Art = Math & Math = Art: Planning for Arts Integration

Material Information

Art = Math & Math = Art: Planning for Arts Integration
Perry-Anderson, Karen
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
College of Fine Arts; University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
Project in lieu of thesis

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree Grantor:
University of Florida


Subjects / Keywords:
Art education ( jstor )
Art teachers ( jstor )
Arts ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Curriculum design ( jstor )
Mathematics ( jstor )
Observational research ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Visual arts ( jstor )


This descriptive case study presents research which documents a team comprised of two third grade teachers, a teaching artist, and an instructional coach while they planned a visual art and math integrated unit during the 2013-2014 school year. The team was funded by the North Dakota Council on the Arts (NDCA) through an initiative called the STE[A]M (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math) Team grant. The non-participant observations explored 1) ways in which the team would use the Backwards Design curriculum planning model to incorporate the standards from both disciplines into an integrated unit, 2) the documentation of interactions between the divergent disciplines of the team members in blending a variety of instructional methods into one coherent unit. Instructional methods used by the team include; training on the Backwards Design curriculum development model, arts integrated teaching, reflective teaching methods, rehearsal of art projects, assessment variations, and use of contemporary artists. The data consists of detailed field notes, semi-structured interviews, photographs, and access to the team’s Google Docs planning files. Findings of the research show that autonomy given to the participants in directing the planning content led to increased collegiality and ownership of the project. This study also suggests that the team’s decision to rehearse every art activity planned together before presenting it to students in the classroom, resulted in the team experiencing learning moments in art and math that they hope to replicate with their students.
General Note:
Art Education terminal project

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Karen Perry-Anderson. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
1039729397 ( OCLC )


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EOE03L94Y_XIS3DN INGEST_TIME 2016-04-19T23:08:04Z PACKAGE AA00030819_00001

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EA2K1Q9BP_8YPEJM INGEST_TIME 2016-04-21T21:06:25Z PACKAGE AA00030819_00001




ART = MATH & MATH = ART 2 UF Copyright Page ©2014 Karen Perry Anderson


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents, Mela and J oseph Perry for instil ling in me a love and a need for education . I am also very appreciative of the dedicated professionals of the STE[A]M Team who allowed me to observe a very amazing moment in their lives. Additionally, I would like to thank the North Dakota Council on the Arts for granting me permission to observe their grant planning process . Finally I would like to thank my Capstone committee , Dr. Elizabeth Manley Delacruz and Dr. Michelle Tillander for their calm support in guiding me to making insightful connections through out my research.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 4 Abstract of Capstone Project Presented to the College of Fine Arts of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts PLANNING FO R ARTS INTEGRATION: ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL By Karen Perry Anderson August 2014 Chair: Elizabeth Manley Delacruz Committee Member: Michelle Tillander Major: Art Education Abstract This descriptive case study presents research which documents a team comprised of two third grade teachers, a teaching artist, and an instructional coach while they planned a visual art and math integrated unit during the 2013 2014 school year. The team was funded by the North Dakota Council on the Arts (NDCA) through an initiative called the STE[A]M (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math) Team grant. The non participant observations explored 1) ways in which the team would use the Backwards Design curriculum planning model to incorporate the standards from both disciplines into an integrated un it, 2) the documentation of interactions between the divergent disciplines of the team members in blending a variety of


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 5 instructional methods into one coherent unit. Instructional methods used by the team include; training on the Backwards Design curriculu m development model, arts integrated teaching, reflective teaching methods, rehearsal of art projects, assessment variations, and use of contemporary artists. The data consists of detailed field notes, semi structured interviews, photographs, and access to s planning files. Findings of the research show that autonomy given to the participants in directing the planning content led to increased rehearse every art activity planned together before presenting it to students in the classroom, resulted in the team experiencing learning moments in art and math that they hope to replicate with their students.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 6 Table of Contents Title Page ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 UF Copyright Page ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 2 Acknowledgements ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 Table of Contents ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 6 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 8 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 Goals of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 Research Assumptions ................................ ................................ ............................... 11 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 Key Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 13 Best Practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 Backwards Design For Arts Integration ................................ ................................ ...... 16 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 17 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 17 Research Sites and Observation Schedule ................................ ................................ ... 19 Data Collection Procedures ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 20 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21 Collaboration Means Equal Input ................................ ................................ ............... 21


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 7 ................................ ................................ ..................... 22 The Role of Technology ................................ ................................ ............................. 24 Summary Across Findings ................................ ................................ ......................... 25 Discussion and Interpretation of Findings ................................ ................................ .................. 27 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 28 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 30 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 31 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 Appendix A ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 37 Appendix B ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 41 Appendix C ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 45 Appendix D ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 47 Appendix E ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 54 Appendix F ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 55 List of Figures and Figure Captions ................................ ................................ ........................... 58 Author Biography ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 59


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 8 Introduction In a time when the focus of educati onal practitioners is on achievement scores , educational and business policy makers instituted a movement to emphasize STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) courses to enhance American competitiveness on the global stage (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012 ). Arts practitioners led by the Rhode Island School of Design forwarded a national educational initiative called STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math) to add Arts to STEM educational pursuits to promote arts integration as a means of creating more innovative graduates (Maeda, 2013). In response to national STEM to STEAM initiatives the North Dako ta Council on the Arts (NDCA) developed the STE[A]M Team grant . The NDCA is the state arts agency responsible for granting funds received from the National Endowment for the Arts and an appropriation from the North Dakota State Legislature (North Dakota Council on the Arts, 2014 ) . The ir new STE[A]M Team grant , provides financial assistance , professional deve lopment, and support to teacher and artist teams to commit to a three ye ar collaboration to integrate a fine art and/or c ore curricula (language arts, history, social st udies, geography) with STEM (Science, Technology, E ngineering, and M ath ematics ) curricula (North Dakota Counci l on the Arts, 2014 ). I learned ab out the new STE[A]M Team grant project while I was serving as a board member 1 on the North Dak ota Council on the Arts (NDCA). The team receiving the first grant is using it to integrate visual arts and math concepts at the third grade level. Concurrently , I entered the online Master of Arts degree program at the University of Florida and learned about the Backwards Design curriculum development m ethod the North Dakota Council on the Arts ( NDCA ) has decided to use for planning curriculum with the STE[A ] M Team grantees . The Backwards D esign model for curriculum development as presented in the Wiggins and McTighe 1 I served as a board member from 2007 through 2013.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 9 (2006) book Understanding by Design , prompts teachers to identify the big ideas and e ssential understandings that are at the core of a standard, and then formulate lesson plans to guide students to demonstrate their understanding of the concepts . I was aware o f some challenges in using the Backwards Design model having explored it to develop unit plans for coursework in the Mas ters in Art prog ram . Being unable to implement the Backwards Design method within a classroom setting 2 , I was curious to know in what ways that model affected a n in person curricula planning and implementation situation. Additionally , I voluntarily wanted to provide an executive summary (see Appendix A) which demonstrated results from the first year of the curriculum process supported by the grant to aid the NDCA in evaluating the resulting grant efforts. Statement of the Problem While there is strong support for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) efforts instituted within schools in North Dakota, adding arts into the mix to create STEAM (Science, Technology, Engi neering, Art, Math) is a concept in arts education that the North Dakota Council on the Arts (NDCA) is exploring . At some point many teachers and artists decide to include an art form into a non arts or other fine art lesson. Of ten times these attempts at art integration do not serve the standards of the chosen disciplines equally (Mi shook & Kornhaber, 200 6). The STE[A]M Team grant specifies that attenti on is paid to discipline parity (ND CA, 2014). This is a small group; Russell & Zembylas (2007) sugges t it is important for schools, arts organizations, a nd artists to study the challenges and successes of small scale arts integrated programs for valuable contributions to the study of arts integration outcomes . 2 I had retired from classroom teaching before I was able to implement a lesson planned with the Backwards Design model.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 10 Goals of the Study This research study will primarily target insight for the North Dakota Council on the Arts (NDCA). My goal in p roviding an executive summary of the firs t year of the collaboration benefits future STE [ A]M Team grantee planning phases and provides information for the NDCA to evaluate their new grant program. As a forme r board member of the NDCA I am aware of the staffing limitations to document and evaluate the STE [ A]M Team grant i mplementation. I asked for and received permission from the NDCA to perform a case study of the first year of the new grant. Additionally, t his case study provides information for others aspiring to duplicate o r innovat e the STE [A]M Team grant program . The observations of this planning collaboration to wards visual art and math integration provide first an understanding of the different ways classroom teachers and arti sts approach teaching a concept, and secondly, valuable insights for those looking to create professional development opportunities for art educators, artists, and non arts classroom teachers. Research Questions To guide my observations to produce an exec u tive summary of the planning model i t was not only important to n ote how the teachers and artist would utilize the Backwards Design model in their unit planning but also to observe other details of their collegiality . The following research questions helped to focus my case study: 1. In what ways did the STE[A]M Team particip ants uti lize the Backwards Design curriculum model to plan an integration of visual arts and math at the third grade level ? 2. In what ways did other aspects of the STE[A]M Team training inform the planning for arts integration?


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 11 Research Assumptions As part of this research I make the assumption that the Backwards D esign model is an effective model for designing curricula. Integrating art and math is possible and I assume the STE[A] M Team is a capable group of professionals. I also believe d that the STE[A ] M Team participants would gain confidence in working with the B ackwards D esign model and move from development to implementation of their unit during the first year of the three year grant time frame . Definition of Terms Arts Integration. Mishook and Kornhaber (2006) cite several interpretations of the term arts integration: The use of project based learning to address community problems or issues; thematic instruction; the use of multiple intelligences; the transfer of knowledge across artistic and non artistic disciplines; the use of arts to enhance the study of academic d isciplines; and a focus on the interdisciplinarity among different art forms, such as painting and music. (2006, p. 4) Bressler (1995) details four arts integration styles used in schools: 1) subservient, where the art form is used to increase interest a nd enjoyment in a lesson; 2) co equal, where the arts standards share parity with the other discipline; 3) affective, where the art form is presented to enhance self expression or change of mood; and 4) social integration, where the art form is promoted to enhance social situations occurring within the school. This study focuses on the co equal integration style. Backwards Design. The Backward Design curricular development model includes the following phases in the curriculum development process: identifyi ng enduring ideas, key


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 12 concepts, and essential questions; then devising the assessment criteria for students understanding of concepts; and finally designing the instructional procedures for lesson delivery as shown in Figure 1. (Stewart & Walker, 2005). STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) to STEAM (Science, Engineering, Technology, Arts, Math) . STEM to STEAM is basically a synonym for arts integration. Simply Study Limitations My observation dates were limited to occurring from January through May of 2014. Th ere were events of interest which o ccurred outside of this time frame and that were not personally obs erved, but accessible for analysis through Google Docs documentation . The finding s are unique to this study and the use of Backwards Design may not be transferable to other situations. Additionally, a limitation was that I was not able to observe the STE[A]M Team implementing their unit plans in their respective classroom s as originally planned for the 2013 2014 school year. The STE[A]M Team decided that they were just beginning to understand and refine their unit and since the grant was for three years they decided to postpone implementation wit h their students until the 2014 2015 school year . Figure 1. Backwards Design Curriculum Development Model Process


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 13 Literature Revie w There are many reasons for incorporating a fine art with other curricula. Burnaford, Brown, Doherty, an d McLaughlin (2007) relate three main reasons that prompt interest in arts integration , 1) supporting curricular reform movements in schools, 2) raising sc ores in other disciplines, and 3) providing interest and enjo yment towards increasing student engagement in learning. In giving a nod to the comprehensive review of literature cited in Burnaford et al . ( 2007) concluding that arts integration can be a successful endeavor, individual studies detailing the arguments for integrating art are not included in this review . This literature review however, discusses the professional attributes of the key participants involved in arts integration projec t s as well as best practices for collegial unity . Additionally mentioned in this review is literature pertaining to the Backwards Design curriculum development model to lend understanding on how the research participants planned for integration . Not included is literature pertaining to lesson plan specifics from STEM or arts disciplines involve d in arts integration projects. Key Participants Studies of arts integration partnerships in schools have demonstrated that the challenge of the artist/teacher collaboration lies in the marriage of two educational pe rspectives (Russell & Zembylas, 2007; Russell Bowie, 2009) . Purnell (2008) observes that classroom te achers design a comprehensiv e educational plan utilizing pedagogical skills and knowledge a b out the students, the content area, and the curriculum. They also are aware of the requirements to include the state and national standards in their curriculum development . Additi onally, te achers are aware of their individual s developmental issues (Purnell, 2008) . In other words teachers have specific knowledge about and learning expectations for their students.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 14 Artists come to an arts integration partnership with a variety of professional training experiences (Jaffe, 2012). To better recommends professional developm ent for teachers that promotes an approach to curriculum design as arti sts first and then translate their ideas and interests in their medium into concrete and approach ing integration residencies by creating conditions for open ended enquiry across five dimensions: space, time, material, body, and language (Denmead & Hickman, 2012). Artists in the Denmead and Hickman (2012) study describe t interaction in a classroom of leaving space for children to represent their own ideas and experiment with the materials. The idea of slowliness allows past and future relationships to objects and concepts to slip away leaving room for new interpretations (Denmead & Hickman, 2012). A third party facilitator, known as an instructional coach, par ticipates in some arts integrat ion collaborations ( The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 2008 ). Knight (2007) defines an instructional coach as someone that provides intensive, differentiated support to teachers so that they are able to imple ment pro ven or experimental practices. CETA (Changing Education t hrough the Arts) , a program from the Ken nedy Center , recommends facilitating an arts integrative collaboration with the help of an instructional coach (The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 2008). Participants in the CETA program related that the instructional coach provide d clarification of the new models they were learning as well as group and individual moral support. Teach ers found tha t the role of an instructional coach contributor made it possible for them to make meaningful reflections on t he lessons in ways that partnership participants had not been able to do before ( Nevanen , Juvonen, and Ruismaki, 2011).


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 15 The instructional coaches mentioned in studies for this literature review are principals, other teaching artists , art specialists, or professionals from non profit arts agencies. Studies evaluating the attributes of various teacher and artist partnerships discuss the importance of communication. Purnell (2008) explains that communication i s paramount in the success of cross profession collaboration. Communication, however, can be stifled when working across disciplines because each profession has its own insider language which adds to the level of new information that each partner needs to process (Burnaford, 2003; Saraniero, 2009). teacher partnerships in schools also note that participants pre ions sometimes hampered the collaboration if those preconceptions were not addressed (Nevanen, Juvonen, and Ruismaki, 2011). Artists that had undergone some training about educational practices and schools prior to becoming a teaching artist, felt well pre pared when entering the classroom (Saraniero, 2009). Teachers with little arts exposure in their background can be resistant to the possibilities of arts integration due to their discomfort with the art materials or a lack of confidence in their own artist ic abilities (Charland, 2011). Nevanen et al. (2011) encourages teacher participants to consider different ways of thinking about teaching and encourages artists to rethink and expand their pre established notions regarding art making. Best Practices Hutchens & Pankratz (2000) in evaluating the TETAC (Transforming Education through the Arts Challenge) study report that using one model for integrated arts instruction is adaptable but demanding. Hutchens & Pankratz (2000) suggest using studies such as TE TAC are only effective in large scale national implementati on of arts integrative models and they recommend further research on how to accommodate local and state norms into various planning models. In


