When educators use imaginative art teaching, students interpret the world around them in unconventional and original ways (Richmond, 1993). A national survey of 2,032 American students found they spend an average 6.3 hours per day engrossed with some form of media (Rideout et al., as cited in Ziegler, 2007). A goal of visual literacy states “people will become more creative and critical thinkers by identifying, analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating what they see” (Rezabek, 2005, p.19). Art education allows students to be more creative and critical thinkers and enables them to think broadly about the world around them (Martini, Panayotidis, & Moss, 2005; Ziegler, 2007). It is a diverse method of communication and “contributes to technology when we frame art as language” (Stankiewicz, 2004, p. 89). Integrating technology in art education is essential in developing students’ visual communication skills. For over 20 years “art educators have written about the importance of embracing computer technologies” (Delacruz, 2004, p. 6). Despite this there are many obstacles that prevent art teachers from integrating technology into their art room. These include training and professional development, working environments, and software and hardware technology applications.
Does technology belong in the art room when so much of the creative process depends upon “the pleasure and significance that resonates in the rich sensory and cognitive experiences of making art”? (Krug, 2004, p. 3). According to Hewitt, “computers interact with learners through a relatively narrow communication channel (a keyboard and mouse), and cannot hold natural language conversations” (Hewitt, 2000, p. 33). Two national qualitative studies in the UK found art teachers “worried that technology might be misused in art classes or used for trivial purposes” and questioned “whether computers and their peripherals help to achieve the aims of Art and Design as a curriculum subject” (Wood, 2004, p. 189). If teacher training, professional development, working environment, and software/technology applications are enhanced and become more consistent, art teachers will understand the role of technology and be enabled to integrate technology into their art rooms.
Inconsistencies in professional development and training are a common theme among current studies (Jones-Kavalier et. al., 2008; Krug, 2004; Dorman, 2001; McNabb, 2005; Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Gouzouasis, 2001). When over two hundred skilled computer users were asked the question “How does the use of technology in Art and Design differ from its use in other subject areas?” it was indicated “each curriculum subject uses ICT distinctively, has singular hardware requirements, and is treated differently in terms of resourcing and access” and all teachers felt a lack of training especially art teachers (Wood, 2004, p. 179-180). The Milken Exchange on Education Technology (1998) lists professional competencies as one of the seven contextual dimensions for gauging technology effectiveness (Krug, 2004), yet teachers “complained of insufficient opportunities for professional development in area of technology integration for the purposes of students’ learning” (Leonard & Leonard, 2006, p. 217). In fact, “only one-third of the teachers reported feeling well prepared to use computers for classroom instruction” (Dorman, 2001, p. 83). Out of 112 primary teachers, 88 (78.6%) indicated they would like to attend a training on educational technologies (Ozel, 2007). If art teachers are not given training and professional development, this will prove to be a substantial barrier to integrating technology in art rooms.
A second issue when integrating technology in the art room stems from the working environment. An estimate of more than $19 billion has been spent since 1991 developing technology infrastructure for the nation's public schools in the United States (Dorman, 2001). Also, “most US school districts and schools have had technology plans in place for at least several years, and they usually incorporate such things as computer hardware and software acquisition, networking capabilities, technical support, professional development, and acceptable use policies” (Leonard & Leonard, 2006, p. 214). Ironically, access to technology, lack of time in the class schedule, not having enough computers, computer and software currency, and equipment maintenance are among issues within the working environment (Dorman, 2001; Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Delacruz, 2004). This may offer explanations why only 69.6% teachers allocate 1-2 educational technology lessons per week (Ozel, 2008).
A final barrier to integrating technology into the art room deals with software and hardware technology applications. Joyce Wood states “the ‘undo’ button may be technology’s greatest gift to art students” (Wood, 2004, p. 185). On the surface, this may seem to be true, but art teachers need to question when students are ‘wowed’ by technology, are the course curriculum outcomes being met? (Trautwein & Werner, 2001; Wood, 2004). Not only do teachers find that they do not have the time to learn new technologies they have to compete with the “buzz and glitter of computing” (Wood, 2004, p. 189). It is also worthy to note that students consider learning specific software to be more important than learning factual information and other skills. They also identified learning software as a reason for choosing a course (Marshall & Meachem, 2007). Do art teachers want to teach software packages and hardware? Teaching students how to create and innovate is a stronger argument as to why students need art as part of the curriculum (Halsey-Dutton, 2002; Mayo, 2007).
