward an Aspirational Learning Model Gleaned from Large-Scale Assessment
Language: English
Authors: Diket, Read M., Xu, Lihua, Brewer, Thomas M.
Source: Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education. Fall 2014 56(1):397-411.
Availability: National Art Education Association. 1916 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191. Tel: 703-860-8000; Fax: 703-860-2960; Web site: http://www.arteducators.org/research/studies
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Grade 8
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Group Testing, Art Education, Grade 8, National Surveys, Causal Models, Structural Equation Models, Correlation, Predictor Variables, Models, Mothers, Parent Child Relationship, Aesthetics, Sequential Learning, Visual Arts, Problem Based Learning, Evidence, Test Construction, Construct Validity
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: National Assessment of Educational Progress
ISSN: 0039-3541
Abstract: The aspirational model resulted from the authors' secondary analysis of the Mother/Child (M/C) test block from the 2008 National Assessment of Educational Progress restricted data that examined the responses of the national sample of 8th-grade students (n = 1648). This test block presented no artmaking task and consisted of the same 13 questions between 1997 and 2008. Constructs operating in M/C were identified as art knowledge, technical knowledge, aesthetic properties, and meaning. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was used for data preparation, and linear structural relationships was used to conduct structural equation modeling analysis. Polychoric correlation matrix was employed to generate the model-fit statistics and path diagram with 13 variables and four constructs. Findings clarify an aspirational model, which moves from art knowledge to technical knowledge to aesthetic knowledge to meaning. Technical knowledge appears requisite to developing aesthetic understanding and meaning. Authors reason that an aspirational model like M/C might be used in curriculum planning and implementation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 39
Entry Date: 2015
Access URL: https://www.arteducators.org/research/studies
Accession Number: EJ1048825
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEjPF-8eP9O2aCmzEpIKNpxAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN0GGU6aNDeqScsBKwIBEICBmpoCq-wv5rS1_n4947u7qJC5pZTZDZ2qXU1RZNlf_2VZpyXBAAy1nprhmWJSiLlG5zw8I29y2rajWH3bF5_oSuDPlOzUUUyzVJ7JAd69UPH7rCkposoFiFApIgj4_zPf8bzKKD65-sHkZWeaip9o3KTihQIF2CYj7-Sz05qOSCF1W-T-Qe_NiWlSkW44c1Gf0crMrK5rvL2gZbk=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0099171172;sae01oct.14;2014Nov03.08:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0099171172-1">Toward an Aspirational Learning Model Gleaned From Large-Scale Assessment </title> <p>The aspirational model resulted from the authors' secondary analysis of the Mother/Child (M/C) test block from the 2008 National Assessment of Educational Progress restricted data that examined the responses of the national sample of 8th-grade students (n = 1648). This test block presented no artmaking task and consisted of the same 13 questions between 1997 and 2008. Constructs operating in M/C were identified as art knowledge, technical knowledge, aesthetic properties, and meaning. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was used for data preparation, and linear structural relationships was used to conduct structural equation modeling analysis. Polychoric correlation matrix was employed to generate the model-fit statistics and path diagram with 13 variables and four constructs. Findings clarify an aspirational model, which moves from art knowledge to technical knowledge to aesthetic knowledge to meaning. Technical knowledge appears requisite to developing aesthetic understanding and meaning. Authors reason that an aspirational model like M/C might be used in curriculum planning and implementation.</p> <p>The aspirational model tested the premise that technical knowledge is requisite to developing aesthetic understanding, which, in turn, leads to meaning making. The model considered the impact of question sequencing on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) performance. Employing positive findings, the authors have inferred that, within an aspirational model of art learning, students can engage at a personal level and then move from art knowledge to technical knowledge to aesthetic properties and, ultimately, to field-based meaning.</p> <p>The NAEP has provided the only national test of artistic learning. Reports that follow each administration of NAEP have contributed longitudinal data for music and the visual arts--the most-commonly tested arts areas. Questions asked of 8th-grade test takers have been linked together within a frame of knowledge and skills across a subject assessment. Test blocks have contained related questions that represent problem sets. Blocks of items may have been repeated across test cycles, as in 1997 and 2008 with the Bearden Block, the Portrait Block, the Memory Box, and the Mother/Child (M/C) Block. A few changes in language at the question/item level have occurred in the repeated blocks. Thus, direct comparisons of achievement have not been made between the two tests, but for comparative purposes within blocks, most of the rich content of 1997 made it into the 2008 NAEP (Keiper, Sandene, Perskey, & Kuang, 2009).</p> <p>The aspirational model described here has statistically supported the stated aims of the M/C question block administered in 1997 and 2008. According to the 1997 NAEP instructions, "[Eighth graders] are asked to apply their knowledge of aesthetic properties, using their technical and art historical knowledge, and their understanding of how artists convey meaning in their work" (Persky, Sandene, & Askew, 1999, p. 218). At the low end, items differentiated between students with little and no training; the high-end items were difficult enough "that exceptionally talented [art learners] and those who have pursued in-depth study can demonstrate the extent of their accomplishments" (The College Board, 1994, p. 14). NAEP test blocks have employed art images as referents and required "significant knowledge and skills unique to each domain be embedded in an exercise in a way that clearly shows their application or use" (National Assessment Governing Board, 1994a, p. 13).</p> <p>The M/C test block questions compared and analyzed similarities in style. The exercise consisted of 13 questions based on five images: The Family by Miro (Image #1); a Nigerian Figure of Woman and Child (Image #2); Raphael's Small Cowper Madonna (Image #3); Byzantine Madonna and Child (Image #4); and Beatrice (Image #5) by William Sargeant Kendall (Persky et al., 1999, p. 236-237, 240). The constructs we discerned in the restricted data of the M/C test block constituted a "path" we named art knowledge, technical knowledge, aesthetic properties, and meaning.</p> <p>Art knowledge refers to art historical, critical, and appreciative information that students may have. Technical knowledge concerns the level of understanding students have about how art is constructed and how complex images are decoded. Knowledge of aesthetics properties helps students reassemble what they have learned so they can demonstrate that they understand the nature, meaning, and value of artworks from different cultures and historical periods. Meaning may form at two levels (personal and societal) within three contexts (individual perspective, cultural consensus, and historical understanding). In our analysis, we associated critical models of art learning and curricutar incentives that at the time sought to advance the impact of teaching methodologies.</p> <p>The 1997 NAEP framework developers sought coordination and alignment with the emerging national standards movement in the early 1990s. The item maps from NAEP reports for 1997 and 2008 indicated that the M/C test block might be a good place to start looking for gross patterns in students' ability to respond to art, especially by attending to the upper ranges of item difficulty. Stankiewicz (1999) gave a mixed review of the 1997 NAEP on fact finding (C-) and for placing product (Incomplete). She assigned an A, however, for "providing a comprehensive framework for arts education, complex models of knowing and doing, and specific examples of performance assessment" (p. 31). She also rated NAEP's potential to influence instruction at an A. By 2008, the vision for NAEP Arts was more complex.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-2">Who Aspires to Visual Arts Understanding?</hd> <p>In 2010, Emmanuel Sikali, NAEP secondary analysis training coordinator who worked closely with NAEP 2008, remarked to invitees that NAEP was an aspirational test because of its high achievement ceiling. As a Studies in Art Education reviewer noted, the particular skills necessary and aesthetic considerations differed per performance by various artworks, and arguably, for curriculum delivery. Our aspirational model did not set aesthetic standards; rather, it postulated achievement patterns with general utility, set in a variety of circumstances within a subject area. Achievement required general knowledge and associated technical skills that service aesthetic awareness, deal with essential features and qualification of judgment, and evoke sensations and emotions. The concepts described in the aspirational model are abstractions--images, ideas, and theories--formed from a number of simpler, observed elements. Operating from abstractions enabled researchers to aggregate a group of related concepts or objects as having aesthetic relationships within historical and contemporary culture. Beyond that, among educated individuals in society, personal and shared meaning has required extrapolation, synthesis, and judgment.</p> <p>Our secondary analysis was based directly on participant responses coded in the M/C test block (n=1648). The analysis was guided by Howard Gardner's (1990) theory of human development that postulated that learners in a culture work with a staircase of knowledge involving intuitive, symbolic, notational, disciplined, and finally, skilled understanding.</p> <p>NAEP 1997 voiced a "dimension of change… the increasing connectiveness among peoples and cultures" (Persky et al., 1999, p. 2). By 2008, the assessment expectations emphasizing connectiveness were reinterpreted as key components for curriculum delivery.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-3">Visual Arts Theory and NAEP: An Overview of Achievement</hd> <p>Tests of visual development emphasizing art responding and making go back as far as Edward Thorndike and Woodworth (1901). Antecedents for NAEP art test blocks emphasizing design included ideas from child development and brought forward incentives from manual arts and creative expression. NAEP design-oriented blocks have alluded less to cultural influences on student artmaking and have emphasized utility. For example, the Whisper Box has emphasized metaphoric understanding (as in Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and imaginative thinking rather than actualization of a sketched design for a container to hold an idea. The design blocks of NAEP Arts, in our statistical tests, did not structure with the same path strength as the test blocks that started with artistic exemplars, like M/C. We have been investigating statistically and qualitatively how these test blocks query general knowledge and technical skill, aesthetics, meaning, and with some items, creativity. We have theorized that, in design problems, solutions are recursive, like going up and down Gardner's (1990) staircase to bring up lots of "items" to the upper landing for consideration.</p> <p>NAEP in the visual arts has looked for the aftermath of instruction that contains certain media and how that connects to art writing exposure in school to exhibition and to portfolio usage, and includes context information, seeking to document what students learned and are able to do in art. NAEP developers anticipated that, for some, the assessment would have exaggerated expectations; for others, it would not go far enough. Nevertheless, the "process builds from a broad base of national input" (National Assessment Governing Board, 1994b, p. 5).</p> <p>Though the art education field would like to know what art class, community, and museum education practices provided the greatest advantage to students taking NAEP Arts, the general features embedded in NAEP subject area test blocks have assisted students in organizing artistic responses. From NAEP's general expectations for knowledge and skills, art educators have linked the assessment items to the field's curricular aspirations by referencing familiar critical strategies. In our estimation, the M/C test block has linked well to Broudy's (1987) and Feldman's (1976) models of inquiry as embodying strategies for looking closely at artworks. However, the Portrait and Bearden collage blocks have related more easily to Hagaman's (1990) community of inquiry in that these blocks set up artworks as exemplars, and then items requiring writing responses akin to Broudy's expressive and technical expectations, and lastly (with a distinct nod to Gardner), pursue the consensual goals and values of proponents of the standards movement and the National Assessment Governing Board.</p> <p>Other influential models of the time have included Wilson's (1967) aspective perception that influenced talk about what might be learned from the general environment about art (responding to or creating art) and what must be learned explicitly; and Anderson's (1993) elaboration of a Postmodern search for big questions: "what is this? What does it mean? What is its significance?" (p. 199). Relevant have been Anderson's insistence upon the impossibility of value neutrality in art and Dorn's (2003) highlighting of higher-order thinking and advanced problem-solving as a mode of thought useful within and outside of visual art. Barrett and Clark (1995) provided refinement of art criticism. Ideas like these abounded in the mid 1980s and early 1990s when the National Arts Governing Board (NAGB) engaged in consensus building with the arts-assessment framework. The goals and aspirations of the NAEP during assessment development matched well with those of discipline-oriented art education and anticipated new directions in the field.</p> <p>Current literature reveals a growing incentive for using more contemporary art and folk art exemplars (Zimmerman, 2003). Gude (2007) and Klein (2008) recommended referencing socially and politically charged artwork. McCollister (2002) emphasized the use of critical and reflective writing about student artwork and contemporary artists. The writing emphasis and referent appeared particularly significant: Diket, Burton, McCollister, and Sabol (2000) reported that 74% of students in the 1997 NAEP said they never wrote about their work or the work of others (Brewer, 2011). By 2008, students were writing more, but writing was not significantly correlated with achievement. Work with restricted data suggested that the writing needs to be relevant, substantive, in depth, and purposeful--not just an exercise or activity.</p> <p>What we have called an aspirational model structures a way of looking at statistical data so that art educators can use findings to envision future possibilities. Aspiration has been revealed by a brief discussion of recent developments in the field. By the 1990s, art education posited a strong foundation of technical skills that were directed toward solving studio, historical, and aesthetic problems. Subsequently, visual arts proponents moved toward social deconstruction and then reconstruction arenas (e.g., social justice and visual culture), while educational assessment embraced cultural capital and broad-based literacy as outcomes. As researchers, we thought that continuing conversations on disparate paths were not likely to benefit art education in schools. We sought a way to bring our work with NAEP to our colleagues in other research areas and to practitioners through interpretation that more broadly recognized and informed possible futures for visual arts as a school subject. While NAEP does not do nearly enough to represent the sophistication and potentials of art as it can act in a culture, there has been an aspiration to have art study do so. Meanwhile, the large NAEP data set showed what students do to use art in meaningful ways in an assessment environment. Meaning making and action orientations have required foundational knowledge, technical skill in critical analysis and problem solving by design, and a growing understanding of the aesthetic values and expectations of diverse stakeholders in the broader culture.</p> <p>In his Studies in Art Education commentary, jan jagodzinski (2012) addressed the problem in "Materialist Nonrepresentational Thought." He was looking at an apparent</p> <p>Deadlock between neoliberal forces as exemplified basically by visual culture and proponents of critical theory, where critical resistance and critique itself had become just another category. The social justice arena has been taken over by the Right to manage difference, (p. 85)</p> <p>Further, jagodzinski argued that negative dialectics are inadequate in planning a future for the field. He suggested that an approach based on Deleuze and Gauttari, using connective, conjunctive, and disjunctive syntheses, "bets" on a creative, possible future. Going back to the title of the commentary, the decision space for the directions of a field can emerge from "an avant-garde without authority" (p. 85) where agency represents the desires of many elements, defined by "a movement of intensity" (p. 86). Time, in jagodzinski's estimation, has been characterized by events. This has been where we see NAEP providing information for the field. Following from jagodzinski, responding in art has become a subset of knowledge and skill that ultimately treats disparate aesthetic values and informs meaning making. The standards movement, general educational expectations, and perception of changing needs in society have informed the aspiration we refer to in this article.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-4">Problem-Based Approach in Large Scale Assessment: Evidence From Outside Art Education</hd> <p>Interest in problem-based assessment for NAEP subject area tests appeared in visual arts test blocks used in 1997. The assessment innovation included making art as part of the test, going beyond sketching, and some items asked for elaborative written responses. The seven assessment blocks in the 1997 NAEP for visual arts were sufficient to inform two achievement outcomes, Responding and Creating; the shortened five blocks in the 2008 assessment comprised support for Responding.</p> <p>In 2006, Reeff, Zabal, and Blech drafted a general framework for problem-based assessment associated with large-scale data collection projects in national or international venues. They reported a "wide-spread consensus" (p. 6) that problem solving is a critical skill, one that is relatively new to large-scale assessment. In visual arts classrooms, a problem-based approach can be likened to literacy frames that Reeff et al. cohesively discussed for reading, mathematics, and science. Reeff et al. also provided a general and widely accepted definition of problem solving. They categorized problems as static or dynamic and suggested that both types and hybrids of the two are modifiable by learning. They maintained that the problem-based framework in large-scale assessments would seek to document general mental abilities and problem solving in a subject area. Problem solving constituted an important dimension of the NAEP Arts test blocks in 1997, and by 2008, arguably worked in parallel and collectively with 8th graders' general knowledge of visual arts and problem-solving strategies for art criticism, artmaking, and design.</p> <p>In the NAEP 2008 visual arts test blocks, questions clearly followed a line of reasoning associated with systematic problem-solving (after Reif, 2008). First, the problem set began with an attempt to engage the participant with the situation. If students cannot recognize the situation presented in the problem, then lack of knowledge was fatal to subsequent work. Second, students analyzed images as contexts for seeking compositional and formal aspects of a problem set. This phase was strategic and followed from questions that helped students gain useful knowledge while in the problem set--in particular, from consideration of art images as in M/C or, alternatively, procedures used in design. Next, students constructed a sense of the problem by considering subproblems. Students (as problem solvers) had to decide what information was useful and what was not. Finally, successful students moved to exploiting the solution. With N AGB (1994a, 1994b), the goal lay beyond the particular problem and aimed toward reflective evaluation and solving future problems, and even held social goals such as enlarging worldviews.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-5">Methodology</hd> <p>NAEP Secondary Analysis: Sources and Procedures</p> <p>Secondary analysts entered the picture after the release of NCES reports to the public. Secondary researchers, usually from universities or educational institutes, applied for a license to use a data set or sets. The licensee has protected the confidentiality of individual students and their schools. Restricted files have contained microlevel NAEP data in raw format for respondents' cognitive, demographic, and background variables, along with associated statistical weights. The government contractor, prior to public release, must have approved secondary data analyses, findings, and interpretations of licensees. Educators have been able to access NAEP questionnaire items online using Data Explorer (nces.ed.gov); this public access has allowed achievement data to be analyzed by questionnaire items and summary tables downloaded without license.</p> <p>Construct Development</p> <p>The constructs examined in this study were based on aesthetic properties, technical and historical understandings, and artists' meaning making described in the 1997 NAEP report card for the M/C test block. However, we hypothesized that the qualitative description would reorder when examined as a statistical path. We took extensive time to determine what level of response each M/C question elicited from students (see Appendix). When students were asked to explain what Images #1-5 were about, we coded the item as referring to or recognizing meaning. When students responded to Images #2-5 to distinguish which is 20th-century Western art, this called for some art historical knowledge. When asked how the artist in Image #1 used light, we labeled the response as technical knowledge. When asked which answer best described the style of Image #1, we associated the question with aesthetic knowledge or properties. We then tested construct parameters with all 13 questions for degree of fit.</p> <p>Structural Equation Modeling: Statistical Determination of an Aspirational Model</p> <p>The NAEP 2008 data (n=2097) was recoded in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0; IBM Corp., 2013) and further structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was conducted using linear structural relationships (LISREL 8.8; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Unacceptable constructed response was coded as 0, partial response as 1, acceptable response as 2, and failure to answer (off task/illegible/ non-ratable/omitted/not reached) was coded as missing.</p> <p>Polychoric correlation matrix was used to generate the path diagram in LISREL with 13 variables (i.e., items; see Appendix) and four constructs (art knowledge, technical experiences, aesthetic properties, and meaning). Diagonally weighted least squares estimation method and asymptotic covariance matrix were used in the analysis (Kline, 2005).</p> <p>Evaluation of an individual model's fit was based on consideration of the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR). Beauducel and Wittmann (2005) noted that these represent different types of fit indices: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) absolute (RMSEA and SRMR), which evaluate how well an a priori model reproduces the sample data; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) incremental (CFI), which compares a model to a more restricted, baseline model; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) population-based (RMSEA and CFI), which are less sensitive to sample size than sample-based (SRMR); and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) the inclusion of an adjustment for model complexity (RMSEA) to favor simpler models versus those without the adjustment (CFI, SRMR). The criteria for model fit have been outlined as follows: RMSEA < .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), SRMR < .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1995), and CFI3 .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1995).</p> <p>Two structural models were tested with the linear representation from art knowledge to technical to aesthetic properties to meaning, with or without an abbreviated path from art knowledge to meaning. Path analysis, a data analytic method, had a general utility "specifying how a set of variables is interrelated" (DeVellis, 2003, p. 17). The hypothesized model is shown in Figure 1. Circles represent latent variables; rectangles represent measured variables (question items); and lines with an arrow represents direct effect from one latent variable to another. Absence of lines connecting variables implies lack of a hypothesized direct effect.</p> <p>It was hypothesized in Model A that meaning could be directly predicted from both aesthetic properties and art knowledge; knowledge of aesthetic properties was directly predicted from technical knowledge and, in turn, was directly predicted from students' art knowledge. The model has been considered well fit (x² = 108.36, df= 61, p < .001, RMSEA = .022, CFI = .99, SRMR = .033). A second model, Model B, was tested with the path from art knowledge to meaning deleted due to its statistical insignificance (γ = -.15) in Model A. The second model was considered well fit (x² = 108.92, df = 62, p < .001, RMSEA = .021, CFI = .99, SRMR = .O33).</p> <p>In terms of the structural model, increased art knowledge preceded and predicted increased technical knowledge (unstandardized coefficient = .74, p < .001) that, in turn, predicted increased knowledge of aesthetic properties (unstandardized coefficient = 1.02, p < .05), which predicted students' understanding of how artists convey their meaning (unstandardized coefficient = 1.21, p < .01). Increased art knowledge did not significantly predict students' understanding of how artists convey their meaning (unstandardized coefficient = -.15, p > .05). The significance of the intervening variables was evaluated using tests of indirect effects. Students' technical knowledge served as an intervening variable between art knowledge, and knowledge of aesthetic properties (unstandardized coefficient = .75, p < .05). Students' aesthetic properties served as a significant intervening variable between technical knowledge and students' meaning making from artworks (unstandardized coefficient = 1.23, p < .05).</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-6">Results</hd> <p>Path of Critical Thinking in Mother/Child Test Block</p> <p>Of the two models that were tested using LISREL, the most comprehensive assessment approach is explained as Model A. This NAEP aspirational model entailed a high ceiling for distinguishing a response level that is based in consensual expectation. For art education practice, the aspirational model inferred a high level of both curricular delivery and expectations regarding student educational attainment in visual arts taught in school and necessary within society.</p> <p>Model A postulated a direct path from students' art knowledge to meaning inference about historical periods. The direct path from art knowledge to meaning was counter indicated by the negative coefficient (-0.25), but students who intuited an end goal were cued to solve the problem set. From knowledge students accrued in a section of four "cueing" items inviting close comparisons between and among the five M/C images, students were asked to distinguish features and make inferences about specific components of a Raphael M/C reproduction. In this model, art knowledge utilized cuing and then followed a circular path through technical examination and aesthetic properties identification, which led successful students back to stylistic meaning (with positive intercepts widened from technical to aesthetic properties to meaning). Students were not cued explicitly in NAEP to look for meaning; however, our model supported an expectation that cues interpretation by students as conditional knowledge or image exploration that serves a higher order query later in the block. It was quite possible that students must perceive that the problem set was more complex and that they needed to pay attention and stay engaged with the questions in order to be successful in solving the problem. This correlated with a finding that Davis (2012), using the NAEP Data Explorer online statistical tool, reported in her study of White and Black students' questionnaire items and achievement. The smallest gaps in achievement occurred between the groups when the students acknowledged how hard they tried on the test.