Advertisement

Studio Thinking in Early Childhood

  • Kimberly M. SheridanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educating the Young Child book series (EDYC, volume 12)

Abstract

Studio learning environments provide important support for young children as they learn to create and interpret in visual art and design. In this chapter, I use the Studio Thinking Framework, developed from research at Harvard University’s Project Zero that involved close observation of studio art classrooms to see what teachers intend to teach and how they teach it, to inform how we can think about learning in formal and informal early childhood education. I describe strategies teachers can use to create a studio environment that fosters children’s development of habits of mind such as becoming more observant, more engaged and persistent, reflective on their work, and willing to explore and express ideas. I discuss how teachers can use this focus on developing students’ habits of mind in the arts to build connections to other learning areas.

Keywords

Visual arts Child art Studio Thinking Studio environment Child studio Project Zero Studio teaching MAKESHOP Children’s museum 

References

  1. Atkinson, D. (1991). How children use drawing. Journal of Art and Design Education, 10(1), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baghban, M. (2007). Scribbles, labels, and stories: The role of drawing in the development of writing. Young Children, 62(1), 20–26.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, T. (2003). Interpreting visual culture. Journal of Art Education, 56(2), 6–12.Google Scholar
  4. Brahms, L. (2014). Making as a learning process: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, J. (1997). The “U” and the wheel of “C”: Development and devaluation of graphic symbolization and the cognitive approach at Harvard Project Zero. In A. M. Kindler (Ed.), Child development in art (pp. 45–58). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.Google Scholar
  8. Eisner, E. (2002). Arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Flood, J., Heath, S. B., Lapp, D. (2015). Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts, volume II: A project of the International Reading Association. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and brain. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, H. (1990). Arts education and human development. Los Angeles: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Gardner, H., & Krechevsky, M. (2006). Nurturing intelligences in early childhood. In H. Gardner (Ed.), Multiple intelligences: New horizons (pp. 89–112). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014a). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014b). Arts education and the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 626–646). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath, S. B. (2001). Three’s not a crowd: Plans, roles and focus in the arts. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  18. Heath, S. B. (with A. Roach) (1999). Imaginative actuality: Learning in the arts during nonschool hours. In Champions of change, pp. 19–34. Washington, DC.: The Arts Education Partnership and The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.Google Scholar
  19. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Occasional paper for the MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/site/c.enJLKQNlFiG/b.2029291/k.97E5/Occasional_Papers.htm on January 27, 2006.
  22. Kendrick, M., & McKay, R. (2004). Drawing as an alternate way of understanding young children’s constructions of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Litts, B. K. (2014). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison).Google Scholar
  24. McKay, R., & Kendrick, M. (2001). Children draw their images of reading and writing. Language Arts, 78(6), 529–533.Google Scholar
  25. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Free Press/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Teaching thinking: From ontology to education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perkins, D. N., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. (C. Gattegno & F.M. Hodgson Trans.) New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  30. Project Zero, Cambridgeport Children’s Center, Cambridgeport School, Ezra H. Baker School, & John Simpkins School. (2003). Making teaching visible: Documenting individual and group learning as professional development. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero.Google Scholar
  31. Project Zero, & Reggio Children. (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.Google Scholar
  32. Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 775–802). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2014). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 412–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheridan, K. (2011). Envision and observe: Using the studio thinking framework for learning and teaching in the digital arts. Mind, Brain and Education, 5(1), 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheridan, K., Clark, K., & Williams, A. (2013). Designing games, designing roles: A study of youth agency in an informal education program. Urban Education, 48(5), 734–758. doi: 10.1177/0042085913491220.Google Scholar
  38. Sheridan, K., & Gardner, H. (2012). Artistic development: Three essential spheres. In A. Shimamura & S. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 277–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soep, E. (2004). Visualizing judgment: Self-assessment and peer assessment in arts education. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 667–687). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (E. Haufmann & G. Vankar, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wilson, B. (2004). Child art after modernism: Visual culture and new narratives. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 299–328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (Eds.). (2000). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows [Special issue]. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4).Google Scholar
  45. Zenkov, K., & Sheridan, K. (2012). Artistically asking about school: Picturing city youth as writers, artists, and citizens. In K. Hutzel, F. Bastos, & K. Cosier (Eds.), Urban education with a vision: Art, social justice, and the city as possibility. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations