Teachers enrolled in a professional development program involving artists on site at cultural institutions participated in a study in which they expressed their views on upgrading in the arts. Findings indicate that they were influenced in their own schooling by passionate teachers who conveyed the importance of the arts. Their progress was impeded by a self-perception of their own limited artistic ability. Community experiences, such as private lessons and amateur productions, played a more significant role in their development. The ideal scenario for their personal and professional development in the arts is an environment where discipline-based and integrative curricular activities are offered, and both the creative process and the creative product are valued. Lack of personal expertise, limited professional development opportunities, and inadequate funding are obstacles that can be overcome by teacher commitment to upgrading in the arts, a range of arts courses offered by education faculties, and involvement by arts stakeholders in program design and delivery, respectively.
AndrewsB. W. (2002). Governance and accountability: The effectiveness of teacher provided in-service in a university setting. International Electronic Journal of Leadership in Learning, 6(8), 1–11. Retrieved from http://iejll.synergiesprairies.ca/iejll/index.php/ijll/article/view/438
2.
AndrewsB. W. (2004). Curriculum renewal through policy development in arts education. Research Studies in Music Education, 23, 76–93.
3.
AndrewsB. W. (2005). Bridge over troubled waters: Policy development for Canadian music in the curriculum. Music Education Research, 7(1), 101–118.
4.
AndrewsB. W. (2006). Re-play: Re-assessing the effectiveness of arts education partnerships. International Review of Education, 55(2), 443–459.
5.
AndrewsB. W. (2008a). The Odyssey Project: Fostering teacher learning in the arts. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 9(11), 1–20. Retrieved from http://ijea.org/articles.html
6.
AndrewsB. W. (2008b). Integrated Inquiry: Transforming multiple research perspectives. In KouritzinS.PiquemalN.NormanR. (Eds.), Qualitative research: Challenging the orthodoxies (pp. 351–380). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
7.
AndrewsB. W. (2010). Seeking harmony: Teachers’ perspectives on learning to teach in and through the arts. Encounters on Education, 11, 81–98.
8.
AndrewsB. W. (2011). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Identifying effective partnership practices in arts education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(13), 38–46.
9.
AndrewsB. W. (2012). Creative osmosis: Theory into practice in teacher development in the arts. Creative Education, 3, 971–979.
10.
Arts Education Partnership. (2001). Strengthening state-level arts education partnerships. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.
11.
ARTS, Inc., & Performing Tree. (2000). Profiles of national models of partnerships and school connections. Los Angeles, CA: ARTS, Inc.
12.
BamfordA. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education. Münster, Germany: Waxmann Münster.
13.
BartelL. R.CameronL. (2004). From dilemmas to experience: Shaping the conditions of learning. In BartelL. R. (Ed.), Questioning the music education paradigm (pp. 39–61). Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators Association.
14.
BaumS.OwenS.OreckB. (1997). Transferring individual self-regulation processes from arts to academics. Arts Education Policy Review, 98(4), 32–39.
15.
BrophyT. (2011). School–university partnerships in music education: A status report. Arts Education Policy Review, 112, 149–153.
16.
BurnafordG. E.AprillA.WeissC. (Eds.). (2001). Arts integration and meaningful learning. Chicago, IL: Erlbaum.
17.
CatterallJ.WaldorfL. (1999). Chicago arts partnerships in education: Summary evaluation. Chicago, IL: Chicago Arts Partnership in Education.
18.
CreswellJ. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
DammR. J. (2006). Education through collaboration: Learning the arts while celebrating culture. Music Educators Journal, 93 (2), 54–58.
21.
DohertyP.HarlandJ. (2001). Partnerships for creativity: An evaluation of implementation. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
22.
EisnerE. W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). London, UK: Falmer Press.
23.
FowlerC. (1996). Strong arts, strong schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
GardnerH. (1990). Art education and human development. New York, NY: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
25.
GrantC.LererA. (2011). Revisiting the traditional classroom band model: A differentiated perspective. Canadian Music Educator, 53(1), 24–27.
26.
GreenL. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
27.
GreenL. (2008). Music, informal learning. and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
28.
GreenL. (2011). Learning, teaching, and musical identity: Voices across cultures. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
29.
GurneyP. J.AndrewsB. W. (1998). Building bridges: A case study of policy development in teacher education. In RichardsonA. (Ed.), International multiculturalism: Preparing together for the twenty-first century (pp. 50–59). Edmonton, AB: Kanata Press.
HordS. M.RutherfordW. L.Hurling-AustinL.HallG. E. (1998). Taking charge of change. Austin, TX: South-west Educational Development Laboratory.
32.
HouriganR. (2011). Race to the top: Implications for professional development in arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 116, 60–64.
33.
KindS.de CossonA.IrwinR.GrauerK. (2007). Artist–teacher partnerships in learning: The in/between spaces of artist–teacher professional development. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 30(3), 839–864.
34.
Korn-BursztynC. (2003). School change and the arts: A case study. Teaching Artist Journal, 1(4), 220–227.
35.
McBeeR. H. (2001). Why teachers integrate. The Educational Forum, 64, 254–260.
36.
McIntoshR. D.HanleyB. A.VerriourP.Van GynG. H. (1993). The state of the art: Arts literacy in Canada. Victoria, BC: Beach Holme.
37.
McLeodK.DicolaP. (2011). Creative license: The law and culture of digital sampling. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
38.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
NaplesL. (2001). Kentucky Institutes for the Arts in Education: Evaluation Report. Belmont, CA: LMN Evaluations.
40.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (1998). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8: The arts. Toronto, ON: Province of Ontario.
41.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8: The arts (Revised version). Toronto, ON: Province of Ontario.
42.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2012). The extended teacher education program. Report prepared for education stakeholders by the Ontario Ministry of Education. Toronto, ON: Province of Ontario.
43.
OreckB. (2004). The artistic and professional development of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 55–69.
44.
PattesonA. (2002). Amazing grace and powerful medicine: A case study of an elementary teacher. Canadian Journal of Education, 27(2/3), 269–289.
45.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
PetersJ. (2004). They are not a blank score. In BartelL. R. (Ed.), Questioning the music education paradigm (pp. 2–20). Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators Association.
47.
PinarW. (1975, April). The method of currere. Paper presented at the American Association of Educational Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC.
48.
PinarW. (1980). The voyage out: Curriculum as the relationship between the knower and the known. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 2(1), 7–11.
49.
PinarW. (1988). The re-conceptualization of curriculum studies: A retrospective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3(2), 157–167.
PinarW. (2004). What is curriculum theory?New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
PitmanW. (1998). Teaching the arts in an age of uncertainty. Toronto, ON: Arts Education Council.
53.
RobinsonK. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester, UK: Capstone.
54.
SenyshynY. (2004). Popular music and the intolerant classroom. In BartelL. R. (Ed.), Questioning the music education paradigm (pp. 110–120). Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators Association.
55.
SmithrimK.UpitisR. (2001). Strong poets: Teacher education and the arts. Journal of Professional Studies, 9 (1), 19–29.
56.
SmithrimK.UpitisR. (2005). Learning through the arts: Lessons of engagement. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(1), 109–127.
57.
StakeR.BreslerL.MabryL. (1991). Custom and cherishing: The arts in elementary schools. Urbana, IL: National Arts Education Research Center, University of Illinois.
58.
StarkoA. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom. New York, NY: Longman.
59.
TaggartG.WhitbyK.SharpC. (2004). Curriculum and progression in the arts: An international study. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
60.
UpitisR. (2005). Experiences of artists and artist-teachers involved in teacher professional development programs. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 6(8), 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.ijea.org/v6n8/v6n8.pdf
61.
UpitisR.SmithrimK. (2003). Learning through the arts: National assessment 1999–2002. Final report to the Royal Conservatory of Music. Toronto, ON: Royal Conservatory of Music.
62.
UpitisR.SmithrimK.SorenB. (1999). When teachers become musicians and artists: Teacher transformation and professional development. Music Education Research, 1(1), 23–25.
63.
VitaleJ. (2011). Musical experiences in a visually biased world. Canadian Music Educator, 52(4), 19–25.
64.
ZwirnS. G.GrahamM. (2005). Crossing borders: The arts engage academics and inspire children. Childhood Education, 81(5), 267–273.