</p> <p>Making meaning or recognition of historical styles occurred in more difficult questions in the NAEP M/C test block. In a practical sense, the story went like this: Students in Model A were cued by the beginning question to look for similarities in content. The next few questions probed students' general knowledge. Then students were asked to make several comparisons, contrasting one work with another. A technical examination followed in the path sequence. From there, some students gathered enough information from previous questions that they were able to address aesthetic properties. If the student learned while negotiating each question in the block, then he or she was successful in answering the final question about historical relatedness (i.e., What do all the technical and aesthetic questions reveal about when the art was made?). Then, students estimated the art's value in the historical period and used their skills in critical analysis, accessing art knowledge, and interpreting symbolic associations.</p> <p>At first, our team was perplexed as to why the first question was placed where it was in the sequence of items. It seemed like putting the cart before the horse. Edmund Burke Feldman (1976) might have noted that the methodology of NAEP was flawed in that students were asked to comment substantially about meaning before they studied works carefully. Moreover, the Feldman Method has required the student to sublimate self-identification and emotive association with subject matter so as to slow the process down and allow the artwork to be assimilated part-to-part through description, gradually raising aesthetic dynamics, and lastly, hazarding interpretation. The released portion of the M/C test block adhered to Feldman's approach, although two items held back from the public release exercise did not conform to the Feldman Method but did align easily with Anderson's (1993) critical method. Suppose instead that there was a need for students to engage personally with an artistic problem by describing "aboutness." Since the mother-child relationship has been one of the foremost bonds of humankind, what better subject to grab students' attention! After they identified what the five artworks were about, students in the problem path grappled with a structured series of questions that probed previous knowledge and cued students what to look for in the images using compare-and-contrast questions. The test block took students further into the technical aspects of the images to make them identify and remark upon particulars. Gradually, NAEP raised the ante until students were attending to aesthetic properties. Finally, students were asked what all this meant in terms of style in a time period or about how an artwork could reflect the values and ontological features of a cultural group.</p> <p>M/C presented a concise assessment of skilled knowledge and stylistic awareness, statistically verified and offering a principle for learning. Howard Gardner (1990) thought of human development in visual arts as comprised of four steps--intuitive, symbolic, notational, and disciplined. If students reflected skilled knowledge in their later answers, which derives from developmental steps (but are incompletely queried by the assessment), those successes could teach students to reach a desired metaphoric landing where they could put art knowledge and aesthetic properties together to answer historical associations. Students attaining the aspirational level, where all of the previous questions in the block make sense, were also hoped to be able to use artistic strategies in less familiar situations. In this way, students explored the full possibilities of skilled knowledge within a changeable culture. Intuition served, symbolic understanding emerged freely, notation dealt with particulars, aesthetic discipline with principles, and meaning making employed all of the steps.</p> <p>When the link between general knowledge and meaning making was unspecified, a series of four questions cued students to elements and compositional principles that diverged in the topically related five reproductions of paintings drawn from different stylistic periods and contexts. Here, the path to meaning making was clear and statistically significant; however, the culminating relationship between aesthetic properties and meaning making was less strong. Students determined some level of understanding but did not fully understand the implications of the problem for other situations or expand their worldviews to embrace general principles.</p> <p>The interpretation hazarded here is that students need to recognize that the NAEP exercises require a multifaceted critical analysis by which they think through technical examination and comparisons of aesthetic properties en route to establishing meaning. Students who think otherwise do not have art knowledge and skills; those who are strategically naïve or those not sufficiently engaged with the test fail to answer more complex questions.</p> <p>In the second analysis, Model B, the path was one of gradual understanding: more like Feldman (1976), where meaning making comes as a surprise or reprise in the last question. Very few students reached this level. Either model can be used for curriculum and assessment, but art educators are cautioned to not assume that art knowledge jumps directly to meaning at a discipline level. There is more to the path: notably, technical investigation and aesthetic organization. However, in problem solving, it may be helpful for students to sense that meaning making is the goal of the problem set.</p> <p>Where Does Explicit Understanding of Visual Arts Come From in an Education?</p> <p>What advantage did art class give to 8th-grade students? Without knowing previous experiences or ability level, and not considering race/gender/region/SES or any other variables, the 2008 analysis revealed that taking art was associated with a consistent 10-point advantage at each percentile level, except at the 10th, where the spread differed by 8 points. Further, the standard error percentiles were larger for students taking art. Asking if a student is taking art is not enough; what students learn and do in class, and the meaningfulness of artistic learning in an education, are key elements. In our ongoing examination of the restricted data for the Arts, these elements are currently under scrutiny, with specific hypotheses guiding the research. No longer can art education assume a singular role in visual arts education; we have to weigh in what students learn from technology, social media, and extra school activities. Rather than losing our role, we have an opportunity to up the ante for artistic learning and prepare students for action incentives within the larger culture.</p> <p>Ambrose, Cohen, and Tannabaum (2003) included in their edited text Patricia Hollingsworth's discussion of an open systems approach (to explain an ecosystem of giftedness but appropriate to a discussion of artistic achievement). With purposefulness, Ambrose et al. grouped "unexplained" and "chance" processes balanced by the influence of media and peers. A conflation of influences overlap the cognitive area, which includes education within the school curriculum, challenging cognitive activity, nurturing, and active interdisciplinary learning. Contributing conatively, the home--along with community--provides appreciation for achievement, working with student participation in competitive situations and their personally held ideas about respect, responsibility, choices, and nurturing. At emergent levels, where creativity appears and cognitive abilities approach expert levels and/or contribute to or across disciplines, inputs and interactions occur through the confluence of specific disciplines. Here, product development interacts with world events stemming from human, natural, cultural/ historical sensibility and opportunity. Knowing the sources and boundaries of lived curriculum enables individuals to determine multiple means for reaching goals that are personally productive and humane. The mind works with mental processes termed cognitive, affective, and conative (natural tendencies and educated understanding, personal impulses to engage with art, and socially directed effort, which acts on thoughts and feelings). Underlying a complete adaptive system are intelligent and creative aspects of mental functioning--what Dan Rea (2003) called the "motivated mind" and explained using complexity theory.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-7">Conclusion and Implications</hd> <p>The hypothesized model fit the observed students' visual arts data very well. This statistical and conceptual model iterated the importance for students in arts education to have a solid knowledge foundation stemming from home, school, and community. This foundation has been significant in students' successful mastery of subsequent technical knowledge and skills. Students' exposure to properties of aesthetics followed from their learning of technical skills. After students internalize some historical and cultural arts knowledge, develop technical skills, and can discern aesthetic properties, they answer questions about artworks in society and use critical methodologies to solve newly presented problems.</p> <p>These conclusions seem to have significant implications for curriculum designers, principals, and decision makers in the field of visual arts education. At the same time, the aspirational model provides statistical evidence for attention to question presentation in seeking to fully record test takers' responses to art. Assessment experts and visual arts educators are advised to consider presenting the visual arts assessment questions in the order of engaging with personal meaning, querying arts knowledge, establishing technical knowledge and skills, and supporting awareness of aesthetic properties and meaning inferences associated with artworks.</p> <p>Even though this portion of our secondary analysis reported one of six blocks tested, the magnitude and robustness of the M/C test block and the model it informed presented significant implications for designing visual arts assessment, understanding teaching and learning, designing curriculum, and informing broad ranging arts education policy. Another major finding for art education has been the power of technical knowledge that enables students' recognition of aesthetic qualities/properties and then has qualified their understanding to the meaning communicated through those particular works. Apparently, students did not simply gain meaning by being taught about a few images or artists, or by having general knowledge about art structure and methodologies; rather, technical command helped students derive aesthetic awareness and substantiate meaning.</p> <p>If art education deemphasizes technical features and creative pursuits while specifying meaning making and cultural action, it may limit student independent ability to address issues. We also recall Greer's (1984) proclamation that it is more important to know something about art in culture rather than just to make art and/or respond to it. Curricular incentives such as visual culture, social justice, and arts integration with other subjects and disciplines could investigate the role that formal knowledge plays in an education and consider that diminished technical emphasis (in the studio, or in discussion of art) may actually impact students' capabilities for insight and action. We find that understanding more clearly how students are able to answer difficult questions held insights to share with the visual arts field when studio dominates the curriculum. While NAEP "is not suitable for drawing strong inferences about which factors or variables account for educational achievement" (Linn, 2001, p. 5), the exercise blocks have high face validity. "That is, educators and the general public should be able to see the performance on the exercises as attainments with clear educational and social value" (p. 6).</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-8">AUTHOR NOTE</hd> <p>The authors thank their respective universities for institutional support during development of this line of research. We also thank the National Art Education Foundation for funding a research grant in 2010 and the National Art Education Association for direct and indirect support. We would also like to acknowledge researchers David Burton at Virginia Commonwealth University and Robert Sabol of Purdue University for their past and ongoing participation in National Assessment of Educational Progress Arts Consortium secondary analysis projects. Studies in Art Education manuscript reviewers pinpointed terms and theoretical constructs to be made more transparent to its readers. They noted that quantitative methodologies required for this level of investigation could be helpful to the field only to the extent that the knowledge base, technical, and aesthetic issues are made clear and meaningful to an audience.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-9">ENDNOTES</hd> <p>1 Studies reviewers' asked why the images did not include more recent works by late 20th century artists. Given new directions in the Arts, toward specific purposes with societal outcomes in mind, future NAEP images might be selected based on those criteria.</p> <ulist> <item>2 These models are "dated" and do not reflect some current philosophies in art, but the general principles and philosophic structures through which the questions function exceeds the limitations of the critical models.</item> <item>3 While information from questionnaires allowed primary investigators to remark upon some curricular practices, secondary analysis revealed much more. The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) report (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2011, 2012) examined school art contexts, findings related to school, community and museum practices. The secondary analysis of restricted data provided the aspirational path.</item> <item>4 Invited participant Read Diket demonstrated to peers and trainers the utility of Sikali's idea in her presentation at the training session. Diket used the team's analysis of clusters from the Mother/Child test block and aligned those to items in the NAEP training curriculum. The utility of the path has also worked well in the preparation of curriculum for gifted education and in art education coursework.</item> <item>5 The assessment should affirm and articulate the Arts as ways of knowing and forms of knowledge with a unique capacity to integrate the intellect, the emotions, and physical skills in the construction of meaning; and, the assessment should reflect a pluralistic view of arts education in terms of both individual products and the cultural bases of the Arts. It should be oriented toward the demonstration of student learning, be sensitive to a variety of instructional approaches, include the range of contemporary theories evident in arts education, and include examples of appropriate exercises addressing universal themes. (Persky, Sandene, & Askew, 1999, p. vii-viii)</item> <item>6 See Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012) for a survey of arts education in public schools.</item> <item>7 Problem solving is goal directed thinking and action in situations for which no routine solution procedure is available. The problem solver has a more or less well-defined goal but does not immediately know how to reach it. The incongruence of the goals and admissible operators constitutes a problem. The understanding of the problem situation and its step-by-step transformation, based on planning and reasoning, constitute the process of problem solving. (Reeff et al., 2006, p. 7).</item> </ulist> <p>Figure 1. Model A: Path Diagram for the Four Visual Arts Constructs. © 2014 Read M. Diket, Lihua Xu, and Thomas M. Brewer.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-10">REFERENCES</hd> <p>Ambrose, D., Cohen, L. M., & Tannabaum, A. J. (2003). Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.</p> <p>Anderson, T. (1993). Defining and structuring art criticism for education. Studies in Art Education, 34(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>), 199-208.</p> <p>Barrett, I, & Clark, G. (Eds.). (1995). Lessons for teaching art criticism. Retrieved from ERIC database. (392658).</p> <p>Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 72(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>), 41 -75.</p> <p>Brewer, T. (2011). Lessons learned from the Bundled Visual Arts Assessment. Visual Arts Research, 37(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>), 79-95.</p> <p>Broudy, H. S. (1987). The role of imagery in learning. Los Angeles, CA: Getty.</p> <p>Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.</p> <p>Davis, D. (2012, April). The so-called achievement gap between white and black students on 2008 NAEP assessment. In R. Diket (Chair), Discussing educational policy and implications. Symposium conducted at the AERA National Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.</p> <p>DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</p> <p>Diket, R., Burton, D., McCollister, S., & Sabol, R. (2000). Taking another look: Secondary analysis of the NAEP Report Card in the Visual Arts. Studies in Art Education, 4 7(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>), 202-207.</p> <p>Dorn, C. (2003). Models for assessing art performance (MAAP): A K-12 project. Studies in Art Education, 44(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>), 350-371.</p> <p>Feldman, E. B. (1976). Visual literacy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 70(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>), 195-200.</p> <p>Gardner, H. (1990). Arts and human development. Los Angeles, CA: Getty.</p> <p>Greer, D. W. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education, 25(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>), 212-218.</p> <p>Gude, O. (2007). Principles and possibilities: Considerations for a 21st century art & culture curriculum. Art Education, 60(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>), 6-17.</p> <p>Hagaman, S. (1990). The community of inquiry: An approach to collaborative learning in art. Studies in Art Education, 37(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>), 149-157.</p> <p>Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</p> <p>IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 22.0) [computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.</p> <p>jagodzinski, j. (2012). Commentary: Materialist nonrepresentational thought. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 54(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>), 84-87.</p> <p>Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.</p> <p>Keiper, S., Sandene, G. A., Perskey, H. R., & Kuang, M. (2009). The nation's report card: Arts 2008 music and visual arts. (NCES 2009-488). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.</p> <p>Klein, S. (2008). Comic liberation: The feminist face of humor in contemporary art. Art Education, 61 (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>), 47-52.</p> <p>Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.</p> <p>Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.</p> <p>Linn, R. L. (2001). The influence of external evaluations on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. ED457243.</p> <p>McCollister, S. (2002). Developing criteria rubrics in the art classroom./Art Education, 55(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>), 46-52.</p> <p>National Assessment Governing Board. (1994a). Arts education assessment and exercise specifications; excerpts for the visual arts. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.</p> <p>National Assessment Governing Board. (1994b). 1997 & 2008 arts education assessment framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets">www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets</ulink> /documents/publications/frameworks/arts-framework08.pdf</p> <p>Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2011). A snapshot of arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 2009-10 (NCES 2011 -078). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</p> <p>Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10 (NCES 2012-014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</p> <p>Persky, H. R., Sandene, B. A., & Askew, J. M. (1999). The NAEP 1997 arts report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.</p> <p>Rea, D. (2003). Optimal motivation for creative intelligence. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen, & A. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 221 -236). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.</p> <p>Reeff, J., Zabal, A., & Blech, C. (2006). The assessment of problem-solving competencies: A draft version of a general framework. Bonn, Germany: German Institute of Adult Education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.die-bonn.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-2006/reeff06%5F01.pdf">www.die-bonn.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-2006/reeff06%5F01.pdf</ulink></p> <p>Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other cognitive domains. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.</p> <p>Stankiewicz, M. A. (1999). Spinning the arts NAEP. Arts Education Policy Review, 701(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>), 29-32.</p> <p>The College Board. (1994). Arts education assessment and exercise specifications: Excerpts for the visual arts. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.</p> <p>Thorndike, E. L, &Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8,247-261.</p> <p>Wilson, B. G. (1967). The development and testing of an instrument to measure aspective perception of paintings (doctoral dissertation).The Ohio State University, Columbus. Retrieved from University Microfilms. (No. 66-15, 153).</p> <p>Zimmerman, E. (2003). How should students' progress and achievements in art be assessed? A case for assessment that is responsive to diverse students' needs. Visual Arts Research, 29(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>), 96-102.</p> <hd id="AN0099171172-11">Appendix</hd> <p>List of Coded Mother/Child Questions by Construct © 2014 Read M. Diket, Lihua Xu, and Thomas M. Brewer.</p> <p>VD00001 - Explain what artworks 1-5 are about. (Meaning Question)</p> <p>VD00002 - Which artwork 2-5 is twentieth century western art? (Knowledge Question)</p> <p>VD00003 - Artworks 2-5, which style contributes to western art? (Knowledge Question)</p> <p>VD00004 - Which statement about artwork 4 is true? (Knowledge Question)</p> <p>VD000A5 - Three specific things about distance in artwork 3. (Technical Question)</p> <p>VD000B5 - Compare artwork 3 with artwork 1. (Aesthetic Question)</p> <p>VD000A6 - Details of hands from artwork 1 and 3. (Technical Question)</p> <p>VD000B6 - How artist of artwork 1 used light with hand. (Technical Question)</p> <p>VD00007 - Three comparisons of artworks 3 and 4. (Aesthetic Question)</p> <p>VD00008 - What artist communicated in artwork 5? (Meaning Question)</p> <p>VD00009 - Specific things about artwork 1. (Aesthetic Question)</p> <p>VD00010 - Which best describes style of artwork 1? (Aesthetic Question)</p> <p>VD00011 - Artworks 1, 3, 4, & 5; which painted during renaissance? (Knowledge Question)</p> <aug> <p>By READ M. DIKET, William Carey University; LIHUA XU, University of Central Florida and THOMAS M. BREWER, University of Central Florida</p> <p></p> <p>Correspondence regarding this article may be sent to the authors at rdiket@wmcarey.edu; Lihua.Xu@ucf.edu; and Thomas.Brewer@ucf.edu</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref4"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1048825
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Toward an Aspirational Learning Model Gleaned from Large-Scale Assessment
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diket%2C+Read+M%2E%22">Diket, Read M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xu%2C+Lihua%22">Xu, Lihua</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brewer%2C+Thomas+M%2E%22">Brewer, Thomas M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Art+Education%3A+A+Journal+of+Issues+and+Research+in+Art+Education%22"><i>Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education</i></searchLink>. Fall 2014 56(1):397-411.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: National Art Education Association. 1916 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191. Tel: 703-860-8000; Fax: 703-860-2960; Web site: http://www.arteducators.org/research/studies
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Testing%22">Group Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Education%22">Art Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Surveys%22">National Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Causal+Models%22">Causal Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Structural+Equation+Models%22">Structural Equation Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aesthetics%22">Aesthetics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sequential+Learning%22">Sequential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Arts%22">Visual Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Based+Learning%22">Problem Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence%22">Evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Construct+Validity%22">Construct Validity</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22National+Assessment+of+Educational+Progress%22">National Assessment of Educational Progress</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0039-3541
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aspirational model resulted from the authors' secondary analysis of the Mother/Child (M/C) test block from the 2008 National Assessment of Educational Progress restricted data that examined the responses of the national sample of 8th-grade students (n = 1648). This test block presented no artmaking task and consisted of the same 13 questions between 1997 and 2008. Constructs operating in M/C were identified as art knowledge, technical knowledge, aesthetic properties, and meaning. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was used for data preparation, and linear structural relationships was used to conduct structural equation modeling analysis. Polychoric correlation matrix was employed to generate the model-fit statistics and path diagram with 13 variables and four constructs. Findings clarify an aspirational model, which moves from art knowledge to technical knowledge to aesthetic knowledge to meaning. Technical knowledge appears requisite to developing aesthetic understanding and meaning. Authors reason that an aspirational model like M/C might be used in curriculum planning and implementation.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 39
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://www.arteducators.org/research/studies" linkWindow="_blank">http://www.arteducators.org/research/studies</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1048825
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1048825
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 397
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Group Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Art Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Causal Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Structural Equation Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aesthetics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sequential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Construct Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Assessment of Educational Progress
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Toward an Aspirational Learning Model Gleaned from Large-Scale Assessment
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diket, Read M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xu, Lihua
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brewer, Thomas M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0039-3541
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1