Arts Education Policy Review

ISSN: 1063-2913 (Print) 1940-4395 (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

Keeping up with our students: The evolution of

technology and standards in art education

Ryan M. Patton & Melanie L. Buffington

To cite this article: Ryan M. Patton & Melanie L. Buffington (2016): Keeping up with our
students: The evolution of technology and standards in art education, Arts Education Policy
Review, DOI: 10.1080/10632913.2014.944961

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 12 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]

Download by: [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] Date: 13 May 2016, At: 13:23
 ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW
2016, VOL. 0, NO. 0, 1–9
[Link]

Keeping up with our students: The evolution of technology and standards in art
education
Ryan M. Patton and Melanie L. Buffington
Art Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article addresses the standards of technology in the visual arts, arguing the standards function Art education; media arts;
as de facto policy, the guidelines that shape what teachers teach. In this study, we investigate how standards; technology
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

art education standards approach technology as a teaching tool and artmaking medium, analyzing
the current National Visual Arts Standards, the 21st Century Skills, the National Art Education
Association (NAEA) Standards for Art Teacher Preparation, the NAEA Professional Standards for
Visual Arts Educators, and how 26 university art education programs teach technology. Because a
new set of digital standards were developed as media arts, separate from the visual arts, we believe
that media arts should be considered a subset of the larger umbrella of visual arts, seeing visual art
educators are the best equipped to address the new digital media arts standards and forms of
making. Finally the article makes suggestions about how university art teacher preparation
programs can redirect their courses to better relate to contemporary art practices, current
educational uses of technology, and the world of ubiquitous computing.

The impetus to use interactive computer technologies Through an analysis of course descriptions posted
throughout all levels of education and within the field of online, we glean information related to how these uni-
art education appears to be growing. With the release of versities prepare their graduates to use the digital arts
the new National Coalition for Core Arts Standards and educational technologies in the classroom. We con-
(NCCAS) for K–12 students in 2014 it is important to clude with suggestions for university art teacher prepara-
consider how these new standards and the previous 1994 tion programs related to ways they could prepare
standards relate to contemporary practices of visual students to meet the 2014 National Visual Arts and
artists, our technology-infused world, and how we teach Media Arts Standards,1 possess the necessary twenty-
technology in preservice art education courses. As tech- first-century skills, and take those skills into their future
nologies change rapidly, we need to ensure art education art classrooms.
policies, standards, practices, preparation of preservice
art teachers, and the art classroom has a relationship to History of technology in art education
the world of students and practicing artists and using cur-
rent technologies for artmaking is one way to accomplish As early as the 1960s, art educators discussed electronic
this. Upon viewing the new Core Arts Standards, we are media (described currently as digital media) as a relevant
concerned with the artificial separation of the visual arts and viable area for art education (Lanier, 1966). In the
and media arts, not reflecting the contemporary art world 1980s with a growing adoption of personal computers in
and studio practice. schools, more nuanced arguments for how digital tech-
In this article we briefly review the acceptance of digi- nology could be used in the art classroom emerged.
tal technology in education and art education, turning Linda Ettinger (1988) thoughtfully engaged with ques-
our attention to the development of several sets of visual tions of purpose, best practices, and needs for the com-
arts–related standards and their descriptions of technol- puter in the art classroom, proposing four pedagogical
ogy in art education. Following this review of the 1994 issues that are still evident today. Ettinger defined issues
and 2014 standards, we investigate how teacher prepara- of computing in art classroom are concentrated on (1)
tion programs at 26 universities position their required traditions within the art disciplines; (2) the computer as
technology classes, based on their course descriptions. art medium; (3) human–computer interaction; and (4)

CONTACT Ryan M. Patton rpatton@[Link] Art Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, 812 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 2 R. M. PATTON AND M. L. BUFFINGTON

curriculum design. We have seen major shifts in how divide the following review of standards into two sec-
United States citizens uses the Internet, hardware, and tions—those devoted to K–12 education and those relat-
software since Ettinger’s recommendations in 1988, yet ing to teacher preparation programs and teachers. In each
she foresaw significant resistance from art teachers to the of the sections we analyze how the standards have con-
idea of creating art on and with computers that have per- ceived implementing technology by their respective
sisted (Delacruz, 2004; Lu, 2005). For example, in 2005 audience.
Lily Lu published her study with a group of undergradu-
ate art educators, finding students had negative attitudes
K–12 standards
toward digital media as an art form and using computers
a platform for artmaking, believing there was greater National Visual Arts Standards
artistic value in working with traditional material, allow- First written in 1994, by the Consortium of National Arts
ing the artist to have tactile control in creating the work Education Associations, the idea of having National
(Lu, 2005). Visual Arts Standards was revolutionary (National
While a number of art education studies show how Visual Arts Task Force, 1994). This was the first success-
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

technology can be used with both K–12 students and pre- ful nationwide attempt to describe curriculum outcomes
service teachers, there are fewer studies that document at the national level, albeit voluntary with no compliance
how standards of learning are uniquely applied with tech- requirements. With varying levels of specificity, the
nology in art education. Further, until the release of the standards articulate what students should know and be
21st Century Skills Map for the Arts in 2010, no K–12 able to do in the visual arts from Kindergarten through
educational standards specific to the visual arts included a 12th grade. Written in a language for teachers to use
significant emphasis on the use of technology as an art- directly in curriculum development, the National Visual
making medium or an educational tool. Arts Standards set broad goals that teachers could meet
This leads us to the question, if public education has in innumerable ways. Many states followed these federal
always delivered a mandate to produce citizens to be standards in developing their own guidelines and, as of
active members of the labor market (Efland, 1990; Spring, 2015, visual arts standards exist for 49 states and the Dis-
2013), how does policy regarding the inclusion of technol- trict of Columbia (Arts Education Partnership, 2015).
ogy in art education provide opportunities for complicity Prefacing the outlined standards of 1994, in a subsec-
and resistance to market forces? How has technology tion called “The Standards Focus on Appropriate Tech-
been understood as being a part of art education stand- nologies,” the writers indicate that specific technologies
ards since 1994? In the next section we dig deeper into should not be spelled out due to accessibility concerns.
existing K–12 art education standards, looking at how The authors state technology may “attract and motivate
technology has been recognized in their design. students to engage in the arts” and if “used appropriately,
technology can extend the reach of both the art form and
that of the learner” (National Visual Arts Standards Task
Development of existing standards
Force, 1994, p. 10). For the standards writers, technology
As the digital networking of schools increased during the can be powerful for artmaking and arts programs, but it
1990s and 2000s, there was also a movement to create should be seen as a tool for artmaking, cautiously used to
standards for all subject areas. Currently there are at least extend overall artistic learning and development. When
four significant documents with connections to visual art analyzing these 1994 national standards with the lens of
education policy at the national level in the United States: contemporary digital technology, only one standard spe-
the National Visual Arts Standards, the 21st Century cifically mentions the use of technology in the art class-
Skills, the NAEA Standards for Art Teacher Preparation, room—the high school standard related to making
and the NAEA Professional Standards for Visual Arts connections between different disciplines. This achieve-
Educators. Each of these documents has a distinct focus, ment standard states, “Students compare the materials,
promoting a different arts education agenda; however, technologies, media, and processes of the visual arts with
our article provides context for the value and needs for those of other arts disciplines as they are used in creation
technology in these standards. As arts educators, we need and types of analysis” (p. 29). When thinking of the
to be aware of these various standards, what they include world in 1994, before the widespread use of the Web,
and occlude, and how we can use them to strengthen our this limited reference to technology is not surprising.
practices and our profession. Further, we argue these
standards collectively constitute a form of de facto arts Partnership for 21st Century Skills
policy for K–12 education, preservice teacher training, Funded in 2002 by a federal Department of Education
and the professional practices of visual arts educators. We grant, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) was
 ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW 3

formed, uniting the National Education Association new Obama education policies that Race to the Top
teachers’ union with for-profit companies with a vested grant funding promoted (NCCAS, 2010). Seeing the
financial interest in the use of technologies in schools work already started by P21 and its connection to tech-
including Apple, Microsoft, Dell, SAP, and Cisco, educa- nology, the NAEA along with educational associations
tion companies like Pearson, Cable in the Classroom, for dance, theater, and music, agreed in 2010 to have the
and the College Board (P21, 2013). After two years, P21 College Board commissioned to conduct an analysis
drafted their first major report, The Road to 21st Century comparing the 1994 Visual Arts Standards with the 2010
Learning: A Policymaker’s Guide to 21st Century Skills P21 Map for the Arts (College Board, 2011). Not surpris-
(P21, 2007). Released in 2004 and updated in 2007, this ingly, the College Board found that the 1994 Visual Arts
report served as a guide to assist state-level policy makers standards did not, or vaguely met, the technology-related
in developing learning environments that foster skills rel- goals from the P21 map, pointing to how education
evant for the twenty-first century, with a considerable standards dealing with technology need to be flexible
emphasis on technology-related skills. As Efland (1990) and updated on a relatively regular basis.
noted, this trend is not new. As early as 1870 Massachu- In 2014, the NCCAS developed national core arts
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

setts mandated art education statewide, promoted by standards which included shared anchor standards for
manufacturing industries as a means for them to create a dance, media, arts, music, theatre, and the visual arts.
workforce with skills they desired. Thus, the involvement According to Phillip Shepherd, the project director for
of for-profit companies with the development of the the NCCAS, the team who wrote the new standards
twenty-first-century skills is only a more recent iteration worked from the existing National Visual Arts Stand-
of this educational policy trend. ards, significantly influenced by the ideas and language
In 2010, the Partnership also created the 21st Century of the Common Core curriculum as well as the 21st Cen-
Skills Map for the Arts written in conjunction with many tury Skills documents. Although these new standards are
arts educators and endorsed by the NAEA. This docu- visual arts specific, they relate to other subject areas and
ment showed how the twenty-first-century skills of: criti- the national dialogue surrounding educational reform
cal thinking and problem solving; communication; (P. Shepherd, personal communication, May 13, 2013).
collaboration; creativity; innovation; information literacy;
media literacy; information, communication, and technol-
ogy literacy; flexibility and adaptability; initiative and self-
Standards for teacher preparation programs and for
direction; social and cross-cultural skills; productivity and
teachers
accountability; and leadership and responsibility relate to
the arts (P21, 2010). By aligning twenty-first-century skills NAEA standards for art teacher preparation
to the visual arts, the connections that many art educators In 2009, NAEA published its updated set of standards
articulate between the visual arts and the important skills related to university art teacher preparation programs
of creativity, innovation, critical thinking, and problem (NAEA, 2009a). First written in 1970, NAEA periodically
solving were validated. It is important to note the influ- revises the teacher preparation standards to reflect
ence of the technology industry in the P21 group recog- changes in educational policy, expectations, and contem-
nizing they stand to profit considerably by linking all porary classroom scenarios. For instance, in the 1999
subject areas to their standards with the purchasing of version the document references the Goals 2000 Act as
technology and educating students to work in the technol- well as the National Visual Arts Standards written in
ogy sector. Thus, while we may embrace how P21 has 1994. Designed to address college course content, the
codified the importance of the visual arts in developing preparation and practices of art education faculty, and
necessary life skills, while placing emphasis on many ways the ways faculty support the development of preservice
technology can be used in twenty-first-century visual arts teachers, these standards address both content and peda-
programs, as critical art educators we also need to ques- gogy. Described as clarifying the characteristics of pro-
tion how the P21 standards provides benefit to the for- grams that produce high quality art educators, these
profit groups listed above are involved in the creation of standards relate to the two large accrediting bodies, the
the standards. National Association of Schools of Art and Design
(NASAD) and the National Council for the Accredita-
Updated national arts standards (2014) tion of Teacher Education (NCATE). When analyzing
In 2009 the State Education Agency Directors of Arts the 2009 teacher preparation standards, we found only
Education discussed a reconceptualization of the one of the seven standards addresses how faculty mem-
national arts standards, moving away from the policies bers should use technology in their teaching. Standard V
of the George W. Bush administration, and toward the states:
 4 R. M. PATTON AND M. L. BUFFINGTON

Art education faculty use current and emerging technol- section we turn our attention to the structures of these
ogy in their teaching. classes and analyze the course descriptions posted online
Art education faculty responsible for preparing art of many different universities.
teacher candidates should:
 Understand and use computer technology as a
tool for research and other media in instruc- Technology and art teacher preparation
tion; and programs
 Include a wide range of technology as art
Since teacher preparation programs are typically encour-
media. (p. 2)
aged to use state and national standards to ensure their
Thus, this set of standards focuses on ways that fac- graduates are capable teachers, we turn our focus to
ulty members can model technology to their preservice required technology courses for art teacher preparation
art teacher students. This reflects the research and litera- programs. To better understand what art education pro-
ture on the importance of modeling strong practices in grams include in technology classes, we reviewed the
education programs at the university level. The use of online course descriptions of 26 art education programs,
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

digital technologies is confined to this one standard 21 of which require a technology course. In selecting
rather than being infused throughout all the standards. these programs we looked to the larger teacher certifica-
tion programs in various parts of the United States repre-
NAEA professional standards for visual arts educators senting the four regions labeled by the NAEA. Based on
Concurrent with the 2009 release of the Standards for the course titles and prefixes, we identified three entities
Art Teacher Preparation, NAEA also released a set of that offer these courses: art departments (5), art educa-
professional standards for current art educators (2009b). tion departments/programs (13), and education depart-
This extensive set of 13 standards addresses characteris- ments (3). Not surprisingly, the balance of the course
tics and abilities of excellent art teachers across their content toward artmaking or educational uses of tech-
teaching career. Only Standard VI is devoted to the use nology strongly correlates to the department offering the
of technologies. It states: course. Courses listed with an art prefix focus almost
exclusively on digital artmaking and courses listed with
Visual Arts educators use contemporary technology to an education prefix focus primarily on instructional uses
enhance teaching and learning
Visual arts educators:
of technology within the classroom. The courses offered
 Create curricula that include artmaking in through art education tend to meld the two, with differ-
new forms and media; ing levels of emphasis on either digital artmaking or
 Create learning environments that use current teaching with technology. As we analyzed the course
and emerging technologies as instructional descriptions it was clear that there is not a consistent
and learning tools; and mission across programs; rather, each university appears
 Provide opportunities for students to docu- to emphasize different areas of technology. While this
ment and display their artwork through the displays the nature of academic freedom, it may not
use of new media. (p. 2) always prepare preservice teachers to address all of the
teaching standards and forms of digital art they will be
Again, the use of digital technologies is confined to expected to teach when they enter K–12 environments.
one standard and is not infused throughout the language It is in these standards we see a recognition that technol-
for the other standards. ogy is valued for the skills and knowledge of the art
In these two sets of standards for art education profes- instructor, but how is it being shaped into the new art
sionals and teacher preparation programs, we see a visible standards for K–12 students? In the next section we
shift that recognizes technology should be understood describe how the new K–12 national standards have
and used as an artmaking medium, a pedagogical tool, been updated to support, and ultimately shift the focus
and as a means to document and display student work. of digital making away from the visual arts to a new cate-
While not specifying particular technologies to use, these gory of media arts.
two sets of 2009 standards show how current art teachers As we analyzed these teacher preparation course
and future art teachers are expected to use digital media descriptions, we began comparing them to the 1994
in a variety of ways, even though student standards writ- standards for K–12 students, along with the 2014
ten in 1994 did not include the same expectation. Because national core arts standards (NCCAS, 2014). A signifi-
art teachers are now expected to utilize technology in cant change in the 2014 standards is the inclusion of
multiple ways, many universities require preservice art Media Arts as a new arts discipline separate from Visual
teachers to take a class on technology. In the following Arts, Music, Dance, and Theater (NCCAS, 2012). This
 ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW 5

much-needed update to the national standards not only separate manner from more traditional art materials, so
reflects the world’s technological changes, but also the why separate them into two different sets of standards?
realm of the arts in which visual artists, in particular, As Dr. Karen Keifer-Boyd, a reviewer for the new stand-
increasingly use forms of digital media to plan, augment, ards stated, “separating new media from visual art as a
create, distribute, and catalog their works. Visual artists separate arts discipline seems as absurd as separating
are making work nearly unheard of 20 years ago such as clay, paint, or other media from visual art” (personal
procedurally generated images, rapid-prototyped sculp- communication, September 22, 2013). Instead, artists
ture, and Internet art; and not possible without the vari- (and we believe art education students and art students
ous types of digital media. in K–12 settings) frequently combine technological pro-
Only a few examples of Media Arts Standards were cesses with physical materials. Perhaps their art objects
available to create the new national standards. The are physical, but the inspiration may come from digital
NCCAS website includes Media Arts Standards docu- sources, or vice versa. As such, we believe that Media
ments from the states of Washington, Michigan, Minne- Arts should be considered a subset of the larger umbrella
sota, and Los Angeles Unified School District. In their of Visual Arts, and art educators should claim ownership
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

study of Minnesota media standards, Bequette and of Media Arts and the Media Arts standards. Certainly,
Brennan (2008) found Minnesota art teachers lacked interdisciplinary connections with music, theater, and
familiarity with media arts education; recommending art dance are important and we advocate for their inclusion,
teachers receive an “add-on” media arts certificate and however we do believe that visual art educators are the
require media arts coursework for preservice students. best equipped to address Media Arts standards and
However, when reviewing the college curriculum for forms of making.
art teacher preparation programs, we found that none of Thus, we advocate art teacher preparation programs
the technology courses explicitly addresses the types of should re-think their required technology course and
media making activities the media arts standards pro- possibly expand technology-related course offerings to
mote. Currently most art education programs teach only multiple courses that address Media Arts as part of the
one technology-related class, unable to meet the wide Visual Arts standards as suggested by Bequette and
range of artmaking practices advocated for the Media Brennan (2008). In the 2012 NCCAS media arts position
Arts. For instance, within the shared core arts standard paper, the committee highlighted twelve possible digital
“Connecting” we found only one existing required tech- media arts courses for secondary education: Introduction
nology course description explicitly addressing the con- to Media Arts, Theory, Digital Imaging, Interactive
cept of “meaning” being applied to the creation of media Design, Interactive Game Design, Web Design, Moving
artworks. Image, Animation, Digital Sound Design, Virtual Design,
Multimedia Design, and Intermedia Design. While all of
these topics are important to being a well-rounded digital
Suggestions for visual art teacher preparation
media artist, we argue the majority of media arts instruc-
programs
tion should fall under the purview of visual arts teachers,
As a field, art educators should engage in a robust discus- as these are topics that use the skills and practices of the
sion of how the new area of Media Arts is separate from traditional visual arts such as photography, drawing, and
the Visual Arts, then work to create a common space for graphic design.
the two areas. This may require rethinking the structure Although some aspects of media arts expertise lie out-
of university degrees as well as the structure of profes- side of traditional visual art forms (sound, interactivity,
sional development and teaching. In the past, the use of and movement), and with the exception of the NCCAS
technology in classrooms is essentially a “trickle down” proposed sound design course, the most important aes-
philosophy. Students in preservice art education pro- thetic components to media arts are visual. When the
grams learn to use various software or technologies in College Board compared how the arts disciplines teach
their university class, later using these technology skills the twenty-first-century skills of information literacy and
in their own K–12 classroom. This tends to promote media literacy, only the visual arts currently taught both
teacher-directed learning through university instruction information and media literacy across its current stand-
that, over time, appears at the K–12 levels. This keeps ards (College Board, 2011). Thus, as a field we should
the technologies and digital art in schools only as current embrace this technological role and continue to promote
as the preservice technology instruction of the art media arts as an area within the visual arts. This will
teacher. We believe this practice is not clearly related to help the art education field stay current and relevant to
the technology-infused world in which we live and make the work of contemporary visual artists. Art museums
art. Digital technologies are not utilized in a completely already include digital media works as part of their
 6 R. M. PATTON AND M. L. BUFFINGTON

exhibitions and collections of visual art and design digital media making are the exception to the rule for
(Antonelli, 2012; Rosenberg, 2011). most art teachers. Performing Internet searches of art
Embracing contemporary art practices, some univer- educator websites and blogs, the student artwork we
sity art departments offer digital media art production located is mainly created with traditional media, occa-
courses and majors (U.S. News and World Report, sionally including art historical material as research
2016). While the precedence for media arts as a visual references. This supports surveys conducted in 1999
art and design discipline exists in museums, higher edu- (Burton, 2001) and 2006 (Roland, 2010) that found art
cation, and the entertainment industry, teacher educa- teachers and students were more likely to use digital
tion and K–12 schools have not followed to the same technology to research artists and artworks rather than
extent. A 2013 report from the Wallace Foundation use computers for artmaking. While the use of com-
(Peppler, 2013) found K–12 students were mainly puters has continued to become more entrenched over
learning how to create media arts outside of school in time in art education and preservice teacher certification
interest-driven spaces. Through these informal learning coursework, researchers continue to raise concerns about
communities, Peppler found students were gaining simi- how technology is introduced in preservice art teacher
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

lar digital arts skills that they could learn in school, but preparation programs and sustained when teachers are
without the careful and critical guidance of a licensed in their classrooms (Roland, 2010). The issues of teacher
teacher. Thus, to help promote the importance of visual training, technological infrastructure, and authentic
arts into the twenty-first century and beyond, we need to engagement are still at the forefront of providing quality
claim the newly created 5th arts strand of Media Arts digital instruction in the art classroom (Delacruz, 2004).
and demonstrate through our policy documents, stand- For all visual art educators this should be a call to
ards, practices, and our preparation of preservice art action on two fronts. First, K–12 students who are not
teachers that we are the best discipline to support media exploring media making on their own due to a lack of
arts education. knowledge or resources are not learning or participating
in the twenty-first-century skills described earlier. Second,
as K–12 schools continue to cut funding to the arts and
Technology in art education today
other “nonessential” programs (Bryant, 2011), visual art
Art educators from pre–K through college use technol- teachers without the ability to instruct in the media arts
ogy in different ways with their students. Many univer- may be viewed as “nonessential” under the P21 rubric by
sity level art educators publish about their use of digital separating Media Art outside of the Visual Arts purview
media arts in their teacher preparation courses and with and outdated to contemporary art practices.
K–12 students (Buffington, 2008; Castro, 2012; Chung, All visual art educators need to “train-up,” adding a
2007; Colman, 2004; Freedman, 1997; Galbraith, 1997; “buoyant skill set” of digital media arts techniques,
Gill, 2009; Johnson, Kieling, & Cooper, 2013; Keifer- knowledge, and skills to complement what they already
Boyd, 2010, 2012; Kundu & Bain, 2006; Miller & Wil- know and teach through drawing, painting, sculpture,
liams, 2013; Patton, 2013; Shin, 2005; Stokrocki, 2007; ceramics and other media to keep arts education relevant
Szekely & Szekely, 2005; Taylor & Carpenter, 2007). to the twenty-first-century world (Choi & Piro, 2009).
Often these projects are designed to provide examples Beyond the digital technical skills the NCCAS media arts
for art educators to teach traditional and digital art in courses explicitly describe, visual arts teachers of all
the art classroom. Art teachers who make significant forms are equivalently teaching making, researching,
efforts to present student work online also provide addi- evaluating, and critiquing works. Looking at the NCCAS
tional resources for other art teachers (Andrlik & McGee, media arts course descriptions (2012), 11 of the 12 media
2008; Fuglestad, 2013; Johnson, 2010; Phillips, 2016). For arts courses state:
instance, elementary school art teacher Tricia Fuglestad
The creative and conceptual aspects of designing and
has received recognition for her digital classroom inno- producing [the media arts course content]. … Typical
vations including student-created animation and videos course topics include: aesthetic meaning, appreciation
(Kirschner, 2013). High school art programs also use and analysis [of the media arts course content] … as
technology in their courses but are more likely to have well as contextual, cultural, and historical aspects and
students create digital media in graphic design or considerations. (pp. 10–12)
advanced art courses (DeBello, 2010; Oliveri, 2013).
Because most art teachers do not publish their class- These statements should be familiar for K–12 visual
room activities, we are forced to rely on academic studies art teachers, where making, researching, and reflecting
of teachers and those who put their students’ work on on works of art are integral to a quality art curriculum.
the Internet. Tricia Fuglestad’s classroom examples of Providing digital media arts making opportunities to
 ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW 7

students is an important part of a twenty-first-century undergraduate programs beyond 120 credits to priori-
K–12 curriculum, yet separating media arts from art- tize student learning and developing high quality
making forms that preceded digital media denies how skilled teachers over legislative mandates.
the skills of making that came before the digital age feed
into media arts.
Acknowledgment
To assist art educators with navigating the media arts
landscape, we have provided a sample list of media We acknowledge the work of Dr. Karen Keifer-Boyd who
works relevant to a K–12 environment under the reviewed a draft of this article and offered helpful comments
NCCAS course categories (see Appendix). Within each and feedback.
category we also tried to provide a variety of artworks for
teachers to consider. For example in the animation cate- Note
gory we included hand-drawn, computer, stop-motion,
3-D, procedural, and machinima animation. In art 1. For the purpose of this article, we use the terms released in
July of 2012 (National Coalition for Core Arts Standards
teacher preparation programs we also need to embrace
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

[NCCA], 2012). According to that document, the term

digital media making as part of a contemporary art edu- “Media Arts” refers to:
cation practice.  Moving Image—Cinema/Video/Animation—narrative,
non-narrative, environmental, experimental
 Imaging Design—digital process-based imagery, code
Conclusion enhanced (e.g., the image has code embedded in it for
Making significant changes in an educational field is nei- interactive and adaptive purposes)
ther quick nor easy. However, we are at a time when art  Sound Design—digital process-based aural synthesis and
engineering
educators need to decide how we show our relevance in
 Interactive Design—web, game, sensory-tech, creative
the twenty-first-century landscape of digital making and code
reduced school budgets. Within universities, we can  Multimedia and Intermedia—additive and hybridizing
revise our technology classes to meet media arts stand- mixtures
ards and try to expand the number of required digital  Virtual Design—3D, 4D, 5D (spatial, animated, nonlin-
media arts and educational technology classes that pre- ear, interactive) environments, structures, and
service art teachers take. Further, universities could offer experiences
short professional development courses for art teachers
that focus on a few educational technologies and digital References
media art forms and their classroom applications.
Within an art education program, universities could pro- Andrlik, H., & McGee, T. (2016). The teaching palette.
mote more communication among faculty members so Retrieved from [Link]
Antonelli, P. (2012, November 29). Video games: 14 in the col-
there is some agreement among faculty about what art lection, for starters. The Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved
education students should be learning in digital media from [Link]
arts and educational technology classes. Further if digital 29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters/
media arts and educational technology topics or skills Arts Education Partnership. (2015). State of the states 2015.
are shared, other faculty members would know the basic Retrieved from [Link]
uploads/[Link]
set of digital making and teaching skills that art educa-
Bequette, J. W., & Brennan, C. (2008). Advancing media arts
tion students have and could begin to push students fur- education in visual arts classrooms: Addressing policy
ther in other classes. ambiguities and gaps in art teacher preparation. Studies in
One significant hurdle we see for adding media Art Education, 49(4), 328–342.
arts to the visual art education curriculum is the Bryant, J. (2011, October 13). Starving America’s public schools:
increasing oversight by state legislatures about the How budget cuts and policy mandates are hurting our
nation’s students. Cambridge, MA: Opportunity to Learn
number of credits allowed in degree programs. By Campaign.
default, this may create a certification of visual arts Buffington, M. L. (2008). What is Web 2.0 and how can it fur-
and a separate certification for media arts. If preser- ther art education? Art Education, 61(3), 36–41.
vice visual arts teachers do not have the opportunity Burton, D. (2001). How do we teach? Results of a national sur-
to learn significant digital and traditional artmaking vey of instruction in secondary art education. Studies in Art
Education, 42(2). 131–145.
skills, their future students ultimately lose out, unable
Castro, J. C. (2012). Learning and teaching art through social
to give K–12 students the opportunity to engage in a media. Studies in Art Education, 53(2), 152–169.
complete range of visual arts and modes of making. Choi, H., & Piro, J. M. (2009). Expanding arts education in a
As the world changes, we may need to expand digital age. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 27–34.
 8 R. M. PATTON AND M. L. BUFFINGTON

Chung, S. K. (2007). Art education technology: Digital story- National Art Education Association. (2009a). Standards for art
telling. Art Education, 60(2), 17–22. teacher preparation. Retrieved from [Link]
Colman, A. (2004). [Link] and [Link]: Introducing [Link]/store/9_TEACHER_STANDARDS_WEB_B_.pdf
Internet art to the digital art curriculum. Studies in Art Edu- National Art Education Association. (2009b). Profes-
cation, 46(1), 61–73. sional standards for visual arts educators. Retrieved
College Board. (2011). Arts education standards and 21st cen- from [Link]
tury skills: An analysis of the National Standards for Arts t_Ed_Stds_B.pdf
Education (1994) as compared to the 21st century skills map National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2010). National
for the arts. Retrieved from [Link] arts standards 2.0 working time line. Retrieved from http://
file/view/NCCAS%20P21%[Link] [Link]/National/National-Arts-Standards-2-0-
DeBello, M. (2010, October 24). Haines City IB Visual Arts. Working-Time-Line/?eid=3uCFDXgf1XA
Retrieved from [Link] National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2012). The inclu-
sualarts/ sion of media arts in next generation arts standards.
Delacruz, E. (2004). Teachers’ working conditions and the unmet Retrieved from [Link]
promise of technology. Studies in Art Education, 46(1), 6–19. tent/uploads/2014/05/NCCAS__Media_Arts_5-[Link]
Efland, A. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2014). Visual arts
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

social currents in teaching the visual arts. New York, NY: standards. Retrieved from [Link]
Teachers College Press. [Link]/
Ettinger, L. F. (1988). Art education and computing: Building a National Visual Arts Standards Task Force. (1994). National
perspective. Studies in Art Education, 30(1), 53–62. standards in visual arts. Reston, VA: National Art Educa-
Fuglestad, T. (2016). Dryden art. Retrieved from [Link] tion Association.
[Link]/[Link] Oliveri, A. B. (2013). Artwitholiveri: art lover. art maker. art
Freedman, K. (1997). Visual art/virtual art: Teaching technol- teacher. Retrieved from [Link]
ogy for meaning. Art Education, 50(4), 6–12. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The road to the 21st
Galbraith, L. (1997). Enhancing art teacher education with new century: A policymaker’s guide to 21st century skills. Retrieved
technologies: Research possibilities and practices. Art Edu- from [Link]
cation, 50(5), 14–19. [Link]/tools-and-resources/publications/925
Gill, D. V. (2009). Usefulness of video game experience for stu- Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century skills
dents learning and creating digital 3-D. Visual Arts map for the arts. Retrieved from [Link]
Research, 35(2), 109–121. org/research/21st-century-skills-arts-map
Johnson, L. (2016). Art room online. Retrieved from http:// Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). Our history.
[Link]/ Retrieved from [Link]
Johnson, M. H., Kieling, L. W., & Cooper, S. L. (2013). East Patton, R. M. (2013). Games as an artistic medium: Investigat-
coast/west coast art project: A constructivist and technolog- ing complexity thinking in game-based art pedagogy. Stud-
ical approach to middle level and higher education collabo- ies in Art Education, 55(1), 35–50.
ration. Art Education, 66(4), 22–27. Peppler, K. (2013). New opportunities for interest-driven arts
Keifer-Boyd, K. (2012). Envisioning a future techno-infused learning in a digital age. New York, NY: Wallace Founda-
eco-pedagogy. In E. Zimmerman (Ed.), NAEA advocacy tion. Retrieved from [Link]
white papers, Section 2-How high quality arts education can knowledge-center/arts-education/key-research/Pages/New-
prepare students for the future (pp. 9–12). Reston, VA: The Opportunities-for-Interest-Driven-Arts-Learning-in-a-Digi
National Art Education Association. [Link]
Keifer-Boyd, K. (2010). Masquerading the immateriality of Phillips, L. (2016). Ms. Phillips artroom blog. Retrieved from
materiality. In R. W. Sweeny (Ed.), Inter/sections/Inter/ [Link]
actions: Art Education in a Digital Visual Culture (pp. 170– Roland, C. (2010). Preparing art teachers to teach in a new dig-
181). Reston, VA: The National Art Education Association. ital landscape. Art Education, 63(1), 17–24.
Kirschner, L. (2013, March 14). Arlington Heights art teacher Rosenberg, K. (2011, July 28). MoMA’s “Talk to Me” focuses
wins regional award. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from on interface. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://
[Link] [Link]/2011/07/29/arts/design/momas-talk-to-
ton-heights-d25-tricia-fuglestad-natio-20130311_1_art-teacher- [Link]
nea-award-art-education Shin, R. (2005). A metacognitive art criticism module accessed
Kundu, R., & Bain, C. (2006). Webquests: Utilizing technology by high school students using an interactive CD-ROM, the
in a constructivist manner to facilitate meaningful preser- Internet, and virtual chatting. Visual Arts Research, 30(1),
vice learning. Art Education, 59(2), 6–11. 63–75.
Lanier, V. (1966). Newer media and teaching art. Art Educa- Spring, J. (2013). American education (16th ed.). New York,
tion, 19(4), 4–8. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lu, L. F. (2005). Pre-service art teacher negative attitudes and Stokrocki, M. (2007). Art education avatars in cyberspace:
perceptions of computer-generated art imagery: Recom- Research in computer-based technology and visual arts
mendations for pre-service art education program. Visual education. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International Handbook for
Arts Research, 31(1), 89–102. Research in Arts Education, Part II (pp. 1361–1379). Dor-
Miller, W., & Williams, R. M. (2013). Preservice teachers and drecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
blogs: An invitation to extend reflection and conversation. Szekely, G., & Szekely, I. (2005). Video art for the classroom.
Art Education, 66(3), 47–52. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
 ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW 9

Taylor, P. G., & Carpenter, B. S. (2007). Hypermediated  Jody Hudson-Powell, Luke Powell, Joel Gethin
art criticism. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 41(3), Lewis, and Jean-Gabriel Becker- Hungry Hungry
1–24. Eat Head (2009)
U.S. News and World Report. (2016). Best time-based media
 Nicole Stenger - Angels (1989–1992)
and new media programs. U.S. News Best Graduate Schools.
Retrieved from [Link]  Chris Woebken and Natalie Jeremijenko - Bat Bill-
[Link]/best-graduate-schools/top-fine-arts-schools/ board (2008)
time-based-media-rankings?int=a69f09&int=a06908
Web Design
 Ben Benjamin - Superbad (1997)
 Jason Santa Maria - The Amanda Project (2009)
 Chris Milk - The Wilderness Downtown (2010)
Appendix: Example artworks for K-12 art teach-
 Ubermorgen - Clickistan (2010)
ers, based on the media course description in
 Ursula Endlicher - The Old Internet: On Networks
National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (2012)
(2009– present)
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 13:23 13 May 2016

Games  Lea Verou - Animatable (2011)

 Broken Rules - And Yet it Moves (2009)
 Jason Rohrer - Passage (2007) Digital Imaging
 z - Line Rider (2006)
 Bostjan Cade  EbOY - Berlin (2002)
 Susana Ruiz - Darfur is Dying (2006)  Mariko Mori - Pureland (1998)
 Giant Sparrow - The Unfinished Swan (2012)  David Hockney - iPad drawings (2008–present)
 thatgamecompany - Journey (2012)  Inez van Lamsweerde - Me Kissing Vinoodh (Pas-
sionately) (1999)
Multimedia
 Margot Lovejoy - Turns (2002) Video/Film
 David Rokeby - Very Nervous System (1986 -1990)  Eija-Liisa Ahtila - Me/We, Okay, and Gray (1993)
 Ann Hamilton - VERSE (2011)  Nam June Paik - Magnet TV (1965)
 Daniel Rozin - Wooden Mirrors (1999)  Sadie Benning - Girl Power (1992)
 Paul Pfeiffer - The Long Count (The Rumble in the
Interactive Jungle) (2001)
 Cory Arcangel - Pizza Party (2004)  Oliver Herring - Spitting Food Dye (2004)
 Katherine Moriwaki and Jonah Brucker-Cohen -  Bill Viola - The Greeting (1995)
Umbrellas (2004)  Tony Oursler - Judy (1993)
 Rafael Lozano-Hemmer - Tape Recorders (2011)
 Camille Utterback and Romy Achituv - Text Rain Animation
(1999)  Alex Chan - The French Democracy (2005)
 John Lasseter - Luxo Jr. (1986)
Virtual  Michel Gondry - Fell in Love with a Girl (2002)
 Rebecca Allen - Bush Soul (#3) (1999)  Julia Pott - The Event (2012)
 Eduardo Kac - Genesis (1999)  Kennedy- Marshal Company - Persepolis (2007)
 Graffiti Research Lab - L.A.S.E.R. Tag (2007-2008)  Casey Reas and Tal Rosner - Chronograph (2011)
 S.W.A.M.P. with Tiago Rorke - Tardigotchi (2010)
Digital Sound Design
Intermedia  Bluebrain - Listen to the Light (2011)
 Blast Theory - “Can You See Me Now”? (2001–2005)  Alyce Santoro - Sonic Fabric (2003–present)
 Golan Levin with Lawrence Hayhurst, Steven Bend-  Girl Talk - All Day (2010)
ers and Fannie White - Double-Taker (Snout)  Yuri Suzuki - Tip Tap (2008)
(2008)  Tod Machover - Music Toys (2002–2003)