Advertisement

Teaching Visual Arts with Digital Technologies

  • Maria Kalamatianou
  • Maria Hatzigianni
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development book series (CHILD, volume 22)

Abstract

Visual arts education has been significantly influenced by technological progress and attracted significant research attention. This study focuses on how the exploration of visual arts in a digital environment (art software) shapes new ways for children to improve their visual literacy and social skills. The study followed a mixed methodology design that included observations, tests, children’s digital creative works, and works with ordinary materials. A 3-month intervention was implemented with a class of 21 primary students (12 years of age) and 1 teacher in Greece. Each week, students were introduced to, and explored, works of art (paintings of the late nineteenth to early decades of the twentieth century) through an educational art software application specially designed for this intervention. Students were engaged with interactive activities using the computer and learned to critically observe and understand the aesthetic characteristics of the paintings. Through a process of thoughtful dialogue and writing routines, students enhanced their visual perception and expressed their judgments about the aesthetic value of the observed artworks. Additionally, students designed and created their individual or collective pieces of art with digital and physical means. Findings suggest that the intervention had a positive influence on students’ creative engagement and aesthetic perception and value of artworks and on promoting peer collaboration. Overall, the study offers useful insights for teachers on how to efficiently integrate technology into visual arts education to support children in becoming informed citizens, critical consumers, and creative producers in this highly visual information age.

References

  1. Anderson, T. M., & Melody, K. (2005). Art for life: Authentic instruction in art. New York: McGraw – Hill Companies Inc..Google Scholar
  2. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ashford, J. (2002). The arts and crafts computer: Using your computer as an artist’s tool. Berkeley: Peachpit Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bales, F. R., Cohen, P. S., & Williamson, A. S. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  6. Black, J., & Browning, K. (2011). Creativity in digital art education teaching practices. Art Education, 64(5), 19–34.Google Scholar
  7. Burnaford, G. E., Aprill, A., & Weiss, C. (Eds.). (2001). Renaissance in the classroom: Arts integration and meaningful learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Chia, J., & Duthie, B. (1993). Primary children and computer-based art work: Their learning strategies and context. Art Education, 46(6), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeMoss, K., & Morris, T. (2002). How arts integration supports student learning: Students shed light on the connections. Chicago: Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education (CAPE).Google Scholar
  11. Eisner, E. (2001). The role of the arts in educating the whole child. A Cleveland area presentation. Grantmakers in the Arts Reader, 12(3). Retrieved July 24, 2016, from: http://www.giarts.org/article/elliot-w-eisner-role-arts-educating-whole-child
  12. Eisner, E. (2004). The arts and the creation of the mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Epstein, A. W., & Trimis, Ε. (2005). Εικαστικές τέχνες και μικρά παιδιά: Ενισχύοντας τους μικρούς καλλιτέχνες. [Visual arts and young children: Supporting young artists]. Athens: Typothito.Google Scholar
  14. Flood, A., & Bamford, A. (2007). Manipulation, simulation, stimulation: The role of art education in the digital age. International Journal of Education through Art, 3(2), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Freedman, S. W., Flower, L., Hull, G., & Hayes, J. R. (2005). Ten years of research: Achievements of the national center for the study of writing and literacy. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 735–752). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Gerlich, B. K., & Perrier, A. (2003). Arts instruction in the age of technology: Providing library services to support studio and survey faculty who use technology for instruction (Communications). Information Technology and Libraries, 22(2), 79–84.Google Scholar
  19. Gregory, D. C. (2009). Boxes with fires: Wisely integrating learning technologies into the art classroom. Art Education, 62(3), 47–54.Google Scholar
  20. Haydn, T., & Counsell, C. (2003). History, ICT and learning in the secondary school. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  21. Hinshaw, C. (2001). One approach to elementary computer art. Arts & Activities, 130(2), 40–41.Google Scholar
  22. Hutzel, K. (2007). A service-learning approach to teaching computer graphics. Art Education, 60(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  23. Li, M., & Jiang, X. M. (2015). Art appreciation instruction and changes of classroom questioning at senior secondary school in visual culture context. Cross-Cultural Communication, 11(1), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.3968/5968.Google Scholar
  24. Limbert, W. M., & Polzella, D. J. (1998). Effects of music on the perception of paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loveless, A. (2006). ICT and arts education-for art’s sake? International Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education. Orlando: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.522.6773&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  26. Lu, L. (2013). 3D virtual worlds as art media and exhibition arenas: Students’ responses and challenges in contemporary art education. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macgregor, S. K. (2002). The computer paint program: A palette for facilitating visual and verbal literacy. Computers in the Schools, 19(1–2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall, J., & Vashe, M. (2008). Mining, and making: Developing and conveying concepts in art. Art Education, 61(1), 6–12.Google Scholar
  29. Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsagouras, H. (2004). Θεωρία και Πράξη της Διδασκαλίας. Τόμος Β΄. Στρατηγικές Διδασκαλίας. Η κριτική Σκέψη στη Διδακτική Πράξη. [Theory and practice of teaching. Volume 2. Teaching strategies. Critical thinking in teaching]. Athens: Gutenberg.Google Scholar
  31. Mayo, S. (2007). Implications for art education in the third millennium: Art technology integration. Art Education, 60(3), 45–51.Google Scholar
  32. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mesa, R. P. (2005). Putting it all in perspective: Administering art education for literacy. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 451–459). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Murphy, L. P. (2003). Finding your place in art history. Arts and Activities, 132(5), 42–44.Google Scholar
  35. New York State Education Department (NYSED). (2010). Art as a tool for teachers of English language learners. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from: www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/docs/Art_as_a_Tool-for_Teachers.pdf
  36. Ngan, M. Y., Lee, C. K. J., & Koo, R. D. (2003). Voices and implementation of information technology in an elementary school classroom a Hong Kong case study. Childhood Education, 79(5), 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parsons, M. J. (1987). How we understand art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Phelps, R., & Maddison, C. (2008). ICT in the secondary visual arts classroom: A study of teachers’ values, attitudes and beliefs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Posner, Μ., Rothbart, Μ., Sheese, B., & Kieras, J. (2008). How arts training influences cognition. In C. Asbury & B. Rich (Eds.), Learning, arts and the brain: The Dana consortium report on arts and cognition (pp. 1–10). New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  40. Project Zero, Harvard University, Graduate School of Education. (n.d.). Available from: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/artful-thinking
  41. Raptis, A., & Rapti, A. (2006). Μάθηση και διδασκαλία στην εποχή της πληροφορικής: Παιδαγωγικές δραστηριότητες. Τόμ. Β΄ [Learning and teaching in the age of information technology: Pedagogical activities. Vol. B]. Athens: Author.Google Scholar
  42. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Roland, C. (2010). Preparing art teachers to teach in a new digital landscape. Art Education, 63(1), 17–24.Google Scholar
  44. Sacks, M. K., & Ayers, M. N. (2003). Paths to reading and writing through the visual arts. Reading Improvement, 40(3), 113–117.Google Scholar
  45. Salmon, K. (2001). Remembering and reporting by children: The influence of cues and props. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(2), 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd Grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010–4038). Washington, DC: National Centre for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from: http://whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides
  47. Stavridi, S. (2015). The role of interactive visual art learning in development of young children’s creativity. Creative Education, 6, 2274–2282. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.621235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thatcher, M. (2004). Sound and vision: Technology can bring your arts program into the 21st century. Technology & Learning, 25(3), 26–31.Google Scholar
  49. Tillander, M. (2011). Creativity, technology, art, and pedagogical practices. Art Education, 64(1), 40–46.Google Scholar
  50. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance test of creative thinking. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing.Google Scholar
  51. 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), 253–272.Google Scholar
  52. Unrath, K. A., & Mudd, M. A. (2011). Signs of change: Art education in the age of the iKid. Art Education, 64(4), 6–11.Google Scholar
  53. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wohlwill, J., & Wills, S. (1988). Programmed paintings: Elementary school children’s computer-generated designs. In H. F. Farley & R. W. Neperud (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art & art education (pp. 337–363). London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  55. Wood, J. (2004). Open minds and a sense of adventure: How teachers of art & design approach technology. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 23(2), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zeki, S., & Bartels, A. (1999). Toward a theory of visual consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(2), 225–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Faculty of Human SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations