Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Art of Science Learning, Research Working Group Notes

152

Published on

Edit notes o

Edit notes o

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
152
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Washington, D.C. (Smithsonian) ConferenceFrom Notes by Martin StorksdieckCause versus CorrelationThe research working group opened by examining one of the key issues for research in the field -how to prove that arts engagement improves performance in STEM disciplines: what is causaland what correlative. Clearly there is the need for a series of more sophisticated and developedquantitative studies than have been conducted to date.The group briefly considered a number of existing studies. The first was the seminal 2005 studyby John Osburn and Richard Stock of the CONNECT program, established in 1997 at theEngineering School of The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. The issuewas, in light of the 1986 Challenger explosion, due in part to mis-communication among NASAemployees and between NASA and MortonThiokol about the condition of the O-rings, how tostudy the state of engineering graduate students‟ communication. The CONNECT programworked on integrating dance, theatre, engineering, and music education through an infusedcurriculum, with metrics designed from the outset. The study surveyed corporate recruiters tocompare the communication skills of the study group against a control group.In any such study it‟s clearly critical to understand specifically what is being studied and whatthe metrics are in order to be clear about claims made about the efficacy of the arts. The Osburn-Stock study does justify the claim that applying arts-based approaches to education yieldsmeasurable gains in communication skills. This is one of the few randomized control studies thatsucceeds in demonstrating a causal relationship between the arts and a specific set of skills(communication). Whether the arts contributed to the students becoming better engineers, wedon‟t know as it wasn‟t considered.A good starting point for this group is to consider which studies can be recommended - and whatare some of the key data points that could help decision-makers understand the return oninvestment.Another key study was the 2002 study by Susan McMahon, Dale Rose and Michaela Parks of theBasic Reading Through Dance program in the Chicago Public Schools, where first-graders weretaught basic reading concepts through movement. This was also a randomized study with acontrol group (but it raises the question of when, in study design, randomization makes sense andwhen it doesn‟t). Experience shows that principals and teachers should be involved in studydesign.A third study examined was a DoE-funded project at the Isabella Stewart gardener Museum inBoston, Thinking Through Art (see the 2005 ILI Study of the project). This was an inquiry-based
  • 2. program where 3-5th graders interacted with art (using wireless mics to record theirconversations in the galleries) to see how art museum programs can contribute to developingtarget skills as well as improving non-art test scores. The study revealed no significantdifferences between the experimental and control groups, but argues that tests did not measurethe critical-thinking skills developed by the project: observation, interpretation, flexible thinking,association, etc.One participant made an observation about the importance of communicating the key points ofsuch studies, as succinctly as possible: they often get lost in minutiae and bound by the languageof the research discipline.Although much of the neuroscience research is still in its infancy, there was felt to be a need(especially given Charles Limb‟s work and his presentation) for more neuroscience-basedstudies.It was felt that studies should take more of a systems-wide approach, especially looking at howarts-in-science works across schools, museums, after-school programs, cultural organizations,and more, and across different media.One participant asked about how we would go about constructing a rationale for prioritizing thekinds of studies needed.There is, as ever, the problem of definition. Definitions (e.g., of science, art, technology) tend tobind and narrow the work that can then be done. For example, some colleges offer “Arts andSciences” programs, but very often the “art” means modernist painting. Here for example “art”could more helpfully be defined as “all representations of thought in all media.”The San Francisco Unified School District (whose Arts Education Master Plan designs how tointegrate the arts into each student‟s daily curriculum) actively develops collaborations betweenteachers and arts organizations.Metrics: there is the question of how to measure the impact of arts ed programs. What exactly isbeing measured? More research is needed on whether/how arts integration supports mastery inanother discipline (e.g. in the sciences). How do you converge the languages of arts andsciences? What does it mean for learning? We know what happens in dual language learning, butthe result of combining language with other disciplines is not known.There was some mention of the need to resurface the body of literature by practitioners aboutprograms that led to innovations, demonstrating the use of critical thinking skills.
