Approaching the Finish Line


April 24, 2022 

This spring quarter, I completed two courses in the Master of Art in Education program at OSU: Curriculum Development with Dr. Shari Savage and Research 6998 with Dr. Ruth Smith. Both courses were challenging in both rigor and development of materials that are applicable to my own situation, teaching secondary digital art education.  

Curriculum Development explored the meaning of art as it applies to modern education, the history of art in education and how we got to this current juncture and what we will do next. I found the history of education in art fascinating and reading about the massive movement to concretize the arts (visual, theatrical, and musical) into a congealed necessary part of education much the same as history, geography, and government became what we know today as social studies. Unable to come together because of feelings of self-importance, all these artistic programs suffered in the American public school system. I also enjoyed the writings of Van Laar who discussed the myths and misinterpretations of art and artists.  

In research 6998, we reflected on the writings of the past two years in this course to build our final reflexive practice portfolio (FRPP). This acts as a final cumulative reflexive report and research project on our personal journey and how we have and intend to apply what we have learned and experienced to our personal teaching practices. It is interesting to see my own words that I began writing in 2020 and where I am now as I revise and rewrite these ideas through newly enlightened eyes.  

Annotated Bibliography 

Van Laar, T. and Diepeveen, L. (1998). Chapter 3. Active sights: Art as social interaction. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. (p. 51-69).  

This article outlines the artist as a social agent, pulling from the historical and contemporary models. For each category, Van Laar notes that these types are accompanied by two myths: one that exaggerates the role and one that is in opposition to the role. We privately, or perhaps even publicly, attach some hierarchy of value to the ways artworks operate socially (Van Laar, pg. 51).  The author lists five categories that artists fulfill as a social agent:  

  • Artist as a Skilled Worker 

  • Artisan or craftsperson. Trained in physical, not intellectual problem solving. “Masters” a skill  

  • Artist as Virtuoso-enviable in technical skill 

  • Artist as Anarchist-rejecting social integration 

  • Both myths give rise to artists as a professional operating in an arena where amateurs cannot flourish 

  • Artist as an Intellectual 

  • The artist investigates all areas of human knowledge and contributes to them. Views artists as important inventors and discoverers in theoretical and analytical pursuits (Van Laar, pg. 55).  

  • Elitist and exclusionary following, understood by few 

  • Artist as Genius, mastering all things attention is aimed at 

  • Artist as naïve innocent, unaware of the power and beauty of the creation naturally created 

  • Artist as Entrepreneur  

  • The artist invests in activities that support the business of art. Allows artistis to be free to create, however they must meet the demand of the market to be successful. 

  • Artist as hero, seeking fame and exploiting it 

  • Artist as economic failure: financially struggling/starving artist 

  • Artist as Social Critic 

  • Artists and art are seen as tools of liberation and dissent against injustice 

  • Artist as social outcast, exile, or bohemian. Shows discontent with culture and make a social statement not just with their art but with their lifestyle (Van Laar, pg. 63). 

  • Artist as a social parasite, a general slur to minimize the importance of artists and therefore their criticism (Van Laar, pg. 63). 

  • I wondered as I wrote this what Van Laar would say about the rise of social media and it’s ability to raise individual artist to “influencers” and promoters of products 

  • Artist as a Social Healer 

  • Operating in a space as to offer healing in social, emotional, and religious needs. One whose works can express transcendent truths that accomplish social healing (Van Laar, pg. 63).  

  • Artist as Mystic, producing transcendent, spiritual goals and exemplify this role as social healer. 

  • Artist as a charlatan, a fraudulent storyteller and trickster 

 

Efland, A. (1990, December). "Change in the conception of art teaching," Australian Art Education, 14, 2, 1-11. 

The author states that there are predominant curriculum styles that are used in contemporary art education. The assumption is that theories and philosophies of art play a role in determining the character of art instruction (Efland, pg 1).  He goes on to describe historical examples of how art educators have shaped curriculum to reflect beliefs of the time.  

In 1935 Melvin Haggerty discussed art in a new way, as a way of life, a potent instrument for improveing the life of the common person. Art in the home, in dress, and in community improvement projects served as art activities rather than the study of grand masterpieces with all their eliteness and remoteness. “Art in daily living” was the slogan for this new approach. These practices were grounded in pragmatic theory where art is an instrument to be judged by its effectiveness in solving the practical, aesthetic problems affecting the life of the viewer. (Efland, pg. 2). 

In this example, and many others, Efland describes how the social environment, in this case the fallout of economic depression and war, shaped the art education pedagogy. Efland notes that art theory and teaching practices developed to respond to the social environment. The author breaks down three concept models for art education, Mimetic, Pragmatic, and Expressive Psychoanalytic. 

Mimetic-Behavior Bulding: Art as learned by imitating and behavior building 

Pragmatic-Social Reconstruction: Art as Experience and social engineering 

Expressive Psychoanalytic: Values self-expression, imagination and the process of self- discovering art 

Formalist-Cognitive Model: Art is learned, created, and interpreted by understanding its structure and components. Principle and elements define the aesthetics of art 

So what is an art teacher to do? Trying to define and explain the postmodern or Neo-expressionism of the 70’s, 80’s Efland contemplates that the recycling and recombination of former styles suggests that the succession of styles that has been under way since the impressionists of the last century is now out of control (Efland, pg. 9). We have to pull from these past theories and embrace current undefined states of art and theory and pull them together for what they are: Theory. We are in a constant state of not being able to see the forest for the trees as we guide our students through that same understanding. It would also be the case that no single theory from the past can be taken as true theory but as provisional explanations regarding the nature of art and its value (Efland, pg. 10).  

 

Darts, D. (2006). “Art education for a change: Contemporary issues and the visual arts” Art Education, 6-12. 

Darts, an art educator, saw a problem with the current trend in art education as focusing on object creation and was not focusing in the ability of art to make meaning or reflect/impact social change. In an effort to redirect his course, Darts began a set of lessons meant to allow the students to both recognize their connection to society and ability to reflect upon their role and impact as artists. He allows the students to follow a framework and build their own curriculum based upon research they conducted as student artists/teachers/researchers.  

The students began with a “hook”, in which they would play games, role play and allow their fellow students to see the connection they were pointing out in society. They then progressed to the “foundation” where they would present major facts/information, data and statistics. They would also present opposing viewpoints and include popular culture that reinforced their chosen social issue. Finally students would present the “reflective” stage of their lesson in which they directed the class to consider the information provided and act upon it as they created art and devised social activity. Students would use a system of written reflection and exit strategies to review each other and their progress for assessment.  

Darts believes that in order to better connect art education to the greater education system as a whole, we must focus on learning and teaching such as the example above. This education values the making of meaningful connections of societal issues and problems and seeing art and art making as a way of addressing these issues.  

 

Marshall, J. (2014). “Transdisciplinarity and art integration: Toward a new understanding of art-based learning across the curriculum” Studies in Art Education, 104-127. 

This article on transdisciplinary practice and art integration seeks to advocate the practice and talks about its usefulness in general education. Marshall notes that this is a step beyond art-infused curriculum, in which art production is solely a strategy for teaching academic content (Marshall, pg. 105). Focusing on a capacity to foster conceptual/procedural skills and metacognition, art integration becomes relevant to all areas of learning where inquiry is utilized.  

Not simply cross-curriculum, multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary practice in which it is implied that there will be collaboration and sharing of concepts, ideas and methods, transdisciplinarity is a fusion of the domains of each curriculum involved and creates a new social and cognitive space. Transdisciplinary fields are characterized by these elements:  

  • A coherent conceptual framework, lens, or a meta-disciplinary perspective 

  • Framework implies structure supported by a “web metaphor” 

  • Spinners: artists/specialists spin disciplinary threads 

  • Weavers: Art educators who weave these threads together 

  • Weavers: learners who weave threads together in a fabric of understanding 

  • A critique of component disciplines 

  • Use of play and novel inquiry to explore 

  • Disrupt conventional and established thinking and methods 

  • A distinct epistemology  

  • A particular perspective on information that serves the purpose of the field 

  • Learners understand content, methods, and disciplines resulting in a new perspective 

  • An array of particular methods and practices (Marshall, pg. 106). 

  • Methods that blend and occupy the spaces between the subjects 

  • Synthetic thinking generated from visualization of complex abstract concepts 

Marshall gives examples of ARI (Art Research Integration) where students demonstrated how ARI disrupts the logical, linear reasoning favored in the academic disciplines and education by applying artistic processes, associative thinking, and imaginative interpretation to whatever it explores (Marshall, pg. 118). Additionally, because of the melding of differentiated avenues and veins of exploration, the student gathers a better overall understanding and deep learning of the subject exploring scientific, spiritual, personal, and aesthetic aspects of the subject.  

The ARI research that is compiled in a workbook or sketchbook, Marshall concludes is a chronicle of research that becomes “information art” with the formal characteristics of graphic literature and scientific field notes (Marshall, pg. 120). Just like in art education where the sketchbook functions as a collection of plans, drawings, and experiments to support an artwork, the compiled information and research in ARI supports the inquiry into the subject.  

ARI and Transdisciplinarity allow for deep learning through multi-disciplinary methods to explore oblique connections in complex concepts. ARI is an organic approach to education that transforms learning into deep, integrated, personal understanding (Marshall, pg 125).  
 
Duncum, P. (2002). "Children never were what they were: Perspectives on childhood. In Yvonne Gadaelius and Peg Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Art Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 97-107. 

Duncum seeks to define a more complete image of childhood and the experience of the child. Not just the idea of innocence, but the very real and often ugly side of childhood as it appears in various difficult to accept versions, including violence and abuse. Developmentalism notes that children’s physical and psychological development happens in stages and therefore are quite different from adults. Even today, while cherished for its innocence, childhood often represents a lower, inferior state of being (Duncum, pg. 101). This explanation helps to support the idea that a lack of control of emotions and effective use of problem solving, and skill is lacking in children. However, the inner child is also used to explain the act of childishness in adults. The inner child is said to take over when we become emotional or angered and revert to immature behavior. The desire to segregate children may be not only about controlling actual children but controlling the child within us. As adults, then, we continuously strive to gain control over actual children, our own childhoods and even the very idea of childhood (Duncum, pg. 102). 

But if they acknowledge that children are regularly exposed to violent images that often involve children, working through the fears aroused in children by such imagery becomes an important talk for education. Children need time and mature adults to debrief and unless they can do so at home, they need to do so in the classroom (Duncum, pg. 105). 

Madeja (2013) “The status of assessment in the visual arts in the United States” 

The author gives an overview of the history of educational assessment in art. Reviewing the role of institutions and educators in the practice of assessment, the author seeks to find flaws in the system and identify ways to improve.  

The article notes that nationally there is no official governing body overseeing education, it is regulated by a state-by-state system. There is, therefore, a great deal of variation from state to state in the standards and testing practices. Widely, arts education has not been a priority as the rise of standardized testing and the ranking of school districts has become the normative way of measuring performance and funding.  

Like social studies, which was a combined curriculum of American and world history, government, and geography, “I advocated integrating the arts into a singular curriculum, and encouraged schools to considre the arts as a core area of study.” (Madeja, pg. 10).  However, the author’s ideas were met with dogmatic resistance. 

John D. Rockafeller III had a sincere interest in funding and promoting the arts and arts education. Along with other interested organizations, JDR III organized a report to advocate for the arts and raise interest and investment in arts awareness. Although not directly the point of the report, there was significant emphasis on the importance of art education in schools. “Many schools at that time had excellent art and music programs but did not make available subjects such as dance, theatre, poetry, film study, architecture, and literary criticism. It (the report) also advocated utilizing the services of arts organization as primary resources for the arts in general education.” (Madeja pg. 11). The integration of arts within general education in public schools was resisted by different factions of the arts, mainly music, and resulted in the loss of an important ally in JDR III. 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress 1969 

  • To perceive and respond to elements of art 

  • To recognize and accept art as an important realm of experience and participate in activities related to art 

  • To know about art 

  • To form reasoned, critical judgments about the significance and quality of works of art (Wilson, 1972) 

No Child Left Behind Act (2001 

  • Stronger accountability for results 

  • Increased flexibility and local control 

  • Expanded options for parents 

  • Emphasis on methods that have proven to work 

In her review of measuring and assessing curriculum in respect to nurturing art education, Madeline Kinter stated, “In so far as education fails to discover and to develop the greatest gifts in the possession of its pupils it falls short of its possible contributions to society. (Kinter, 1933) 

Assessment Techniques 

Portfolio review-good longitudinal view of student performance and interests 

Assessing Expressive Learning: Electronic portfolio follows student through k-12 

Art education must work toward, and be about, establishing and promoting harmony and order between the natural, technological, and constructed environment, educating the public to be visually literate in a society that is dominated by visual imagery; and to understand that imagery has an impact on every facet of our existence and on how and what we know about it. (Madeja, pg. 28).  

Wiggins (1998) “Promoting Student Understanding” Chapter 4, Educative Assessment, Assessment in Art Education, Chapters 1 

The author explains how knowledge and understanding are different and not synonymous. Understanding involves applying knowledge to solve problems. We must be able to do more than just repeat phrases of official explanation; we must be able to do such things as justify the ideas involved, use those ideas effectively, and explain their value. (Wiggins, pg. 75).  

I would define understanding as the realization of purpose for knowledge. Knowledge being facts, data, processes, techniques, and relationships of those aspects to other aspects. The act of assessing understanding would entail the ability to effectively apply learned data to an expected end. If the student cannot successfully or effectively use the knowledge, apply it in a fashion that solves a related problem, then we can assess that the student has not come to an understanding with the knowledge. 

Assessment of performance in the visual arts: What, how and why? D. Boughton, 2013 

The author seeks to discuss and add to the question of how to assess creative endeavors in the art room. What, how and why are discussed in the discussion of assessment in the arts. The author notes that often assessment techniques end up with the result of inhibiting artistic practice rather than promoting it. However, the author contends that, if done effectively, artistic assessment can encourage and promote artistic practice.  

“High stakes tests, employed by state assessment authorities, in my view, are the epitome of the inappropriate assessment of the art learning. These tests require homogenous outcomes reflecting a single set of agreed standards thought to be appropriate for the arts. The casualties in these reforms have been the most valued of the tenets of art education, the freedom of students to pursue independent learning pathways and the autonomy of their expression (Boughton, pg. 122).  

The author gives points to preserve and promote creativity 

  • Curiosity and interest 

  • Match interest with artistic practice 

  • Journal and diary to capture fleeting ideas 

  • Find themes 

  • Thinking creatively 

  • In-depth investigation 

  • Problem finding 

  • Risk taking in search of solutions 

  • Creative flow 

  • Allow engagement with ideas when time allows 

  • Role of assessment in fostering creative behavior 

  • Portfolios 

  • Encourage themes seeking 

  • Judge as a record of thinking 

A good portfolio will require in-depth and sustained reflection and will provide a good opportunity to engage interest through the pursuit of thematic content. For a portfolio to have the best chance of becoming a living record of students creative thinking, less assessment is better than more (Boughton, pg. 128). 

Failure to distinguish between standards and standardization in the practice of assessing art destroys the likelihood that students will experience the curricular conditions necessary to stimulate creative thought (Boughton, pg. 129). 

 

Hands in the Air


Hands in the Air

Reflecting on my fit in the education universe.

 

March 2, 2022

This post is a rewrite of my blog entry from two years ago when I first began my teaching career and entered the my own classroom at West Carrollton High School. The purpose of the entry was to embrace and reflect upon the physical , environmental, and socio-economic context of my teaching practice and discuss how it aligns or conflicts with my teaching values. A lot has changed since then, however, I am still excited about my teaching career, energized by my students, and finding new ways to expand creativity and artistic practices at WCHS.

I teach digital arts at West Carrollton High School just south of the city of Dayton, Ohio. I was immediately informed of the community and the blue-collar ethos of the area on my first day of orientation into the school district. It is a small community with a population firmly grounded in the shadow of rusting factories in the area. Every generation since WWII in this community had counted on a good paying job and attainable upper middle-class lifestyle until the Frigidaire, GE (General Electric) and finally the GM (General Motors) plant was shuttered in 2008. With hourly wages averaging less than a third of what they were twenty or even thirty years ago, the community is vastly different.  

This blue-collar identity and values structure reflected a vast majority of the students that I teach. Deemed unnecessary by most, education beyond high school is below 16%. When the factories went south, very few people had a working model on what to do next. The lack of importance placed on education is a palpable frustration in the education system. Partnered with a rising poverty rate, it is a demanding situation for the racially diverse population. My own background is similar, having come from a school that was both isolated and populated by working class families. I feel kinship and an obligation to open the eyes of students to some of the possibilities in higher education and specifically in the arts.  

The teachers and administrators fully embrace the heritage and acknowledge our challenges in the school district. They eagerly take up the role of the underdog and are open to the ideas of expanding creative outlets in our school. When I began teaching here, the art department had two educators that both have over 10 years teaching experience and live in the community. Their insight has been invaluable. Since that time, we still have one of those art teachers, and have expanded with a third educator, who like me, comes from a background as a practicing artist. We strike a good balance of experiences in the classroom versus the real-world obstacles and problem-solving skills needed to navigate as a professional creative.  

I knew what I wanted from my classroom and how I wanted to define it. The art room should look like the art room. I wanted to showcase the ability of art to be expressive, loud, and colorful. My favorite classroom of all time was my 3-Dimensional Illustration class at CCAD taught by Mark Hazelrig. There were giant monster heads, aliens and creature sculptures growing from out of every shelf in the chaotic, yet organized studio. When you walked in, it felt creative. Students walking by would slow down and gawk through the door to see what we were creating in there. It was an art studio and it looked like it. I wanted a space that made students excited about what we were doing there. Now in my third year in my digital art studio, I have transformed the space into a dual-purpose room, housing the Mac lab and the mural club, a program I started with the grant I was awarded in my second year of teaching. It is the perfect blend of individually controlled artmaking versus the raw collaborative creativity and chaos found in the everyday activities of community art. Students naturally congregate to the active space just to get a glimpse of the happenings in the playful and inspiring space. There is a tangible and noticeable creative energy that is alive in the active space that my students and I tap into, and others want to be a part of.  

In addition to the mural club, we have made other improvements to the arts program and curriculum. In the digital arts department that I personally run; we have expanded the course offerings. Originally there was only digital art 1 and 2 plus a digital photography course, which struggled to keep the interest of students. I have since exchanged the photo class with a graphic design course from the business department. Both curriculums now have a better space, with graphic design having a better fit in the art department and the business arm coupling photography with an introductory course on video production. Courses in digital art have been expanded and redefined, giving more structure to course framework. Digital art 1 is a foundation course based in Adobe Photoshop, digital art 2 is anchored in storytelling and digital character design, digital art 3 is based upon making meaning with art and the Big Ideas work of Dr. Sidney Walker at The Ohio State University (Walker, 2004). Finally, digital art 4 is concerned with portfolio development and finding direction and outlets for higher education in the creative fields. This course redevelopment has taken place in the studio arts as well with new offerings in textile and fiber design, 3-D foundations, and a dedicated ceramics course. Each team member now runs a club in the art department, with an Art Club, GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) Club, and the Mural Club. 

Physically, my classroom consists of 24 Mac workstations on one side and the dedicated mural space on the other. Those Macs should last us another (hopefully) one or two years until the construction of our new building which was awarded by the passing of the school levy in the first year of my teaching. I have been able to secure funding to place a Wacom tablet at every workstation giving pen and drawing input. I was surprised that there was not any form of pen/stylus input for digital art studio, and I was excited to bring that functionality into the classroom. This plays a major part in the research that I am doing exploring students’ feelings of success in the art room and whether these digital tools allow for expanded confidence in artistic exploration. Although Covid has come, gone, and come again leaving behind plexiglass dividers and scads of sanitizing wipes the setup of my class has gone through many physical layout changes. I have tried four major layout changes with the workstations trying to find a good balance of student accessibility to my lecturing/tutorials during class projects. The “smart board” is not centered in the room and there are only two data ports to feed all the computers, so the physical limitations are challenging. I have implemented a setup that can utilize work groups, allowing students to help each other as well as making sure that all lessons are posted to YouTube as a backup reference resource that allows for translatable access and remote learning. 

I have been inspired by my learning in the graduate program on art education at Ohio State and I have been attempting to implement and improve my teaching practices. I am blessed to be able to work with the high school age group that I feel I can make the most impact with. They inspire me as I see my younger self in many of them and I hope that I can help to make that connection of love for art into a career opportunity.  

 

Continuing a Research Plan

Knucklebone.jpg

Tussle with a Research Question

Figuring out a better way to teach.

I have chosen to continue my research into the ability of digital practices and tools to bolster students' feelings of success in the creative process. I am in my third year of teaching and I have had the liberty to sculpt the curriculum for my second-tier digital art classes. With no real focus to the curriculum (other than more digital art) that was in place, and in the notion of improving student engagement and experience, I moved the class towards a focus on character design and storytelling. My students are extremely interested in the art that they see around them involving characters in movies, video games, and comics and show an enthusiasm for the course. However, despite the eagerness to be successful in digital character design, the students I have encountered overwhelming express a perceived lack of ability in artistic skill and ultimately succumb to that perception, causing their effort and participation to trail off. This is the problem that led me to explore better ways to give students the tools and processes to accomplish their goals in the class.  

The courses I have taken in this Masters of Art in Education, especially Universal Design for Learning (UDL) have impacted my research as well as my teaching, including that of the course in this research subject. I am eager to analyze my data and see if employed teaching practices based upon UDL and removing barriers has impacted student artists’ feelings of success. The whole point, of course, is to become a better educator and support student learning through employing more effective teaching strategies. By simplifying some of the digital processes, providing different avenues for learning and creating characters, and better defining the framework necessary for success I am removing barriers to learning that I was not addressing previously in my teaching. Additionally, having previously researched this subject in my Art Education Research Studies class, studies indicate that an integrated and balanced art curriculum that includes [digital] art as a complement to traditional media is the most effective way for introducing [digital] art, (Wang 2018). Thus, I have sought a more balanced teaching practice, utilizing sketchbooks and the creation of idea boards with more weight to assignments, which appears to be having a positive effect.  

My Research question is:   

In what ways does technology improve students’ feelings of success in the visual arts? Is it possible to employ processes and technology to raise students’ feelings of success in the visual arts? 

From my previous research I have uncovered three themes that I feel are relevant to understanding student relationship with digital art:  

  • Bolstering Creativity Utilizing Digital Methods 

  • Does Digital Interaction bolster creativity in artistic endeavors? 

  • Digital vs Traditional 

  • What do Comparative studies of Digital art making to traditional methods reveal? 

  • Permissions in Art Making 

  •  Seek to understand how students make creative decisions especially as it relates to the use of digital media 

I will use a combination of Action Research and Art-Based Research (ABR) to pursue this inquiry. Using observation of digital drawing, questionnaires, drawing/journaling and artistic artifacts I will seek data and evidence of students and their feelings of success in their utilization of digital medias in artistic endeavors. Action Research allows the researcher to involve the students being observed and puts them in the role of co-researchers, putting them in better position to express results and data on the subject being studied. It seeks to improve practices in teaching and can draw upon previous data from the classes to identify patterns. ABR analyzes processes used to create, and the artifacts created in art-making as data to understand and improve upon those processes. ABR causes researchers to “carve” new research tools and ways to see rather than to discover them (Leavy, 2015).  

Methodology A: Art-Based Action Research  

  • Can introducing a varied set of techniques based in technology (hardware and software) help students to feel higher rates of success in the visual arts?  

  • Collect Data: create and employ digital techniques in the creation of character design and allow students to choose what works best for them to create  

  • Photoshop, Illustrator and Wacom tablet procedures  

  • Group led sketching practice on digital media  

  • Informal group critique sessions  

  • Sketchbook/journals looking for evidence of work  

  • Recording processes  

  • Giving equal weight to the process and the product  

  • Collecting art artifacts as evidence  

  • Student exit assignment reflections: Questionnaires on successful practices and processes   

  • What made this successful or unsuccessful and why?  

  • What role did the technology play in that success?  

  • Interpret & Analyze: Distill data to look for evidence of patterns of failure or feelings of unsuccessfulness  

  • Implement change: Reroute lesson plans and practices to focus on methods that reflect success and avoid practices that lead to sense of failure or are wasted movements  

  • Reflect: Does the teacher and the student feel that they are involved in a quality class that is representative of a second-tier digital art course that is meeting state requirements and the needs of the students’ creative outlets.  

  • Considerations:    

  • Proper institutional considerations for ethical responsibility   

  • Reinforcement of student choice is key to   

  • Constant attention to the relationship between student and teacher is necessary to avoid any power issues and corrupting of the data. 

This research plan will be implemented over the course of the fall semester in my Digital Art II: Character Design and Storytelling. I am currently in the process of collecting artifacts and allowing students to complete exit tickets on assignments, engaging how they feel about their artistic progression and what they feel best supported their practices on each lesson. I have reflected upon my past performances teaching the class, and adjusted the weight of the projects to reflect a 50/50 spread of digital to traditional. I also continue to implement the Artist of the Week assignment to expose students to current practicing careers in the arts. I will still need to produce a collection of artistic artifacts of final illustrations and sketching data to analyze. I have limited my focus on research articles to the most recent...hoping to encompass the current state of education as affected by the pandemic. The following are some annotated articles that I am utilizing for my research: 

Wang, T. W. (2018). Empowering Art Teaching and Learning With iPads. Art Education, 71(3), 51–55. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/00043125.2018.1436353   

Since the launch of the iPad in 2010, the author of the study cites multiple studies toting the benefits of the device as a multimedia learning tool. Coupled with multiple available art programs, it can be a powerful digital art tool. She explores strengths and weaknesses of the tool in art education through interviews with 15 art educators in k-8 schools.   

The versatility of apps and medias that react to pressure and sensitivity help to mimic the fluidity and reactions of media. Use of layers and transparency in multiple uses helps to problem solve and increase trial and error learning. The interface is so user friendly, it expedites the experience of art making while keeping art educators current and proactive to recent technologies.   

“Also because of iPads’ mobility, easy access to the  
system, touch screen, variety of resources and Applications, and  
the feature of forgiveness that allows trial and error, they offered  
ideal platforms to learn digital art (Wang, 2015)   

Not only did this allow versatility, but students also created co-learning and co-teaching environments along with the teachers.  This allows struggling students to utilize the entire class to catch up and carry out tasks.  

rather than solely depending on the teacher’s  
help, students themselves would support each other with trouble  
shooting, thus creating collaborative teamwork (Wang 2018).  

Some downfalls to the device as a learning tool included the overwhelming amount of programs currently available to the iPad platform.  Teaching with a software requires teachers to be familiar with the product. Classroom management, especially for younger students is also a huge hurdle as they try to keep students on task.   

There is also the idea that digital art somehow devalues traditional methods. This pertains to my research directly.   

An integrated and balanced art curriculum that includes  
iPad art as a complement to traditional media is the most effective  
way for introducing iPad art, they said. iPad art can be the final  
product, or it can be just part of meaningful artmaking processes (Wang 2018).  

Meeken, L. (2020). System Error: Versatility and Facility as Empowering Values for the Digital Arts Classroom. Art Education, 73(3), 22–28. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/00043125.2020.1717816 

This article, written by an actual high school digital arts instructor, discussed the ways that teachers and students can fail at enabling the learning environment for successful art-making and creativity. Cycles of self-blame for designed and complicated devices and software are common place and need to be addressed so students stop internalizing barriers as a fault of their own.  

“Students have blamed themselves for "breaking the computer" or even "making the computer mad" 

Putting the idea of being a programmer or coder into the student’s control, allows for the software to be the moveable item, rather than the student. One size fits all programs should not be acceptable for learning and we must seek ways to empower students.  

Smith, T. J. (2020). Critically Reframing Post-Internet Art Toward the Future of Art Education Curriculum. Art Education, 73(3), 38–44. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/00043125.2020.1717821 

This article, by a former teacher, the author expresses the need to lean in and embrace modern modes of art making and art sharing to better understand our students and tap into the resource rather than oppose it.  

“As art educators, we must be conscious to avoid positioning art and technology only as a utility or as another artistic medium.” 

Giving the artist media a voice, as well as the art, better positions the student to embrace the context, allowing for digital medias to have more impact and relevance. This is current and timely topic for my research.  

References  

Leavy, P. (2015). Method Meets Art, Second Edition: Arts-Based Research Practice: Vol. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press. 

 

Annotated Bibliography Spring 2021

This collection of annotated bibliographies represents articles and readings that I found especially influential for this course. The first is from the book, Method Meets Art (Leavy, 2015) and is an introduction to Art Based Research (ABR). I found this methodology fascinating and have been able to put some of this into practice this semester in my research project. The other references are studies that furthered my inquiry into the perceived need for permissions in digital art.

Leavy, P. (2015). Method Meets Art, Second Edition : Arts-Based Research Practice: Vol. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press. 

ABR is an easily digestible and often collaborative research methodology that has the ability to allow the researcher to take the unique position of engaging inquiries with creativity, imagination and caring.  Patricia Leavy, quoting from Finley’s (2008) research, summed up ABR as an engaged, moral, and at times political activity “uniquely positioned as a methodology for radical, ethical, and revolutionary research that is futuristic, socially responsible, and useful in addressing social inequities” (Leavy, 2015, p.29). 

Under the umbrella of ABR are practices such as Artography, Scholartisty and AREB (Art-Based Educational Research).  Unlike scientific research methods that employ a researcher completely separate from the subject(s), ABR Employs the terms A/R/T-ography and a/r/t: a metaphor for artist/researcher/teacher merging “knowing, doing, and making” (Pinar, 2004, p. 9).  This approach often puts the researcher directly as part of the actual research and takes focus off of the subject/product of the art creation and focuses on the processes in making the art/performance.  In ABR the participants in the research are considered collaborators of the research. This methodology allows for unique inquiries that can be revealed in the process of creating such as: 

  • How is meaning created, organized and presented? 

  • What emotional, spiritual, healing, or social qualities are in effect that can be used to study the process and the participants? 

Purposes and values of ABR particularly in art education 

  • ABR is meant to be pragmatic and useful 

  • ABR can be publicly accessible, collaborative and draws on the emotional, evocative and resistive to jar people into seeing, thinking, and/or feeling differently. (Leavy, 2015 pg. 29) 

  • Can be of particular usefulness in addressing social justice issues and the public at large 

  • Is infinitely flexible in nature allowing for emergence and improvisation 

  • Since it employs the artist/researcher/teacher model, the researcher will be bringing their own relationships with the art and their viewpoints into the process 

Does ABR raise questions concerning ontology: the nature of being and truth? 

 ABR can be strongly opposed by traditional research methods.   

  • Will the research be scrutinized by the public or academic community? (Leavy, 2015) 

Does ABR require the participants to be skilled at the craft of art-making? 

  • Process is key to the understanding and results may or may not be successful  

  • Often times the resulting art may be aesthetically pleasing even though produced by amateurs  

  • Instead of: Is it good art?  one could say:  What is it good for?  

Is ABR able to answer my research questions in a useful way? 

  • Given the variable and fluid nature of ABR, the results of your research be distilled down to usable data collection. 

Frequently Used Methods of ABR: Living Inquiry, Arts as Inquiry 

  • Narrative and Fiction-based inquiry- Draws on the written word and works of literature 

  • Poetic Inquiry-Use of poetry to interpret and understand 

  • Musical Inquiry-draws on participatory methods using music 

  • Dance as Inquiry-Unique in it is central to the human body and its movement 

  • Visual Arts-Images as Inquiry-Use of photography, collage, painting, drawing as inquiry 

Sakr, M., Connelly, V., & Wild, M. (2018). Imitative or Iconoclastic? How Young Children use Ready‐Made Images in Digital Art. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(1), 41–52. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/jade.12104 

This study explores how creativity is affected in the use of ready-made images (such as graphics students can “stamp” on or repeat multiple times easily) in digital creative software environments. The researchers note that multiple studies have been conducted on both sides of the argument. From their analysis, some state that it inhibits creativity (McLennan 2010; Szyba 1999), while others conclude that it enables remix capability in the child (Lankshear & Knobel 2006) (Sakr, Connelly, Wild 2018). This study looked to examine how the child incorporates these graphics into their creations using a semiotic lense.  

Children and students will bring their own experiences to an artwork. Through episodes of children’s digital artmaking showed a range of ‘child agendas’ at work including making aesthetic choices, experimentation, initiating conversation, storytelling and as part of coherent representation (Sakr, Connelly, Wild 2018).  
The study showed that educators should be aware of and respond to the different ways in which students are working and creating. In the viewpoint of permissions, these artworks would look completely different if the child was in the belief that, either by direct information or inference, that use of certain items was not allowed. Thus, permissions and allowances are necessary for students to feel comfortably creative.  

Note: lego blocks are predetermined shapes 

 

Black, J. (2009). Necessity is the Mother of Invention: Changing Power Dynamics Between Teachers and Students in Wired Art Classrooms. Canadian Review of Art Education: Research & Issues, 36(1), 99–117. 

This article talks about the changing balance involved in adopting digital technologies into the classroom. Black concludes that teachers and students need to work and focus on an embracement of a learner centered approach, developing student problem solving, creative and critical thinking skills, and the employment of co-learning, collaboration, and teacher-student partnerships. Furthermore, these partnerships are strengthened by the acceptance of a new power sharing between students and teachers (Black, 2009).   

This is important research in relation to digital creativity and empowering student artists in the digital classroom. Striking a balance of power and giving students the permissions to utilize digital tools in creative activity and benefit from of them is necessary to allow creative freedom. Given the 2020 Pandemic and drastic shift to remote learning, a new set of studies will undoubtedly be unleashed to explore this extreme shift to the student in a vastly unbalanced form.  
 

Whalen, M. (2009). What’s Wrong With This Picture? An Examination of Art Historians’ Attitudes About Electronic Publishing Opportunities and the Consequences of Their Continuing Love Affair with Print. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 28(2), 13–22. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1086/adx.28.2.27949518 

This Mellon-funded study explores the long-standing relationship between art, art historians and a reluctance towards digital media. It argues that these holdouts jeopardize the long-term efficacy of the field. In essence arguing legal rights and practices with image production and reproduction in regards to galleries and museums, this article highlights the opposition to progress in the digital field. Securities must be established and upheld, but they may look different.  

Digital technologies raise questions and concerns among art historians about whether electronic publishing is good for art history and whether it is good for them professionally (Whalen, 2009). 
 

Sweeny, R. (2020). “Investigate the misusage of technology as a gesture of freedom”: Glitch Dysfunction in New Media Art and Art Education. Visual Arts Research, 46(2), N.PAG. 

In this article, Sweeny seeks to reveal artistic tactics: the provocative, playful, and probing ways that new media art deals with various forms of dysfunction. Art educators at many levels can learn much about how digital technologies can be used to make art by studying how digital technologies fail (Sweeny, 2020).  In a way that digital media is extremely capable of providing failure and frustration, that can be utilized for art creation.  

As a digital arts teacher, I have experienced firsthand, as Sweeny describes the ability of networks, digital media and computers to come together to create (what he calls new media art) but they also amplify the frustration and devastation that can occur when such networks fail (Sweeny, 2020). He goes on to suggest that even that failure can be harnessed and manipulated in new ways to discuss power, control and efficiency (Sweeny, 2020).  

To quote his conclusion: 

To embrace failure, to acknowledge moments of overload, or to listen for noise in contemporary communication networks might result in a new media art education—one that acknowledges the poor image, the in-between, and the glitch as it also reflects the unique qualities of our digital, dysfunctional times. (Sweeny, 2020). 
 

Marner, A., & Örtegren, H. (2014). Education through digital art about art. International Journal of Education through Art, 10(1), 41–54. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1386/eta.10.1.41_1 

This article explores the “mash-up” versatility of digital media, although the term is not used in the article...opting instead for “digital paraphrases and blended production.”  Providing a useful way to move students into familiarity with software and indulge creative expression.   

Different ways of working with pictures digitally exposes multimodal ways 
for pupils to appropriating picture-making for their own purposes (Marner, 2014). 
 
The teachers mentioned the special circumstances that give room for pupils 
to explore new possibilities to make pictures without needing to have manual 
technical skills. They also noted that pupils who do have these skills often 
also use the traditional methods to a large degree (Marner, 2014). 

Literature Review Bibliography Spring 2021

In this post I have my articles for my literature review. I have identified the following topics that I will categorize these articles into and explore:

  • Themes: Digital Can Bolster Creativity

  • Themes: Traditional vs Digital

  • Themes: Permissions in Art-Making

Spring 2021 Annotated Bibliography 

Research 7200 

Dr. Ruth Smith 

Themes: Digital Can Bolster Creativity 

Hung, H.-C., & Young, S. S.-C. (2017). Applying multi-touch technology to facilitate the learning of art appreciation: from the view of motivation and annotation. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(6), 733–748. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/10494820.2016.1172490 

A qualitative and quantitative study was conducted by the researchers and authors of this study to explore the effects of technologies ability to effect student motivation in an art appreciation class.  Studying two college groups of students, one given digital tablets and the other traditional resources.  The study followed these research questions: 

(1) Are there any differences in students’ motivation with or without adoption of tablets? How can the use of tablets motivate students? 
(2) Do the multi-touch screens featured in tablets facilitate college students’ learning of art appreciation? If so, how do learners interact with the digital content via the multi-touch screen? 

Using a system called ARCS, developed by Keller (1987) they compared the motivation of students to the subject matter prior to and after taking the course. 

Keller (1987) synthesized existing research on psychological motivation and created the ARCS model which stands for Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and 
Satisfaction. This model contains strategies for promoting and sustaining learners’ motivation (Keller,1987). (Hung, Young, 2017) 
 

Learners cited convenience, ability to cross reference and investigate detail a major advantage with the tablets.  Also the ability to annotate on the content at hand further added to the “investment” into the subject matter. Additionally, the use of graffiti and sketch allowed for creative notetaking.   

They wanted to annotate that the key point to distinguish the differences between these two styles of architecture is the roof of the building. Therefore, the student used the creative graffiti, the Spider man and the snake, for a deeper impression. (Hung, Young, 2017). 

In conclusion, statistical data and qualitative interview data supported the conclusion that students were more motivated using multi-touch methods rather than notebooks computers and paper.  

The approach of learning art appreciation with tablets and multi-touch technology has a greater ability to motivate student involvement and art appreciation learning (Hung, Young, 2017). 

Compared with the conventional approach, the multi-touch gestures support student's annotation skills, such as graffiti, for creating visual comments that could be shared easily among peers. Multi-touch technology could play an important role in art appreciation learning to (1) change the view of learners on the art materials; (2) listen to lectures at a flexible and personalized pace; and (3) create efficient and intuitive annotations(Hung, Young, 2017). 

Sakr, M. (2019). Young Children Drawing Together on the iPad Versus Paper: How Collaborative Creativity is Shaped by Different Semiotic Resources. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 20(17–20), 1–26. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.26209/ijea20n20 

The researcher seeks to find if touch screens and iPads facilitate more collaborative and creative drawing activities in young children over traditional paper and pencil drawings. She considers the preconceptual notions of drawing on both paper and iPads. She organizes her findings into three themes: 1) attitudes to space 2) momentum of the line and 3) pathways to representation.  
 

As theorists of possibility thinking have found through observations of learning environments and child-adult interactions, making choices about the physical environment in which activity unfolds, including the resources that are given to children, is a fundamental part of successfully facilitating 
collaborative creativity (Cremin, Burnard & Craft, 2006; Kucirkova & Sakr, 2015).  

She continues in her support of the media and it’s semiotic resource and affordances.  This idea of what a material is used for, who, or by and how the individual interacts with that material is important.  She suggests that, according to Gibson (1961) we perceive the world in terms of how we will potentially interact with it (Sakr, 2019). She gives the example: 

For example, block crayons are typically associated with children’s drawings, 
while pencils are seen as tools used by both adults and children; these associations will shape 
how the drawing unfolds (Sakr, 2019).  

Overall findings suggest that the children in the iPad study felt a looser creative experience with the iPad as compared to the paper and pencil comparison. 

Hoffmann, J., Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2016). Creativity in the Age of Technology: Measuring the Digital Creativity of Millennials. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 149–153. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162515 

The researchers in this study created a measure for self reporting creativity in the digital domain, the Creative Behavior Questionnaire: Digital (CBQD). The study was compared to other creative self-reporting measures and results were aligned. 230 students participated in the study and self reported and nominated peers to give a measure of digital creative expierences. 

Descriptive statistics for the CBQD items showed that many students participated in a range of digital creativity activities: 91% of students reported having made a video for class, 75% created a multimedia project for a class, and 70.6% of students have made a podcast. Other creative behaviors were less frequent. For example, 14% said they created new content for a video game, 14% indicating they had won a digital art contest, and 10% of students reported 
writing an app for a mobile device (Hoffman, Ivcevic, Brackett 2016) 

This study is less helpful but does report data that supports that students in everyday school activity are engaging in technical and digital creative realms. 

 

Fahey, P., & Cronen, L. (2016). Digital Portfolios in Action: Acknowledging Student Voice and Metacognitive Understanding in Art. Clearing House, 89(4/5), 135–143. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/00098655.2016.1170450 

This article explores the benefits of a digital portfolio and how it can add to the traditional portfolio building experience. With the addition of digital referencing and archiving, students can better understand the process of how they arrived at a current state of artistic ability and production. This arose from the value placed on assessment by Senate Bill 191, requiring states to regulate a system of quantifying performance.  

By requiring students to document and reflect on their art making process, the instructor is able to better understand the students’ creative process and how to provide the best feedback for each individual student (Fahey, Cronen, 2016). 
 

From their research, students using a digital portfolio were better able to provide an organized way to document their processes of creation, rather than simply providing a final product. 

 

Themes: Traditional vs Digital 

Stuyck, T., Da, F., Hadap, S., & Dutré, P. (2017). Real-Time Oil Painting on Mobile Hardware. Computer Graphics Forum, 36(8), 69–79. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/cgf.12995 

The authors of this paper in the computer graphics forum, put forward a study on the effectiveness of the oil painting simulation software they had developed.  Allowing for the peculiar traits and bold colors of oil painting in a tablet environment.  

We propose our system as a reliable tool to quickly try out ideas and perform preliminary paint studies and to aid artists complimentary to their traditional workflow to obtain faster convergence towards the desired outcome (Stuyck, Da, Hadap, & Dutré 2017) 
The proposed system offers natural physical paint behaviour to improve the virtual painting experience and has proven to be successful in aiding artists to create new work whether it be digital or traditional (Stuyck, Da, Hadap, & Dutré 2017) 

Written in 2012, it shows a legacy of digital softwares designed to support, not sublant artists in their endeavors. Integrating grit, gravity, flow, viscosity, texture, and lighting into the equation of software development creates a robust and realistic experience on a digital platform. 

 

Wang, T. W. (2018). Empowering Art Teaching and Learning With iPads. Art Education, 71(3), 51–55. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/00043125.2018.1436353  

Since the launch of the iPad in 2010, the author of the study cites multiple studies toting the benefits of the device as a multimedia learning tool. Coupled with multiple available art programs, it can be a powerful digital art tool. She explores strengths and weaknesses of the tool in art education through interviews with 15 art educators in k-8 schools.  

The versatility of apps and medias that react to pressure and sensitivity help to mimic the fluidity and reactions of media. Use of layers and transparency in multiple uses helps to problem solve and increase trial and error learning. The interface is so user friendly, it expedites the experience of art making while keeping art educators current and proactive to recent technologies.  

“Also because of iPads’ mobility, easy access to the 
system, touch screen, variety of resources and Applications, and 
the feature of forgiveness that allows trial and error, they offered 
ideal platforms to learn digital art (Wang, 2015)  

Not only did this allow versatility, but students also created co-learning and co-teaching environments along with the teachers.  This allows struggling students to utilize the entire class to catch up and carry out tasks. 

rather than solely depending on the teacher’s 
help, students themselves would support each other with trouble 
shooting, thus creating collaborative teamwork (Wang 2018). 

Some downfalls to the device as a learning tool included the overwhelming amount of programs currently available to the iPad platform.  Teaching with a software requires teachers to be familiar with the product. Classroom management, especially for younger students is also a huge hurdle as they try to keep students on task.  

There is also the idea that digital art somehow devalues traditional methods. This pertains to my research directly.  

An integrated and balanced art curriculum that includes 
iPad art as a complement to traditional media is the most effective 
way for introducing iPad art, they said. iPad art can be the final 
product, or it can be just part of meaningful artmaking processes (Wang 2018).  
 
 

Souleles, N. (2017). iPad versus traditional tools in art and design: A complementary association. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 586–597. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/bjet.12446 

This study investigates the claim that the iPad as a superior learning tool and that there is a distinct dichotomy between digital and traditional art making.  

Souleles concludes that the main inference is that the relationship between digital and traditional tools can be better understood as complementary rather than as a dichotomy (Souleles, 2017).  

He goes on to provide implications for practice and/or policy  
• The paper emphasizes the need for faculty to understand what each set of tools 
can and cannot bring to teaching and learning. 
• The perceived affordances of the iPad are mediated by the individual and varied 
preferences, knowledge, and attitudes of individual students. 
• For the foreseeable future, there is a role for both sets of media in art and design 
instructional practice (Souleles, 2017). 

This is a valuable study to my research comparing traditional methods and digital methods in art and design. Souleles discusses the research put forth supporting a superior learning tool and challenges the idea of a one or the other approach to traditional/digital. Disadvantages of digital tools are in line with early educational studies showing potential for distraction. However, traditional design skills are still required to implement the software and input, thus, the two sides are needed to work in compliment to each other. 
 

Appiah, E., & Cronjé, J. C. (2012). Thumbnail sketches on idea development: The drawing board vs computer generation. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 11(1), 49–61. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1386/adch.11.1.49_1 

This study, in Ghana, looked at the comparison of idea creation done traditionally (thumbnail sketches) vs digitally (computer generated images) in the graphic design education environment. Following the ideas of traditional design creation presented by Wallas (1926) in the analysis of design, the process goes as follows:  

Problem Identification, Brainstorming/Thumbnail sketching, Preparation of Rough Thought, Execution of Finished Roughs, Final Design (Appiah, Cronjé 2012). 

This study proposes educators adopting a blended approach 
for idea development but that will also demand a clear pedagogy that will 
align with the principles of students developing ideas, be it from scratch or 
from influences of other sources (Appiah, Cronjé 2012). 

This study suggests that students will benefit from both traditional and contemporary methods and both should be embraced in a successful design program. 
 

Curtis, G., & McLeod, H. (2019). Tradition and the Contemporary Collide: Newfoundland and Labrador Art Education History. Canadian Review of Art Education: Research & Issues, 46(1), 37–43. 

The authors of this critical study in the Canadian Art Education journal tell a cautionary tale of the tightrope of balancing the traditional with contemporary views on art and how it reflects upon a community and society. The study reflects a view that, although small, the art educator plays a role in the self-promoted myopic view of the region 

allowing the art educator to play a somewhat subversive 
role to the larger historical, political, and social agenda (Curtis, McLeod, 2019). 
 

The art gallery also challenged the visual arts program to which it was attached, whose curricular design was more conservative. While no allowances had been made for schooling in video art, installation, or performance art classes in the design of the art program itself, over time exhibitions at the gallery exposed the students to these media (Curtis, McLeod, 2019).  

Again, supporting an ideal that contemporary systems of art creation and development should work alongside traditional studies and use a critical eye to create a visual art education system that allows exposure to a multiple range of artistic careers and outlets.  
 

Tan, L., Peek, P. F., & Chattaraman, V. (2015). HEI-LO Model: A Grounded Theory Approach to Assess Digital Drawing Tools. Journal of Interior Design, 40(1), 41–55. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/joid.12036 

Themes: Permissions in Art-Making 

Sakr, M., Connelly, V., & Wild, M. (2018). Imitative or Iconoclastic? How Young Children use Ready‐Made Images in Digital Art. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(1), 41–52. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/jade.12104 

This study explores how creativity is affected in the use of ready-made images (such as graphics students can “stamp” on or repeat multiple times easily) in digital creative software environments. The researchers note that multiple studies have been conducted on both sides of the argument. From their analysis, some state that it inhibits creativity (McLennan 2010; Szyba 1999), while others conclude that it enables remix capability in the child (Lankshear & Knobel 2006) (Sakr, Connelly, Wild 2018). This study looked to examine how the child incorporates these graphics into their creations using a semiotic lense.  

Children and students will bring their own experiences to an artwork. Through episodes of children’s digital artmaking showed a range of ‘child agendas’ at work including making aesthetic choices, experimentation, initiating conversation, storytelling and as part of coherent representation (Sakr, Connelly, Wild 2018).  
The study showed that educators should be aware of and respond to the different ways in which students are working and creating. In the viewpoint of permissions, these artworks would look completely different if the child was in the belief that, either by direct information or inference, that use of certain items was not allowed. Thus, permissions and allowances are necessary for students to feel comfortably creative.  

Note: lego blocks are predetermined shapes 

 

Black, J. (2009). Necessity is the Mother of Invention: Changing Power Dynamics Between Teachers and Students in Wired Art Classrooms. Canadian Review of Art Education: Research & Issues, 36(1), 99–117. 

This article talks about the changing balance involved in adopting digital technologies into the classroom. Black concludes that teachers and students need to work and focus on an embracement of a learner centered approach, developing student problem solving, creative and critical thinking skills, and the employment of co-learning, collaboration, and teacher-student partnerships. Furthermore, these partnerships are strengthened by the acceptance of a new power sharing between students and teachers (Black, 2009).   

This is important research in relation to digital creativity and empowering student artists in the digital classroom. Striking a balance of power and giving students the permissions to utilize digital tools in creative activity and benefit from of them is necessary to allow creative freedom. Given the 2020 Pandemic and drastic shift to remote learning, a new set of studies will undoubtedly be unleashed to explore this extreme shift to the student in a vastly unbalanced form.  
 

Whalen, M. (2009). What’s Wrong With This Picture? An Examination of Art Historians’ Attitudes About Electronic Publishing Opportunities and the Consequences of Their Continuing Love Affair with Print. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 28(2), 13–22. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1086/adx.28.2.27949518 

This Mellon-funded study explores the long-standing relationship between art, art historians and a reluctance towards digital media. It argues that these holdouts jeopardize the long-term efficacy of the field. In essence arguing legal rights and practices with image production and reproduction in regards to galleries and museums, this article highlights the opposition to progress in the digital field. Securities must be established and upheld, but they may look different.  

Digital technologies raise questions and concerns among art historians about whether electronic publishing is good for art history and whether it is good for them professionally (Whalen, 2009). 
 

Sweeny, R. (2020). “Investigate the misusage of technology as a gesture of freedom”: Glitch Dysfunction in New Media Art and Art Education. Visual Arts Research, 46(2), N.PAG. 

In this article, Sweeny seeks to reveal artistic tactics: the provocative, playful, and probing ways that new media art deals with various forms of dysfunction. Art educators at many levels can learn much about how digital technologies can be used to make art by studying how digital technologies fail (Sweeny, 2020).  In a way that digital media is extremely capable of providing failure and frustration, that can be utilized for art creation.  

As a digital arts teacher, I have experienced firsthand, as Sweeny describes the ability of networks, digital media and computers to come together to create (what he calls new media art) but they also amplify the frustration and devastation that can occur when such networks fail (Sweeny, 2020). He goes on to suggest that even that failure can be harnessed and manipulated in new ways to discuss power, control and efficiency (Sweeny, 2020).  

To quote his conclusion: 

To embrace failure, to acknowledge moments of overload, or to listen for noise in contemporary communication networks might result in a new media art education—one that acknowledges the poor image, the in-between, and the glitch as it also reflects the unique qualities of our digital, dysfunctional times. (Sweeny, 2020). 
 

Marner, A., & Örtegren, H. (2014). Education through digital art about art. International Journal of Education through Art, 10(1), 41–54. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1386/eta.10.1.41_1 

This article explores the “mash-up” versatility of digital media, although the term is not used in the article...opting instead for “digital paraphrases and blended production.”  Providing a useful way to move students into familiarity with software and indulge creative expression.   

Different ways of working with pictures digitally exposes multimodal ways 
for pupils to appropriating picture-making for their own purposes (Marner, 2014). 
 
The teachers mentioned the special circumstances that give room for pupils 
to explore new possibilities to make pictures without needing to have manual 
technical skills. They also noted that pupils who do have these skills often 
also use the traditional methods to a large degree (Marner, 2014).