Arts Integration and Special Education

An Inclusive Theory of Action for Student Engagement

Alida Anderson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415744188
• eBook ISBN: 9781317800682
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Arts Integration and Special Education contributes to research, policy, and practice by providing a theory of action for studying how linguistic, cognitive, and affective student engagement relates to arts integrated learning contexts and how these dimensions of engagement influence content area and literacy learning.

Arts Integration and Special Education connects the interdisciplinary framework in human development and linguistics, special education, and urban education with primary action research by special educators trained in arts integration, working in an inclusive urban charter school with middle school age students. Upper elementary to middle-grade level student learning is relatively understudied and this work contributes across fields of special education and urban education, as well as arts education. Moreover, the classrooms in which the action research occurs are comprised of students with a diverse range of abilities and needs. The book's interdisciplinary model, which draws on developmental and educational psychology, special education, and speech/language pathology research and practice, is the first to posit explanations for how and why AI contexts facilitate learning in students with language and sensory processing disorders, and those at-risk for school failure due to low socioeconomic status conditions.

PART I Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Study of Arts Integration in Education

DOI: 10.4324/9781315813158-1

Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315813158-2

This section provides an overview of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of arts integration (AI) in general and special education, with particular emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to addressing learners’ individual needs within classroom contexts. Thorough examination of the background and historical context of AI is presented, as well as the interdisciplinary language, educational psychology, and special education research and practice that support its use in educational settings. Arts integration research and practice, from its foundations to its current status as a multidisciplinary learning approach, is described in relation to the book’s theoretical framework on student engagement. Notably, this volume explores the question of whether arts integration may in fact be a response to the disintegration of education over two decades due to reform education movements, beginning in the late 1990s to the present, that have focused primarily on achievement outcomes rather than students’ acquisition or mastery of concepts.

Part I’s organization is as follows. In Chapter 1, Sandra M. Loughlin and I examine operational definitions for AI in general education and special education, and include historical and research perspectives on AI from the past or ‘yesterday’ and present, or ‘today.’ Chapter 1 reviews the status of AI research from a multidisciplinary perspective to highlight the emphasis on developing a theory of action to study learning processes that occur in general education and special education settings with its use.

Chapter 2 outlines the linguistic-cognitive theoretical contributions to the study of AI’s influence on language and literacy outcomes in students with learning and sensory processing disabilities, as well as for students at-risk for school failure due to low academic achievement and/or social-emotional difficulties. This chapter draws upon theory and research from developmental and speech-language research and practice to understand how and why AI contexts support language outcomes in student populations, and provides information on the contextualized–decontextualized language continuum (Scott, 1994; Ukrainetz, 2006) in relation to AI. The principles of Universal Design in Learning (UDL) (Rose & Meyer, 2002) are presented in relation to this linguistic-cognitive orientation, highlighting the role of linguistic engagement through contextualization.

In Chapter 3, Katherine A. Berry and Sandra M. Loughlin critically examine AI research and practice focused on cognitive and affective dimensions of engagement in students with and without disabilities in a variety of educational settings. Directions for AI research and practice, with attention to cognitive and affective engagement, are presented relative to students who have learning and sensory processing disabilities, as well as for students who are at-risk for academic failure due to social-emotional challenges.

Chapter 4 presents a unifying theory of action for engagement through AI, which is expressed through linguistic, cognitive, and affective dimensions. This interdisciplinary engagement model draws on developmental and educational psychology, special education, and speech and language pathology research and practice to explain how and why AI addresses individual learning needs of students with language- and sensory-based disabilities, and those at-risk for school failure due to social-emotional and behavioral challenges. The multi-component engagement framework posits connections between linguistic, cognitive, and affective dimensions to operationalize it as an outcome across arts and non-arts (conventional academic) learning contexts. This theory of action will be applied to the AI demonstrations of practice in Part II of the book, and will be reconsidered in light of the current and future directions in the field of AI in general and special education in Part III.

Part I Questions for the Reader

• What is AI and why do we need it?
• Why do we need arts integration (AI) in education?
• What are the characteristics of effective schools and teachers?
• How has the role of the arts in education changed over time?
• How does arts integration address students’ educational disintegration?

References

• Rose D., & Meyer A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Scott C. (1994). A discourse continuum for school-age students. In G. Wallach & K. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents: Some principles and applications (pp. 219–252). New York: Macmillan.
• Ukrainetz T. A. (Ed.). (2006). Contextualized language intervention. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

1 A Historical Review of Arts Integration Research and Practice

Lessons Learned

Sandra M. Loughlin and Alida Anderson

DOI: 10.4324/9781315813158-3

Connections between arts and non-arts disciplines have been made in a variety of arenas for decades, even centuries, in philosophy, linguistics, psychology, and educational practice (Loughlin, 2013). These connections have translated into powerful beliefs about learning and intelligence (Gardner, 1983) and highly influential educational initiatives (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971). More recently, the rich history connecting arts and non-arts learning has been manifested in an increasingly popular educational practice, often called arts integration. Arts integration (hereafter, AI) is colloquially described as teaching and learning in and through the arts, and is evident in instruction for students with and without disabilities. Indeed, the United States Department of Education (2010) has emphasized arts-based learning as a way to reach and teach all children and a number of states have standards specifically relating to arts integration (Burnaford, Brown, Doherty, & McLaughlin, 2007). Given AI’s rising popularity and influence, the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities (Committee on the Arts and Humanities, 2011) recently stated that “Arts integration has … generated a lot of enthusiasm from classroom teachers, school administrators and policy researchers for its ability to produce results” (p. 19).

While AI’s benefits are increasingly acknowledged, its parameters remain a point of debate. AI has been differentially termed, defined, and operationalized in the literature (Bresler, 2001; Burnaford et al., 2007; Cornett, 2007) and agreed-upon definitions and practices remain elusive. Practices falling under the umbrella term AI vary on virtually all possible dimensions: who does AI (e.g., teaching artists, arts teachers, classroom teachers), what is being integrated (e.g., content standards, thinking processes, shared fundamental concepts), when AI occurs (e.g., during the school day, after school), where AI takes place (e.g., school classrooms, museums, arts organizations), how AI lessons are developed (e.g., co-teaching, artists-in-residence, single teachers), and why do AI at all.

Despite these differences in focus and scope, at their core all perspectives on AI assume that learning in and through the arts is linked to learning in non-arts domains – cognitively, linguistically, motivationally, affectively, or socially – and that harnessing those linkages enhances teaching and learning. Accordingly, the Consortium of the National Arts Education Associations (2002) defines the goal of interdisciplinary arts education as enabling students to “identify and apply authentic connections between two or more disciplines and/or understand essential concepts that transcend individual disciplines” (p. 3). Deasy (2002) defines AI as “the effort to build a set of relationships between learning in the arts and learning in the other skills and subjects of the curriculum” (p. 2). Similarly, and in an effort to better pinpoint the types of connections, conceptions, and relationships afforded by AI, this book defines AI as the linking of an arts area (e.g., drama, music, dance, visual art) with a content area (e.g., language arts, mathematics) for the purposes of reaching a deeper level of engagement, learning, and reflection than would be possible without inclusion of the art form (Anderson, 2012).

Like other educational initiatives, AI has been subjected to the buffeting winds of theories of learning, research agendas, politics, and finances (Eisner, 1998). As a consequence, justifications for AI and research efforts around it have changed dramatically over the decades (Aprill, 2010). What has remained constant, though, is the belief that AI can benefit all learners. Although most AI research and practice has occurred in general education settings, AI also has a rich history in special education contexts (Gerber & Guay, 2006; Smith, 2001). In the special education literature, there have been numerous exploratory investigations (e.g., Carrigan, 1994; Clements & Clements, 1984) and policy papers (Anderson, 1975; Andrus, 1994; Keifer-Boyd & Kraft, 2003; Kraft, 2003, 2004) on the ways in which the arts enhance inclusive learning opportunities for students ‘at-risk’ for school failure, including students with identified disabilities. Interestingly, none of these studies used the term ‘arts integration,’ despite clearly linking arts to content in an effort to reach and teach students. Only recently has ‘arts integration’ been applied to describe the practice of integrating art and content learning for students in inclusive classroom settings (see Abedin, 2010; Anderson, 2012).

This chapter foregrounds the research and practice outlined in this book by describing historical and current developments in AI research and practice, focusing on student learning in both general and special education. In particular, it describes the historical roots of AI (i.e., research and practice from approximately the 1930s to 1980s), AI yesterday (i.e., research and practice from approximately the 1990s to mid-2000s), and AI today (i.e., research and practice from approximately the mid-2000s to today). Selected developments in these periods are presented in Figure 1.1.

FIGURE 1.1 Timeline of Selected Developments in AI Research and Practice.

Based on this analysis, the current chapter argues that the field has moved from defining, describing, and legitimizing AI, to identifying theoretically grounded relations between art and non-arts learning through exploration and confirmation. The chapter concludes by deriving lessons from the history of AI that may inform AI research tomorrow, and outlining how the volume’s theory of action and demonstrations of practice address those research aims.

Historical Roots of Arts Integration

John Dewey may have been the first formal advocate for curricular integrati...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• About the Editor
• Part I Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Study of Arts Integration in Education
• Part II Arts Integration Demonstrations of Practice in Inclusive Classrooms
• Part III Reflections and Next Steps for Arts Integration Research and Practice
• Index