View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Insights from Three Online Art Educators: Strategies for Instruction, Interaction, and Assessment

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Insights from Three Online Art Educators: Strategies for Instruction, Interaction, and Assessment
Language: English
Authors: Song, Borim (ORCID 0000-0003-0674-9752), Lim, Kyungeun (ORCID 0000-0002-6920-4293), Kwon, Hyunji (ORCID 0000-0001-6395-6980)
Source: Art Education. 2021 74(4):16-21.
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: 6
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Art Teachers, Web Based Instruction, Distance Education, College Faculty, Teaching Methods, Teacher Student Relationship, Student Evaluation, Peer Relationship, Feedback (Response)
Geographic Terms: North Carolina, Indiana, Pennsylvania
DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2021.1905399
ISSN: 0004-3125
Abstract: Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, which requires the majority of K-16 education to be temporarily taught online. While unfamiliarity with digital technologies may make the transition to online teaching difficult, the world's sudden dependence on distance learning has sparked the pressing need to implement virtual art education that is efficient and effective (Godvin, 2020). The three authors are all art educators who have been teaching virtual courses with a studio art focus in higher education for several years. In this article, based on their experiences, they share their collective insights on approaches to instruction, interaction, and assessment in virtual courses that might help other art educators avoid some of the common pitfalls of online teaching and achieve successful learning outcomes for their students. Each author describes the strategies she employed while teaching an online course and offers an analytical reflection. They end by offering the key learnings from their teaching experiences, examining how diverse students' needs could be met.
Abstractor: ERIC
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1299103
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFhN1m-PO9UKaGOyCHMjrBuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEr3vwRne-xloxxXGAIBEICBm-2lycXe3KTY3oXSnJpWGHVYsqqDzqhpo1HiIAvK2a8cxilCvaAnRQbnrAjUcI8t99ma6obz5pci7U6CuZIK0pXjlUtcYNwDWRXOTzXW9ai3oc-eC6hHIoOCHe5QPP3i6SZ8Pt59EwWMho-WAh6XgrQdqSzoPR-aZn4FV2sHUOspI-Bultvv5ZY4MMHtQBaHCRmxZcIVl4SSnn0V
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0150872518;are01jul.21;2021Jun15.02:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0150872518-1">Insights From Three Online Art Educators: Strategies for Instruction, Interaction, and Assessment </title> <p>At the 34th Annual Distance Teaching and Learning Conference, a presenter of the "ABCs of DE: Avoiding Pitfalls in Online Teaching" session began her talk by asking this question of the audience: "Have you taken an online course?" (Zhadko, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>], p. 1). Why is this an important question to ask instructors who teach online? This question has tremendous value because those instructors who have taken online courses themselves more fully understand the pitfalls and challenges of this mode of education and how it differs from traditional classroom instruction.</p> <p>The entire world is currently experiencing an unprecedented and dangerous threat due to the outbreak of COVID‐19, which requires the majority of K–16 education to be temporarily taught online. While unfamiliarity with digital technologies may make the transition to online teaching difficult, the world's sudden dependence on distance learning has sparked the pressing need to implement virtual art education that is efficient and effective (Godvin, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]). The three authors are all art educators who have been teaching virtual courses with a studio art focus in higher education for several years. In this article, based on our experiences, we share our collective insights on approaches to instruction, interaction, and assessment in virtual courses that might help other art educators avoid some of the common pitfalls of online teaching and achieve successful learning outcomes for their students. Each author describes the strategies she employed while teaching an online course and offers an analytical reflection. We end by offering the key learnings from our teaching experiences, examining how diverse students' needs could be met.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-2">Possibilities of Online Teaching and Learning</hd> <p>Colleges and universities have developed a separate division under labels such as e‐learning, distance learning, and online learning to administer online courses. Due to the growing availability of distance learning at these institutions, the percentage of undergraduate students taking online classes increased from 15.6% in 2004 to 43.1% in 2016 (Digest of Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]). The field of art education has adapted accordingly, developing new instructional methods that utilize a virtual learning environment. Reflection on the pedagogical use of an online space has led some art educators to theoretically analyze the impact of virtual learning (Keifer‐Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]); implement digital technology to construct unit plans (Erickson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]) as well as create, discuss, and display art (Lu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]; Wilks et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]); and teach studio art online (Manifold, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]; May, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educators have developed strategies for students to participate actively and to build their knowledge formally and informally in online environments (Fernando, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]). To encourage students to enhance their learning experiences, online instructors need to help them create a learning community through the design of a course's lectures, projects, assignments, and evaluation (Ouyang & Scharber, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>]). Martin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]) noted that an instructor's presence, connection, and engagement influence an online course's quality. These researchers also identify four aspects of facilitating distance education: technical, pedagogical, social, and managerial (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]). Instructors can utilize a video‐based instructor introduction and course orientation; visual syllabi; a variety of contact methods; weekly announcements; video‐based short lectures; discussion forums; timely feedback; text‐, audio‐, video‐, or visual‐based feedback on assignments; personal responses; and synchronous sessions.</p> <p>With the development of online education, researchers have explored ever‐growing technologies and platforms. Distance learning has adopted specific platforms, such as Zoom (Verma et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]), Google Hangouts (Hashim et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]), and VoiceThread (Delmas, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]). Online studio art has been found to provide flexible and effective learning that allows students to produce artwork at any time, overcoming the limitations of distance and time constraints (George, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]). The following sections will examine instructional approaches utilized in three art education courses offered online. Primarily, we will focus on how to teach studio projects virtually.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-3">Borim Song at East Carolina University</hd> <p>I have taught an undergraduate online course titled Art in the Elementary School for the past 12 years at a southeastern U.S. university. The school's art education program currently offers four undergraduate courses and most of its Master of Arts in Education courses online. This art education methods course for non–art majors explores both art education theory and studio practice. The course includes on‐campus and online sections, both of which have been taught by the author. Art demonstration videos for the online section were recorded during my on‐campus class sessions. Nearly half of the students live in a nearby town and choose the online class, as it offers flexibility.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-4">Instruction</hd> <p>This course uses Blackboard as a platform for class activities. To complete studio projects, students are guided through the following steps. First, students read detailed instructions. Based on the written text, students identify the project goal, objective, needed art supplies, and each step of artmaking. Second, students watch my demonstration videos. Third, students work on an art project and record their artmaking process using VoiceThread, a type of video‐recording software. Figure 1 shows students using this software to document their creative process.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Still images from students' artmaking videos and completed self‐portraits.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-5">Interaction</hd> <p>While creating art pieces, students email me when they have project‐related problems. When students have technical problems, they contact the Instructional Technology and Computing Services staff. The technicians and I try to reply within 24 hours, as our prompt assistance is crucial for students' successful performance. Once a student submits video recordings of art production and two artwork photos along with a 150‐word reflection, I review the work and email each student their feedback. Students then improve their artworks based on the instructor's suggestions and submit their final versions. For four of the six art projects assigned, students participate in art forums on a discussion board. Along with artwork images, they post reflections regarding (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) what was successful and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) what was challenging while creating the art piece. Students also must reply to at least two classmates' postings. In this course, most activities are conducted asynchronously.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-6">Assessment</hd> <p>Students mail or drop off their completed, original artwork twice—once around the midterm and once near the final. This course aims to incorporate both formative and summative assessment methods. As part of formative assessment, I review students' videos to include the artmaking process in their evaluation. I provide a summative grading rubric used for art projects, so students can review the assessment criteria before creating art pieces. Figure 2 presents the grading rubric for art projects.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. The grading rubric for art projects.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-7">Analysis</hd> <p>The participating students were non–art majors, so many of them lacked confidence in their art skills. They responded positively to the instructor's step‐by‐step instructions and detailed feedback on art projects. They valued the clarity of the instruction and the opportunity to improve their artwork. I learned that providing a comprehensive grading rubric is critical for online courses. In addition, the use of diversified methods, such as text‐based guidelines, video‐based demonstrations, and a discussion board was effective, as these resources encouraged a multilayered learning process and increased self‐efficacy. Participating in a peer‐review activity, students formed a learning community by supporting each other's artmaking journeys.</p> <p>Some students attempted to copy project examples and classmates' written art reflections. In response, I ceased uploading examples for most art projects; the project samples could have discouraged imaginative and original ideas on the students' part. Also, the discussion board settings were changed so that students could only view classmates' text after posting their reflections. Reflecting on these outcomes, I recommend that online art educators revisit their curricular structure and strategies regularly. For example, I joined the Universal Design Learning faculty interest group and redesigned the course based on this curriculum theory (Knochel et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-8">Kyungeun Lim at Indiana University Bloomington</hd> <p>As an associate instructor, I taught an introductory art education course at a Midwestern state university for 6 semesters. The featured course was designed for general education students. More than 100 students took the course each semester. Initially, the course was taught in a traditional setting. In 2012, the course was offered in a hybrid format, including both online and in‐class components. The following year, the course was conducted entirely in an online environment.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-9">Instruction</hd> <p>The professor who taught this course for many years developed a textbook based on choice‐based art education (Douglas & Jacquith, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]). This course included 14 strands of 80 art lessons. Students could choose one to three strands, depending on their course credits. Students followed the sequence of lessons within each strand. The series of lessons was sequential based on the difficulty of various skills and the types of artistic understanding. The textbook provides detailed directions for each activity. If students could not understand the directions, they emailed me or we met in person.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-10">Interaction</hd> <p>I met with students in the Adobe cyberclassroom at an assigned time once a week. Between 30 and 40 students enrolled in the class, so I divided them into four small groups. Approximately 10 students were logged into the cyberclassroom through the university's website. At the first meeting, I asked the students to state their preferred mode of communication among video, voice, and chat. Students needed to take pictures of their artwork to receive credit, both in progress and after completion. Then they uploaded the photos, and, in a synchronous class session, explained their work and received feedback. During the following session, students shared thoughts about their artistic process and improvements they had made to their work.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-11">Assessment</hd> <p>Each lesson included a 200‐word reflection paper. Students described the personal meaning they derived from the lesson, their new and/or improved skills, the difficulties they encountered, how they overcame those challenges, and how they planned to utilize the lesson in a future classroom. They created a folder to hold files of all their images of in‐progress and finished artworks, reflection papers, and a portfolio in PowerPoint. They then submitted this folder to the University Online Learning website. The grading rubric included five areas: art production, perception, reflection, approach to work, participation, and improvement.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-12">Analysis</hd> <p>Students in my classes easily adapted to the communication format of a synchronous virtual classroom. I selected the option of a synchronous session in response to obstacles encountered in communicating online with students (Cole, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]). For example, due to limitations on image size, exchanging emails was not suitable for providing feedback on student artwork. On the contrary, synchronous meetings allowed students to ask questions about their works and to receive prompt answers from me. Students who did not major in art appreciated receiving immediate feedback on their art creations from multiple perspectives. In addition, students told me that through these opportunities to share artworks and discuss the difficulties of art creation with other students, they felt that they belonged to a learning community. I recognized that establishing a learning community could be a critical factor in facilitating students' learning effectiveness and engagement in online education.</p> <p>Despite the fact that students actively participated in the synchronous classroom setting online, I noted that students hesitated to provide critical and negative real‐time feedback to peers. However, the use of asynchronous discussion boards provided enough time for students to refine their language and give valuable feedback to others. Therefore, I recommend that online courses utilize a hybrid of synchronous and asynchronous formats, such as synchronous classes, synchronous one‐on‐one meetings, and asynchronous discussion boards, to improve students' learning and communication.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-13">Hyunji Kwon at The Pennsylvania State University</hd> <p>As a graduate assistant, I graded an introductory art course for 6 semesters at a northeastern U.S. state university in the mid‐2010s. Since the early 2000s, this course has been offered to 150 students per semester. One instructor and three graduate assistants were in charge of the grading, feedback, and communication with students. The student body was diverse, including on‐campus undergraduate students, out‐of‐state residents with full‐time jobs, and non–U.S. citizens living abroad. Due to its massive size and roster of students in different time zones, the course was asynchronous. To improve the learning experience for students of diverse backgrounds, student writing and reflection was a major component (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-14">Instruction</hd> <p>This course was delivered through a website (for course content); an educational platform, ANGEL (for quizzes and communications); and a Google Rubric tool (for assessment, which is no longer available). The platform was recently changed to Canvas. With art history, artmaking, and reflexive writing serving as the foundation, the course website provided detailed instructions for exploring seven themes through completing art projects and reading accompanying art history texts. Also, the website provided tutorial videos and previous students' exemplary artwork. Without using any synchronous methods, the website guided students through a self‐directed learning process.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-15">Interaction</hd> <p>This class did not have a venue to share students' artwork or receive feedback from each other. As a compromise, synchronous virtual office hours were offered, although almost all students preferred email communication. Students could receive feedback from the instructor and graduate assistants regarding their work in progress; however, very few students took advantage of this option. Because the instructor's grades and responses to students' inquiries prepared students for subsequent assignments, prompt communication and grading were important.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-16">Assessment</hd> <p>Each project was graded based on the artwork (50%) and a 650‐ to 800‐word research‐based artist statement (50%). Students submitted digital images of their final artwork (one image of the entire artwork that includes its four edges, as well as two to three close‐ups) and an artist statement. Almost identical grading rubrics were used for all of the projects. Each work of art was assessed based on its theme, adherence to assignment requirements, formal elements, composition, craftsmanship, and image quality. In contrast, the artist statement was graded based on its theme, adherence to writing requirements, content, inclusion of research, art vocabulary, personal impact, clarity, organization, citations, and grammar. When using the rubric, graders provided both feedback for each section and overall comments on each project.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-17">Analysis</hd> <p>This course was immense while also being asynchronous. However, the course filled up rather quickly during the registration period due to its support for self‐directed learning. Whether students were on campus or in different time zones, detailed guidance and prompt communication supported students' self‐discipline in managing their learning.</p> <p>Although plagiarism rarely occurred, the absence of a requirement to document the artmaking process raised the possibility of plagiarism. When an uploaded image did not include the four edges of the artwork and a student's skill set differed significantly from other projects, I used the Google Search by Image tool to see if submitted images were found online. Because this was only a reactive measure, I later developed the course at a different institution. I added further requirements: an image of the artwork in progress for formative assessment, a handwritten signature and student's selfie with the artwork to attest to originality, and feedback sessions among students for peer connections.</p> <p>As a whole, the asynchronicity of this course presented both benefits and challenges. Students may have simultaneously enjoyed increased self‐directed learning and flexibility while struggling with the lack of opportunities to connect with peers. Therefore, I propose that the combination of asynchronous discussions with peer feedback sessions about artwork can encourage self‐discipline in learning and a sense of community for students in an asynchronous learning environment.</p> <hd id="AN0150872518-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>This article reviewed the online instructional strategies we utilized to foster students' engagement with art. Figure 3 provides a comparison of the three courses with regard to synchronous versus asynchronous instruction, format of artwork feedback, and method of artwork submission. Each course pulled from a different set of student populations: students on campus for the second university, students on campus and in‐state adult learners for the first university, and on‐campus students and adult learners in and out of state and abroad for the last university. To meet their different needs, synchronicity was high in the second university, decreased in the first university, and was absent in the last university.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. A comparison of the three courses.</p> <p>Regarding the question, "Have you taken an online course?," shared in the introduction of this article, we are fortunate to have experienced online courses ourselves. The biggest pitfall we found was the sense of isolation. The flexibility and independent learning that virtual courses offer may lead students to feel isolated and left behind. This negative aspect of online instruction is particularly pronounced when students try to balance school coursework, part‐time jobs, and family responsibilities. We learned that two instructional approaches are effective in preventing student isolation. First, adding opportunities for face‐to‐face communication between student and teacher via Zoom or office visits is helpful. Second, building a learning community and peer connections is of the utmost importance; students can support each other's learning process, offering encouragement and constructive criticism. We propose mixing asynchronous and synchronous methods and providing prompt and comprehensive feedback on students' artwork. In particular, non–art majors seem to appreciate such feedback to a greater degree.</p> <p>Students with limited experience in art demonstrated positive learning outcomes in the aforementioned online courses, including a greater understanding of various art forms, improvement in technical ability, comfort and confidence in artmaking, and readiness to appreciate their own and others' artwork (Manifold, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]). We learned that it is important to regularly reexamine classroom activities and learning outcomes based on emerging curriculum theories and modify course structure and content accordingly. Implementation of new curriculum theory and practice should be based on various student needs. Monitoring student feedback, responses, and concerns is critical in identifying their ever‐changing needs.</p> <p>In his article published right after the COVID‐19 pandemic began, Gannon ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]) suggested that educators build up "collective wisdom" (para. 7) and maintain a "teaching community" (para. 8) to successfully pivot to online instruction. In agreement with his suggestions, we encourage other art educators to stay open‐minded to new and flexible teaching environments, transforming this crisis into an opportunity to incorporate innovation into their teaching that even more effectively meets every student's needs.</p> <ref id="AN0150872518-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews, B. H. (2005). Art, reflection, and creativity in the classroom: The student‐driven art course. Art Education, 58 (4), 35 - 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Cole, A. W. (2016). Testing the impact of student preference for face‐to‐face communication on online course satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 80 (5), 619 - 637.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Delmas, P. M. (2017). Using VoiceThread to create community in online learning. Techtrends, 61 (6), 595 - 602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Digest of Education Statistics. (2018). Number and percentage of undergraduate students enrolled in distance education or online classes and degree programs, by selected characteristics: Selected years, 2003–04 through 2015–16 [Table]. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_311.22.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Douglas, K. M., & Jacquith, D. B. (2009). Engaging learners through artmaking: Choice‐based art education in the classroom. Teachers College Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Erickson, M. (2005). Teaching for transfer through integrated online and traditional art instruction. Studies in Art Education, 46 (2), 170 - 185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Fernando, W. (2018). Show me your true colours: Scaffolding formative academic literacy assessment through an online learning platform. Assessing Writing, 36, 63 - 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref25" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gannon, K. (2020, March 12). How to make your online pivot less brutal. The Chronicle of Higher Education. <ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Make-Your-Online-Pivot/248239">www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Make-Your-Online-Pivot/248239</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> George, B. H. (2018). Drawing online: A comparative analysis of an online basic graphics course. Landscape Journal, 37 (1), 23 - 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Godvin, C. (2020). Interest group: Independent School Art Education (ISAE). NAEA News, 62 (3), 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hashim, H., Chong D. W. K., Er, H. M., Deb, P. K., Wong, P. S., Lee, M. S., Maharajan, M. K., Lee, E. L., & Baloch, H. Z. (2017). Students' perceptions of live online virtual e‐Problem Based Learning (LOVE‐PBL) using Google Hangouts. Education in Medicine Journal, 9 (4), 31 - 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keifer‐Boyd, K., Knochel, A. D., Patton, R. M., & Sweeny, R. W. (2018). Posthumanist movement art pedagogy: Geolocative awareness and co‐figurative agency with mobile learning. Studies in Art Education, 59 (1), 22 - 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knochel, A. D., Hsiao, W. H., & Pittenger, A. (2018). Touching to see: Tactile learning, assistive technologies, and 3‐D printing. Art Education, 71 (3), 7 - 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, L. (2013). 3D virtual worlds as art media and exhibition arenas: Students' responses and challenges in contemporary art education. Studies in Art Education, 54 (3), 232 - 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manifold, M. C. (2019). The M135 e'telier: Addressing the needs of nonart majors in secondary and postsecondary art education programs. Studies in Art Education, 60 (4), 287 - 302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet & Higher Education, 37, 52 - 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May, H. (2011). Shifting the curriculum: Decentralization in the art education experience. Art Education, 64 (3), 33 - 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouyang, F., & Scharber, C. (2017). The influences of an experienced instructor's discussion design and facilitation on an online learning community development: A social network analysis study. The Internet & Higher Education, 35, 34 - 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verma, G., Campbell, T., Melville, W., & Park, B. Y. (2020). Science teacher education in the times of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31 (5), 483 - 490. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1771514</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilks, J., Cutcher, A., & Wilks, S. (2012). Digital technology in the visual arts classroom: An [un]easy partnership. Studies in Art Education, 54 (1), 54 - 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhadko, O. (2018, August 7–9). ABCs of DE: Avoiding pitfalls in online teaching [Paper presentation]. 34th Annual Distance Teaching and Learning Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Borim Song; Kyungeun Lim and Hyunji Kwon</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Borim Song, Associate Professor, Art Education, School of Art and Design, College of Fine Arts and Communication, East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina.</p> <p>Kyungeun Lim, Instructor, Department of Early Childhood, Elementary, Literacy, and Special Education, University of North Carolina Wilmington in Wilmington.</p> <p>Hyunji Kwon, Assistant Professor, Art Education, School of Visual Art and Design, University of South Carolina in Columbia.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref20"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1299103
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Insights from Three Online Art Educators: Strategies for Instruction, Interaction, and Assessment
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Song%2C+Borim%22">Song, Borim</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0674-9752">0000-0003-0674-9752</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lim%2C+Kyungeun%22">Lim, Kyungeun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-4293">0000-0002-6920-4293</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kwon%2C+Hyunji%22">Kwon, Hyunji</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6395-6980">0000-0001-6395-6980</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Art+Education%22"><i>Art Education</i></searchLink>. 2021 74(4):16-21.
– 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: 6
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Teachers%22">Art Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Web+Based+Instruction%22">Web Based Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distance+Education%22">Distance Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22North+Carolina%22">North Carolina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Indiana%22">Indiana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pennsylvania%22">Pennsylvania</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00043125.2021.1905399
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0004-3125
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, which requires the majority of K-16 education to be temporarily taught online. While unfamiliarity with digital technologies may make the transition to online teaching difficult, the world's sudden dependence on distance learning has sparked the pressing need to implement virtual art education that is efficient and effective (Godvin, 2020). The three authors are all art educators who have been teaching virtual courses with a studio art focus in higher education for several years. In this article, based on their experiences, they share their collective insights on approaches to instruction, interaction, and assessment in virtual courses that might help other art educators avoid some of the common pitfalls of online teaching and achieve successful learning outcomes for their students. Each author describes the strategies she employed while teaching an online course and offers an analytical reflection. They end by offering the key learnings from their teaching experiences, examining how diverse students' needs could be met.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: ERIC
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1299103
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1299103
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00043125.2021.1905399
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 6
        StartPage: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Art Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Web Based Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Distance Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: North Carolina
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Indiana
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pennsylvania
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Insights from Three Online Art Educators: Strategies for Instruction, Interaction, and Assessment
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Song, Borim
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lim, Kyungeun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kwon, Hyunji
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0004-3125
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 74
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Art Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1