Annotated Bibliography
Blandy, D. (2011). Sustainability, participatory culture, and the performance of democracy: Ascendant sites of theory and
practice in art education. Studies in Art Education, 52(3), 243-255.
In this article, Blandy emphasizes three key sites of theory and practice, (as indicated in the title), all socially, culturally and politically intertwined, that art educators must be aware of and nurture in their practices. Sustainability targets the importance of working with what exists now without destroying its cultural richness as we look to an uncompromised future; participatory culture is age-old practice of community members handing down skills and knowledge to the novices from generation to generation; performance of democracy is the goal-oriented community working together, asking the pertinent questions, creative discussion, and cohesive implementation of problem-solving to ensure an even better future. Although the article is a call for the reconceptualization of art education, the premise is based on the social, cultural and political trends of past and present, and the need for educators to adjust appropriately to their rapid, unprecedented change in this world of globalization. Blandy’s many years of research and involvement with
community-based education gives rich insight into the thought processes with which I can approach connecting homeschool communities across our county.
CollegeBoard Advocacy (2012). Teacher voices: Teachers talk about some of the big problems they face in the classroom and how these impede student learning. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org
/publications?project=28
This publication is a community project report based on interviews of teachers by their own colleagues, funded by the CollegeBoard Advocacy and Policy Center, and published August 2012 as part of the bigger ‘Teacher Advocacy” project that can be accessed online through the CollegeBoard Advocacy website. The project is motivated by the belief that “great teachers make great schools. Teachers are critically important to the success of our young people. They must be given the increased support they need to be more effective, and included not only on issues that impact their work directly, but in all areas of education reform.” (CollegeBoard website quote, 2013). Based on the interviews, and a look at the percentage of teachers who reported given issues, this particular report provides an overview of some of the most common issues that impede student learning, including class size, in-class support, family/community support and involvement, absenteeism, plagiarism, and lack of resources. Each of these issues was reported as significant by a majority of those interviewed. My interest is in the class size, in-class support, family/community involvement, and lack of resources. The findings of this report are congruent with my personal experience as well as other reports and research on such issues, including the observations by Getzler, Marche, and May, mentioned in earlier annotations.
Davis, J. (2010). Learning from examples of civic responsibility: What a community-based art centers teach us about arts education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 44(3), 82-95.
An artist, writer, educator, researcher and advocate of art education, Dr. Davis focuses on the richness
of community-based art involvement and establishment, and its positive impact on all learning in the community. Her wealth of experience and research has led to examples of the rich civic impact of incorporating community-based learning, sharing, and experiences. Her assertions that the provided safety to explore, grow, and learn leadership in such an atmosphere is a key concept introduced in the article by Gude (2010) on creativity, annotated later in this
bibliography. This is not about learning the facts, or even the retaining of knowledge. It is about the resulting higher
(and deeper) level of learning that leads to the essential life and leadership skills that affect and shape the community and the world right along with the learner. My ultimate project goal is to assist in effecting this higher learning in a community effort aided by the technology that has played a huge part in the global changes that have finally made clear (to many of us) this need for educational restructuring through community effort.
Fetter, B. (2012). Being visual: Raising a generation of innovative thinkers. Elgin, Il: Grape Lot Press.
Bette Fetter, founder of Young Rembrandts, through which she has taught art to thousands of children over the last 20 years, addresses in this book the issue of the growing number of visual-spatial (right-brained) learners in an educational system that is still geared toward the linear-logical (left-brained) learning style. Fetter’s main goal is to help teachers and parents to recognize and effectively teach to their visual children/students’ learning styles. She highlights three key learning styles (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic), offers effective visual study techniques and writing strategies, and addresses the visual needs of students with autism, dyslexia, and ADD. Fetter tends to portray the visual learners in a more positive light than the others, which might be offensive to those with different learning styles. She laments her youthful attempts to learn in a world that did not understand or cater to her visual learning style, so the emotional bias is evident. However, she presents her knowledge with innovation, expertise, and plenty of research to back it up. This
links to my desire to build connection and community, utilizing the highly visual technologies at our disposal, starting at the community-based level of art education. We need to build more evidence of the need to teach visually if we are to convince those who are entrenched in the outdated methods of teaching and assessment.
A Getzler. (2012, August 8). Larger Classes— Less Education. Diane Ravitch’s Blog. [a blog post by Anita Getzler] Retrieved January 31, 2012 from http://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/26/an-art-teacher-explains-why-class-size-matters/
On Diane Ravitch’s Blog (Ravitch, 2013), she included a post by retired art teacher Anita Getzler (2012), who gives an inside look at the dwindling positive effects of our educational system as class sizes have continued to grow. She tells a story that is reminiscent of the marginalization of art educators described in Wanda May’s 1994 article, annotated later in this bibliography. Getzler sums up her story by voicing her concerns about student/teacher ratios and the need for in-class support, concluding, “I believe the public is unaware of the day-to-day realities of the classroom and the great harm being inflicted upon students and teachers by the steady increase of classroom size. I have written about my own teaching experience in order to shed some light on this critical situation, and move citizens to act to save the heart of our educational system” (Getzler, 2012, as cited by Ravitch, 2013). Class size and student/teacher support is even more crucial in art education due to the complex, time-consuming nature of good, solid, art education. Getzler’s story supports my suspicion that this problem is widespread, but without cohesive community intervention, the resources for change are severely limited for our public school art teachers.
Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity, possibility. Art Education, 63(2), 31-7.
A well-known and well-published academic scholar, researcher and lecturer in the art education arena, Olivia Gude considers that which hinders creativity, and that which fosters it. Using cognitive/behavioral research to back her claims, she illustrates how a person’s psychological state can make all the difference in creativity. When teachers are able to recognize a psychological or emotional state that may be hindering a student’s creativity, positive steps (rather than negative assumptions) can be made to support the student in working through the temporary limitation. Fear plays a major role in hindering personal growth and self-actualization, a huge part of the creative process, but fear is instilled in the “do not make a mistake” message of our current standardization. Gude notes that one of the first steps to counteract this is to offer an environment that is “psychologically safe” with a minimizing of right and wrong, and the
encouragement of daring to make “mistakes”, and the sense of unconditional acceptance. Davis (2010), annotated
earlier, mentions the same need for safety in which to flourish, and the implications of that need can be found in studies far beyond art education. Community-based centers tend to offer this type of environment, but it is my hope that the continued notable success of such community efforts will be an exemplar to our public schools.
Marché, Theresa. (1998). Looking outward, looking in: Community in art education. Art Education, 51:3, pp. 6-13. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193725
An art education advocate and author of numerous scholarly articles concerning the field, Marché discusses the various meanings, approaches, and implications of community involvement as it pertains to art education and learning. In this article, she provides examples and highlights from a rural southern Indiana school art class/community project
experience. She takes the reader through a process of parents, students, and teachers working to develop and implement changes in the arts program. Reflecting upon the results of this collaborative project, class project art teacher shares the final epiphany that "if I want to make any changes around here, I can't do it alone", supporting Marchés assertion that innovative education depends on a team approach. Besides the rich experience of connection, teamwork keeps new programs less vulnerable to the suppositions of the educator who goes solo. She concluded that such an approach “also highlights the impact of seemingly small decisions…like a pebble thrown into a pond, effects of this decision rippled outward to the community and then reflected back again inward to the school community, creating an ever-changing pattern of connections and personal relationships.” (p. 12). This is a common thread found in the conversations between advocates in the field of art. It is one step at a time, affecting more and more steps by more and more participants. My first goal is to take that first step toward collaboration.
May. W. (1994). The tie that binds: Reconstructing ourselves in institutional contexts. Studies in Art Education, 35(3),
135-148.
Wanda May goes into great detail about the disconnect between art educators and their core curriculum teacher
counterparts, when the very essence of art education requires asking the hard questions, making the trouble, giving voice to our concerns, and solving the problems with which we are faced. Surrounded by the public school’s linear
approach to learning, many art educators keep their mouths shut and do their best to cope as the lone wolf. May paints a picture of art teachers in general being painfully marginalized: misunderstood, misused, taken for granted, and not
taken seriously. This, of course affects our self-identity, and ultimately how we come across to our students, so it is very important to reflect on the possibilities. Although I can attest to having experienced some of this, it is not necessarily a
“truth” by which a great deal of energy is put into searching for skeletons in the closet that may not be there. But its
existence had an important impact on me. This article alerted me that I was part of the problem. My inaction was a
response to my sense of marginalization and abandonment when teaching art at the public school. “What are the
long-term effects…for the future of art education when we censor ourselves and this code of silence?” (p. 136) continues to haunt me and motivate me to do what I can to alleviate such phenomenon.
Milbrandt, M., & Milbrandt, L. (2011). Creativity: What are we talking about? Art Education, 64(1), 8-13.
Melody Milbrandt, three times published in Studies in Art Education, joins Lanny Milbrandtin his first journal
contribution highlighting the meaning and impact of creativity. Both university professors of art education, Milbrandt &
Milbrant collaborate to explain what creativity is while conceding that it is many things to many people, some arguable,
some not. It can range from being the most divine trait to being a trait of mental illness. The complexity is noted in their
quote of Zimmerman’s observation that “Researchers and practitioners need to conceive of creativity as
multidimensional with consideration of how cognitive complexity, affective intensity, technical skills, and interest and
motivation all play major roles”, (Zimmerman, 2009, p. 394, as cited by Milbrandt & Milbrant, p. 8).The authors also
assert that the ability to express personal meaning within such complexities is key to the transformation of the
individual and collective mind, which is inextricably bound to societal reformation. They share in their article that the
2005 Rand Corporation Report “suggests that the visual arts do more than simply embellish an individual’s life
experience…. the arts connect and engage people more deeply in new ways of seeing, which often elicits social bonds and
encourages community cohesion.” (McCarty, Ondaatje, Brooks, & Szanto, 2005, as cited by Mibrandt & Milbrandt, p.
11). This supports my vision for the cohesion of our homeschool community to assist in the further community support
of all art educators.
Stuhr, P. L. (2003). A tale of why social and cultural content is often excluded from art education and why it should not be.
Studies in Art Education, 44(4), 301-314.
Stuhr, frequently published scholar, educator and advocate of arts-infused education, presents art education as place
where students can process issues of life and death in ways equip our learners with the ability to experience and cope
with democratic life in this nation as it is occurring… not how others, out of fear, want them to think it is occurring.
Stuhr laments the hesitancy of educators to move beyond the fears of change, or of harming their learners by exposure to
real societal issues. Stuhr’s hope is also that the utilization of arts education into core curriculum can help learners to
move into higher learning in all of the disciplines as well. Her call is for all educators to let go of fears in order help
students to experience life, and the world beyond our nation, as it really is, so they can respond with their own creative
expression, and carry that into the problem-solving of the world they are entering. Although I agree that truth must be
presented to our students in order for them to effectively cope with and respond to their world, I do believe that
sensitivity to age group and current events should guide what and when certain issues are brought up. “Not doing” out of
fear is rarely the best choice. “Doing or not doing” out of wisdom, however, is what we are called to discern.
practice in art education. Studies in Art Education, 52(3), 243-255.
In this article, Blandy emphasizes three key sites of theory and practice, (as indicated in the title), all socially, culturally and politically intertwined, that art educators must be aware of and nurture in their practices. Sustainability targets the importance of working with what exists now without destroying its cultural richness as we look to an uncompromised future; participatory culture is age-old practice of community members handing down skills and knowledge to the novices from generation to generation; performance of democracy is the goal-oriented community working together, asking the pertinent questions, creative discussion, and cohesive implementation of problem-solving to ensure an even better future. Although the article is a call for the reconceptualization of art education, the premise is based on the social, cultural and political trends of past and present, and the need for educators to adjust appropriately to their rapid, unprecedented change in this world of globalization. Blandy’s many years of research and involvement with
community-based education gives rich insight into the thought processes with which I can approach connecting homeschool communities across our county.
CollegeBoard Advocacy (2012). Teacher voices: Teachers talk about some of the big problems they face in the classroom and how these impede student learning. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org
/publications?project=28
This publication is a community project report based on interviews of teachers by their own colleagues, funded by the CollegeBoard Advocacy and Policy Center, and published August 2012 as part of the bigger ‘Teacher Advocacy” project that can be accessed online through the CollegeBoard Advocacy website. The project is motivated by the belief that “great teachers make great schools. Teachers are critically important to the success of our young people. They must be given the increased support they need to be more effective, and included not only on issues that impact their work directly, but in all areas of education reform.” (CollegeBoard website quote, 2013). Based on the interviews, and a look at the percentage of teachers who reported given issues, this particular report provides an overview of some of the most common issues that impede student learning, including class size, in-class support, family/community support and involvement, absenteeism, plagiarism, and lack of resources. Each of these issues was reported as significant by a majority of those interviewed. My interest is in the class size, in-class support, family/community involvement, and lack of resources. The findings of this report are congruent with my personal experience as well as other reports and research on such issues, including the observations by Getzler, Marche, and May, mentioned in earlier annotations.
Davis, J. (2010). Learning from examples of civic responsibility: What a community-based art centers teach us about arts education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 44(3), 82-95.
An artist, writer, educator, researcher and advocate of art education, Dr. Davis focuses on the richness
of community-based art involvement and establishment, and its positive impact on all learning in the community. Her wealth of experience and research has led to examples of the rich civic impact of incorporating community-based learning, sharing, and experiences. Her assertions that the provided safety to explore, grow, and learn leadership in such an atmosphere is a key concept introduced in the article by Gude (2010) on creativity, annotated later in this
bibliography. This is not about learning the facts, or even the retaining of knowledge. It is about the resulting higher
(and deeper) level of learning that leads to the essential life and leadership skills that affect and shape the community and the world right along with the learner. My ultimate project goal is to assist in effecting this higher learning in a community effort aided by the technology that has played a huge part in the global changes that have finally made clear (to many of us) this need for educational restructuring through community effort.
Fetter, B. (2012). Being visual: Raising a generation of innovative thinkers. Elgin, Il: Grape Lot Press.
Bette Fetter, founder of Young Rembrandts, through which she has taught art to thousands of children over the last 20 years, addresses in this book the issue of the growing number of visual-spatial (right-brained) learners in an educational system that is still geared toward the linear-logical (left-brained) learning style. Fetter’s main goal is to help teachers and parents to recognize and effectively teach to their visual children/students’ learning styles. She highlights three key learning styles (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic), offers effective visual study techniques and writing strategies, and addresses the visual needs of students with autism, dyslexia, and ADD. Fetter tends to portray the visual learners in a more positive light than the others, which might be offensive to those with different learning styles. She laments her youthful attempts to learn in a world that did not understand or cater to her visual learning style, so the emotional bias is evident. However, she presents her knowledge with innovation, expertise, and plenty of research to back it up. This
links to my desire to build connection and community, utilizing the highly visual technologies at our disposal, starting at the community-based level of art education. We need to build more evidence of the need to teach visually if we are to convince those who are entrenched in the outdated methods of teaching and assessment.
A Getzler. (2012, August 8). Larger Classes— Less Education. Diane Ravitch’s Blog. [a blog post by Anita Getzler] Retrieved January 31, 2012 from http://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/26/an-art-teacher-explains-why-class-size-matters/
On Diane Ravitch’s Blog (Ravitch, 2013), she included a post by retired art teacher Anita Getzler (2012), who gives an inside look at the dwindling positive effects of our educational system as class sizes have continued to grow. She tells a story that is reminiscent of the marginalization of art educators described in Wanda May’s 1994 article, annotated later in this bibliography. Getzler sums up her story by voicing her concerns about student/teacher ratios and the need for in-class support, concluding, “I believe the public is unaware of the day-to-day realities of the classroom and the great harm being inflicted upon students and teachers by the steady increase of classroom size. I have written about my own teaching experience in order to shed some light on this critical situation, and move citizens to act to save the heart of our educational system” (Getzler, 2012, as cited by Ravitch, 2013). Class size and student/teacher support is even more crucial in art education due to the complex, time-consuming nature of good, solid, art education. Getzler’s story supports my suspicion that this problem is widespread, but without cohesive community intervention, the resources for change are severely limited for our public school art teachers.
Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity, possibility. Art Education, 63(2), 31-7.
A well-known and well-published academic scholar, researcher and lecturer in the art education arena, Olivia Gude considers that which hinders creativity, and that which fosters it. Using cognitive/behavioral research to back her claims, she illustrates how a person’s psychological state can make all the difference in creativity. When teachers are able to recognize a psychological or emotional state that may be hindering a student’s creativity, positive steps (rather than negative assumptions) can be made to support the student in working through the temporary limitation. Fear plays a major role in hindering personal growth and self-actualization, a huge part of the creative process, but fear is instilled in the “do not make a mistake” message of our current standardization. Gude notes that one of the first steps to counteract this is to offer an environment that is “psychologically safe” with a minimizing of right and wrong, and the
encouragement of daring to make “mistakes”, and the sense of unconditional acceptance. Davis (2010), annotated
earlier, mentions the same need for safety in which to flourish, and the implications of that need can be found in studies far beyond art education. Community-based centers tend to offer this type of environment, but it is my hope that the continued notable success of such community efforts will be an exemplar to our public schools.
Marché, Theresa. (1998). Looking outward, looking in: Community in art education. Art Education, 51:3, pp. 6-13. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193725
An art education advocate and author of numerous scholarly articles concerning the field, Marché discusses the various meanings, approaches, and implications of community involvement as it pertains to art education and learning. In this article, she provides examples and highlights from a rural southern Indiana school art class/community project
experience. She takes the reader through a process of parents, students, and teachers working to develop and implement changes in the arts program. Reflecting upon the results of this collaborative project, class project art teacher shares the final epiphany that "if I want to make any changes around here, I can't do it alone", supporting Marchés assertion that innovative education depends on a team approach. Besides the rich experience of connection, teamwork keeps new programs less vulnerable to the suppositions of the educator who goes solo. She concluded that such an approach “also highlights the impact of seemingly small decisions…like a pebble thrown into a pond, effects of this decision rippled outward to the community and then reflected back again inward to the school community, creating an ever-changing pattern of connections and personal relationships.” (p. 12). This is a common thread found in the conversations between advocates in the field of art. It is one step at a time, affecting more and more steps by more and more participants. My first goal is to take that first step toward collaboration.
May. W. (1994). The tie that binds: Reconstructing ourselves in institutional contexts. Studies in Art Education, 35(3),
135-148.
Wanda May goes into great detail about the disconnect between art educators and their core curriculum teacher
counterparts, when the very essence of art education requires asking the hard questions, making the trouble, giving voice to our concerns, and solving the problems with which we are faced. Surrounded by the public school’s linear
approach to learning, many art educators keep their mouths shut and do their best to cope as the lone wolf. May paints a picture of art teachers in general being painfully marginalized: misunderstood, misused, taken for granted, and not
taken seriously. This, of course affects our self-identity, and ultimately how we come across to our students, so it is very important to reflect on the possibilities. Although I can attest to having experienced some of this, it is not necessarily a
“truth” by which a great deal of energy is put into searching for skeletons in the closet that may not be there. But its
existence had an important impact on me. This article alerted me that I was part of the problem. My inaction was a
response to my sense of marginalization and abandonment when teaching art at the public school. “What are the
long-term effects…for the future of art education when we censor ourselves and this code of silence?” (p. 136) continues to haunt me and motivate me to do what I can to alleviate such phenomenon.
Milbrandt, M., & Milbrandt, L. (2011). Creativity: What are we talking about? Art Education, 64(1), 8-13.
Melody Milbrandt, three times published in Studies in Art Education, joins Lanny Milbrandtin his first journal
contribution highlighting the meaning and impact of creativity. Both university professors of art education, Milbrandt &
Milbrant collaborate to explain what creativity is while conceding that it is many things to many people, some arguable,
some not. It can range from being the most divine trait to being a trait of mental illness. The complexity is noted in their
quote of Zimmerman’s observation that “Researchers and practitioners need to conceive of creativity as
multidimensional with consideration of how cognitive complexity, affective intensity, technical skills, and interest and
motivation all play major roles”, (Zimmerman, 2009, p. 394, as cited by Milbrandt & Milbrant, p. 8).The authors also
assert that the ability to express personal meaning within such complexities is key to the transformation of the
individual and collective mind, which is inextricably bound to societal reformation. They share in their article that the
2005 Rand Corporation Report “suggests that the visual arts do more than simply embellish an individual’s life
experience…. the arts connect and engage people more deeply in new ways of seeing, which often elicits social bonds and
encourages community cohesion.” (McCarty, Ondaatje, Brooks, & Szanto, 2005, as cited by Mibrandt & Milbrandt, p.
11). This supports my vision for the cohesion of our homeschool community to assist in the further community support
of all art educators.
Stuhr, P. L. (2003). A tale of why social and cultural content is often excluded from art education and why it should not be.
Studies in Art Education, 44(4), 301-314.
Stuhr, frequently published scholar, educator and advocate of arts-infused education, presents art education as place
where students can process issues of life and death in ways equip our learners with the ability to experience and cope
with democratic life in this nation as it is occurring… not how others, out of fear, want them to think it is occurring.
Stuhr laments the hesitancy of educators to move beyond the fears of change, or of harming their learners by exposure to
real societal issues. Stuhr’s hope is also that the utilization of arts education into core curriculum can help learners to
move into higher learning in all of the disciplines as well. Her call is for all educators to let go of fears in order help
students to experience life, and the world beyond our nation, as it really is, so they can respond with their own creative
expression, and carry that into the problem-solving of the world they are entering. Although I agree that truth must be
presented to our students in order for them to effectively cope with and respond to their world, I do believe that
sensitivity to age group and current events should guide what and when certain issues are brought up. “Not doing” out of
fear is rarely the best choice. “Doing or not doing” out of wisdom, however, is what we are called to discern.