Meeting the Needs of Artistically Talented Students Who Reside in Real and Virtual,Rural Communities in the United States

Abstract

In response to a lack of attention to developing the abilities of talented art students who reside in rural communities, three art educators present a discussion of community-based art education as a strategy for addressing the needs of these students. They consider a variety of artistically talented student populations who reside in geographically rural communities. Some reside in real, rural communities and some may participate in virtual, global communities. A federally funded project in the United States is reported that focused on the identification, art curricula, and assessment procedures for artistically talented students in local, community-based art education programs. In addition, they describe a university-supported study in the United States that focuses on students who share their artwork online in virtual communities. Resources within real and virtual communities are suggested that can support the interests and development of artistically talented art students.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amram

(1991). Things in action: The Discovery Program Exploration Camps. Roeper Review, 13(2), 82.

Barkan

J.H.

Bernal

E.M.

(1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English proficiency students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 144–147.

Clark

(1989). Screening and identifying students talented in the visual arts: Clark's Drawing Abilities Test. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33 (3), 98–105.

Clark

(1993). Judging children's drawings as measures of art abilities. Studies in Art Education, 34 (2), 72–81.

Clark

Wilson

(1991). Screening and identifying gifted/talented students in the visual arts with Clark's Drawing Abilities Test. Roeper Review, 13(2), 92–97.

Clark

Zimmerman

(1997). Project ARTS: Programs for ethnically diverse, economically disadvantaged, high ability, visual arts students in rural communities. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Education. Research for this report was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant NO. R206A30220).

Clark

Zimmerman

(2000). Greater understanding of the local community: A community-based art education program for rural schools. Art Education, 53(2), 33–39.

Clark

Zimmerman

(2001). Identifying artistically talented students in four rural communities in the United States. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 104–114.

Clark

Zimmerman

(2004). Teaching talented art students: Principles and practices. New York Teachers College Press and Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

10.

De Leon

Argus-Calvo (1997). A model program for identifying culturally and linguistically diverse rural gifted and talented students. (Paper presented at the Promoting Progress in Times of Change: Rural Communities Leading the Way Conference). (ERIC Document Reproductive Services No. ED406125).

11.

Herman

J. L.

Aschbacher

P. K.

Winters

(1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

12.

Holsti

D.R.

(1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, PA: Addison.

13.

Jones

E.D.

Southern

(1992). Programming, grouping, and acceleration in rural school districts: A survey of attitudes and practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 112–117.

14.

Manifold

M. C.

(2005) Life as theater-theater as life: Spontaneous expressions of information-age youth. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 23,1–16.

15.

Nachitgal

P. N.

(1992). Rural schools: Obsolete…or harbingers of the future? Educational Horizons, 70, 66–70.

16.

Sabol

F. R.

(1997). Standardized testing in art education. In La Pierre

Zimmerman

(Eds.), Research methods in art education (pp. 138–148). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

17.

Swanson

J. D.

(1995). Gifted African American children in rural schools. Searching for answers. Roeper Review, 17(4), 261–266.

18.

Tonemah

S.A.

(1990). American Indian teacher training program: American Indian Research and Development, Paper presented at the National Indian Education Association, San Diego, CA.

19.

Tapscott

(1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw Hill.

20.

Zimmerman

(1992). How should students' progress and achievements be assessed? A case for assessment that is responsive to diverse students' needs. Visual Arts Research, 20(1), 29–35.

21.

Zimmerman

(1997). Authentic assessment in art education. In La Pierre

Zimmerman

(Eds.), Research methods in art education (pp. 149–169). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.