The document summarizes discussions from two conferences about research on the relationship between arts education and STEM performance. At the first conference, the group examined existing studies on this topic and considered ways to improve future research designs. They discussed 20 claims about how arts education may improve skills in other disciplines. At the second conference, participants discussed priorities for future research, including studying metacognition, the effects of arts education on graduation rates, and the impacts of integrated arts and STEM curricula. They also debated how to define and measure concepts like creativity.

1. Washington, D.C. (Smithsonian) Conference
From Notes by Martin Storksdieck
Cause versus Correlation
The 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 causal
and what correlative. Clearly there is the need for a series of more sophisticated and developed
quantitative studies than have been conducted to date.
The group briefly considered a number of existing studies. The first was the seminal 2005 study
by John Osburn and Richard Stock of the CONNECT program, established in 1997 at the
Engineering School of The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. The issue
was, in light of the 1986 Challenger explosion, due in part to mis-communication among NASA
employees and between NASA and MortonThiokol about the condition of the O-rings, how to
study the state of engineering graduate students‟ communication. The CONNECT program
worked on integrating dance, theatre, engineering, and music education through an infused
curriculum, with metrics designed from the outset. The study surveyed corporate recruiters to
compare 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 what
the 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 yields
measurable gains in communication skills. This is one of the few randomized control studies that
succeeds 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, we
don‟t know as it wasn‟t considered.
A good starting point for this group is to consider which studies can be recommended - and what
are some of the key data points that could help decision-makers understand the return on
investment.
Another key study was the 2002 study by Susan McMahon, Dale Rose and Michaela Parks of the
Basic Reading Through Dance program in the Chicago Public Schools, where first-graders were
taught basic reading concepts through movement. This was also a randomized study with a
control group (but it raises the question of when, in study design, randomization makes sense and
when it doesn‟t). Experience shows that principals and teachers should be involved in study
design.
A third study examined was a DoE-funded project at the Isabella Stewart gardener Museum in
Boston, 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 their
conversations in the galleries) to see how art museum programs can contribute to developing
target skills as well as improving non-art test scores. The study revealed no significant
differences between the experimental and control groups, but argues that tests did not measure
the 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 of
such studies, as succinctly as possible: they often get lost in minutiae and bound by the language
of 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-based
studies.
It was felt that studies should take more of a systems-wide approach, especially looking at how
arts-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 the
kinds of studies needed.
There is, as ever, the problem of definition. Definitions (e.g., of science, art, technology) tend to
bind and narrow the work that can then be done. For example, some colleges offer “Arts and
Sciences” 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 to
integrate the arts into each student‟s daily curriculum) actively develops collaborations between
teachers and arts organizations.
Metrics: there is the question of how to measure the impact of arts ed programs. What exactly is
being measured? More research is needed on whether/how arts integration supports mastery in
another discipline (e.g. in the sciences). How do you converge the languages of arts and
sciences? What does it mean for learning? We know what happens in dual language learning, but
the 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 about
programs that led to innovations, demonstrating the use of critical thinking skills.

3. One participant advised that when working with corporations to apply STEM knowledge, one
should 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) that
details how the memorization of music or dialog suggests a cognitive ability transferrable to
math 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 more
pervasive 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 skill
in 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; for
example, 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 talk
about how the arts can help with the sciences, but it works the other way around too. One
example of this form of integrative thinking is the 1994 ArtsScience program, piloted in the
Cherry Creek School systems. The integrative approach is distinct from an interdisciplinary
approach. The trick is to allow multiple approaches to a set of similar practices in order to tap
into “metaskills.” This approach helps students and teachers understand that there are many
ways of representing information. The Polygon Blooms project (at Philadelphia’s Grover
Washington Jr. Middle School) is one successful example of an integrated program in which
artist and scientist co-teach. It’s not so much about transferring knowledge as about combining
them in a deep way.
CLAIM 6: That this is an integrative approach that is effective, exploring problems from
multiple 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 artistic
thinking visible will call science into play.

4. CLAIM 8: That improvisational dance has a rich array of critical thinking skills, that will help
you become a much better thinker.
CLAIM 9: That merging the arts with the sciences supports and engages students to be more
successful in both disciplines. Students might be more likely to like science if they access it
through the arts, or vice versa, depending on the individual. This raises the question of how
performing arts, specifically improvisation, deepen hypothesizing and associative thinking.
CLAIM 10: That by learning a specific scientific or artistic skill-set in science, you are better
able to use them in the other skill-set.
CLAIM 11: That neurological changes realized through the arts or sciences apply to other
disciplines. For example, consider The Brain that Changes Itself on neuroplasticity. This could
help verify the neurological basis for change.
CLAIM 12: That there is a deep connection between the experience of doing the arts and the
acquisition of critical skills.
CLAIM 13: That integrated learning is a way of building skills and knowledge in the arts and the
sciences.
CLAIM 14: That practitioners can create better knowledge through the use of integration of art
and science. This leads to the questions of whether we can teach creativity or intuitiveness. That
which will allow people to respond to stimulus we don’t know about yet. The work of Livingstone
and Hubel, for example, considers how visual artists have intuited, centuries before scientific
proof, that vision is not image-based, but is created by proteins in the brain that build images of
what 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 commented
that the conference outcomes appeared to be very verbally-bound, to the exclusion of numerical
or imagery-based approaches. The Metaphorming experience helped to move the approach away
from the verbal, helping to reveal ideas in a different light, but were then translated back into the
verbal. One commented that the metaphorming models helped change the way we see each
others’ ideas.
CLAIM 16: That we have the data from what has already been done to map the desired core
concepts and design ways to move forward.

5. CLAIM 17: That students‟ overall performance is better in those schools that have more arts
teaching. This raises the core causation v. correlation problem, as usually studies do not indicate
what the many other variables are when comparing different groups.
CLAIM 18: That when you make connections across disciplines you understand the content
more deeply, or you understand how we learn more deeply. This should lead to comparative
analyses of using 21st-century skills across different disciplines. It’s important to not just make
claims about all students, but to consider differences among them, in order to pinpoint who will
benefit. A given approach may work well for some and poorly for others. A strong effect on a
minority, say 10%, can disappear in the average effect on the majority. We also should consider
the progress of particular students - that is where the richness occurs in the mining of the data to
see how those students who did got from point A to point B. It’s also important to consider the
path 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 lasting
impacts 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) Conference
Notes by Rebecca Hernandez
An example was raised. After the Challenger explosion, Cooper Union felt some responsibility
because of their involvement in training scientists and engineers. The report that was created
before the explosion detailed that the Challenger shouldn't be launched in the kind of weather
that 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. And
in that educational experiment, they incorporated dance, music, and theatre in engineering
education.
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 education's 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 to
encourage students improvement in language skills
Todd - The Civil Society Institute - creativity: building and strengthening civil society. How
does creativity affect science, technology and civil society?
Researchers / research to investigate:
 Sir Ken Robinson
 Richard Desey (transfer)
 Neuroscience
 Conceptual blockbusting
Who are our audiences for research? We need to determine not only what we want to know but
what 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 don't care how something work as long as it does
work.
More research is needed to prove the learning gains in informal science environments. We
intuitively know that they work but we don't 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 and
they don't mean the same thing. Not that the arts aren't creative but creativity in science doesn't
necessarily come from the addition of art. There is actually quite a lot of creativity inherent in the
sciences.
Should we compile the data from schools that have no art program? As a control group?
Someone was concerned that we're asking the wrong questions. We're automatically putting
ourselves in the position to defend ourselves. Why don't we just go ahead and do it and then do
the research. To answer that, some participants responded that they are doing that. they are
teaching art and science and they are now at the stage where they need the research because the
system won't allow it to happen.
One problem with the Chicago educational system: In CPS high schools, students need to choose
a track in 8th grade and there's no opportunity for them to do both science and art, and some get
stuck when they're 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 are
people that are working with children on a daily basis. We need many research projects. We'll
never agree on one approach. We need to get a channel of research to the grassroots level as well
as other administrative and policy levels.
Dave Becker - There are some research categories missing from Nick's original list:
 Communities of practice research
 Design-based research
Rebecca Hernandez - There are "communities of practice" research. That's the type of research I
conduct.

8. Marya Spont - Maybe we also need to think of a "stereotype threat." Has their been any research
done on wether there is a stereotype threat that discourages math and science students from
engaging in the arts?
What about the Montessori idea, that we should be instilling value systems? What are we
offering in building a larger vision of what we as a society want to become? What kinds of
human beings do we want to build and grow?
To build on that - there's a Bermuda triangle of education, textbook COs, testing COs, and
they're all in conflict
There is a link between the "what kinds of people do we want to create" and the metacognitive
research. This is less mundane than the content knowledge test but not quite as rigorous as the
Reggia Emilia approach.
How to incorporate drama into programming? It brings in emotions (and accessing emotions
helps with memory and learning). Where is the research on "play" and "fun"? Do you know what
we learn? We learn what we care about.
Lorena Walker - I'm coming from a different place. I'm trying science into the arts. Art helps
memory. There are 4 steps to remembering things: learn, repeat, _______, and teach. Kids love
making something and having this object that they're proud of. So proud of that they will show it
and 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 from
Cambridge. Crowdsourcing was used to identify galaxies. Pamela Gay, astronomer, University
of Illinois is affiliated with this project.
Initiative for Innovative Computing - science visualization at UIC
Neuroscience - Is there research in neuroscience? Emilo Dino Yang, Antonio Dimasio,
"Descartes Error," "Looking for Spinoza," "What's wrong with Enlightenment and Post-
enlightenment?"
 Daniel Shakter's 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 writer
I teach science to art teachers - how can i use their skills to help them learn? - Open World
Learning (OWL)
Can we find a way to continue this connection? We have quite a lot of collective knowledge and
it would be a shame to end here? Can we start a Google doc? Yes. Many people thought that this
is a good idea.
San Diego (CalIT2) Conference
Notes by Suzy Szumowski
Led by Jeff Remmel
Goals: 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 is
trying to do. Perspective comes from marketplace.
Challenge: being in a world increasingly hyper specialized but advocate for something that
is very cross-disciplinary.
When talk about science conditioned to think of as separate from art. From experience in
marketplace, it is extraordinarily difficult to get arts-based learning into business. Because don‟t
have the tools that (quantitative, proof for basing legislative decisions on, justify from ROI
standpoint).
How do companies assess skills they are looking for (we have this data) We have correlative
data between interest in activity/engagement in art & high scientific achievement. In between all
that we have a blank canvas.

10. Filling that blank canvas is the goal here — fill it with data and compelling stories and
narratives. Emphasis on data. NSF wants an agenda. What do we think we can prove as the
value of applying arts based learning to science. Does arts-based learning education contribute
to the development of a science literate public? Do you actually advance the critical skills of an
innovative 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 have
traction in marketplace. In Chicago conversation was: what types of research, what are the
questions?
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 in
process where measurements are already being conducted to get these data points? Are there
programs that could be adapted for this purpose? Is there already existing data that we can
repurpose/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 Creativity
Art for Science‟s Sake; Science for Art‟s Sake. Creativity, Cognition, and School Contexts
James held up two pieces of fruit packing (for apples) = models for associative thinking—hard to
measure, sort of poorly defined; supposed to symbolize brain cortex. Any stimulus is broadly
processed in brain- seeks connections in deep corridors in brain. Making connections defines
understanding in the brain. Artist and scientists receive the same stimulus but make different
connections. If get scientist and artist to work together, you essentially link the two brain
networks; 2 people collaborating typically go way further than one person alone in solving a
problem b/c feedback between networks & interchange- can play off one another and prompt
new ways of thinking in each other.
Recently James has been thinking about creativity. Creativity is the top of our educational
agenda. We know we need more of it. It is the apex of both science and art. But how do we do
it? We would love for scientists and artists benefit from one another‟s ideas… but how? How
does it get played out? We‟ve seen the labs, which are fascinating places. It‟s one thing to say
it; it‟s another thing to do it. E.g.: bring art teachers into fold of science? It‟s hard enough to
find art teachers and keep them in schools. Hard to find elementary school teachers with training
in 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/not
sustained- can‟t be a 15 week program in an English program, needs to be worked at over a long
period of time.

11. Not enough knowledge of how to pursue this mission. Visual arts class is not the same as
creativity. Technique and mimicry is not creativity. To teach things related to creative behavior
it needs to be explicitly incorporated eg. composing music. Same with science- generally
teaches teach a body of content to pass a test, not provide opportunities for creativity
development.
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 experience
Science and Structure
In the mid 80s James participated in a study looking at why some people go into hard science
and some don‟t. Hypothesis: some people steer clear b/c hard sciences are perceived as being
difficult. Found 6 bright young faculty (who weren‟t in hard science) and asked them why they
didn‟t go into science.
Listened to discussion by scientists about AIDS. Afterwards non-scientists asked if it was
difficult- James: hard to follow with lots of terms. Scientists say that once you can see through
all the structures and vocabulary, you can easily see the root of what is interesting. There is a
visual/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 about
what you‟re thinking about. Because you represent something but then you can reflect on that
representation and think about it and build off it. This is helpful b/c you didn‟t necessarily know
what you were going to feel before you built it. Even better- two people working on a science
problem w/visual art. Then you have two networks connected. Two people together can be
more productive than two people independently
Science and Play: play, conversation and learning
All learning should have a lot of play in it. Play is at the heart of research. Spielraum = german
word for play room. It‟s important to play.
Understanding Creativity- how to promote creative skills and creative dispositions. Besides
measuring and observing creativity—how do you promote skills and dispositions? James thinks
a creative disposition or inclination is the most important. Have to be inclined to do it; skills can
come ** 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 the
marketplace?, community?, individual?). But what is “new”? New on the planet? In the
marketplace? To the community? To the individual? Our focus is on the individual. Something
that is new and valuable to the individual. There‟s this idea that if you‟re gonna be creative it
has 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 arts
and sciences. Nurturing creativity in the workforce. Key assumption: sustained, explicitly
attention to creativity.
Implementation. Science and Art, Teachers and schools. The biggest caution in any of this is
how to implement it.
Art teachers with a science sensibility to classrooms (and science teachers who can think about
art) and try and really beef it up on a large scale.. like doing a project- faces really big
implementation hurdles. It‟s hard to get lots of people to change behaviors. It‟s easy to get a
handful of teachers to think about but hard to make a movement of it
How much do you think community development and creating a safe place in the classroom goes
into this?
A: in a classroom is the teacher accommodating to creative approaches/answers? If you bring
something up that isn‟t in the lesson plan, is the teacher ok with that? (esp. if it‟s wrong or off
topic)… if teacher‟s ok with that, then it‟s a safe place for creativity. Not only tolerance of
creative diversion but ENCOURAGING it
Q: We got a million dollars to do theater, dance, and visual art with kids (grades 3-5) in 5
schools each year for 3 years. Our approach is to find holes in learning and develop lesson plans
to 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 by
the end the teachers are rearing to go and come up with their own arts-based learning
curriculums.) *caution if you are „cherry-picking the ready‟ schools for introducing the program
it might get harder down the road. Be wary of the criticism that you are selecting and respond
that 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‟s
not so deep
Q; interested in assessment aspect of creativity. What is the applicability to elementary and
middle 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 policy
makers with?
J: Creative processes vs. product of creativity. It‟s important to focus on the process b/c this will
develop creative dispositions. This can be assessed by 1.) how can we tell by WHAT the kids are
doing what they are thinking and how they are engaging in the creative process? Process
probably values more across different labs than do the final products. Who is to say which
process is more creative? Probably people who are knowledgeable about the efficiency or
astetics of the final products. If I were to evaluate 3rd graders‟ creativity, I would sit down with
the teachers and think about what sort of processes the teachers are trying to set in motion. It‟s
all very context dependent- which is totally different from standardized tests. Answer: it‟s
complicated but it‟s doable. If you are creating products you could judge those, but it takes a
human 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 more
scientifically and thinking about connections to science in their work. I think you can measure
change in a group of artists who come into a project and do an assessment of how their thinking
changed after cooperating with scientists and incorporating science into their art. And the same
thing with scientists incorporating art. I think you can spell out a set of things that might
characterize this type of learning. Observations, kids talking about their own learning… but not
a standardized test
Q: a game design methodology for graduate students… it‟s wonderfully creative but very hard to
assess. 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 of
learning. Can they make connections between different lessons. How do we dissect learning
outcomes. 2.) I‟ve observed that iterative process of video gamers is similar to those of „gifted
children‟. They are able to process problems and try solutions very rapidly games and failing
forward 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 curriculum
over time. How do we sustain this? Suggestion: internet = community to keep participants
involved? How much extra workload does this create?
J: web stuff tends to fall off. Share this pre/post assessment data with the group—Dennis Doyle
will send to Harvey
Alan Lightman‟s Einstein Dreams = wonderful narrative, beautiful explanation of physics.

14. Group discussion
We 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 communicating
to different people. How does this affect professional development? Will this help teachers
understand the differences in how their students learn?
Teacher at school w/mission in integrated learning: there‟s a lot of info available for how to
teach this type of learning. We‟d be off base if we focus on recommendations on how to sustain
or come up with integration of science and art. That‟s not the problem. What holds teachers back
is how they are assessed and how they get funding. We are seeing erosion of funding for doing
this. 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 reason
for teachers to do integrative teaching. How do we change the assessment of the TEACHERS to
value integrative learning? We need some research on how teachers can be
encouraged/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 being
put on teachers from outside. I know lots of teachers that spend a lot of time taking kids to
museums and come up with really creative lessons. That takes a lot of time and we are asking
teachers to decide whether they spend time with their families or their students. We need to look
at the societal impacts of these decisions as well. From a research perspective, we should
consider not only what‟s going on in schools for „whole‟ student learning but also broadly where
else in society we can push this initiative.
Suggestion: create a website where data we already have can be compiled
Service learning projects are amazing. Even small funding (Americorps) can make a huge
difference. Teachers seeking funding makes a HUGE difference. Look to universities, local
businesses.. 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 the
flower, how an artists would look at a flower; and asked them to draw a flower again… and 2nd
drawings 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 trained
students. But business hasn‟t stepped up to fund the front end of their pipeline. How can we
convince businesses that they should invest in this? We should research what we can do to
convince businesses to invest in this.
There‟s a lot of interest in science. Pairing art and science people is very appealing to people
evaluating 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 is
crucial 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 old
assessment process. Need to grow the whole field not just the parts. And when people get
interested they get together to make stuff- even outside of school (e.g. Blackrock and Burning
Man)
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.