Technology has the ability to bring an abundance of knowledge to the classroom but teachers need to be concerned because information is often unstructured, inaccurate, and unsuitable for children (Hewitt, 2000). Art educators need to construct learning environments that are appropriate for their students, that promote visual understanding and helps them respond to the visual world (Boughton, 2005, p. 8). With this in mind, art teachers have the skills and the mindset to integrate technology in the art room (Wood, 2004). Digital storytelling, digital portfolios, social networking, social bookmarking, and blogging are a few of the many positive ways art teachers can integrate technology in the art room (Chung, 2007; Boughton, 2005; Buffington, 2008).
References
Boughton, D. (2005). From Fine Art to Visual Culture; Assessment and the Changing Role of Art Education, International Journal of Education through Art, 1(3), 211-223. doi: 10.1386/etar.1.3.211/1
Buffington, M. L. (2008). What is Web 2.0 and How Can It Further Art Education? Art Education, 61(3), 36-41.
Chung, S. K. (2007). Art Education Technology: Digital Storytelling. Art Education, 60(2), 17-22.
Delacruz, E. (2004). Teachers' Working Conditions and the Unmet Promise of Technology. Studies in Art Education, 46(1), 6-19.
Dorman, S. M. (2001) Are Teachers Using Computers for Instruction? The Journal of School Health, 71(2), 83-4.
Gouzouasis, P. (2006). Technology as Arts-Based Education: Does the Desktop Reflect the Arts? Arts Education Policy Review, 107(5), 3-9.
Halsey-Dutton, B. (2002). Artifacts in Cyberspace: A Model of Implementing Technology into Art History Education. Art Education, 55(4), 19-24.
Hewitt, J. (2000). Computers in the Classroom: Successes, Failures, Future Role. Orbit, 31(3), 33-36. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from CBCA Education database. (Document ID: 688960091).
Jones-Kavalier, B. R., et. al., (2008). Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century. Teacher Librarian, 35(3) 3-16.
Krug, D. H. (2004). Leadership and Research: Reimagining Electronic Technologies for Supporting Learning through the Visual Arts. Studies in Art Education, 46(1), 3-5.
Leonard, L. J., & Leonard, P. E. (2006). Leadership for Technology Integration: Computing the Reality. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 212-224. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from CBCA Education database. (Document ID: 1225407031).
Martini, C., Panayotidis, L., & Moss, M. (2005). The Most Unnatural Act: Interdisciplinarity and Working Across the Arts. The Journal of Educational Thought, 39(3), 245-263. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from CBCA Education database. (Document ID: 1016635801).
Marshall, L. & Meachem, L. (2007). Direct or Directed: Orchestrating a More Harmonious Approach to Teaching Technology Within an Art & Design Higher Education Curriculum with Special Reference to Visual Communications Courses. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 41-52. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/smpp/content~content=a791496950
Mayo, S. (2007). Implications for Art Education in the Third Millennium: Art Technology. Art Technology, 60(3), 45-51.
McNabb, M. L. (2005). Raising the Bar on Technology Research in English Language Arts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 113-19.
Ozel, A. (2008). How Teachers Perceive Educational Technologies That Have Been Integrated In Educational Programs. Essays in Education, 22, 90-101.
Rezabek, L. L. (2005). Why Visual Literacy: Consciousness and Convention. TechTrends, 49(3), 19-20.
Richmond, S. (1993). Art, Imagination and Teaching: Researching the High School Classroom. Canadian Journal of Education, 18(4), 366-380. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from CBCA Education database. (Document ID: 441540281).
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2004). Notions of Technology and Visual Literacy. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 46(1), 88-91.
Trautwein, U. & Werner, S. (2001). Old Paintings, New Technology: Does Instructive Animation Make Sense in Art Education? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(3), 253-72.
Wood, J.(2004). Open Minds and a Sense of Adventure: How Teachers of Art and Design Approach Technology. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 179-191.
Ziegler, S. G. (2007). The (Mis)education of Generation M. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 69-81. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/10.1080/17439880601141302
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment