Advertisement

Art Inquiry: Creative Inquiry for Integration and Metacognition

  • Julia MarshallEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Drawing on an example of a creative inquiry project that explores natural forms as inspirations for concepts and symbolism, this chapter illustrates art inquiry integration (AII), an approach to arts integration that stems from contemporary art practice, specifically arts-based research (Sullivan, 2010). AII takes the methods and thinking of arts-based research and applies them to teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms—demonstrating how an arts-based inquiry can cross-disciplinary lines to create authentic, organic integration that enables learners to build deep and broad understanding of academic content, make vital connections among school subject areas, and find personal meaning in what they are learning. Practicing AII also helps learners build their thinking skills and become metacognitive about their art making, thinking, and learning processes. Moreover, AII builds creative, imaginative, and associative thinking as ways to learn. It is ultimately an approach to learning and teaching that enables learners to build fresh perspectives and holistic understandings through creative means. This chapter explains the theory that supports AII and the methods it employs, and it also discusses how this approach is being implemented in the Bay Area (Northern California) schools in the USA.

References

  1. Achieve. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from nextgenscience.org.
  2. Bruner, J. (1959/2006). Learning and thinking. In J. Bruner (Ed.), In search of pedagogy (Vol. 1). Selected works of Jerome S. Bruner. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Catterall, J., Arenge, G., Friedlander, D., & Kendig, J. (2016). Pursuing big ideas in instructional innovation: Startts: Implementation year one report. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Creativity.Google Scholar
  4. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Retrieved from corestandards.org.
  5. Dewey, J. (1990). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gnanakan, K. (2011). Integrated learning. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veneema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual art Education (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kolencik, P. L., & Hillwig, S. A. (2011). Encouraging metacognition: Supporting learners through metacognitive teaching strategies. Educational psychology: Critical Pedagogical Perspectives. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Lim K. B. & Loy, V. (2016). Inquiry in and through art: A lesson and design toolkit. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (1998). What are the qualities of understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Marshall, J. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and art integration. Toward a new understanding of art-based learning across the curriculum. Studies in Art Education, 55(2), 104–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marshall, J. & Donahue, D. (2014). Art centered learning across the curriculum: Integrating contemporary art in the secondary school classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Partnership for 20th Century Learning. (2015). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from P21.org.
  16. Perkins, D. (1988). Art as understanding. In H. Gardner & D. Perkins (Eds.), Art, mind and education: Research from project zero (pp. 111–131). Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  17. Piaget, J. (1997). A child’s conception of the world. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Ritchart, R. Church, M. & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding and independence for all learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Silver, N. (2013). Reflective pedagogies and the metacognitive turn in college teaching. In M. Kaplan, N. Silver, D. Lavaque-Manty & D. Meizlish (Eds.), Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
  20. STEM to STEAM. (2017). What is steam? Retrieved from Stemtosteam.org.
  21. Sullivan, G. (2005, 2010). Art practice as research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Verkerk, L. (2011). Case study: Making room for reflection. In R. Ritchart, M. Church & K. Morrison (Eds.), Making thinking visible (pp. 222–229). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wiske, M. S. (1998). What is teaching for understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice (pp. 61–86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations