View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Confirming the Significance of Art Specialists and Aspirational Learning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Confirming the Significance of Art Specialists and Aspirational Learning
Language: English
Authors: Brewer, Thomas M., Xu, Lihua, Diket, Read M.
Source: Art Education. 2017 70(2):16-24.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Grade 8
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Specialists, Art Education, Art Teachers, Teaching Methods, Academic Achievement, Aspiration, Visual Arts, National Competency Tests, Scores, Elementary Secondary Education, Grade 8
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: National Assessment of Educational Progress
DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2017.1274189
ISSN: 0004-3125
Abstract: Just for a change, would it not be nice to hear talk about keeping and/or expanding full-time art specialists' presence in schools and maintaining strong art education programs at the college and university level? That conversation could result from the positive arguments we are providing in this article. The purpose of this article is to clarify and present National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) findings that are statistically significant for art educators. You will read about research findings that indicate: (1) student overall scores were consistent from 1997 to 2008 because art specialists, although reduced in number, understood the standards regarding responding to art; (2) students' achievement scores were significantly higher "only" for those who received art instruction from full-time art specialists; and (3) an "Aspirational Model" was found in the Mother/Child block that can guide teachers toward improving instruction by developing authentic visual arts curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 16
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1195970
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGzSb2GomR8AvCUgu391oTIAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA90ovalQfHJkTt86AIBEICBm04NwfcHvBZyn6yrPeWLqdpmBTizV9nqpAhlFyw5vKkdGw8YWn2CPsZFLCra1J3ZgsvNRF9-edIwa_OMUvVt-YwX21RBlVcBMKKlYfb02J33Hd54FnbfMPDbeNA0NMBy-XO7Axdvv_9v93GLhKtiptCMs_FiiU1oq0tJIHrm0U5T3BRQcnpksFvuqNIUF2cRdfi8XM_a-vQKZ5FD
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0121413801;are01mar.17;2019Feb14.14:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0121413801-1">Confirming the Significance of Art Specialists and Aspirational Learning. </title> <p>Just for a change, would it not be nice to hear talk about keeping and/or expanding full-time art specialists' presence in schools and maintaining strong art education programs at the college and university level? That conversation could result from the positive arguments we are providing in this article. The purpose of this article is to clarify and present National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) findings that are statistically significant for art educators. You will read about research findings that indicate: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) student overall scores were consistent from 1997 to 2008 because art specialists, athough reduced in number, understood the standards regarding responding to art; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) students' achievement scores were significantly higher <emph>only</emph> for those who received art instruction from full-time art specialists; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) an <emph>Aspirational Model</emph> was found in the Mother/Child block that can guide teachers toward improving instruction by developing authentic visual arts curriculum, instruction, and assessment.</p> <p>As members of the NAEP Visual Arts Research group, we received a National Art Education Foundation grant to inform current art educators and administrators about secondary findings from the 2008 NAEP Arts Report Card. The authors divided responsibilities, as both universities where the authors worked had secondary analysis licensure use of the restricted data. Our role was to conduct secondary analyses, and to discuss implications of in-depth curriculum and assessment resources available through the NAEP Arts website and the online NAEP Data Explorer (NDE) tool. Just as NAEP developers envisioned, our team documented significant positive attributes derived from critical methodology and modeled specific contributions of art education and educators.</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-2">What Is the NAEP Visual Art Assessment?</hd> <p>A bit of background information about the NAEP Visual Arts Assessment will be helpful in understanding what NAEP reveals to art educators. The 2008 NAEP Arts Assessment was administered to a nationally representative sample of 2,004 8th-grade students. A decision was made by the NAEP Governing Board to slightly amend the booklets containing art test blocks used in 1997 ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]), and the 2008 test booklets subsequently included five of seven assessment test blocks used in the 1997 ground breaking assessment. Test blocks included multiple-choice questions and constructed response questions; some test blocks asked students to make three-dimensional art or to make drawings.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Eighth-grade students at public school arts magnet participating in the "Bundled Assessment" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]) the same year the 2008 NAEP Arts Report Card was administered. (© 2017, Brewer, T., Xu, L., & Diket, R. Used with permission.)</p> <p>The framework designed to guide visual art data collection in the 1997 NAEP Arts Education Assessment was affirmed for the 2008 NAEP Arts assessment. The NAEP general framework for the arts, produced in the standards process of the 1990s, reflected visual arts standards developed and endorsed collaboratively by professional organizations and published as the National Voluntary K-12 Standards for the Arts ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]). The explicit intent of the NAEP vision for the arts was that the published National Standards project and suggested NAEP Arts frameworks should share a common view of arts education. To focus on art(s) education in general terms (responding, creating, performing), rather than by subject areas such as visual arts, may be a sticking point if the public and teachers do not understand the broad distinctions made across art domains by NAEP framework designers. Because students learn in schools and from the general culture, the NAEP data presents challenges (but not impossible ones) for teasing out art education's contribution to visual learning. Art educators want to know that visual art education has made significant advances in the sophistication and cohesiveness of instruction at school. The lack of clarity, understanding, distinction, application, and usability found in NAEP Arts official reports certainly explains why these results are not often looked on favorably by art education as a whole. NAEP experts are addressing the lack of clarity with data training sessions seeking deeper, more complex secondary analyses of the restricted data. Secondary analyses reported out from art education researchers help to make the NAEP findings more usable in schools.</p> <p>NAEP questionnaires (school level and student level) provide information that enables comparisons on program features. For example, the intensity of visual arts study (time in art class), art media availability (clay, painting or not), and student choices to use artistic works in other school subjects (school climate of receptiveness) represent various program features and art usage patterns. NAEP does make implicit comparisons of philosophies and theories that shape programs in school.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]</p> <p>From the National Center for Education Statistics site,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>] the public can follow links to sample test questions and utilize the NAEP Data Explorer tool to analyze data. Examples of other authentic assessment, adopted from NAEP-related test blocks and instruments used in small-scale assessment applications are found in [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>]) for developing a "Bundled Assessment," and [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>] in aggregating contemporary alternative Mother/Child (M/C) exemplars.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Eighth-grade students at a private school participating in the "Bundled Assessment" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]) the same year the 2008 NAEP Arts Report Card was administered. (© 2017, Brewer, T., Xu, L., & Diket, R. Used with permission.)</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-3">Looking More Closely for Effective Teaching</hd> <p> <emph>Test blocks</emph> contain related questions that represent a set of problems. A NAEP test block can employ art images as referents and requires that "significant knowledge and skills unique to each domain be embedded in an exercise in a way that clearly shows their application or use" ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>], p. 13). Questions in blocks may repeat as they did in the 1997 and 2008 for the Bearden Block, the Portrait Block, the Memory Box, and the Mother/Child (M/C) Block.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]</p> <p>Although direct comparisons cannot be made for overall achievement between the 1997 and 2008 samples, simple observations can be made that consider the makeup of the sample.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]</p> <p>The scores did not go down or decline on the 2008 NAEP M/C test block despite the demographic shift in ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) and, most importantly for art education, a substantial loss of full-time art specialists. Unquestionably, the art specialists were performing more effectively than classroom teachers, visiting artists, and volunteers because of their command of artmaking and critical methodology.</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-4">Meaning and Implications</hd> <p>Rather than being disappointed with no significant overall learning gain specifically for the M/C test block from 1997 to 2008, no decline was a positive result. <emph>Secondary findings indicate that art educators in schools are even more relevant, productive, and amazingly resilient in maintaining a consistent level of student art learning</emph>. Achievement was sustained despite the sample's more diverse ethnic and challenging economic base and with Catholic schools being overrepresented in the private school designation. Maintaining stable performance on this critical assessment block that contributed heavily to the overall achievement score can be viewed as a positive for art education in the larger population of 8th-graders. To improve the general achievement of 8th-graders in the coming NAEP Arts 2016, we need more art specialists in schools who are actively teaching art criticism and sharing the importance of art in the overall curriculum.</p> <p>One of our reviewers asked, "If the 2008 scores did not go down in comparison to the 1997 scores, even though there were significantly fewer full-time art teachers and more difficulties in the classroom, how is that a good thing? Might some administrators or policy makers claim that, Look, we can do without the full-timers, with little difference? That's not so bad."</p> <p>We share the reviewer's concern for maintaining and increasing full-time art educators and know how the mediocre NAEP performances and our no-decline-in-scores finding can be misused or misconstrued to negatively impact the need for full-time art educators. This is an often-heard apprehension. The difference now is that this article supplies the advocacy evidence that tempers this "half empty" perspective by showing that full-time art specialists are the only teacher type that made a significant difference in 8th-grade student achievement in 2008. This is the argument and evidence art educators need to present to administrators who think they can do without full-time art specialists.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]</p> <p>Being resourceful and performing well with less is not where K-12 art educators would like to be positioned, and sensing an unsupportive and eroding education environment and circumstances could have a negative effect on teachers' confidence. But NAEP 2008 data contain much that is positive that shows educators' content command, dedication, and perseverance in the field. From a realistic standpoint, however, there may be limits to how much pressure, underfunding, and over-regulation teachers and the education system can tolerate before reaching a breaking point on performance. Unless our field reports and uses NAEP and other national assessment results, while maintaining the internal strength of our curriculum delivery, the effect of further loss of specialists may appear in the results from the 2016 NAEP Arts Report Card.</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-5">Specialized Preparation for Art Educators Does Matter</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>] and other graduate students used the public access NDE to look more closely at some of 192 variables in the 2008 NAEP visual arts assessment. She examined the grade 8 school-level questionnaire and identified the various categories of teachers who taught art classes. An artist-in-residence, a full-time specialist, a part-time specialist, an elementary school teacher, other faculty, or a volunteer might provide instruction. The artist-in-residence is defined by NAEP as a visual, literary, or performing artist or folklorist who visits a school for an extended period for the purpose of teaching artistic techniques and concepts, conducting in-service teacher training, or consulting in the development of curricula (NCES - National Center for Education Statistics). A visual arts specialist is defined as an educational professional who is certified to teach visual arts (NCES). Arndt reported student sample scores on a 300-point scale that showed <emph>scores were significantly higher for those students who received art instruction from full-time art specialists and</emph> not <emph>for other NAEP defined types of instructors: part-time specialists, artists-in-residence, classroom teachers, volunteers, or other faculty</emph>. Our team confirmed [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>] findings in two separate follow-up NAEP Data Explorer examinations.</p> <p>Tables 1-4 display the average student composite scores on a 300-point scale, specified by the absence or presence of four teacher categories by jurisdictions. In those tables, national public refers to students from public schools only, and it includes charter schools and excludes Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools. National private refers to students from private schools only (NCES). In 2008, 220 public schools and 30 private schools participated in the NAEP assessment. Findings are reported based on statistical significance at the.05 level using <emph>t</emph>-tests with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. In NAEP, a <emph>t</emph>-test for independent samples is used to compare population means where there is no overlap in sampled students representing these populations (NCES). The possible meaning and implications of these findings are discussed after.</p> <p>From Table 1, we see that independent <emph>t</emph>-tests (comparing differences of means between two groups on one variable) were statistically significant in the visual arts scale scores taught by full-time specialists for both national and national public jurisdictions. For both jurisdictions, the mean scale scores were higher for classes taught by full-time specialists (national: <emph>M</emph> = 152, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.6; national public: <emph>M</emph> = 151, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.6) than when classes were not taught by full-time specialists (national: <emph>M</emph> = 142, <emph>SE</emph> = 3.0; national public: <emph>M</emph> = 140, <emph>SE</emph> = 3.0). There was no statistically significant difference for national private classes taught by full-time specialists (<emph>M</emph> = 160, <emph>SE</emph> = 8.3) and by other teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 155, <emph>SE</emph> = 8.9). <emph>The table indicates that the effectiveness of art education is reduced when not taught by a full-time specialist faculty member. We theorize that full-time teachers have more impact on a visual arts presence in schools</emph>.</p> <p>From Table 2 we see that none of the independent <emph>t</emph>-tests resulted in statistically significant difference in scale scores between visual arts taught by part-time specialists and those not taught by part-time specialists for national schools (<emph>p</emph> =.18), national public schools (<emph>p</emph> =.99), and national public schools (<emph>p</emph> =.07).[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]</p> <p>As seen in Table 3, independent <emph>t</emph>-tests resulted in no statistically significant difference in the visual arts scale scores for national (<emph>p</emph> =.69) and national public (<emph>p</emph> =.55) jurisdictions taught by artists-in-residence (national: <emph>M</emph> = 147, <emph>SE</emph> = 6.1; national public: <emph>M</emph> = 145, <emph>SE</emph> = 5.6) and not taught by artists-in-residence (national: <emph>M</emph> = 149, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.4; national public: <emph>M</emph> = 149, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.4).</p> <p>As seen in Table 4, independent <emph>t</emph>-tests showed that there was a statistically significant difference (<emph>p</emph> =.04) in the visual arts scale scores in national public jurisdictions taught by elementary class teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 136, <emph>SE</emph> = 5.5) and not taught by elementary class teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 149; <emph>SE</emph> = 1.5). There was no statistically significant difference (<emph>p</emph> =.14) in average scale scores in national jurisdictions between visual arts taught by elementary classroom teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 142, <emph>SE</emph> = 4.5) and those not taught by elementary classroom teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 150, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.5). <emph>The oddity about the findings from Table 4 is that students who were not taught by an elementary classroom teacher in national public jurisdictions scored significantly higher than those who were; however, the sample was too small for any determination to be made for private schools</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-6">Meaning and Implications</hd> <p>Most significant here is that the effectiveness of an art education is reduced when not taught by a full-time specialist and we further theorize that full-time specialists have more impact on visual arts in our nation's schools than any other teacher type. We need to better understand how art specialists accomplish effective teaching through pedagogy and content in the classroom. We also need to investigate how artist-in-residence teachers contribute content knowledge, but may lack the pedagogy knowledge to positively affect student achievement. By contrast, elementary school teachers, other faculty or volunteers, may possess general pedagogy knowledge, but may not have a sufficient level of content expertise. The significantly lower composite scores demonstrate this content knowledge issue for elementary teachers in the national sample. The part-time art specialists simply may not have enough teaching time to influence achievement across the schools' culture, while the full-time specialists are actively teaching daily and possess various combinations of content and pedagogy knowledge that appear significant in positive student achievement.</p> <p>This finding connects to [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>] theory of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). At the heart of PCK is the manner in which subject matter is transformed while teaching. Transformation occurs when teachers interpret the subject for their students, and they find different ways to represent aesthetic content in the classroom and make art accessible and interesting to learners at school. Shulman elaborated and updated the importance of PCK in a 2011 videoconference at a university opening faculty meeting. He spoke of the most regularly taught topics in a subject area as a composition of critical ideas, conveyed by powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations. In other words, specialists in art can formulate instruction in a subject so that the curriculum is comprehensible and meaningful to learners. Does this mean that content courses in colleges of education (art, music, science, math) are the places where Shulman's PCK can be best developed? If so, education departments would be wise to offer more content and strategies that Shulman thinks provide the optimal learning platforms, rather than devising more and more general education-type teaching courses that fail to emphasize visual art. This happens sometimes when undergraduate or graduate programs are revised and a visual arts education is replaced with another usually repetitive education foundation course. Another example of diminishing content knowledge is often found when one 3-hour visual art course for future elementary classroom teachers is combined into one integrated art(s) course that includes music, theater, and dance. The <emph>aspirational</emph> model to follow provides a rationale for developing more substantive content learning in visual art contexts that may have broader learning applications.</p> <p>Table 1. Difference in Average Scale Scores of Visual Arts Taught and Not Taught by a Full-Time Specialist</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>National M (SE)</td><td>National Public M (SE)</td><td>National Private M (SE)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Yes</td><td>152 (1.6)</td><td>151 (1.6)</td><td>160 (8.3)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>142 (3.0)</td><td>140 (3.0)</td><td>155 (8.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Difference (Yes vs. No)</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN0001" /></td><td><italic>p</italic> = 0.004<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN0002" /></td><td><italic>p</italic> =.68</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>. M = mean; SE = standard error.</item> </ulist> <p>1 <emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>2 <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>Table 2. Difference in Average Scale Scores of Visuals Arts Taught and Not Taught by a Part-Time Specialist</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>National M (SE)</td><td>National Public M (SE)</td><td>National Private M (SE)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Yes</td><td>155 (4.6)</td><td>149 (5.9)</td><td>170 (4.1)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>149 (1.4)</td><td>149 (1.4)</td><td>152 (7.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Difference (Yes vs. No)</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.18</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.99</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.07</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. M = mean; SE = standard error.</p> <p>Table 3. Difference in Average Scale Scores of Visuals Arts Taught and Not Taught by Artist-in-Residence</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>National M (SE)</td><td>National Public M (SE)</td><td>National Private M (SE)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Yes</td><td>147 (6.1)</td><td>145 (5.6)</td><td><xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN0003" /></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>149 (1.4)</td><td>149 (1.4)</td><td>156 (6.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Difference (Yes vs. No)</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.69</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.55</td><td><xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN0003" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note</emph>. M = mean; SE = standard error.</item> <item>3 ‡ Reporting standards not met according to NDE: Because of the sample makeup some subgroups cannot be tested due to low representation.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 4. Difference in Average Scale Scores of Visuals Arts Taught and Not Taught by Elementary Classroom Teacher</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>National <italic>M (SE)</italic></td><td>National Public <italic>M (SE)</italic></td><td>National Private <italic>M (SE)</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Yes</td><td>142 (4.5)</td><td>136 (5.5)</td><td><xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN0004" /></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>150 (1.5)</td><td>149 (1.5)</td><td>155 (7.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Difference (Yes vs. No)</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.14</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN0005" /></td><td><xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN0004" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 Reporting standards not met according to NDE: Because of the sample makeup some subgroups cannot be tested due to low representation.</item> <item>5 <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Eighth-grade student's final drawing example from in the "Bundled Assessment" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]) the same year the 2008 NAEP Arts Report Card was administered. Student comment about why she/he made the drawing: "I wanted to portray a regular student taking a test because everyone I know can understand that." (© 2017, Brewer, T., Xu, L., & Diket, R. Used with permission.)</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Eighth-grade student's final drawing example from in the "Bundled Assessment" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]) the same year the 2008 NAEP Arts Report Card was administered. Student comment about why she/he made the drawing: "It was the only thing I could think of that I could understand and draw easily." (© 2017, Brewer, T., Xu, L., & Diket, R. Used with permission.)</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-7">Finding an Aspirational Model</hd> <p>This <emph>Aspirational Theory</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]) was derived from the authors' secondary analysis of restricted data from the 2008 Mother/Child (M/C) NAEP test block. The block closely examined responses of 1,648 8th-grade students, some taught by art specialists and some by teachers who were apparently not given significant preparation in art. The M/C block had no artmaking task and consisted of 13 items presented as multiple-choice, short-answer, and constructed response items. Those 13 items define four learning constructs. <emph>Constructs</emph> are ideas, concepts, or skills underlying a number of related phenomena or behavioral manifestations. The constructs we found in the restricted data of the M/C test block were deemed <emph>art knowledge (historical information)</emph>, <emph>technical knowledge (formal properties)</emph>, <emph>aesthetic properties (style and purpose)</emph>, and <emph>meaning (content/aboutness)</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]</p> <p>In 2010, Emmanuel Sikali (personal communication, 2010), NAEP secondary analysis training coordinator, who worked closely with NAEP Arts 2008, said that NAEP was an <emph>aspirational test</emph> because of its high achievement ceiling. The bar was set high to produce a constant incentive and escalating performance in all NAEP-tested subject areas. The <emph>Aspirational Learning</emph> model we found moves from art knowledge, to technical knowledge, to aesthetic knowledge, to meaning in a sequential manner. Technical knowledge appears vital to developing aesthetic understanding and meaning. We termed the path "aspirational" because constructed response NAEP problem blocks require responders' dedicated attention to gathering a body of knowledge, recording growing understanding through detailed critical analysis, comparing back to aesthetic expectations of a field, with an aim of establishing a clear meaning for the exercise by the final answer ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]). In the M/C question block, few students grasped the meaning; it is not enough to view a few artworks or artists, or to have general knowledge about art structure and methodologies. Although technical command was a necessary factor, answering all the questions required students to establish aesthetic awareness and locate meaning in new knowledge.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>] Studying and making art to convey meaning are very important components in an art education.</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-8">Meaning and Implications</hd> <p>NAEP's large data set for the M/C block reveals existing models for art learning and points to promising teaching methodologies that make explicit relationships for learners between <bold><emph>art knowledge, technical knowledge, aesthetic properties, and meaning</emph>.</bold> The block findings have significant implications for curriculum designers. At the same time, NAEP block design provides statistical evidence for the significance of question presentation and assessment design that can set high levels of expectation and maximize documentation of test takers' achievement. Assessment experts and visual arts educators can construct visual arts assessment questions that guide learners in solving problems by the aggregation of arts knowledge, employment of technical knowledge and skills, and determination of aesthetic properties, all efforts leading to the interpretation of art works.</p> <p>Perhaps the most significant implication for the <emph>aspirational</emph> model is that it presents a balanced, correlated, and progressive approach to learning, curriculum, and assessment. This approach provides a strong structure for learning; goal-oriented learning strategies from art class do significantly improve and enhance the quality of arts learning and continue with students as they learn at school and from the culture ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]). Moreover, learning from images has application to general curriculum incentives and can provide meaningful substance to instruction ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0121413801-9">Conclusions/Applications</hd> <p>These NAEP research-based findings affirm that full-time art specialists do make a difference in the educational lives of students. The full-time art specialist was the only teacher type in 2008 that produced significantly higher student achievement scores. Visual arts specialists can construct curriculum where students <emph>aspire</emph> to even better understand the complexities of our subject.</p> <p>Pre-K-20 visual arts educators can operationalize the <emph>aspirational</emph> learning approach where visual arts curriculum, instruction, and assessment are first guided by aggregating arts knowledge and employing technical knowledge and skills. This approach leads to determining aesthetic properties in artworks, to interpreting their meanings, and to perhaps significantly increasing meaning in their own artworks. The full-time art specialists in the NAEP assessment who tacitly or specifically understand how to employ this aspirational approach may be the link or reason why their students significantly out-performed other students. <emph>So what might this mean to you when developing art curriculum and related assessments? It likely means that you cannot teach art knowledge such as art history or appreciation detached from technical knowledge and skills and expect students to be able to grasp the aesthetic properties or meaning of a work. Learners need to know and use technical and skill-oriented knowledge to go to higher levels of aesthetic awareness and interpretation</emph>. A very on point example by [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>] demonstrates how art knowledge, in this case content in contemporary art, needs to be appropriately aligned with sound technical knowledge and skills. Although talking about culturally relevant pedagogy, she gives a student intern example that aligns nicely with the <emph>aspirational</emph> theory. In the beginning of the intern's lesson, the students were highly engaged by studying Kehinde Wiley's contemporary works referencing themes of power. The studio portion of the lesson then dampened student enthusiasm by presenting a typical school arts type portrait proportion exercise without any association to Wiley's work, followed by the often used assignment of shuffling through magazines to find a portrait, dividing it in half, "and copy[ing] realistically" (p. 8). Buffington states that the intern may have been better able to intertwine the learning about power (art knowledge) with the technical skills of portraiture, thereby making artmaking align with meaning making if the connection was made clear in instruction. This exemplifies the <emph>aspirational</emph> model where sound authentic contemporary art knowledge needs to be balanced with applicable and related technical knowledge. If this balance is not achieved, students will never get to the aesthetics or the why of art, or the recognition and application of meaning in their own work.</p> <p>Just as important, and embedded in Common Core Curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]) and in the voluntary [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>] conceptual framework, <emph>this study suggests students cannot be taught technical skill building in isolation from historical knowledge and critical awareness of contemporary art works. This is often the case when high school students are asked to produce highly technical versions of photographs without any connection to contemporary art knowledge. When art education is taught in this disconnected fashion the students have little if any chance of understanding the why of artmaking (aesthetics) or making relevant art, or recognizing meaning</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>] also talks about how the goal of meaning making should not be to necessarily have students interpret works "correctly," but rather to have students go through an investigation process of not only discovering what other works mean, but to realize and construct meaning in their own works as well.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]) used an application of an <emph>aspirational</emph>-type teaching approach in developing and conducting an assessment study. The purpose of this research was to develop and test a "bundled" multiple-measure assessment consisting of a multiple-choice test, an art criticism-writing item (Frank Moore), and planning drawings and final drawings, while employing contemporary art exemplars. Scores on all four instructional/assessment variables were significantly correlated and were highly reliable estimates of student learning. As was found in NAEP 2008, no significant differences were found between private and public schools or by gender on any of the assessment measures. Highly qualified and traditionally trained teachers may have served as an intervening influence on student overall art achievement scores, much like the impact of full-time certified teachers in the NAEP 2008 study. The multiple-choice test had a moderately positive correlation to the final drawing producing a good/bad test. This is an example of a test that served as a positive learning and curriculum tool and nearly met the moderate parameter for a classically reliable test. The idea of a test serving as a positive teaching tool aligns conceptually with the <emph>aspirational</emph> theory found in the NAEP M/C test block. Both instruments hasten, advance, and <emph>aspire</emph> learning. Figures and images of students from the [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>] assessment study are included as examples for this article to show how the <emph>aspirational model</emph> and the use of contemporary content and meaning can be transferred and produced among students. As this article asserts, the field needs to provide more research and statistical evidence about positive contributions that full-time art specialists make to the general public, administrators, arts organizations, and higher education institutions.</p> <p>Endnotes</p> <ref id="AN0121413801-10"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> A few consensual indications regarding the importance of art criticism methodology and critical theory appear in the text of NAEP reports and in released questions. These few instances represent a strong agreement among participants at the planning table for the role of art criticism and expressive content found in artmaking.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> A detailed account of what and how the NAEP works is available at: <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard">http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> The M/C test block questions compare and analyze similarities in style. The block consists of 13 questions based on five images: <emph>The Family</emph> by Miro (Image # 1); a Nigerian <emph>Figure of Woman and Child</emph> (Image # 2); Raphael's <emph>Small Cowper Madonna</emph> (Image # 3); Byzantine <emph>Madonna and Child</emph> (Image # 4); and <emph>Beatrice</emph> (Image # 5) by William Sargeant Kendall (Persky, Sandene, & Askew, 1999-486, pp. 236-237, 240).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Reasoning goes like this: (1) the 2008 M/C test block remained essentially the same as 1997; (2) the 2008 sample of 8th-grade students included a larger number of Hispanic students and a likely increase in high-poverty schools; (3) despite change in population demographics and a substantial loss of art specialist expertise in the classrooms (65% of specialists serving schools in 2008; in 1997, the percentage was larger, 73%), student performance based on the M/C test block remained basically the same between the 1997 and 2008 samples.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> If the scores had declined and were not maintained, then there would certainly be a better chance that administrators could question the need for full-time art specialists. We can likely increase visual art achievement among 8th-graders if more art specialists are in place to guide students through artmaking and critical approaches to meaning making.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> The means and standard errors of visual arts scale scores for the national jurisdictions, national public jurisdictions, and national private jurisdictions taught by part-time specialists were 155 (<emph>SE</emph> = 4.6), 149 (<emph>SE</emph> = 5.9), and 170 (<emph>SE</emph> = 4.1) and the means and standard errors of scale scores of visual arts not taught by part-time specialists were 149 (<emph>SE</emph> = 1.4), 149 (<emph>SE</emph> = 1.4) and 152 (<emph>SE</emph> = 7.8), respectively.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref29" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> To succeed in the M/C block, students had to connect thematically the five images, and then consider attributes of each, then make a determination of what those attributes or clues revealed about the philosophy and values in Renaissance art.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Art from the past reveals its society, and by implication, art from our own time can illuminate the problems and potentials of today.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Authors' Note The authors thank the editor and reviewers of the <emph>Art Education</emph> journal for their assistance in clarifying the content of this article. We also thank our respective universities for institutional support of this NAEP restricted data visual arts research. We also received support from a 2010 National Art Education Foundation research grant. This article began during Thomas Brewer's 2013 Fulbright Teaching/Research Fellowship to Iceland and was supported by a full-time one semester sabbatical.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0121413801-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Arndt, K. (2012). Teacher quality within the visual arts of secondary schools. Unpublished manuscript, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brewer, T. (2008). Developing a Bundled Visual Arts Assessment Model. Visual Arts Research, 34(1), 63–74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brewer, T. (2011). Lessons learned from the Bundled Visual Arts Assessment. Visual Arts Research, 37(1), 79–95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brewer, T., & Grey, A. C. (2010). Alternative use images for NAEP Mother/Child block. Unpublished manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buffington, M. (2014). Power play: Rethinking roles in the art classroom. Art Education, 67(4), 6–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diket, R. M., Xu, L., & Brewer, T. (2014). Toward an Aspirational Learning Model gleaned from large-scale assessment. Studies in Art Education, 56(1), 397–410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gude, O. (2008). Aesthetics making meaning. Studies in Art Education, 50(1), 98–103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Music Educators National Conference. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Assessment Governing Board. (1994a). Arts education assessment and exercise specifications; excerpts for the visual arts. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Assessment Governing Board. (1994b). 1997 & 2008 arts education assessment framework. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/arts-framework08.pdf">www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/arts-framework08.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS). (2013). San Francisco, CA: Tangient. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://nccas.wikispaces.com">http://nccas.wikispaces.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards">www.corestandards.org/the-standards</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. (2011, August 15). Commentary on "Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability." Teleconference at University of Central Florida, Orlando.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegesmund, R., Diket, R., & McColloch, S. (2001). Re-visioning NAEP: Amending a performance assessment for middle school students. Studies in Art Education, 43(1), 45–56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, L., Diket, R. M., & Brewer, T. (2015). Bringing the arts as data to visualize how knowledge works. In A., Ursyn (Ed.), Maximizing cognitive learning through knowledge visualization (pp. 515–534). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Thomas M. Brewer; Lihua Xu and Read M. Diket</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Thomas M. Brewer, PhD, is Professor Emeritus Art Education at the School of Teaching, Learning, and Leadership, University of Central Florida, Orlando. E-mail:</p> <p>Lihua Xu, PhD, is a Lecturer in Methodology, Measurement and Analysis, College of Education and Human Performance at University of Central Florida, Orlando. She is also a coordinator of the CASTLE statistics lab in the college. E-mail:</p> <p>Read M. Diket, PhD, is Professor of Art and Education and Sarah Gillespie Endowed Chair of the Art Department at William Carey University, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. E-mail:</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1195970
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Confirming the Significance of Art Specialists and Aspirational Learning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brewer%2C+Thomas+M%2E%22">Brewer, Thomas M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xu%2C+Lihua%22">Xu, Lihua</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diket%2C+Read+M%2E%22">Diket, Read M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Art+Education%22"><i>Art Education</i></searchLink>. 2017 70(2):16-24.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><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="%22Specialists%22">Specialists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Education%22">Art Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Teachers%22">Art Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aspiration%22">Aspiration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Arts%22">Visual Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Competency+Tests%22">National Competency Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</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: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00043125.2017.1274189
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0004-3125
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Just for a change, would it not be nice to hear talk about keeping and/or expanding full-time art specialists' presence in schools and maintaining strong art education programs at the college and university level? That conversation could result from the positive arguments we are providing in this article. The purpose of this article is to clarify and present National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) findings that are statistically significant for art educators. You will read about research findings that indicate: (1) student overall scores were consistent from 1997 to 2008 because art specialists, although reduced in number, understood the standards regarding responding to art; (2) students' achievement scores were significantly higher "only" for those who received art instruction from full-time art specialists; and (3) an "Aspirational Model" was found in the Mother/Child block that can guide teachers toward improving instruction by developing authentic visual arts curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 16
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1195970
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1195970
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00043125.2017.1274189
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Specialists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Art Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Art Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aspiration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Competency Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Assessment of Educational Progress
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Confirming the Significance of Art Specialists and Aspirational Learning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brewer, Thomas M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xu, Lihua
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diket, Read M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0004-3125
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 70
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Art Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1