  • 3. One participant advised that when working with corporations to apply STEM knowledge, oneshould ask the executives how it will be applied (e.g., what problems are there to solve?).Research can be constructed around those requirements.Mention was made of The Dana Guide to Brain Health (with a foreword by William Safire) thatdetails how the memorization of music or dialog suggests a cognitive ability transferrable tomath and science. A nice example, but correlative, not an example of causation.The group then considered/examined a set of 20 claims that they (want to) make.CLAIM 1: That arts activities create cognitive abilities that transfer to other disciplines.CLAIM 2: That the most productive/creative people working in the arts and sciences make morepervasive use of their brains and bodies - and are great pattern analyzers.CLAIM 3: That arts education makes more proficient science students - and that a particular skillin the arts can affect a particular skill in the sciences, (e.g. music and math).Here, we could construct thousands of testable statements for specific combinations; forexample, triangulating using language arts, given its relationship to the arts and sciences.CLAIM 4: That what students do in the sciences and arts can improve language arts skills. (D.C.Study cited)CLAIM 5: That mathematics is central to the sciences and to the arts.As math is the science of pattern, it should always be included in the discussion. Usually we talkabout how the arts can help with the sciences, but it works the other way around too. Oneexample of this form of integrative thinking is the 1994 ArtsScience program, piloted in theCherry Creek School systems. The integrative approach is distinct from an interdisciplinaryapproach. The trick is to allow multiple approaches to a set of similar practices in order to tapinto “metaskills.” This approach helps students and teachers understand that there are manyways of representing information. The Polygon Blooms project (at Philadelphia’s GroverWashington Jr. Middle School) is one successful example of an integrated program in whichartist and scientist co-teach. It’s not so much about transferring knowledge as about combiningthem in a deep way.CLAIM 6: That this is an integrative approach that is effective, exploring problems frommultiple perspectives. Consider who are the canonical figures in this field. Einstein, Freud?CLAIM 7: That making scientific thinking visible will call art into play and that making artisticthinking visible will call science into play.
  • 4. CLAIM 8: That improvisational dance has a rich array of critical thinking skills, that will helpyou become a much better thinker.CLAIM 9: That merging the arts with the sciences supports and engages students to be moresuccessful in both disciplines. Students might be more likely to like science if they access itthrough the arts, or vice versa, depending on the individual. This raises the question of howperforming arts, specifically improvisation, deepen hypothesizing and associative thinking.CLAIM 10: That by learning a specific scientific or artistic skill-set in science, you are betterable to use them in the other skill-set.CLAIM 11: That neurological changes realized through the arts or sciences apply to otherdisciplines. For example, consider The Brain that Changes Itself on neuroplasticity. This couldhelp verify the neurological basis for change.CLAIM 12: That there is a deep connection between the experience of doing the arts and theacquisition of critical skills.CLAIM 13: That integrated learning is a way of building skills and knowledge in the arts and thesciences.CLAIM 14: That practitioners can create better knowledge through the use of integration of artand science. This leads to the questions of whether we can teach creativity or intuitiveness. Thatwhich will allow people to respond to stimulus we don’t know about yet. The work of Livingstoneand Hubel, for example, considers how visual artists have intuited, centuries before scientificproof, that vision is not image-based, but is created by proteins in the brain that build images ofwhat you (think you) see. Are there powers that artists tend to divine that have a scientific basis?CLAIM 15: That art and science are linked in the manner of their production. One commentedthat the conference outcomes appeared to be very verbally-bound, to the exclusion of numericalor imagery-based approaches. The Metaphorming experience helped to move the approach awayfrom the verbal, helping to reveal ideas in a different light, but were then translated back into theverbal. One commented that the metaphorming models helped change the way we see eachothers’ ideas.CLAIM 16: That we have the data from what has already been done to map the desired coreconcepts and design ways to move forward.
  • 5. CLAIM 17: That students‟ overall performance is better in those schools that have more artsteaching. This raises the core causation v. correlation problem, as usually studies do not indicatewhat the many other variables are when comparing different groups.CLAIM 18: That when you make connections across disciplines you understand the contentmore deeply, or you understand how we learn more deeply. This should lead to comparativeanalyses of using 21st-century skills across different disciplines. It’s important to not just makeclaims about all students, but to consider differences among them, in order to pinpoint who willbenefit. A given approach may work well for some and poorly for others. A strong effect on aminority, say 10%, can disappear in the average effect on the majority. We also should considerthe progress of particular students - that is where the richness occurs in the mining of the data tosee how those students who did got from point A to point B. It’s also important to consider thepath of children over long periods of time, say 10 years, and how they got there.Study: A longitudinal study is needed of a core group of students over time that considers lastingimpacts between control and study groups.CLAIM 19: That the art-science process of critical thinking accelerates invention and innovation.That is what companies want: getting an innovative, viable result through integrative thinking.CLAIM 20: That students with an art and science background become better citizens.Chicago (IIT) ConferenceNotes by Rebecca HernandezAn example was raised. After the Challenger explosion, Cooper Union felt some responsibilitybecause of their involvement in training scientists and engineers. The report that was createdbefore the explosion detailed that the Challenger shouldnt be launched in the kind of weatherthat it took off in. But that information was buried deep into the report, in a footnote.So Cooper Union felt that they needed to address the issues of how engineers communicate. Andin that educational experiment, they incorporated dance, music, and theatre in engineeringeducation.Many participants wanted to know: what kinds of research are already out there?Nick Rabkin outlined 3 or 4 broad research concepts:
  • 6.  Metacognitive research - metaphorming as an example. The meta cognitive processes that we use in the arts and the sciences. Root-Bernsteins research as another example.  Arts educations relationship to graduation  Ancillary skills research  Integrated curriculum research (the word "transfer" in education. You learn something in one domain and you can transfer that knowledge to another domain).This is an old idea in cognitive psychology, but it is apparently very difficult to prove. Example:Reading in Motion, places artist in primary grades that teach art skills that are meant toencourage students improvement in language skillsTodd - The Civil Society Institute - creativity: building and strengthening civil society. Howdoes creativity affect science, technology and civil society?Researchers / research to investigate:  Sir Ken Robinson  Richard Desey (transfer)  Neuroscience  Conceptual blockbustingWho are our audiences for research? We need to determine not only what we want to know butwhat we want to do with that research. Like do we want to develop new programs?Audiences:  Policy makers (public school)  Funders (informal education)  Board members (informal education)  Parents (Amy - parents think that math and science is primary in importance because the schools tell them it is.)Todd - In terms of lifelong learning, businesses dont care how something work as long as it doeswork.More research is needed to prove the learning gains in informal science environments. Weintuitively know that they work but we dont have research to back it up.
  • 7. Are there particular questions that we want to answer?How do you document?How do we make a rubric out of those 5 elements of creativity so that we can judge creativity(and show it to Arnie Duncan)There is an issue of how we define creativity and art. They are being used interchangeably andthey dont mean the same thing. Not that the arts arent creative but creativity in science doesntnecessarily come from the addition of art. There is actually quite a lot of creativity inherent in thesciences.Should we compile the data from schools that have no art program? As a control group?Someone was concerned that were asking the wrong questions. Were automatically puttingourselves in the position to defend ourselves. Why dont we just go ahead and do it and then dothe research. To answer that, some participants responded that they are doing that. they areteaching art and science and they are now at the stage where they need the research because thesystem wont allow it to happen.One problem with the Chicago educational system: In CPS high schools, students need to choosea track in 8th grade and theres no opportunity for them to do both science and art, and some getstuck when theyre halfway through and realize they made the wrong choice.Todd: Maybe we should be looking at innovate thinkers biographies.What if we look at STEM being injected into the arts, rather than the other way around?We need to think about different layers of research. There is the grassroots layer. There arepeople that are working with children on a daily basis. We need many research projects. Wellnever agree on one approach. We need to get a channel of research to the grassroots level as wellas other administrative and policy levels.Dave Becker - There are some research categories missing from Nicks original list:  Communities of practice research  Design-based researchRebecca Hernandez - There are "communities of practice" research. Thats the type of research Iconduct.
  • 8. Marya Spont - Maybe we also need to think of a "stereotype threat." Has their been any researchdone on wether there is a stereotype threat that discourages math and science students fromengaging in the arts?What about the Montessori idea, that we should be instilling value systems? What are weoffering in building a larger vision of what we as a society want to become? What kinds ofhuman beings do we want to build and grow?To build on that - theres a Bermuda triangle of education, textbook COs, testing COs, andtheyre all in conflictThere is a link between the "what kinds of people do we want to create" and the metacognitiveresearch. This is less mundane than the content knowledge test but not quite as rigorous as theReggia Emilia approach.How to incorporate drama into programming? It brings in emotions (and accessing emotionshelps with memory and learning). Where is the research on "play" and "fun"? Do you know whatwe learn? We learn what we care about.Lorena Walker - Im coming from a different place. Im trying science into the arts. Art helpsmemory. There are 4 steps to remembering things: learn, repeat, _______, and teach. Kids lovemaking something and having this object that theyre proud of. So proud of that they will show itand teach it to others.Process seems to be the place where science and art connect. Their line of inquiry is similar.There are "parallel processes."Example: a research project for crowdsourcing - ZOO, project that came out of a thesis fromCambridge. Crowdsourcing was used to identify galaxies. Pamela Gay, astronomer, Universityof Illinois is affiliated with this project.Initiative for Innovative Computing - science visualization at UICNeuroscience - Is there research in neuroscience? Emilo Dino Yang, Antonio Dimasio,"Descartes Error," "Looking for Spinoza," "Whats wrong with Enlightenment and Post-enlightenment?"  Daniel Shakters work - elaborative and coding  Ken Wensen - applying information in different modalities
  • 9.  Mirror neurons research - MRI experiment with monkeys  Cognitive Language  George Laykoff and others research - spatial metaphors, recommendation: journal of aesthetic education  Raul Hoffman, scientist and writerI teach science to art teachers - how can i use their skills to help them learn? - Open WorldLearning (OWL)Can we find a way to continue this connection? We have quite a lot of collective knowledge andit would be a shame to end here? Can we start a Google doc? Yes. Many people thought that thisis a good idea.San Diego (CalIT2) ConferenceNotes by Suzy SzumowskiLed by Jeff RemmelGoals: think about practical things that might be proposed as research projects -General Questions 1) What do we want to know? 2) What are our key claims 3) Who are we trying to convince? 4) Evaluation Strategies?Harvey Seifter- how does art of science learning relate to research—the heart of what AoSL istrying to do. Perspective comes from marketplace.Challenge: being in a world increasingly hyper specialized but advocate for something thatis very cross-disciplinary.When talk about science conditioned to think of as separate from art. From experience inmarketplace, it is extraordinarily difficult to get arts-based learning into business. Because don‟thave the tools that (quantitative, proof for basing legislative decisions on, justify from ROIstandpoint).How do companies assess skills they are looking for (we have this data) We have correlativedata between interest in activity/engagement in art & high scientific achievement. In between allthat we have a blank canvas.
  • 10. Filling that blank canvas is the goal here — fill it with data and compelling stories andnarratives. Emphasis on data. NSF wants an agenda. What do we think we can prove as thevalue of applying arts based learning to science. Does arts-based learning education contributeto the development of a science literate public? Do you actually advance the critical skills of aninnovative workforce? What are these data points? How are you going to go about proving it?With who?Goal: build on conversations in DC and Chicago. (what is research, what are we trying to do,does it matter,  forced us to be more articulate in purposes of AbSL in a way that will havetraction in marketplace. In Chicago conversation was: what types of research, what are thequestions?Today‟s goal: what are we about in this research agenda. Designing experiments to get data.Who might contribute to them (designing and carrying them out). Are there programs already inprocess where measurements are already being conducted to get these data points? Are thereprograms that could be adapted for this purpose? Is there already existing data that we canrepurpose/look at from a different angle? Hone in on the blank slate and try to fill it in.Presentation by James Catterall - UCLA Research in roles of art and human development.Centers for Research on CreativityArt for Science‟s Sake; Science for Art‟s Sake. Creativity, Cognition, and School ContextsJames held up two pieces of fruit packing (for apples) = models for associative thinking—hard tomeasure, sort of poorly defined; supposed to symbolize brain cortex. Any stimulus is broadlyprocessed in brain- seeks connections in deep corridors in brain. Making connections definesunderstanding in the brain. Artist and scientists receive the same stimulus but make differentconnections. If get scientist and artist to work together, you essentially link the two brainnetworks; 2 people collaborating typically go way further than one person alone in solving aproblem b/c feedback between networks & interchange- can play off one another and promptnew ways of thinking in each other.Recently James has been thinking about creativity. Creativity is the top of our educationalagenda. We know we need more of it. It is the apex of both science and art. But how do we doit? We would love for scientists and artists benefit from one another‟s ideas… but how? Howdoes it get played out? We‟ve seen the labs, which are fascinating places. It‟s one thing to sayit; it‟s another thing to do it. E.g.: bring art teachers into fold of science? It‟s hard enough tofind art teachers and keep them in schools. Hard to find elementary school teachers with trainingin science or high school science teachers that are really good scientists.We need a clearer discourse on creativity. Creativity training in schools is too short term/notsustained- can‟t be a 15 week program in an English program, needs to be worked at over a longperiod of time.
  • 11. Not enough knowledge of how to pursue this mission. Visual arts class is not the same ascreativity. Technique and mimicry is not creativity. To teach things related to creative behaviorit needs to be explicitly incorporated eg. composing music. Same with science- generallyteaches teach a body of content to pass a test, not provide opportunities for creativitydevelopment.James‟s recent studies in the arts:  Research on academic and social effects of engagement in the arts  Research on Learning in the Arts; and how to assess artistic skills and expertise  Research on creativity and how to nurture creative skills and inclinations  Exploring the neuro-correlates of art creation and experienceScience and StructureIn the mid 80s James participated in a study looking at why some people go into hard scienceand some don‟t. Hypothesis: some people steer clear b/c hard sciences are perceived as beingdifficult. Found 6 bright young faculty (who weren‟t in hard science) and asked them why theydidn‟t go into science.Listened to discussion by scientists about AIDS. Afterwards non-scientists asked if it wasdifficult- James: hard to follow with lots of terms. Scientists say that once you can see throughall the structures and vocabulary, you can easily see the root of what is interesting. There is avisual/structural element to many science problems that visual art can help solve.Visual artwork in relation to a science art done by yourself can get you into a conversation aboutwhat you‟re thinking about. Because you represent something but then you can reflect on thatrepresentation and think about it and build off it. This is helpful b/c you didn‟t necessarily knowwhat you were going to feel before you built it. Even better- two people working on a scienceproblem w/visual art. Then you have two networks connected. Two people together can bemore productive than two people independentlyScience and Play: play, conversation and learningAll learning should have a lot of play in it. Play is at the heart of research. Spielraum = germanword for play room. It‟s important to play.Understanding Creativity- how to promote creative skills and creative dispositions. Besidesmeasuring and observing creativity—how do you promote skills and dispositions? James thinksa creative disposition or inclination is the most important. Have to be inclined to do it; skills cancome ** this is what HTH founder said he looks for in teaching applicants
  • 12. Creativity is important b/c it produces valuable, productive ideas (but valuable to who? To themarketplace?, community?, individual?). But what is “new”? New on the planet? In themarketplace? To the community? To the individual? Our focus is on the individual. Somethingthat is new and valuable to the individual. There‟s this idea that if you‟re gonna be creative ithas to be something that blows people brains away. Not true. Cognitive form of creativity(having original ideas) is valuable! It just has to be new to you.Assessing creative ideas and creative behavior- nurturing creativity through instruction in the artsand sciences. Nurturing creativity in the workforce. Key assumption: sustained, explicitlyattention to creativity.Implementation. Science and Art, Teachers and schools. The biggest caution in any of this ishow to implement it.Art teachers with a science sensibility to classrooms (and science teachers who can think aboutart) and try and really beef it up on a large scale.. like doing a project- faces really bigimplementation hurdles. It‟s hard to get lots of people to change behaviors. It‟s easy to get ahandful of teachers to think about but hard to make a movement of itHow much do you think community development and creating a safe place in the classroom goesinto this?A: in a classroom is the teacher accommodating to creative approaches/answers? If you bringsomething up that isn‟t in the lesson plan, is the teacher ok with that? (esp. if it‟s wrong or offtopic)… if teacher‟s ok with that, then it‟s a safe place for creativity. Not only tolerance ofcreative diversion but ENCOURAGING itQ: We got a million dollars to do theater, dance, and visual art with kids (grades 3-5) in 5schools each year for 3 years. Our approach is to find holes in learning and develop lesson plansto fill these gaps with the arts. What are your recommendations for that?J: You need to continue to support these schools after your intensive involvement is done.Sustaining is critical. (RESPONSE: we wean them down from our support over 3 years, and bythe end the teachers are rearing to go and come up with their own arts-based learningcurriculums.) *caution if you are „cherry-picking the ready‟ schools for introducing the programit might get harder down the road. Be wary of the criticism that you are selecting and respondthat there is nothing wrong with giving programs to those who want them.Time will tell if it‟ll work out. Hard to say if a small pond that‟s deep is better or a lake that‟snot so deepQ; interested in assessment aspect of creativity. What is the applicability to elementary andmiddle school kids? What can we do to measure growth over time? How can we demonstrate to
  • 13. policy makers that this is valuable? What evidence can we give business people to push policymakers with?J: Creative processes vs. product of creativity. It‟s important to focus on the process b/c this willdevelop creative dispositions. This can be assessed by 1.) how can we tell by WHAT the kids aredoing what they are thinking and how they are engaging in the creative process? Processprobably values more across different labs than do the final products. Who is to say whichprocess is more creative? Probably people who are knowledgeable about the efficiency orastetics of the final products. If I were to evaluate 3rd graders‟ creativity, I would sit down withthe teachers and think about what sort of processes the teachers are trying to set in motion. It‟sall very context dependent- which is totally different from standardized tests. Answer: it‟scomplicated but it‟s doable. If you are creating products you could judge those, but it takes ahuman to look at them.Q: What is researchable or what is provable? What is valid data?J: if there are artists involved who are part of a program, you want them to be thinking morescientifically and thinking about connections to science in their work. I think you can measurechange in a group of artists who come into a project and do an assessment of how their thinkingchanged after cooperating with scientists and incorporating science into their art. And the samething with scientists incorporating art. I think you can spell out a set of things that mightcharacterize this type of learning. Observations, kids talking about their own learning… but nota standardized testQ: a game design methodology for graduate students… it‟s wonderfully creative but very hard toassess. The measurement needs to come from depth of learning and strength of connections.You have to understand the lesson outcome. The important part is measuring DEPTH oflearning. Can they make connections between different lessons. How do we dissect learningoutcomes. 2.) I‟ve observed that iterative process of video gamers is similar to those of „giftedchildren‟. They are able to process problems and try solutions very rapidly games and failingforward is a great place to push forward creative process and problem solving.Q: measuring creative thinking is anyone‟s guess at this point. A rubric of how scientists think.Pre- and post- assessments in classes using science/art co teaching vs. those that don‟t = 71%increase in creative thinking. I‟m concerned about this erosion of creative process in curriculumover time. How do we sustain this? Suggestion: internet = community to keep participantsinvolved? How much extra workload does this create?J: web stuff tends to fall off. Share this pre/post assessment data with the group—Dennis Doylewill send to HarveyAlan Lightman‟s Einstein Dreams = wonderful narrative, beautiful explanation of physics.
  • 14. Group discussionWe reiterated the “General Questions” to ground the group discussion. 1) What do we want to know? 2) What are our key claims 3) Who are we trying to convince? 4) Evaluation Strategies?How does science and art help students communicate? One of the challenges is communicatingto different people. How does this affect professional development? Will this help teachersunderstand the differences in how their students learn?Teacher at school w/mission in integrated learning: there‟s a lot of info available for how toteach this type of learning. We‟d be off base if we focus on recommendations on how to sustainor come up with integration of science and art. That‟s not the problem. What holds teachers backis how they are assessed and how they get funding. We are seeing erosion of funding for doingthis. Also a problem is that teachers are assessed on content learning, not process learning.When teachers are measured by # they get on standardized test, there isn‟t a compelling reasonfor teachers to do integrative teaching. How do we change the assessment of the TEACHERS tovalue integrative learning? We need some research on how teachers can beencouraged/supported to do this.They have knowledge of how to do this, but they don‟t have the time or the money.We need to be careful to stay away from this deficit problem. Part of it is the constraints beingput on teachers from outside. I know lots of teachers that spend a lot of time taking kids tomuseums and come up with really creative lessons. That takes a lot of time and we are askingteachers to decide whether they spend time with their families or their students. We need to lookat the societal impacts of these decisions as well. From a research perspective, we shouldconsider not only what‟s going on in schools for „whole‟ student learning but also broadly whereelse in society we can push this initiative.Suggestion: create a website where data we already have can be compiledService learning projects are amazing. Even small funding (Americorps) can make a hugedifference. Teachers seeking funding makes a HUGE difference. Look to universities, localbusinesses.. get money from them… because it‟s not coming from the administrative budget.How can we give policy makers the hardcore data they need? What do we need to give them?Everyone knows the more constraints there are the worse the learning is (no child left behind =fail). But how do we SHOW them this?
  • 15. Teaching observation skills: ask kids to draw a flower. Asked how a scientist would look at theflower, how an artists would look at a flower; and asked them to draw a flower again… and 2nddrawings were amazing. Could see progression of what students were thinking- data is online(qualitative). So you can get some (small scale) data.**Pipeline: schools teach students  workforce; workforce wants arts-based learning trainedstudents. But business hasn‟t stepped up to fund the front end of their pipeline. How can weconvince businesses that they should invest in this? We should research what we can do toconvince businesses to invest in this.There‟s a lot of interest in science. Pairing art and science people is very appealing to peopleevaluating grants. So we should think about that when applying for funding.Giving abstract things a PURPOSE and giving an application for the skills we want to teach iscrucial for getting funding to support this training.As this field grows we need to grow the assessment process, not try to shove it into an oldassessment process. Need to grow the whole field not just the parts. And when people getinterested they get together to make stuff- even outside of school (e.g. Blackrock and BurningMan)What are 2-3 research agendas we can create in the next 4-6 months? 1) A depot; a place to compile these discussions and include resources. A resource center that collects all this stuff (projects people are doing, grants that have been given) without having to look in a scattered way  A teacher thinks this already exists, and teachers already know how to do all this. The real problem is teachers finding time to implement this, which is the political structuring- that‟s what needs to be researched: how can we change requirements for teachers? Also thinks that assessment systems already exist and no need to reinvent the wheel. 2) We need to come up with significant narrative and qualitative assessments- not just runs batted in, but how many shots were attempted. 3) Our measurements need to be something that policy makers think is valid.

×