|
Session Title: Learning Within the Arts and Through the Process of Arts Evaluation
|
|
Panel Session 768 to be held in Versailles Room on Saturday, November 10, 10:30 AM to 12:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Evaluating the Arts and Culture TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Kathlyn Steedly,
The Academy for Educational Development,
ksteedly@smtp.aed.org
|
| Abstract:
In Champions of Change, researchers described a model of cognitive skills, social competencies, and personal dispositions and self-perceptions linked to learning in and through the arts (Burton, Horowitz and Abeles, 1999). Further studies explored the application of the model to evaluations of arts partnerships and programs (Horowitz, 2002). More recently, seven years of qualitative data was coded according to the model. Rating scale items were developed and piloted (Horowitz, 2005). This panel will explore further development of the model and related instrumentation. Presentations will include applications of the model and instrumentation to evaluating arts programs and partnerships.
|
|
A Model and Instrumentation for Evaluating Arts Programs
|
| Rob Horowitz,
Teachers College, Columbia University,
artsresearch@aol.com
|
|
Evaluators of arts programs have been limited by the lack of valid and reliable instrumentation to measure dimensions of cognitive, social and personal development related to arts learning. A study (Horowitz, 2005), published by the Dana Foundation and based upon a model published in Champions of Change (1999), described development and piloting of rating scale items derived from seven years of qualitative research. In this presentation, the development of the database of potential scale items will be described. Additional rating scale items, observational protocols and interview schedules, based upon the database of qualitative data, will be presented.
|
|
|
Applying the Horowitz Model to Evaluating Arts Integration in Public Elementary Schools
|
| Melanie Hwalek,
Social Program Evaluators and Consultants Inc,
mhwalek@specassociates.org
|
|
This presentation reports the results obtained when Horowitz's constructs are applied to the evaluation of Marygrove College's Institute for Arts Infused Education's program that infuses arts into the core literacy curriculum of fourth grade public school students in Detroit. Thirteen of the constructs were used to address three primary evaluation questions:
(1) Do teachers come to 'buy-into' the infusion of arts into classroom teaching (teacher buy-in, comfort level and collaboration with artists)?
(2) What impact has the program had on overall school climate (better teacher-student relationships, seeing students in new light, leadership support for arts-infused education)?
(3) What impact has the program had on student engagement and academic growth (elaboration, expression of ideas, cooperative learning, self-confidence, motivation, ownership of learning, writing)?
Although many data collection tools were developed, this paper will focus on how the Horowitz constructs were used to analyze focus group data from children.
| |
|
Application of Cognitive, Social and Personal Dimensions of Learning to Mixed-Method and Quasi-Experimental Designs in Arts Evaluations.
|
| Dan Serig,
Massachusetts College of Art,
danserig@gmail.com
|
| Rob Horowitz,
Teachers College, Columbia University,
artsresearch@aol.com
|
|
The model of teaching and learning dimensions identified in the Learning In and Through the Arts study (Burton, Horowitz, and Abeles, 1999), and more recently defined in Connections: The Arts and Cognitive, Social, and Personal Development (Horowitz, 2005), was applied to several evaluations of arts programs and partnerships. Evaluation studies (of U.S. Department of Education model development and dissemination and professional development grants, and for state and local arts agencies and organizations) used instrumentation based on cognitive, social and personal dimensions of learning in mixed-method and quasi-experimental designs. The benefits and limitations of the model will be presented within the context of findings from several evaluations. Implications for defining and evaluating arts integrated programs will be discussed, as well as distinctions between evaluating arts education and arts-infused programs.
| |