New technologies have been largely absent in arts education curriculum even though they offer opportunities to address arts integration, equity, and the technological prerequisites of an increasingly digital age. This paper draws upon the emerging professional field of “media arts” and the ways in which youth use new technologies for communication to design a 21st-century K-12 arts education curriculum.
Description of prior research on the subject and/or its intellectual context and/or policy context
Building on sociocultural theories of constructionism as well as Dewey's theories of the arts and aesthetics as a democratic pedagogy, this study draws upon over three years of extensive field study at a digital design studio where underprivileged youth accessed programming environments emphasizing graphics, music, and video.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of the Study
This study documents what youth learn through media art making in informal settings, the strengths and limitations of capitalizing on youth culture in media art production, and the distinct contributions that media arts education can make to the classroom environment.
Research Design
A mixed-methods approach was utilized that analyzed data from participants and professional interviews, an archive of youths’ media art, and videotape documentation of youth at work on their projects.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Findings point to the ways in which youth engage with technology that encourages active learning and how new types of software can be used to illustrate and encourage this process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arts Education Partnership. (2004). The arts and education: New opportunities for research. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.
2.
BonwellC., & EisonJ. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Development.
3.
BrownA. (1988).Motivation to learn and understand: On taking charge of one's own learning.Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 311–321.
4.
BuckinghamD. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture.Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
5.
DarbyJ. T., & CatterallJ.S. (1994).The fourth R: The arts and learning.Teachers College Record, 96(2), 299–328.
6.
DeweyJ. (1934/1980). Art as Experience.New York, NY: The Berkley Publishing Group.
7.
EisnerE. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
EisenbergM., & NishiokaA. (1994).HyperGami: A computational system for creating decorated paper constructions.Proceedings of Second International Meeting of Origami Science and Scientific Origami, Otsu, Shiga, Japan.
9.
ErstadO., GiljeØ., & de LangeT. (2007).Re-mixing multimodal resources: multiliteracies and digital production in Norwegian media education.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 183–198.
10.
GallasK. (1994). Languages of learning: How children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing their understanding of the world.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
GreeneM. (1994).Carpe diem: The arts and school restructuring.Teachers College Record, 9(4), 494–507.
12.
GreeneM. (1995). Releasing the imagination.New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
13.
GuzdialM. (2003). Programming environments for novices (Unpublished manuscript). Atlanta, GA.
14.
HagoodM. C., StevensL.P., & ReinkingD. (2002). What do THEY have to teach US? Talkin’ ‘cross generations! In AlvermannD. E. (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 68–83). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
15.
HatanoG., & InagakiK. (1987). A theory of motivation for comprehension and its application to mathematics instruction. In RombergT.A. & StewardD. M. (Eds.), The monitoring of school mathematics: Background papers. Vol. 2. Implications from psychology, outcomes of instruction (Program Report 87-2, pp. 27–66). Madison WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
16.
HirshbergJ., BereiterC., & HughesA. (1989). Open court.LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
17.
JenkinsH., ClintonK., PurushotmaR., RobinsonA. J., & WeigelM. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century.Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.
18.
JosephD. (1999). The passion curriculum design approach: Organizing learning environments around learner interest. Presentation to the Motivation in Education Special Interest Group at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
19.
KafaiY. B. (2006). Constructionism. In SawyerK. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KafaiY., PepplerK., & ChiuG. (2007). High tech programmers in low-income communities: Seeding reform in a community technology center. In SteinfeldC., PentlandB. T., AckermanM., & ContractorN. (Eds.), Communities and technologies: Proceedings of the Third Communities and Technologies Conference (pp. 545–564). London, England: Springer.
21.
KafaiY., & PepplerK. (2008).Learning from krumping: Collective agency in dance performance cultures.Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Utrecht, Netherlands, 1, 430–437.
22.
KafaiY.B., PepplerK., & ChapmanR. (Eds.) (2009). The Computer Clubhouse: Creativity and constructionism in youth communities.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
23.
KressG., & van LeeuwenT. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.London, England: Routledge.
24.
Los Angeles Unified School District Arts Branch (2005). Media arts study group report.Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District Arts Branch. Retrieved from http://www.artseducation.lausd.net/portal.php?id=MEDI
25.
Lemke (2007, April). Where in the world is the science in Whyville? Informal science in a multi-user virtual community. Invited discussant at the 2007 American Education Research Association (AERA) in Chicago, IL.
26.
MaedaJ. (1999). Design by numbers.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
27.
MaedaJ. (2004). Creative code.New York, NY: Thames & Hudson Inc.
28.
MaloneyJ., BurdL., KafaiY., RuskN., SilvermanB., & ResnickM. (2004, January). Scratch: A sneak preview. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Creating, Connecting, and Collaborating through Computing, Kyoto, Japan.
29.
MaloneyJ., PepplerK., KafaiY., ResnickM., & RuskN. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. Proceedings published by the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education, Portland, OR.
30.
MargolisJ., & FisherA. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
31.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
McCueF. (2007).The arts and civic space: An experiment in community education.Teachers College Record, 109(3), pp. 590–602.
33.
MitchellW. J., InouyeA.S., & BlumenthalM.S. (2003). Beyond productivity: Information technology, innovation, and creativity.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
34.
MojeE. B. (2000).“To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents.Teachers College Record, 102(3), 651–690.
35.
MuchnicS. (2005, April 24). Art on the move.Los Angeles Times, pp. E1, E34–36.
36.
NalvenJ., & JarvisJ. (2005) Going digital: The practice and vision of digital artists. Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.
37.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
38.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
PaulC. (2003). Digital art.New York, NY: Thames & Hudson.
40.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas.New York, NY: Basic Books.
41.
PapertS. (1993). The children's machine.New York, NY: Basic Books.
42.
PepplerK. (2007). Creative bytes: Literacy and learning in the media arts practices of urban youth (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLA: Los Angeles, CA.
43.
PepplerK., & KafaiY. B. (2007). From Super Goo to Scratch: Exploring creative production in an informal learning environment. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(2), 149–166.
44.
PepplerK., & WarschauerM. (2010). Lessons from Brandy: Creative media production by a child with cognitive (dis)abilities. Paper presentation at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Denver, CO.
45.
PinkettR. D. (2000). Bridging the digital divide: Sociocultural constructionism and an asset-based approach to community technology and community building. Paper presented at the Eighty-first Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
ReasC. (2006a).Media literacy: Twenty-first century arts education.AI & Society, 20(4), 444–445.
48.
ReasC. (2006b).Processing: programming for the media arts.AI & Society, 20(4), 526–538.
49.
ResnickM., KafaiY., & MaedaJ. (2003). ITR: A networked, media-rich programming environment to enhance technological fluency at after-school centers in economically disadvantaged communities. Proposal submitted to National Science Foundation.
50.
RideoutV., RobertsD. F., & FoehrU. G. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
51.
Sefton-GreenJ., & BuckinghamD. (1998). Digital visions: Children's “creative” uses of multimedia technologies. In Sefton-GreenJ. (Ed.), Digital Diversions: Youth culture in the age of multimedia (pp. 62–83). London, England: UCL Press.
52.
SmithB. K. (2006).Design and computational flexibility.Digital Creativity, 17(2), 65–72.
53.
ThomasE. (2007).Student engagement and learning in a community-based arts classroom.Teachers College Record, 109(3), 770–796.