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 16 (2008) study of artist teacher partnerships in schools, teaching artists shared that having created a partnership in planning and executing the art residency facilitated many positive improvements over the old model of artists coming in and presenting their proj ect without a coll aborative goal . Although this kind of planning requires time, a r tists and teachers collaborating on a long term project s found that more work up front in the planning segments translated into less work in the physical facilitation of the project due to sharing the responsibilities and work ( Charland, 2011, Nevanen et al., 2011, Purnell, 2008 ). Oreck (2004) supports the development of lo nger collaborations in stating, T he arts take time; they require a change of pacing, expectations, and m ethods on the part of teachers. The nature of learning through the arts is fundamentally contrary to the single right answer mentality of a test driven curriculum (p. 65). Developing long term relatio nships between teachers and teaching artists increases the likelihood of a succ essful arts integration project (Burnaford, 2003). Backwards Design For Arts Integration Arts integration is an attempt to reach beyond using textbooks as guides to deliver curriculu m. Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham rel ate, textbooks, lectures, worksheets, and activities does not engage students as partners to make l earning relevant to their interests. as cited in Childre, Sands, & Pope, 2009, p. 7). Childre, Sands, & Pope (2009) suggest that Backwards Design is an effective curriculum design model in getting to the core of developing student ability to construct understanding. The CETA (Changing Education Through the Arts) program recommends the use of Backwards D esign in curriculum devel opment for arts integration collaborations as a means of creating cohesive understanding of targeted outcome for both disciplines being integrated (The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 2008).


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 17 While there is an abundance of literature discussing effective training models for arts integration partnerships, few studies discuss the effects of extended learning of an art form by the non arts teachers as part of that training . Berke and Colwell (2004) reveal that immersion in music pedagogy methods for a semester by pre service elementary teachers increased th e likelihood of their integrating music into core curricula. Bessler (1995) cites the need for more studies focusing on methods that promise the best conditions for successful arts integration. Art immersion may be one of those conditions. Methodology My research is a descriptive case study . Yin (2003) describes a case study as a detailed explanation of an intervention or phenomenon and within the real life context in which it occurs. O bserving the STE[A]M Team grant participants in the context of their planning meetings and noting behavior, attitudes or other charac teristics of their group is indicative of a descriptive case study ( Yin, 2003 ) . I gathered th e data for this study as a passive non participant obs e rver assuming no responsibility for the development or imp lementation of the training or lesson s (Mills, 2011). The grant implementation time frame is for three years . I observed the group during the first year of planning meetings. Participants The project participants are a team consisting of two third grade teachers from two different elemen tary schools, a teaching artist, and an instructional coach . Lisa 3 has taught in elemen tary grades for fifteen years. Kayla has taught in elementary grades for four years. Lisa has experienced an artist in residence interaction in her classrooms consisting of the artists s or non arts curriculum goal (Lisa, personal 3 Pseudonyms are used as the teachers requested anonymity.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 18 communic ation, April, 2014). Kayla had participated in a previous incarnation of the arts integration grant through the North Dakota Council on the Arts. Titles used interchangeably for artists working within educational settings are artist in residence, artist ed ucator, visiting artist, arts expert, arts provider, and teaching artist (Booth, 2003). For this study I will use the term teaching artist. The teaching a rtist has been presenting art lessons in schools for twenty years as an employee of the local arts cen ter and participated in a previous incarnation of the arts integration grant through the North Dakota C ouncil on the Arts. Lisa, Kayla , and the teaching a rtist are long time members of their community and have known each other for many years. The i nstructional c oach is the arts education director from the grantin g entity, the North Dakota Council on the Arts . The Instructional Coach has twenty one years of experience as a Kindergarten through eighth grade visual arts instructor and was an adjunct in structor teaching an Elementary Education course on art methods and materials at a local college. The granting entity refers to the participants as the STE[A]M Team as will I for this research study . T he p rincipal of the schools 4 , who is the same person, also participated intermittently in the planning meetings and her interactions are part of the data collected as well. The p schools have 282 and 130 students respectively in grades k indergarten through sixth grade . The race of the st udents in both schools is 93% Caucasian with a poverty rate of 11.7%. Neither of the schools employs an arts specialist. The requirements in the state of North Dakota for visual art instruction at the elementary level are two 40 minute blocks of instructio nal time a week. The teachers, teaching a rtist , principal, and instructional c oach have signed I nstitutional R eview B oard approved consent forms agreeing to participate in this study (s ee Appendix B ) . 4 Lisa and Kayla teach a t separate elementary schools that share the same principal.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 19 Research Sites and Observation Schedule The planning sessions with the participants took plac e at an arts center which houses full studios for on site classes and meetings as well as a gallery space for exhibitions. The arts center is in the downtown area of a city in North Dakota with a populat ion of 15,323 . The group met eight times in the first year for training and planning; thirty two hours devoted to training on curriculum development methods; forty hours devoted to planning the integrated unit. I did not attend the curriculum development t raining meetings. I did attend six of the unit planning meetings. Data Collection Procedures The qualitative fieldwork data collection methods I used for this study are experiencing, enquiring, and examining (Mills, 2011). I experience d the planning sessions by keeping detailed observational written field notes of conversations and other interactions . I photographed the art making process and products . I enquired using semi structured interviews (s ee Appendix C ) with the participants based on the research questions, observations , and literature review (Mills, 2011). I also examine d the data contained on the Google Doc s files. Contained in the Google Doc s file s are agendas, announcements of meetings, the original grant application, all training materials, collaborative brainstorming records , meeting notes, the unit plan , team learning protocols, and research studies relate d to the participants training. Additionally, I performed member checking by ema il on certain data from the field notes to be su re of my interpretation of certain conversations and events before I performed analysis. Member checking is providing participants with information that ensures their vi ews were properly captured (Altheide & Johnson, 1994) .


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 20 Data Analysis Data Analysis began while I was taking written field notes as suggested by Baxter and Jack (2008). Prompted by the Russell and Zembylas (2007) statement that arts integration is the marriage o f two professional perspectives; I devised the code CSM (Collaborative Success Moment) for the margins of my yellow legal pad to indicate when participants had discovered something new about the other s discipline that would answer my research questions and when the Backwards Design model facilitated connections between both art and math. Creating the CSM notations is a form of coding which Yin (2003) describes as a way of de termining patterns in the data. After developing the CSM code I applied it to the textual data, like fi eld notes from my observations, interviews, and documents/artifacts (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I th en used the triangulation method to notate where the CSM code appeared over three or more of the resp onses from the participants throughout the various forms of data (Mills, 2011) . I then used the CSM triangulation patte rns to help in formulating the s emi structured interview questions. Backwards Design model. At this point I performed member checking by email of my interpretations of the data with the participants. Limitations I chose to observe the STE[A]M Team grant pro ject for my c apstone study after their first two training meetings had occurred , making those interactions av ailable for analysis only through the team member s notes in the Google Docs files. The last observation of the planning meetings occurred two weeks before the end of the school year. I immediately began analyzing data to formulate the ques tions for the semi structured interv iews. I had planned to email all participants with the hopes of receiving written responses to the questions and follow up with in -


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 21 person conversations ; however Kayla was out of the country and unavailable to interview in person until after the planned research cycle of this capstone project. Findings Minds are different. As teachers we differentia te instruction for the variety of learning styles of our students . So to when it comes to adults learning new concepts; co nsideration of their learning styles, personalities, and professional proclivities is important. The findings focus on how this team worked together while learning new concepts. Collaboration Means Equal Input The participants applied for the STE[A]M Team grant with the goal of integrating visual arts and math into a unit for third grade. The North Dakota Council on the Arts (NDCA) Ed ucation t hrough the Arts) program. The CETA workshop introduced the grant participants to the Backwards Design curriculum development model as taught in the book Re thinking Curriculum in Art b y Stewart and Walker (2005). Influenced by the CETA arts i ntegration mod el (s ee Appendix D ), members of the STE[A]M Team grant (teachers, teaching artist, instructional coach, and principal) dictated from that point on how the arts integration planning would unfold. They co decided the following: 1) what to accomplish at each meeting, 2) what dates for the meetings , 3) how long the meetings lasted, and 4) how many meetings they would have during the school year. During the meetings each professional contributed to every aspect of the planning process. The instructional coach would project the unit plan from the Google Docs file onto a white board, then all would brainstorm together to flesh out the specifics from each of the the Backwards Design model . At the end of the meeting the


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 22 instructi onal coach 5 led the group in the Descriptive Review reflection protocol ( Descriptive Review , 2014). The Descriptive Review protocol forwards the idea that no two people view a situation in the same way. A facilitator leads a group in describing, questioni ng, and speculating Description without judgment can help us uncover assumptions about Descriptive Review events further solidifi ed the collegiality of the team . The team decided to focus the unit on standards for geometry and art pertaining to the process of moving from two to three dimensional designs by exploring shap e and form . They then narrowed the focus to spatial reasoning as a skill needed in both math and art 6 . T he selected four standards for math and two from visual art from the North Dakota third grade state standards (see Appendix E). The teaching artist suggested proje cts for the team to evaluate which might align with the enduring understanding of spatial reasoning. The team selected paper sculpture, popups and bookmaking as the main medium. Throughout the planning process it became clear that this was a team effort, that all members of the team had importan t ideas to contribute, and that everyone respected and treated one another with highest regard. Although they came from differing disciplines and each had their own concerns and needs, their collaboration was that of equals. Art Making , Stupid James Carvi lle, politic in 1992, cut to the (Wiki pedia , 2014). Simil a rly I noticed in the literature review ed that details about art making by the implementers in arts integration projects took a back seat to discussing curriculum 5 The instructional coach did not attend all of the meetings 6 The participants requested that I not mention specific projects used in the unit as they may want to publish their unit separately.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 23 planning methods. In this researc h study all of the participants created each art project before they would make a decision to imple ment them in their classrooms. The team created eight art projects together during the year long planning period. The art making became the conduit through which the unit formation occurred. For example: in the course of discussing lesso ns to help students visualize moving from two dimensional shapes to three dimensional forms, the teachers interjected that their students had learned the word solid figure to describe a form instead of the word three dimensional. They noted the need for cl arification of certain vocabulary before presenting those lessons. Additionally, Lisa we are building these with the students we can use our math terms to dis cuss patterning in (Lisa, personal communication, March 11, 2014) . By rehearsing the art making teachers were able to match the math vocabulary from the math standard to the directions the teaching artist was using to present the art form. Additional connec tions occurred during art making. For example: when t he artist presented information about material selection and quality; t he team discussed if details about materials specifics were pertinent to present with t he stu dents in the classroom. They then agreed it was important as it pertained to students understanding of using quality materials to achieve a successful art outcome and suggested students may transfer that knowledge in to curiosity of material quality in real world experiences (Kayla, Lisa, teaching artist, personal communication, January 23, 2014) . The teachin g artist suggested the team reference the work of a professional con tem porary artist to add additional connections between the art and math concepts during classroom implementation. They selected the artist for his use of transferring two dimensional drawings


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 24 into three devise an art project to link to the math stan dards. The team then rehearsed the art making. The teachers again through their unfamiliarity with the art process were able to predict how their current students with differing abilities would approach the challenges they themselves were experiencing. The y discussed solutions to these challenges with the teaching artist. The abundant time spent in making the art projects inspired the teachers to expand the art techniques they were learning into other curriculum area s immediately in their classrooms . Additi onally, the teachers found that learning about integrated teaching practices and working in the visual arts prompted their prior knowledge in other arts areas (music, dance, literature, drama) to connect with the STE[A]M Team grant for lessons in the next years of implementation. For example, t hrough their brainstorming sessions using the Backwards Design inhabit as an enduring understanding for the unit. Their conversation posited that the process of learning and performing a choreographed dance r outine with a traine d dance artist would enhance a knowledge of an in re lation to the space they occupy. Such c onversations about the art process the team was experiencing led to greater understanding of how to best serve the students when implementing the unit. The Role of Technology A surpr ising revelation benefitting the collaboration is something often taken for granted ; the use of technology. The team used th e Google Doc s online based file sharing service . Google Docs is a free, web based office suite offered by Google within its Google Drive service that allows users to create and edit documents online while col laborating with other users in real time . Using the Google Doc s service extended the training, planning, and brainstorming time


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 25 outside of regularly planned meetings. The participants were able to upload links to new information pertinent to the project as they found them in their private time. Kayla related the benefits of using the Google Docs to plan compared to a previous arts integration project she had participated in m y teacher mind never shuts off and I can find something online and immediately up load it to the Google Doc s file so everyone can respond to it immediately or at the next meeting. Before we woul d have forgotten about it as the information for our meetings was always pre packaged by the workshop provider (Kayla, personal communication, April 15, 2014) . The instructional coach facilitated a reflection time at the end of each meetin g using the Descriptive Review P rotocol ( Descriptive Review , 2014 ) . The Google Doc s file corresponding to the date of the meeting was open and projected on the white board. The group was then able to follow the protocol while the instructional coach took down their responses. The Descriptive Review protocol of responding to refl ection qu estions, clarifying as a group the responses for dictation to the Google Doc s file, and seeing them projected on the board is a model the teachers and teaching artist discussed using as an assessment with their students after completion of the art lessons in their classrooms . Summary Across Findings The overarching finding emerging from the data of this research study centers on the combination of structure and autonomy . The training provided by the granting agency combined with the internal control the participants had on the art integration planning unfolded in a enriched professional development. There are specific answers to my research questions.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 26 RQ1. In what ways did the STE[A]M Team partici pants utilize the Backwards Design curriculum model to plan an integration of visual arts and math at the third grade level? Backwards Design was unknown to the teachers and teaching artist before the training. The teaching artist found the model informati ve in helping her to incorporate art ideas with the math concepts. While both teachers f ound the model to be cumbersome they did agree that it helped focus the melding of the two disciplines. The teaching artist felt she would use the method to plan future arts integration lesson s. Lisa , having taught for a longer period of time of the two teachers said she was unsure if she would use the Backwards Design model outside of the grant citing that she has learned about many curriculum development models and was waiting to see how this one wo rked when she uses it to implement the unit with her students. Kayla felt she would use some of the facets of the model pertaining to big idea s and essential understandings in her fu ture curriculum planning. All members agreed had it not been for the expertise of the instructional coach in helping them through the intricacies of Backwards Design, the unit planning would have stalled as they did not have the time to devote to fully lea rning the model effectively enough to use it during the planning . The instructional coach agreed that the Backwards Design model requires a separate extended period of time for implementing it in its authentic form. RQ2. In what ways did other aspects of t he STE[A]M Team training inform the planning for arts integration? The importance of the multiple in depth art making opportunities that the members of t he team participated in was another theme noted in the data analysis. Through the art making , c onversations took place pertaining to different iating the art techniques for student s various


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 27 learning abilities in math and art. The teaching artist related that through the art making and teacher ath concepts. The physical participation of the school principal during the project was also paramount to the success of the planning. She sat in on most of the meetings I observed and created art alongside of the other participants. Her feedback on the ar t making and math standards focused the discussions on providing assessments for the unit . The super intendent also met with the grant team. The teachers mentioned that some colleagues looked at arts involvement in the classroom as frivolous and the presenc e of the principal and superintendent gave credibility to the project. Discussion a nd Interpretation of Findings O bserving the STE[A]M Team grant participants as they planned their unit for the first year of the three year grant period provided a look into how professionals come together for one commo n goal. The executive summary (see Appendix A) I created provides the team with my findings s pecific to facets of the observations . The data collected is conclusive in answering my research questions pertaining to the effectiveness of the Backwards Design curriculum development model for arts integration. The structure and autonomy of the overall planning format contributed greatly to the c ol laborative success I observed . The importance of ownership and relevance to the participants is paramount in planning for arts inte gration. Ownership for the team involved in this research project began before they received the grant. The initial commitment of the participants to apply for the grant required a collegial agreement for trying a new concept. Fleshing out the grant application demonstrated confidence in working for an extended time frame of three years together. The commitm ent of the principal at the onset of the grant application process gave confidence to the teachers in moving forward to


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 28 apply for the grant . The experience of the Arts Education Director 7 for the granting agency is also a factor in how the planning develop ed . In past arts integration projects, the compartmentalized delivery of instructional content durin g training, a practice Kayla described as alienating. As primary trainer for the grant project the instructional coach facilitated the instruct ion for the team of a variety of curriculum development methods from a variety of sources. She combined the Changing Education through Arts (CETA) arts integration model, the Backwards Design curriculum development model , and the Descriptive Review p rotocol . T he prior relationships of the team participants were also a factor in planning success and may be a fa ctor in planning for others . The us e of the Google Docs system serve d to extend collaborative time, which all arts integ rations plann ing teams c an use to work together in refining their strategies. Professionals wishing to integrate arts should not worry about picking one model and following it verbatim. The autonomy given to the STE[A]M Team allowed customization for their specific situational c ircumstances and led to the decision to rehearse the planned art making lessons with each other. The structure provided through the granting agency by the instructional coach proved invaluable in collating events as they unfolded during the planning phase of the grant. Implications Teachers also choose not to try arts integration out of fear of the time commitments required outside of their already rigorous duties. Prior to observing this collaboration I felt the same way as an arts educator. I knew the benefits of arts integration f or students but did not have a definitive way of beginning the process. By watching this partnership I realized the greatest 7 The Arts Education Director for the North Dakota Council on the Arts also acted as the instructional coach facilitating this project.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 29 road block to collaborating for arts integration is in not allowing each participant the autonomy to contribute to each facet of th e planning . As the art making informed the teachers and teaching artist , so to I learned from them about how to integrate art into math standards and other curriculum areas . To illustrate the phenomenon that creative practices inform, Figure 2. , is a scree nshot of a slide from a webinar from the National Coalitio n for Core Art Standards which describes the creative practices I observed in this case study (Rubino, 2013). Figure 2 . Creative practices for success in arts that inform Common Core Standards These creative practices also overlap the skills, abilities, philosophies, and approaches in math standards of the common core (Rubino, 2013). Following the model the team planned with each other increases the likelihood of producing these results with th eir students as well. Additionally, the structure provided by an instructional coach insures efficient reflection of the learning as it unfolds . There is a need for additional research to determine the efficacy of arts immersion experiences for those in ar ts integration projects utilizing other fine arts ( music, drama, dance, and poetry ) .


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 30 Recommendations The STE[A]M Team grant planning model provided high quality professional development for the participants through an interplay of self directed and structured training methods. The following recommendations focus on assessments , the Backwar ds Design model , implementation in the classroom, and implications for art education specialists. I recommend leaving more time at the end of each art making sessi on to solidify the assessments for the math and art standards that the group will use with their students when they imple ment each lesson. Formulating the assessments while the process for each individual art project is fresh in their minds would reinforce the exchange of knowledge between professionals an d save time creating assessments for other projects by utilizing similar methods. For t his grant planning format I recommend condensing the Backwards Design Unit (see Appendix F ) model used by the participants by eliminating the sections devoted to Rationale and Key Concepts and focusing on the development of Enduring Ideas and Essential Que stions. The participants felt that these areas were confusing and that time spent detailing them was not productive. Through the discussions that took place during the art making in this research study, the Rational and Key Concepts were incidentally estab lished. The STE[A]M Team discovered that understanding through art making takes time. Traditionally in the elementary classroom there are required minutes specif ied for each curriculum area. I recommend combining required minutes from math and visual arts to extend the time to allow for success when implementing this unit in the classroom . Additionally, I do see a possibility for extending the time through utilizing language arts minutes. As a visual arts educator I fel t competent to teach a large variety of media . Thro ugh this observation I realized spending time with a specialist in an art medium would deepen my


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 31 understandings of their art form and broaden my applications of their methods across other media . I recommend the North Dak ota Council on the Ar ts innovate this model as a professional development opportunity for art educators. Lisa, a veteran teacher of fifteen years , (Lisa , personal communication, May 6, 2014) concurs in summarizing her experiences: I have had experiences with an Artist in Residence (AIR) who came into the classroom for three to five sessions to teach lessons to students and provided a sprinkling of art. Being part of the STE[A]M Team has been a very rewarding experience for me as a teacher because I was able to work within our small team with an artist over an entire year. The concept of the AIR program compared to the team reminded me of the proverb: be affected by my having been a part of this team . It is the best professional development I have had ever! (2014 ) Conclusion One size does not fit all when integrating art. Models that work best for school wide arts integration initiatives are not the best fit for small teams. The responsibility for planning given to all participants in this study translated into parity for both disciplines represented in the integration. They found p lanning for arts integration while demanding , created a deeper self directed understanding of each discipline by allowing the process to progress at a natur al pace that left room for curiosity . Together through art making the team faced challenges , posit ed solutions, asked questions of each other , and made c onnections to other ideas and concepts. By rehearsing the art making in such depth, the team experienced arts integration in ways they would want their students to experience it. I have no doubt this will take place when they go into the classroom.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 32 Refer ences Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualit ative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (E ds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research . Tho usand Oaks, CA: Sage, 485 499. Retrieved from 3681.html Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Repor t , 13 (4), 544 559. Retrieved from 4/baxter.pdf Berke, M., & Colwell, C. (2004). Integration of music in the elementary curriculum: Perceptions of preservice eleme ntary education majors. Applications of Research in Music Education , 23 (22) , 1 13 . Retrieved from Booth, E. (2003). Seeking definition: What is a teaching artist? Teaching Artist Journal, 1 (1), 5 12. Retrieved from oi/abs/10.1080/15411796.2003.9684265#.UoBXZPmkrQg Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96 (5), 31 37. Retrieved from Burnaford, G. (2003). Language matters: Clarifying partnerships between teachers and artists. Teaching Artist Journal, 1 (3), 168 171 . Retrieved from Burnaford , G., Brown, S., Doherty, J., & McLaughlin, J. (2007). Arts integration frameworks, research, & p ractice : A literature r eview. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Retrieved from


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 33 Charland, W. (2011). Art integration as school culture change: A cultural ecosystem approach to faculty development. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 12 (8), 1 17. Retrieved from Childre, A., Sands, J . R., & Pope, S. T. (2009). Designing challenging curriculum: Backward Design. Teaching Exceptional Chi ldren , 42 (5), 6 14. pedagogies of material and time. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 13 (9), 1 18. Retrieved from Descriptive Review. (n.d. ). Retrieved June 9, 2014 from Gon zalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education: A primer. Report to Congress , Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Retrieved from content/uploads/2010/05/STEM Education Primer.pdf Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1998). Data management and analysis m ethods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 179 210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hutchen, J., & Pankratz, D. B. (2000). Change in arts education: Transforming Education through the Arts Challenge (TETAC). Arts Education Policy Review, 101 (4), 5 10. Retrieved from Jaffe, N. (2012). A framework for teaching artist professional development. Teaching Artist Journal, 10 (1), 34 42. Retrieved from


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 34 . Retr ieved June 6, 2014 from Wikipedia:,_stupid Knight, J. (2007.) Instructional coaching: A partnership ap proach to improving instruction . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Maeda, J., (2013). Foreward. R. Somerson & M. L. Hermano. (Eds.), The art of critical making: Rhode Island School of Design on creative practice. (p.5). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from content/uploads/2013/11/Critical Making_Lucy Hitchcock Excerpt.pdf Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2 nd ed.). London: Sage. Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4 th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Mishook, J. J., & Kornhaber, M. L. (2006). Arts integration in an era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 107 (4), 3 11. Nevanen, S., Juvonen, A., & Ruismaki, H. (2012). Art education as multi professional collaboration. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 13 (1), 1 21 . Retrieved from North Dakota Council on the Arts (NDCA) . (2013). Retrieved from attitudes toward and use of the arts in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education , 55 (1), 55 69.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 35 Purnell, P. G. (2008). The collaboration of teacher/artist teams: A qualitative analysis of selected interpersonal components influencing a partnership model artist residency. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Russell, J., & Zembylas, M. (2007). Arts integration in the curriculum: A review or research and implications for teaching and learning. International Handbook of Research in Arts Education , 16 (18), 187 312. Retrieved from apter/10.1007/978 1 4020 3052 9 _18 Russell Bowie, D. (2009). Syntegration or disintegration? Models of integrating the arts across the primary curriculum. International Journal of Education & the Arts , 10 (28), Retrieved from Rubino, N. (2013). A review of connections between the Common Core Standards and the Retrieved from Saraniero, P. (2009). Training and preparation of teaching artists. Teaching Artist Journal , 7 (4), 236 243. Retrieved from Stewart, M.G., & Walker, S. R. (2005). Rethinking curriculum in a rt . Worcester, MA: Davis Publications, Inc. The John F. Kennedy Center for the P erforming Arts. (2008 ). CETA evaluation findings [ Brochure]. Retrieved from http ://www.kennedy Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design ( 2 nd ed.) . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 36 Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 37 Appendix A Executive Summary








ART = MATH & MATH = ART 41 Appendix B Interview Questions Interview Questions for the Instructional Coach 1. What is your background in arts education? 2. Did you participate in artist in residencies prior to this collaboration? 3. In what ways was the model for this collaboration different from the prior SALT model? 4. How did you decide on the meeting format for 5. What do you feel were challenges of implementing the Understanding by Design curriculum model for the teachers? 6. In what ways did the Understanding by Design model support the teachers in their planning this year? 7. The variety of traini ng methods seems to have had a huge impact on the teachers and teaching artist. Are you planning more training sessions with the team for next year and what will that entail? 8. Reflect on the decision to not implement the unit this year with the students. Po sitives/Negatives? 9. How were the participants for the project selected? 10. Is there anything else about this experience you would like to tell me? Interview Questions for the Principal 1. How many years have you been a principal? 2. Has your school/s participated in artist in residence programs in the past? If yes, how is this experience different? 3. What sold you on the STEM to STEAM grant collaboration from the North Dakota Council on the Arts?


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 42 4. The STEM to STEAM training used the Understanding by Design curriculum planning model. Were you familiar with the model before the grant? 5. Have your teachers received professional development pertaining to Understanding by Design or Backwards Design outside of the participants in this grant? 6. In what ways are other teachers in your building/s reacting to this grant implementation? 7. In what ways do you see this grant implementation benefitting your school? Teachers? Students? 8. standpoint? 9. Is there anything else you would to share with me about this experience? Interview Questions for Teaching Artist 1. How long have you been a teaching artist? 2. Prior to becoming a teaching artist how did you practice art making? 3. with the Understanding by Design curriculum model? 4. In what ways did UbD help you to integrate the math standards the teachers proposed? 5. What were the positive attributes of UbD? 6. What were the challenges of UbD? 7. In what ways did using UbD to collaborate with the teachers differ from other integrated art experiences you have participated in in the past? 8. In what ways, if so, will UbD influence your planning for art residencies in the future?


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 43 9. In what ways does havin g an instructional coach (Becky) inform the planning process? 10. What ideas, thoughts or conversations informed the selection of the artists chosen for the unit? 11. What ideas, thoughts or conversations informed the selection of paper folding as the art medium for the unit? 12. Reflecting back on the format of the STEM to STEAM collaboration, what would have had to take place for you to have been confident in going to the classroom this year with the teaching artist? In other words, what do you know now that you did not know before about the process of collaborating to integrate art? 13. In what ways artistically was this process different for you than previous arts integration collaborations? 14. In what ways did you notice that this process different for the teachers than previous art integration collaborations? 15. Reflecting back on the training, what was most useful for you as a teaching artist? If there is something you would change about the collaboration, how would that look? 16. What advice would you give to a group thinki ng about arts integration? 17. Is there anything else you would like to share about this experience? Interview Questions for Teachers 1. How many years have you taught? 2. about t he Understanding by Design curriculum model? 3. Questions guide the plans for the integrating the math standards? The art standards? 4. What are the positive attributes of UbD? 5. What are the challenges of UbD? 6. In what ways do you see UbD informing your lesson planning in the future? 7. What are your past visual arts experiences?


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 44 8. In what ways have you used art in the classroom prior to this training? 9. Have you ever participated with an artist in residence in your classroom before, if so how did this experience differ? 10. classroom as the year unfolded? 11. In what ways do you plan to use art in your le sson planning outside of the grant unit project in the future? 12. What discussion took place with the team in deciding to not go into the classroom with the teaching artist this year? 13. Reflecting back on the format of the STEM to STEAM collaboration, what woul d have had to take place for you to have felt confident in going to the classroom this year with the teaching artist? In other words, what do you know now that you did not know before about the process of collaborating to integrate art? 14. Reflecting back on the training, what was most useful? If there is something you would change about the collaboration, how would that look? 15. What advice would you give to a group thinking about arts integration? 16. What do you predict will happen when you implement the arts inte gration next year? 17. What feedback are you getting from your colleagues on your participation in this project? 18. What advice would you give to a group thinking about arts integration? 19. Is there anything else you would like to share about this experience?


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 45 Appendix C Informed Consent Protocol Title: A Study of Utilization of the Understanding by Design Model in a STEM to STEAM Initiative in an Elementary School Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: To observe the collaboration between the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TEAM in implementing an art integration unit in two third grade classrooms using the Understanding by Design curriculum model. Procedure The researcher will observe the planning and reflection meetings of the STE[A]Mc TEAM and the lesson implementation in the third grade classrooms at each elementary school listed above in xxxxxxx , North Dakota. Observation documentation will be in the form of field notes, semi structured interviews, and analysis of documents and artifacts generated by the STE[A]Mc TEAM and students. The observations will take place du ring the first year of the three year grant period. Risks and Benefits: There are no known risks. The benefits are that by volunteering you will have an opportunity to contribute to educational research. Compensation: There is no compensation associated w ith this study. Confidentiality: By volunteering your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be used in any report without your explicit permission. The details of the lesson unit will be kept confidential. Vol untary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 46 If you have any questions or concerns about participation in this study, you should first talk with the investigator, Karen Anderson, MA Art Education student, University of Flo rida. Telephone: xxxxxxx, Email xxxxxxx or her advisor, Dr. Elizabeth Manley Dela cruz, Telephone: (217) xxxxxxx, Emai:xxxxxxxx If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may also contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is concerne d with the protection of volunteers in research projects. You may reach the board office between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, by calling: (352) 392 0433 or by Email: or by Mail at IRB02 Off ice, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________ ________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 47 Appendix D Through the Arts Program (CETA) The key features of the CETA program are: A. Ongoing, Multi Year Commitment B. Multiple Formats of Professional Development C. Focus on both Classroom Teachers and Arts Specialists D. Arts Integrated Instruction E. Program Improvement and Sustainability F. Program Impact: Research and Evaluation. A. Ongoing, Multi Year Commitment Recognizing that change is a long term process, the schools in the CETA program, the Kennedy Center, and the school districts commit to an ongoing partnership. Letters of Agreement, signed and renewed annually, outline each and responsibilities (such as course planning and supervision, financial requirements, and communication). B. Multiple Formats of Professional Development experiences. Teachers choose their professional development from a variety of options: courses about arts integration, demonstration teaching by artists in the classroom, coaching in the classroom, action research, and development of artsintegrated units. In addition, all teach ers participate in study groups in which they plan arts integrated units, share reflections on classroom implementation, and read and discuss articles/books related to arts integration. 1. Courses Every year teachers participate in courses that focus on integrating dance, drama, music, visual arts, poetry, and/or storytelling with other subject areas, such as English Language Arts, social studies, science, and mathematics. Principals and assistant principals also attend courses to build their understandin g of arts integration. These courses engage teachers in learning through the arts, so they can experience first hand, active, problem based learning. Teachers attend courses in teams from their school. This allows them to continue to work with colleagues w ho can provide support as they implement arts integration strategies in the classroom. 2 The majority of courses are offered during the school day with schools providing substitutes to allow teachers to attend. Some courses are offered as a summer institut e. The courses include four 6 hour sessions allowing


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 48 teachers to study in depth. In their first year in CETA, all teachers attend an introductory session integration, participate in a CETA course, and observe demonstration teaching in classrooms. In subsequent years, teachers select either courses or participation in a coaching program; more experienced teachers participate in action research or the development of arts integrated unit plans . Examples of Course Titles: Tableau: A Theatrical Technique for Learning Across the Curriculum (introductory and advanced), Integrating Dance and Science (introductory and advanced), Integrating Drawing Across the Curriculum Integrating the Arts with the Early Childhood Curriculum Using Visual Art as a Catalyst for Writing Improving Reading Comprehension Through the Arts Creative Connection: Writing and Performing Poetry Backward Design: A Process for Creating Arts Integrated Units Actio n Research: Examining the Impact of Arts Integrated Instruction Special Expertise: The Role of the Arts Specialists in the CETA program CETA teacher 2. Coaching/Mentoring Teachers are expected to implement the arts integration strategies that are examined, modeled, and discussed during courses. To help teachers do this, they may choose to work with an arts coach/mentor. The arts coach/mentor i s usually the course instructor, who provides a series of six for the teacher to become more self reliant and skilled in leading artsintegrated instruction. Program Structure The pro gram consists of the following components: a. Professional Development for Teachers A professional development workshop or course is attended by a group of teachers. b. Goal Setting/Planning and plan the lessons. c. Five Classroom Sessions The Arts Coach and teacher conduct five sessions in the classroom focusing on empowering the teacher to teach arts integrated


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 49 lessons/units. Strategies to be used in the classroom include: Demonstration T eaching The Arts Coach models the arts integrated instruction in the classroom. Teacher and Arts Coach Share the Instruction Teacher Independently Provides Instruction Teacher takes the entire responsibility for leading an arts integrated lesson tha t is observed by the Arts Coach. d. Reflection Sessions Each Classroom Session is followed by a Reflection Session during identify areas for teacher improvement, examine student response and progress, and make plans for the next lesson. The Arts Coach is available by e mail or phone to respond to questions that arise as the teacher implements the arts strategy between sessions. e. Follow up Session A few months after the end of the coachi ng series, the Arts Coach progress in leading the arts integrated instruction and to provide the necessary support and follow up. Teachers may be ready to learn the next steps for instruction, see the Arts Coach demonstrate a new or familiar technique, or have the Arts Coach observe their teaching and provide feedback. This follow up session provides an important incentive for teachers to continue their work after the Arts Coach lea ves. f. Annual Evaluation Meeting An annual evaluation meeting is attended by the Arts Coaches and teachers from all the schools participating in the program. Discussions are guided by a series of questions targeted at eliciting in depth responses about p rogram design and implementation. To allow for a variety of points of view to be expressed frankly, the Arts Coaches meet alone, then Arts Coaches and teachers meet together, and finally, the teachers meet alone to discuss their experiences and make sugges tions to Kennedy Center staff members. This feedback helps program staff evaluate the needs of the coaching program and make needed adjustments. the way I teach. I have learned first ha nd the power of using drama in the CETA teacher 3. Curriculum Development It takes time and skill to develop good arts integrated curriculum units. At summer institute sessions led by Jay McTighe, co author of Unde rstanding by Design , teachers work together to develop units using


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 50 be shared with other teachers at the school. 4. Action Research To determine the impact of arts integration on student learning, teachers may choose to conduct action research. This informal research process and of their own teaching, thus enabling them to make more informed decisions about h ow to best lead arts integrated instruction. Support from the school districts and the Kennedy Center helps teachers determine their research question, conduct, and share their research results. 5. Study Groups In school study groups provide opportunities for teachers to extend and guide their own learning. The power of the study group is enhanced by the participation of the principal and assistant principal. Teams of teachers and their administrators, who together attend professional development courses, meet monthly in their schools as study groups. At the beginning of the school year, study groups complete an Action Plan that describes the process and content for their meetings. During study group meetings, the group members complete a Study Group Log to document their work. The study group meeting is a time when we meet to read and reflect on books or articles provided by the Kennedy Center. It is also a time to share how we have implemented what we have learned in courses and discuss what worked, what hasn't, and get help from each other -CETA teacher C. Focus on both Classroom Teachers and Arts Specialists In order to create a cohesive faculty, take advantage of the expertise in the nd arts specialists are involved in the CETA program. Students spend the majority of their time with classroom teachers who make daily decisions about how to provide arts integrated instruction. In schools where arts specialists (visual arts, music, dance, and drama) are employed, they play a critical role. Their art form expertise gives them a central, and often a leadership, role in supporting the work of classroom teachers as they learn how to integrate the arts with other subjects. Arts specialists unde rstand that arts integrated instruction complements discipline based instruction in the arts (provided by arts specialists). Each year, professional development sessions are offered for the arts specialists to further examine their roles in the schools and identify ways they can support classroom teachers as they learn how to integrate the arts with other subjects. Arts specialists also share ideas about how they have connected their art forms with other parts of the curriculum and with other


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 51 art forms. w, I see myself as a teacher, not just as an arts teacher. I look at myself differently. Teachers look at me differently. They treat me as an Music Specialist D. Arts Integrated Inst ruction There are many approaches to arts integrated instruction. The CETA through the arts. The program defines arts integration as instruction that makes natural and significant connection(s) between a subject area(s) (e.g., science, social studies, language arts, and/or mathematics) and an aspect of an art form drawing). Students master learning objectives in both the subject area and the art form. additional PDF file. E. Program Improvement and Sustainability Because the CETA program is responsive to the needs of students, teachers, and administrators, it is revised and improved on an ongoing in Each year program evaluation results are used formatively. Evaluation is not the end of the process, but part of a feedback system that is crucial to th Program sustainability is a key concern. It is addressed on a continuing basis by offering orientations for new principals; using strategies to maintain program visibility; maintaining ongoing communication with the sc hool district level administrators; empowering teachers, arts specialists, and principals to play leadership roles within the program; and developing parent and community support. 1. CETA Principals CETA school principals benefit from learning from other principals about their experiences with the program. CETA principals meet four times each year to get information about new program initiatives, share successes, discuss challenges, find solutions, and offer feedback to guide improvements in the overall program. 2. CETA School Coordinators Each school has a CETA School Coordinator, who is responsible for maintaining ongoing communication between the school and the Kennedy Center, providing updates to the principal about the ng CETA events at the school, and serving on the CETA Steering Committee.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 52 3. CETA Steering Committee A Steering Committee, consisting of three representatives from each school, meets four times a year to facilitate ongoing communication, provide feedback to the program director, and to serve as a working committee to address needs as they arise. 4. Developing School District Support School district support is key to developing and maintaining a healthy program. In the CETA program, key school district adm inistrators provide the official approval and endorsement, are involved in the program planning process, provide funding for substitutes, pay membership fees, and have communication responsibilities both inside and outside the school district. 5. Ongoing Communication and Networking Keeping everyone knowledgeable and informed about the program is a critical goal. Key players teachers, principals, and administrators -have opportunities to network both within the school and across schools and school districts through meetings and attendance at courses. In addition, quarterly newsletters provide an opportunity for CETA schools to share successes and information about special events. F. Program Impact: Research and Evaluation istory, outside researchers have been involved in program evaluation. From 2001 2005, the CETA program was evaluated by Dr. Ann Cale Kruger, Associate Professor, Department of Education Psychology and Special Education, Georgia State University. In 2005, a three year agreement was initiated with George Mason University to implement a program evaluation. The work is being led by Jennifer McCreadie, Director, Assessment and Program Evaluation, College of Education and Human Development, and Dr. Joan Isenberg, Associate Dean for Outreach and Program Development, Graduate School of Education. Evaluations have focused on the following areas: impact on student instructional practice, support by arts specialists and coaches, role of administrators, and effect on school culture. Overall, in the most recent study, findings indicate a significant improvement over a four year span in academic achievement and effort rd grade Standar ds of Learning (SOL) scores in English Language Arts and history improved significantly over time compared to Controls. The findings strongly suggest that the CETA program leads teachers to significantly increase their [arts integration] implementation strategies over time and that student achievement


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 53 © July 2006 The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 54 Appendix E North Dakota standards in math and art for third grade


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 55 Appendix F Guide for Backwards Design used by STE[A]M Team Working with Enduring Ideas Choosing an enduring idea as the foundation for your curriculum/unit represents a commitment to content that exceeds any one subject matter or discipline. Such ideas are important because they link academic subject matter with life focused issues and have enduring value beyond a single lesson, a unit of study, or a grade in school. When teachers shift from a discipline find their learning more meaningful a nd will be more active participants. (Example) No matter how an Enduring idea is stated, what is most important is how the idea is Enduring ideas are similar to themes, topics, or issues that reflect big questions about the human experience and have been investigated over time. They are broad, umbrella like ideas that guide students in understanding what it means to be human, to live alongside others and in the natural world. Here are some examples: · Identity · Survival · Power · Conflict · Spirituality · Relationships · Humans and nature · Reality and fantasy · Life and death · Interdependence · Good and evil · Life cycles · Rites of passage · Cultural awareness · Joy/despair · Knowledge and understanding · Change · Self knowledge · Cooperation · Ritual · Communication · Finite /infinite One might say that selecting an Enduring idea is the starting point for curriculum/unit design, but that is not always practical or realistic. More often, curriculum/unit design begins elsewhere with the choice of artists or artworks for study, a particular curriculum objective, an art making medium, specific student need or interests, or a school wide event. Enduring ideas usually evolve overtime and should be revisited and revised often. GUIDE FOR UNIT PLANNING 1. Getting Started An entire school may select an Enduring idea or a single teacher, grade level, or subject area department may select an idea for a unit of study. Enduring ideas can direct an entire course of study, a single unit, or an entire curriculum. 2. Choosing the Enduring Id ea


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 56 Select an Enduring idea with the following criteria in mind. · What is the importance of the idea? Is it worth studying? · What is the appropriateness of the idea for students? How does it relate to their present and future interests and needs? · How do es it relate to contemporary culture? · How is the Big/Enduring Idea represented in the arts? 3. Writing a Rationale Explain why the Enduring idea is important for learning and for your students in particular. Does it have instructional relevance? What is significant about this idea and what should be the focus of instruction? Begin by brainstorming key concepts (ideas, theories) that explain what the Enduring idea is about. Think about what is implies by t he idea, consider diverse perspectives. Create a list of at least twelve to twenty key concepts that might be associated with the Big/Enduring Idea. Next, select those concepts that seem most important. Often several key concepts can be combined into a sin gle concept. Select the concept that will be significant for your unit. As you consider your list of key concepts, certain ones should stand out as significant. Prioritize those concepts for instructional emphasis. Make sure that all of the concepts begin with the single sentence stem for the key concepts organizes your thinking, allowing you to more easily compare and contrast the concepts. 5. Formulating Essential Questions Essential questions synthesize key concepts and bring focus to the unit and keep instruction on track. The essential questions act as a reminder to teachers and students of the central learning purposes for a unit without having to consult a writ ten plan. Each essential question can encompass a number of key concepts. It is easier to keep a short list of essential questions in mind then to recall a long list of key concepts. Essential questions are for students as much as teachers in guiding explo ration of an enduring idea. Essential questions also provide teachers with an assessment tool. If student know that the essential questions will become a major factor in assessing their understanding at the conclusion of the unit, students can use them to focus their learning during the unit. Having too many essential questions defeats the purpose of synthesizing and focusing the unit content. For this reason, they should be limited to no more than three, and sometimes even a single essential question might be sufficient to bring focus to a unit. Keep in mind, as you write essential questions, that you want to engage students while, at the same time, motivate them to think beyond their usual frame of reference. 6. Inserting Unit Objectives At this point, it is a good idea to insert the unit objectives to identify what students will understand or be able to do (skills) as a result of their engagement in this unit of study. The unit objectives are not the same as the learning objectives. They are much broader a nd farreaching and are a restatement, in a general way, of the Enduring idea, key concepts, and of the essential questions. 7. Aligning the Unit The final step i n developing a unit for instruction is unit alignment. Once you have created


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 57 the unit foundation, you need to use them as a guide for designing the individual lessons, objectives, assessment, subject area standards. This is called unit alignment. Think of it this way: A unit is composed of many parts that need to be meaningfully related. The key focus for of the Big/Enduring Idea for the unit. Unit objectives, lesson objectives, instructional activities, and assessment criteria and tasks must be aligned. In addition, the important ideas and skills addressed in the unit need to be consistent with subject area (discipline) standards, and other appropriate local, s tate, and/or national standards. Checking these relationships can be an effective way of assessing unit construction during or after completing a unit.


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 58 List of Figures and Figure Captions Figure 1 . Backwards Design Curriculum Development Model Process Figure 2. Creative practices for success in arts that inform Common Core Standards


ART = MATH & MATH = ART 59 Author Biography Karen Anderson volunteered as an artist in the classroom while her children were g rowing up. She taught art as a para professional at the tribal school on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North E astern North Dakota . After winning a scholarship from the Talbots Corporation , s he re turned to school and received her Bachelor of Science in Art Education from Valley City State University in 2002. Between 2002 and 2013 she taught in small rural sc h ools in grades K through 12, six of those years at the high school level . Karen served for over twenty years as a board member on local and state arts organizations in the state of North Dakota. She considers herself an advocate for the arts in and out of school. Karen has left the clas sroom to pursue other avenues in art education, art making , and advocacy . She is current ly teaching online art courses for Lake Region State College, Devils Lake, North Dakota. Karen plans to develop other online art course s for various educational websites. She will finish her Master of Art in Education in the summer of 2014