1 / 16

The Future of Art Education

The Future of Art Education. Heather Jandreau Post University. Silas Deane Middle School Art Program. SDMS is the only public middle school located in Wethersfield, CT Serves 582 students: White 75.8% Black 3.8% Hispanic 15.6% Free/reduced lunch 19.2% Special Education 11.5%

berumen
Download Presentation

The Future of Art Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Future of Art Education Heather Jandreau Post University

  2. Silas Deane Middle SchoolArt Program • SDMS is the only public middle school located in Wethersfield, CT • Serves 582 students: • White 75.8% • Black 3.8% • Hispanic 15.6% • Free/reduced lunch 19.2% • Special Education 11.5% • Project-based art program • Technology use limited to photo references & teacher-led PowerPoints

  3. Technologies to be Utilized as Described in Horizon Report • BYOD • Currently used for photo-references or teacher-led PowerPoints • Prospective uses: student-led research, blog or photo-sharing images seen outside of class related to content learned in class • Project-Based Learning • Students currently create artwork as a means of demonstrating their knowledge • Construct personally meaningful artifacts

  4. Futuring: Scenarios • Created as a result of WW II • Military planning tool to anticipate opponents actions and how to respond to them • Data-driven analysis of past and present events in order to create multiple stories that cover a vast range of possible future occurrences

  5. Futuring: Scanning • A systemic survey of current newspapers, magazines, web sites, and other media for indications of changes likely to have future importance • Includes the ongoing process of monitoring the environment and identifying the issue-based changes and relevant events that could affect the future

  6. Educational Technology Trend • Educational technology has become synonymous to computer based learning and education (Kinshuk, H., Sampson, D., & Chen, N., 2013) • More than 8 billion devices are connected to the Internet • 40% of humanity now uses the Internet (Glenn, J., 2014). • Bring your own device policies (BYOD), expands students learning beyond the walls of the classroom. • 60% of students use their mobile devices for research SDMS: • Average household income: $74,765; above state average • Household incomes allow majority of students to afford personal mobile devices for BYOD policy • For students without mobile devices, SDMS provides: • 7 ipads carts, 4 computer labs, 3 chromebook carts

  7. Economic Trend • Use of property taxes to fund public education • Students living in property-wealthy communities receive a higher level of educational resources than students living in property-poor areas • Property owners living in poorer communities often have to pay higher taxes than wealthier districts due to the fact that the poorer school districts need to raise more money to fund public education (Education Commission, 2013). • Increases the divide between the rich and poor, as well as the performance levels of schools SDMS: • Average property value: $276,333; above state average • Because of the high property values and household incomes, Wethersfield is able to provide large amounts of resources and technology within the district • Every teacher has a district issued ipad • SDMS technology: 7 ipad carts, 4 computer labs, 3 chromebook carts, 26 Smartboards

  8. Demographic Trend • “fragile families”- describes alternative and unstable family forms as a result of declining marriages, delayed marriage and fertility, and increasing divorces and unstable second parents(Crosnoe, R., & Benner, A., 2012, p.91) • Unstable nature of fragile families result in a finite amount of resources to help children, like money, time, energy, and emotional support (Crosnoe et al., 2012, p.91) • Research demonstrates positive outcome for students who have families that are actively involved in their education. • Parent involvement can improve literacy in k-12 students coming from ethnically diverse and low-income families, as well as improve homework completion and classroom behavior (Sawyer, M., 2015, p.172).

  9. SDMS & Family Demographics • Wethersfield households: 66% of are family households with married parents • Only 4.3% of households have unmarried partners • Parent Action Committee (PAC) • active at the school by running after school activities, dances, and workshops for both parents and teachers • High parent response to optional school surveys • 228 parents out of 582 students responded

  10. Vision for Future of SDMS Art • BYOD policy used on daily basis in art • Apps, research, collaboration, reference images, social media • Continue project-based learning • Demonstrating knowledge through the creation of art

  11. Plan for Change • Professional Development (PD) to enhance teacher knowledge of the various technologies the school posses • Collaborate with teachers in other content areas and create a common set of student expectations, routines, etc., for use of technology • Poll students: how many have mobile devices, types of devices, and how often they bring them to school • PD on how BYOD can be used in art, while still keeping the hands-on creation of art • Start implementing technology in small tasks

  12. Call for Action • PD on building technology: • What mobile technology is available • How to use the various technologies (ipads, chromebooks) • School protocols and scheduling • Poll students: • How many students have personal devices • What types of devices • How often are devices brought to school?

  13. References Chermack, T. J., Lynham, S. A., & Ruona, W. E.A. (Summer 2001). A review of scenario planning literature. Future Research Quarterly, 7-29. Cook, S., Verderame, M. (2011). Strategic School Profile 2011-2012. Retrieved from http://www.wethersfield.k12.ct.us/uploaded/District_info/ SSP/2011-2012_SSPs/SDMS_SSP_-_Final_2011-12.pdf Crosnoe, R., Benner, A. (2012) Families, schools, and major demographic trends in theUnited States. New Directions for Youth Development, 135, 87-93. DOI10.1002/yd.20031 Education Commission. (August 2013). Who Pays the Tab for K-12 Education?: How state allocate their share of education cost. The Progress of Education Reform, 14(4), 1-7. Glenn, J. (2014, September). Our Global Situation and Prospects for the Future. Futurist, 48(5), 14-20

  14. References Grant, M. (2002). Getting a Grip on Project-Based Learning: Theory, Cases and Recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1), 1-3. Hopkins, N., Sylvester, A., and Tate, M. (2013, July 1). Motivations for BYOD: An Investigation of the Contents of a 21st Century School Bag. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1406&context=ecis2013_ cr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar %3Fq%3DBYOD%2 Bin%2Bschools%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt %3D0%252C7%26as_vis%3D1#search=%22BYOD%20schools%22 Hower, A., Whitford, T. (2015, Jan/Feb) To BYOD or Not to BYOD? Reading Today, 32(4), 16-17 Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Kahn Academy. (2011, December 27). Year 2060: Education Predictions [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiKrFcgVSIU Kinshuk, H., Sampson, D., & Chen, N. (2013) Trend in Educational Technology through the Lens of the Highly Cited Articles Published in the Journal of Educational Technology and Society. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 3-20.

  15. References Mietzner, D., & Reger, G. (2005). Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic foresight. Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1(2), 220–239. Onboard Informatics, & city-data.com. (n.d.). Wethersfield, Connecticut. Retrieved February 5, 2015, from http://www.city-data.com/WethersfieldConnecticut.htm Project Tomorrow. (2013). Speak UP 2012 National Findings: From Chalkboards to Tablets: The Emergence of the K-12 Digital Learner.  Riedel, C., (February 3, 2014) 10 Major Technology Trends in Education. Sangani, K., (2013, April). BYOD to the Classroom. Engineering & Technology, 8(3), p.42-45

  16. References Sawyer, M. (2015, January). Bridges: Connecting with Families to Facilitate and Enhance Involvement. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(3), 172-179. 8p. DOI: 10.1177/0040059914558946. Sobrero, P., (2004). The steps for futuring. Journal of Extention, 42(3). Thompson, G. (2014, December). What’s Hot, What’s Not for 2015. T H E Journal, 41(12), 12-20. US Census, & areaConnect.com, (2000). Wethersfield Population and Demographics. Retrieved February 5, 2015, from http://www.wethersfield.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm World Future Society (n.d.) Methods. Retrieved from http://www.wfs.org/methods

More Related