Advertisement

Cultivating Sustainable School Culture: Tilling the Soil and Nourishing the Seeds Through the Arts

  • Ross Anderson
  • Christine Pitts
Chapter

Abstract

Arts integration is a creative opportunity to respond to the cultural elements of a school; school culture influences how an organization, as a whole, evolves. The evaluation described in this chapter illuminates the early developmental phase of a model that addresses school culture through arts integration. If a proposed theory of change predicts that change in teacher attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors mediate student effects, then those elements should be central to the evaluation. Our results indicate that the development of a locally grounded unifying framework for learning may be critical early in the process of implementation. Moreover, each school adapted arts integration to focus on specific elements of creative engagement. Evaluators should consider different dimensions of learning at both the organization and individual levels.

Keywords

Arts integration Developmental evaluation Organizational culture Mixed methods Implementation science 

References

  1. Anderson, R. C. (2017). Creative engagement: An embodied approach to making meaning in learning. Poster presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Division 10: Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  4. Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blase, K. A., Fixsen, D. L., Sims, B. J., & Ward, C. S. (2015). Implementation science: Changing hearts, minds, behavior, and systems to improve educational outcomes. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(5), 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Catterall, J., & Waldorf, L. (1999). Chicago arts partnerships in education: Summary evaluation. In E. Fiske (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning (pp. 47–62). Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership; The President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities.Google Scholar
  9. Corbett, D., Wilson, B., & Morse, D. (2005). The arts are an “R” too. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Arts Commission.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Educational Policy Improvement Center. (2017). The School Success Model. Retrieved from http://www.epiconline.org/projects/school-success-model/
  12. Fixsen, D. L., Blasé, K., Naoom, S., Metz, A., Louison, L., & Ward, C. (2015). Implementation drivers: Assessing best practices. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  14. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2014). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lackey, L., & Huxhold, D. (2016). Arts integration as school reform: Exploring how teachers experience policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(4), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin, A. (2012). Part II commentary: Motivation and engagement: Conceptual, operational, and empirical clarity. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.Google Scholar
  19. Martinez, C. R., Jr., & Eddy, J. M. (2005). Effects of culturally adapted parent management training on Latino youth behavioral health outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nathan, L. (2011). The hardest questions aren’t on the test. Beacon, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Noblit, G. W., Corbett, H. D., Wilson, B. L., & McKinney, M. B. (2009). Creating and sustaining arts-based school reform: The A+ schools program. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Peppler, K., Catterall, J., & Bender, S. (2015). Learning and achieving through the arts: Executive summary and evaluation report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  24. Pitts, C., Anderson, R., & Haney, M. (in press). Measures of Instruction for Creative Engagement: Capturing what eludes traditional teacher observation measures. Learning Environments Research. Google Scholar
  25. Robinson, A. H. (2013). Arts integration and the success of disadvantaged students: A research evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review, 114(4), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rubenstein, L. D., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for creativity scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
  29. Silverstein, L., & Layne, S. (2010). Defining arts integration. Washington, DC: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.Google Scholar
  30. Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kinderman, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. (2014). My Voice, My School Teacher Survey [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/survey/2014%20Teacher%20Survey%20codebook.pdf
  32. U.S. Department of Education. (2017). ArtCore: An immersive, studio-to-school arts integration and schoolwide transformation model. Retrieved from https://ed.gov/programs/artsedmodel/2014/springfieldschooldistrict.pdf

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ross Anderson
    • 1
  • Christine Pitts
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Educational Policy Improvement CenterEugeneUSA
  2. 2.University of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations