Community, Collaboration, and Culture || Teaching-to-Learn: A Constructivist Approach to Shared Responsibility

National Art Education Association

Teaching-to-Learn: A Constructivist Approach to Shared ResponsibilityAuthor(s): Melody K. Milbrandt, Janet Felts, Brooke Richards and Neda AbghariSource: Art Education, Vol. 57, No. 5, Community, Collaboration, and Culture (Sep., 2004), pp.19-24+33Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3194100 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 06:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:00:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3194100?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Traditzonally, art educators have advocated student self-expression

and personal choice. Student decision-making

has undoubtedly been the crux of creative and critical

thinking and is central to a humanistic approach to art

education (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1970; Eisner, 1972;

Gaitskell & Hurwitz, 1975). Issues of choice and voice

are also central to contemporary art education

(Chalmers, 1992; Efland, Freedman, & Stuhr, 1996;

Gaudelius & Speirs, 2003; Barakett & Sacca, 2003;

Sullivan, 2003, Anderson & Milbrandt, 2004), and are

essential in the processes of analysis, interpretation, and

the construction of meaning for students as they look at

art (Anderson,1995; Barrett, 2000). King (1983) suggests

that self-determination or choice is a powerful motiva-

tional force in learning that simultaneously enhances

both achievement and attitudes about learning. Yet with

the current emphasis on educational accountability,

teachers sometimes find it increasingly difficult to step

out of their roles as educational gatekeepers and

allow students a greater sense of agency and voice

in their own learning.

Ballet Slipper Collage.

2-to-Learn: -

N BY awi

MELODY K MILBRANDT, -i JANET FELTS, | BROOKE RICHARDS, ! AND L N E D A A B G H A R I

A Constructivist

Approach

to S71,ared

Responsibility

S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4 / A R T E D U C AT I O N



Corbstructtrbg Learntrbg Many teachers have experienced the

adage that we often "learn most by teaching." As a means to investigate the impact of collective and individual learning on students, three Atlanta area high school art teachers provided their students with increased opportunities for teaching and decision-making. While this "teaching-to-learn" approach sounds simplistic, when successful it is an example of complex and thoughtful teaching that is constructivist by design.

Contemporary constructivist learning theory is characterized by numerous traits; however, there is common agreement about placing emphasis on the active social participation of the learner with the environment (Perkins, 1999; Phillips, 1995; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Windschitl, 2000). In short, constructivists view knowledge as constructed by the learner in a particular context, and not pre-existent or given from an expert or authority. If we accept constructivist theory as framed by Dewey (1938), Vygotsky (1934), Piaget (1970), Bruner (1960), and others, then we also accept that knowledge or meaning is constructed by humans for ourselves, based on a multitude of sensations, and organized within an environment or culture. As F reedman (2003) suggests, "the mind creates knowledge in response to the world, as it creates and recreates itself' (p. 80). Yet in the daily lives of teachers in K-12 classrooms where a modernist paradigm typically prevails, a continual emphasis is placed on teacher accountability and on student acquisition of established knowledge. Can constructivist practices be of value or even implemented in these situations?

What ts Constructivtst lThveory?

Constructivist theory has many defini- tions and characteristics in educational literature, but at the heart of the constructivist approach to education is the understanding that students are in control of their own learning. Art educators typically have a great deal of control over the content they choose to teach in order to meet district or state curriculum mandates, but they have much less control over what students actually learn (Brooks & Grennon Brooks, 1999).

Phillips (1995) identifies three distinct student roles in constructivism. These roles are described as the active learner,

the social learner, and the creative learner. Studio processes that actively engage students in the creative artistic process or creative problem solving are constructivist by nature. The creation of meaningful artwork involves the student in a construction of identity through puiposeful and expressive visual language (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2004). Learning embedded in social interactions in which students discuss, debate, investigate, and explore multiple viewpoints rather than accept the teacher's viewpoint as the only authority offer other powedul avenues for active art learning and connect students to the real world beyond the classroom. When students have a voice and a degree of choice, and when they are asked to consider how their learning should progress, they are likely to understand the importance of the learning process (Daniels & Bizar, 1998). Educational researchers Brooks and Grennon Brooks (1999) suggest, "it is the search for understanding that motivates students to learn" (p. 21) ratherthan knowledge itself.

Vygotsky (1978) proposed that learning and truth are socially constructed rather than objectively observed, so historical "fact" may differ, depending on the point of viewofthe group involved. Students should arrive at new understanding in the art classroom as they investigate or exper- iment to prove, create, or re-create knowledge (Perkins, 1999). From a constructivist viewpoint, knowledge and understanding are created or re-created; it is not enough for the student to be only actively involved in producing artwork. Structuring pulpose and meaning should be at the heart of artistic activity.

Educational visionaries such as Dewey (1938) and Piaget (1970) laid a foundation for the large body of educational literature now connected to constructivist theory. Dewey's (1938) beliefin immersing students in life experiences to stimulate learning and connect students to the world beyond the classroom and Piaget's (1970) use of hands-on discovery learning are embedded in much of the literature regarding constructivist teaching methodology and art education. Both Dewey and Piaget suggest that motivation for the construction of Eowledge often comes from an experience of cognitive conflict or puzzlement (Savery & Dufi9, 1995). As creative learners, students often experience a synthesis of personal or established knowledge during problem solving that continually produces a change or shift in cognitive structures. Because knowledge is authentically acquired both in the classroom and beyond, students need to build structures of cognition that accommodate and assimilate fragmented owledge into previously acquired understandings aprocessEflandand others have termedpvexible cognition (Efland, 2002).

Many art teachers routinely employ facets of constructivist teaching. For example, Chandra and Basinger (2000) utilize art history constructivist inquiry methods to engage elementary students in the development of contextual understandings of African artworks. They note, " the art history constructivist inquiry methods used in the study provided a number of processes

As they investigate artifacts and artwork of other cultures,

students engage in complex inquiry that requires an examination

of work from a variety of perspectives, among which include

practical, aesthetic, historic, economic, and social dimensions.

A R T E D U C AT I O N / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4



Teachers can guide students to engage in higher level thinking through a variety of processes in the art classroom. The analysis, intexpretation, and production of artworks engages students in many opportunities for decision-making as well as critical and creative thinking (Hamblen, 1984). Disappointingly, inA Place Called School, Goodlad (1984) observed,

Art classes, too, appear to be governed by characteristics which are best described as "school" following the rules, finding the one right answer, practicing the lower cognitive processes. . . (The arts) did not convey the picture of individual expression and artistic creativity toward which one is led by the rhetoric of forward-looking practice in the field. (p. 220)

While we hope this 20-year-old obser- vation is no longer common in contemporary art education practice, institutional emphasis placed on standardized test scores, budget constraints, and teacher performance continues to dominate many discussions in school board offices and teacher lounges, and drives much of the curriculum. This high-stakes view of education impacts how and what

teachers choose to teach. For many teachers, balancing the increased demands of accountability and high pedormance standards with student interests and needs for self-determination becomes a high priority (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2004).

Sharwrbg the Resporbsibility

In the spring of 2003, three Atlanta area high school art teachers implemented constructivist lessons to see how students would accept responsibility for their own learning and peer-teaching situations. Each teacher selected at least one class in which to implement a variety of constructivist strategies. The teachers then selected a goal in their district art curriculum that required students to develop skills in a specific artistic area. Brooke Richards selected collage; Janet Felts chose video; and Neda Abghari decided on printmaking. Led by these teachers, students generated their own lesson objectives and evaluation criteria. All of the teachers planned both small and large cooperative group activities within each lesson.

that possibly facilitated the children's ability to move forward into hypothetical thought and proposition construction" (Chandra & Basinger, 2000, p. 79). As they investigate artifacts and artwork of other cultures, students engage in complex inqliiry that requires an examination of work from a variety of perspectives, among which are practical, aesthetic, historic, economic, and social dimensions. Participation in an in-depth rigorous analysis of artifacts from multiple viewpoints involves students in a more integrated and richer view of the world that more closely simulates real- world problem solving than does traditional classroom instruction (Windschitl, 2000; Scherer, 1999).

Similarly, in multicultural art lessons, conversations with peers who hold different views or understandings of the world stimulate the values or construc- tions of meaning that grant new perspectives of the world (Kincheloe, Slattery, & Steinberg, 2000). Through ciitical discussions about art, students are challenged to consider crucial human questions regarding cultural images of what is true, beautiful, and moral (Scherer, 1999) and to construct or re-construct their own understandings and values.

Student Photography Timeline. During their study of photography, students Sarah Werkheiser and Kenny Humphries collaborated with classmates to construct a timeline based on their research of art movements, events in U.S. and world history, science, and technology as facets of society from 1850-1975. This photograph was first published in Art for Life (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2004). Photograph by Janet Felts.

SEPTEMBER 2004 / ART EDUCATION



Ballet Slipper Collage under construction. Students brainstormed over a hundred possible collage materials for this assignment. Student Jessica Phelps was injured and could no longer dance, so she brought dozens of her old outgrown ballet slippers and wrote her memories of her days as a dancer on the slippers throughout her collage. Photograph by Brooke Richards.

Brooke Richards recalled that her students at Duluth High School brainstormed numerous lesson criteria, which were then written on the board. Next she asked the students to determine the most important objectives. The choice of vocabulary and the use of terms were debated, but eventually the students reached a consensus. Richards notes that it was revealing to hear her students discuss different interpretations of the objectives. The discussion turned into an engaging art vocabulary lesson as the students debated the differences between collage and assemblage, and how to best state their learning objectives. In this case, the students agreed on the objective of "create a collage," but left the choice of media open to opportunities for independent personal choices. The students understood that their lesson objectives would be used as criteria for evaluating their projects. Within their assessment rubric for the collage project the students included explanations of good craftsmanship, originality in idea and materials, and effective composition (B. Richards, personal communication, April 25, 2003).

At Grayson High School, Janet Felts observed that students wrote criteria that were much more specific than she would have written herself. After arriving at a consensus of the objectives for a written research presentation, the students debated and revised the quantity of sources needed to sufficiently cover their topics. After several revisions of

their criteria the students still exceeded their teacher's expectations for the number of reference sources for their papers. Because the students wrote their own objecfives, dunng the duration of the project there was little question about the intended lesson outcomes. The students listed the objectives on a chart and hung it in the classroom as a continual reminder of the goals and assessment criteria they set for themselves (J. Felts, personal communication, April 25, 2003).

At North Springs High School, Neda Abghari began her printmaking lesson by showing examples and demonstrating four general printmaking processes. She then asked the students to select the process about which they most wanted to learn. The students formed small research groups based on their particular interests. As a large group, the students wrote criteria for their presentations and projects and then researched and prepared teaching materials with their small interest groups. Abghari provided resource books and Internet sites, and assisted with Internet searches. After completing their research, each group of students created and presented a handout of information about their printmaking topic to their peers, and provided a demonstration of their specific process. The students learned about one process in-depth from their own research and about three other processes from their peers before they selected a second type of print to produce.

Compared to her past printmaking eweriences, Abghari observed that these students seemed to work faster during this unit and accom- plished more work in fewer periods. The students were more involved and engaged with their learning and worked much more independently. Abghari sees these types of independent learning experiences in her beginning art classes as good preparation for students who will later enroll in her Advanced Placement courses (N. Abghari, personal communication, April 25, 2003).

Richards noted that as she shifted in her teaching role from director of student learning to facilitator, she saw numerous changes in her students.

Instead of them using me as a crutch for learning (by me constantly giving them information) the students found the information for themselves, and shared it with other students. Their small groups became the experts on that topic or artist. . .then throughout the lesson if anyone was having a problem they would ask the group who researched an artist who worked in a similar way for advice. Students began thinking of themselves as experts. They took more ownership of their knowledge. . . (B. Richards, personal communication, April 25, 2003).

The ongoing art historical and art critical

discussions created a more holistic

learning experience that also facilitated

ongoing critical dialogue throughout

the production phase of lesson.

A R T E D U C A T I O N / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4



historical and art critical discussions created a more holistic learning experience that also facilitated ongoing critical dialogue throughout the production phase of the lesson.

Richards noted that in several of her other art classes, her students had difficulty discussing what they researched or learned about an artist or artwork. "There was not a natural flow to their comments; I had to continually prompt" (B. Richards, personal communication, April 25, 2003). In this class there was a seamless integration of art history and art criticism as students continued their discussion throughout the lesson. As experts on their topics, the students internalized their knowledge and expanded it outside of class. Many brought unsolicited related Internet articles to the class discussion and made stylistic and conceptual connections to their artwork-in-progress.

One of the major criticisms of constructivist theory and practice is that when students structure their own learning the result is trivial rather than rigorous (Brooks & Grennon Brooks, 1999). Others critics suggest constructivist methods only work with older, very mature students. According to Janet Felts, her Introduction to Art class of predominately freshmen and sopho- mores produced research presentations and projects that surpassed her expectations in both scope and quality of information. Some of the motivating factors for these students were the accessibility of the Internet for research, a video camera to produce their own documentaries, and an overhead projector to assist in the visual explana- tion of concepts to their classmates.

For Janet Felts, one gauge of success of the timeline project was that

students talked about the timeline in the hallway before and after class. . .they discussed artifacts and events of the period in each group's sections of the timeline. . .one student reported that he was doing much better in his history class because he could visualize the timeline to better understand the (chronological) relationship of historical events. (J. Felts, personal communication, April 25, 2003)

Felts observed that these beginning level students covered more information than in previous classes. Even though they said they did not necessarily enjoy writing their research in art class, each day the students entered the room highly focused and motivated to work. Felts recalls that her students' research presentations on numerous artists were more in-depth than she would have had time to present during a teacher lecture. During the photography timeline project, students researched at least 20 artists and the context of their lives, including relevant social, political, and economic conditions. After working in small collaborative research groups the students recalled the information more easily during large class presentations, discussions, and the Emal construction of the timeline. The students readily extended these formal and informal class discussions and connected other related events and topics from other disciplines. The teachers agree that as the students became more personally invested and empowered through their work they demonstrated higher levels of critical thinking in their remarks and interactions.

During the studio process, when a student asked a question, rather than directing or solving the problem, Richards posed individual questions to the entire class. Different students offered responses and provided multiple possible solutions to consider rather than accept the teacher's response as the only input.

. . .this (practice) motivated a lot of students to talk to one another who typically did not interact. They were also talking on a much more professional-like collaborative level, talking with each other seriously about their art, rather than socially about what went on last Friday night (B. Richards, personal communication, April 25, 2003).

An additional motivation came from the open-ended nature of the students' production objectives with regard to materials. Richards facilitated students to brainstorm over 100 possible collage materials. The students erlJoyed the freedom to push boundaries with nontra- ditional art materials that carried personal meaning, such as ballet slippers, horseshoes, and recycled building scraps. Richards also thought that her students used their time more efficiently than in previous classes, worked nonstop during their extended lunch period class, and came in before school and during study hall periods to continue their projects. The students took greater ownership and invested more effort in their own learning and that of their peers.

By the time Richards's students reached the critique phase of their lesson they were looking at and discussing each other's work almost daily. lNhis interaction among students seemed to build greater sensitivity and understanding of each other, as well as greater regard for one another's artwork. As a result of teaching and sharing information about their research on specific artists and supporting each other throughout the problem-solving and creative stages of the process, the students developed a greater empathy for their peers, their personal statements, and the investigations their work represented. The ongoing art

After working in small collaborative research groups

the students recalled the information more easily

during large class presentations, discussions, and the

final construction of the timeline.

SEPTEMBER 2004 / ART EDUCATION ls



Gaidelinesfor Successful Constructivist Teaching

All of the teachers in this article found that planning constructivist lessons with outcomes determined by the students requires heightened teacher flexibility and resourcefulness. The following guidelines for successful constructivist teaching are based on the experiences of these three art teachers. * Provide students with a variety of

tools for research (i.e. Internet sites, digital cameras, books, and maps) so students become the primary research investigators.

* Frame strategies for several large and small group collaborations to foster peer support and interaction.

* Develop a flexible classroom climate that encourages student inquiry and discussion. Questioning skills of teachers are a central facilitating strategy to support student problem-solving. Individual problems are not necessarily solved independently or only with teacher input, but are presented to the classroom community, so that everyone takes ownership of problems and the generation of solutions.

* Present numerous opportunities throughout the lesson for students to make individual choices about their artwork. Be open to unusual and non-traditional artistic materials and processes. Encourage the use of materials that hold special associative meaning for students.

* Negotiate lesson objectives and evaluation criteria with students. Assist students in setting high, but realistic expectations for themselves.

* Encourage students to create real world and cross-disciplinary connections that extend beyond the classroom. Help students construct a vision for their future, a purpose for leaining, cross-disciplinary connections, and personal meaning in their work.

* Act as a participant-facilitator in the teaching-learning process, rather than as an authoritarian who dispenses knowledge. Plan and organize resource materials before the class session so students can work collaboratively with their peers and accomplish lesson objectives.

* Encourage students to take ownership of their learning, develop expertise, and share their knowledge with others. Provide numerous opportunities for students to teach their peers formally and informally.

While this list of teaching strategies is relatively short, it suggests a major shift from traditional teaching practice. Lessons that are student driven still require advanced teacher preparation and organization of resource materials. Rather than planning a lesson in which the teacher directs a classroom of students in one general pre-determined direction, the constructivist approach facilitates the movement of student learning in multiple directions. Initially, as students develop more responsible and self-directed work habits and attitudes, teachers may find the implementation of constructivist lessons most feasible in a single course or small project (Grace, 1999).

A socially constructed curriculum is nonconformist in nature and can be a lonely enterprise. It is important for teachers to develop a supportive network among other teachers who share a common interest in constructivist teaching and learning. The successful facilitation of student-generated lessons requires teachers who are "mature, experienced, confident, resourceful, and lifelong learners" (Grace, 1999, p. 50). The three Atlanta teachers in this article speculate that some classes may be more difficult than others to engage in the teaching-to-learn processes, but they believe it is worth the effort.

Teachers must be willing to step outside the box, take risks, and feel a little uncomfortable. When we feel uncomfortable it is usually because we are traveling uncharted territory and breaking new ground.

(Continued on p. 33 after Publications List)

The Teacher's Role Richards, Felts, and Abghari say they

will continue to develop constructivist lessons, although they admit that the planning and preparation for these lessons is not easy. Each learning- community or classroom has its own dynamic, and teachers need to select practices that they believe are most beneficial for each group of students. These teachers facilitated a framework with components similar to those suggested by Dever and Hobbs (2000) in which students actively engage, investigate, share, and assess their own performance. Using this model, students successfully integrated inquiry learning with skill development.

Within each lesson, teachers prepared a baseline of introductory information, but encouraged students to determine where they wanted the learning to take them and the level of performance they would attain. These students continually surpassed their teachers' expectations with respect to the depth and level of commitment to class discussions and their artwork. The students constructed their own projects around themes, topics, and processes that interested them, and were empowered through the process of sharing their learning with other students and then evaluating the results.

While constructivist lessons are typically more student-centered than traditional lessons, the role of the teacher- as-facilitator is critical to student success. Brooke Richards noted that as a facilitator she continually utilizes questioning skills and allows her students to take on more responsibility, often setting aside her vision of problem-solving or artistic success to allow students greater autonomy.

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 2004



Melody K. Milbrandt is Associate Professor of Art Education at Georpia State University, Atlanta. E-mail: [email protected] Janet Felts teaches art at Gyrayson High School, andBrookeRichards teaches artatDuluthBighSchool, bothin Gywinnett County Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia. E-mail: [email protected] and brooke_rich,ards@G>winnett.K12.ga. us, respectively. NedaAbghari teaches art at North Springs High School in Fulton CountySchools, Atlanta, Georgia. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES Anderson, T. (1995). Toward a cross-cultural

approach to art criticism. Studies in Art Education, 36(4), 198-209.

Anderson, T., & Milbrandt, M. K. (2004). Artfor life: Authentic instruction in art. New York: McGraw-Hill.

It is not always easy to walk down the path less traveled, but once that road has been visited, new experiences can bring about positive changes in our lives and in the lives of our students. (N. Abghari, personal communication, April 25, 2003)

When teachers routinely share encour- aging results of constructive learning with other faculty, administrators, and parents, they build a culture of positive expectations for future student-directed projects. The development of a stronger student voice in learning does not diminish the teacher's role, standards, or outcomes, but rather encourages students to construct their own views, explore their own interests, engage their own passions, and create newly empowered visions of self and learning in a supportive community. A constructivist approach to instruction is not a way for teachers to avoid accountability, but rather it is an opportunity to create a climate that invites and challenges students to be more responsible and reflective teaching- learning partners.

Barakett, J., & Sacca, E. (2003). Narratives empowering teachers and students: Educational, cultural practice. In Y. Gaudelius and P. Speirs (Eds.), Contemporary issues in art education (pp. 39-50). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barrett, T. (2000). Criticizing art: Understanding the contemporary. MountainView, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Brooks, M. G., & Grennon Brooks, J. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cahan, S., & Kocur, Z. (Eds.). (1996). Contemporary art and multicultural education. New York: New Museum of Contemporaw Art: Routledge.

Chalmers, F.G. (1992). D.B.A.E. as multicultural education. Art Education, 45(3), 16-24.

Chandra, J., & Basinger, A. M. (2000). Understanding the cultural meaning of selected African Ndop statues: The use of art history constructivist inquiry methods. Studies inArt Education, 42(1), 67-82.

Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (1998). Metaphors that matter: Six structures for best practice classrooms. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Dever, M. T., & Hobbs, D. E. (2000). Curriculum connections. The learning spiral-toward authentic instruction. Kappa DeltaPiRecord, 36(3), 131-33.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Efland, A. D. (2002). Art and cognition. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Efland, A., Freedman, K., & Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Eisner, E. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan.

Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Gaitskell, C.D., and Hurwitz, A. (1975). Children and their art: Methods for the elementary school. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gaudelius, Y., & Speirs, P. (Ed.). (2003). Contemporary issues in art education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place caUed school: Prospects for thefuture. New York: McGraw Hill.

Grace, M. (1999). When students create cuiriculum. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 49-52.

Hamblen, K. A. (1984). An art criticism questioning strategy within the framework of Bloom's Taxonomy. Studies inArt Education, 26(1), 41-50.

Kincheloe, J. L., Slattery, P., & Steinberg, S.R. (2000). Contextualizing teaching. New York: Longman Publishing.

King, A. (1983). Agency, achievement, and self- concept of young adolescent art students. Studies in Art Education, 24(3), 187-194.

Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W.L. (1970). Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan.

Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem- based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-35.

Scherer, M. (1999). The understanding pathway: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 12-16.

Sullivan, G. (2003). Ideas and teaching: Making meaning from contemporasy art. In Y. Gaudelius and Peg Speirs (Eds.). Contemporary issues in art education. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Windschitl, M. A. (2000). Constructing understanding. In P. B. Joseph, S. L. Bravmann, M. A. Windschitl, E. R. Mikel, N.S. (Eds.), Cultures of curriculum, (pp.115-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Teaching-to-Leam continuedfromp. 24

SEPTEMBER 2004 / ART EDUCATION



Documents

Community, Collaboration, and Culture || Teaching-to-Learn: A Constructivist Approach to Shared Responsibility