Advertisement

The Arts, Creativity, and Learning: From Research to Practice

  • Mariale M. HardimanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems book series (SSBN, volume 10)

Abstract

The need for a workforce capable of innovative, creative thinking and problem-solving must drive critical changes in how educators view schooling at every level. While teachers are encouraged to design teaching activities that promote creative thinking, little information exists on how they are to design and measure creative instructional strategies. This chapter focuses on how the arts, infused into instruction in all subjects, can foster deeper learning and creative thinking. True educational reform will require measurements of creative thinking, informed by the latest research from the learning sciences. Aligning the measurement of creative academic outcomes with arts-based pedagogical approaches can be an effective way to realize the goal of all learners becoming the innovative citizens of tomorrow.

Keywords

Creative problem-solving Arts-integration research Creativity research Education practices and policies Twenty-first century skills STEAM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge several colleagues from the Johns Hopkins University School of Education’s Neuro-Education Initiative. The following individuals contributed valuable time and expertise to various components of this book chapter: Ranjini JohnBull, Assistant Professor; Clare Grizzard, Arts Integration Specialist; Joe Meredith, Executive Specialist; Kara Seidel, Research Assistant.

Supplementary material

476737_1_En_23_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1247 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Abraham, A.: The Neuroscience of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnheim, R.: Visual Thinking. England, London (1969)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett, K.C., Ashley, R., Strait, D.L., Kraus, N.: Art and science: how musical training shapes the brain. Front. Psychol. 4, 713 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barry, N.H.: Oklahoma A+ Schools: what the research tells us 2002–2007. In: Quantitative Measures, vol. 3. Oklahoma A+ Schools/University of Central Oklahoma. Retrieved from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1313768/21019976/1353351929267/V3+final.pdf?token=qtH1HFHv6LqRbL9NQLH8vVPoty4%3D (2010)
  5. 5.
    Beghetto, R.A.: Taking beautiful risks in education. Educ. Leadersh. 76(4), 18–24 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryant, S.: New NAMM foundation study shows parents and teachers in harmony about students learning music. Retrieved from https://www.nammfoundation.org/ (2015)
  7. 7.
    Cahill, L., McGaugh, J.L.: A novel demonstration of enhanced memory associated with emotional arousal. Conscious. Cogn. 4, 410–421 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1995.1048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Catterall, J.S., Dumais, S.A., Hampden-Thompson, G.: The arts and achievement in at-risk youth: findings from four longitudinal studies (Research Report 55). National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530822.pdf (2012)
  9. 9.
    Chanda, M.L., Levitin, D.J.: The neurochemistry of music. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17(4), 179–193 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Craik, F.I., Tulving, E.: Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 104, 268–294 (1975).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Assessing aesthetic education: measuring the ability to “ward off chaos”. Arts Educ. Policy Rev. 99(1), 33–38 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10632919709600763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Custers, E.: Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15, 109–128 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9101-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deasy, R.J. (ed.): The Arts and the Transfer of Learning. Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development. Arts Education Partnership, Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diehl, M., Stroebe, W.: Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53(3), 497–509 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietrich, A.: How Creativity Happens in the Brain. Palgrave Macmillan, NY (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duma, A., Silverstein, L.: A view into a decade of arts integration. J. Learn. Arts 10(1) (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunbar, K.N.: Arts education, the brain, and language. In: Asbury, C., Rich, B. (eds.) Learning Arts and the Brain: The Dana Consortium Report on Arts and Cognition. New York, pp. 81–92 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fiske, E.B.: Champions of change: the impact of the arts on learning. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership and President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED435581.pdf (1999)
  19. 19.
    Gregory, E., Hardiman, M., Yarmolinskaya, J., Rinne, L., Limb, C.: Building creative thinking in the classroom: from research to practice. Int. J. Educ. Res. 62, 43–50 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hardiman, M.: Connecting Brain Research with Effective Teaching: The Brain Targeted Teaching model. Lanham, Maryland (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hardiman, M.: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model for 21st-Century schools. Thousand Oaks, California (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hardiman, M.: The Effects of Arts Integration on Retention of Content and Student Engagement (Grant No. R305A120451). Johns Hopkins University School of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hardiman, M., Rinne, L., Yarmolinskaya, J.: The effects of arts integration on long-term retention of academic content. Mind Brain Educ. 8, 144–148 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., Sheridan, K.: Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. New York, NY (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jung, R.E., Segall, J.M., Jeremy Blockholt, H., Flores, R.A., Smith, S.M., Chavez, R.S., Haier, R.J.: Neuroanatomy of creativity. Hum. Brain Mapp. 31(3), 398–409 (2010)PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jung, R.E., Vartanian, O. (eds.): The Cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kandel, E.R.: In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. New York (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klein, S.B., Kihlstrom, J.F.: Elaboration, organization, and the self-reference effect in memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 115(1), 26–38 (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kong, Y.T., Huh, S.C., Hwang, H.J.: The effect of theme based STEAM activity programs on self efficacy, scientific attitude, and interest in scientific learning. Info 17(10 (B)), 5153–5159 (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kong, Y.T., Huo, S.C.: An effect of STEAM activity programs on science learning interest. Adv. Sci. Tech. Lett. 59, 41–45 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R.A., Runco, M.A.: Theories of creativity. In: Kaufman, J.C., Sternberg, R.J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York, pp. 20–47 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kraus, N.: Cognitive-sensory interaction in the neural encoding of music and speech. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, San Diego, California (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Limb, C.J., Braun, A.R.: Neural substrates of spontaneous musical performance: an fMRI study of jazz improvisation. PLoS ONE 3(2), 1–9 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lonergan, D.C., Scott, G.M., Mumford, M.D.: Evaluative aspects of creative thought: effects of appraisal and revision standards. Creat. Res. J. 16(2), 231–246 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2004.9651455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ludwig, M.J., Boyle, A., Lindsay, J.: Arts Integration Research Through the Lens of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). American Institutes for Research. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/essa-arts-evidence-review-report.aspx (2017)
  36. 36.
    Lynch, R.: Arts Education Transforms Societies. Huffington Post, Arts & Culture, New York City (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    MacLeod, C., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K., Neary, K., Ozubko, J.: The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 671–685 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McBride, D.M., Dosher, B.A.: A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: a process dissociation analysis. Conscious. Cogn. 11(3), 423–460 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00007-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Merten, S.: Enhancing science education through art. Sci. Scope 35(2), 31–35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43183128 (2011)
  40. 40.
    Mohr, G., Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H.D.: Recall and recognition of self-performed acts. Psychol. Res. 51(4), 181–187 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nathan, J.: Advocating for arts education. Educ. Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/ (2015)
  42. 42.
    O’Brien, A.: Can arts education help close the achievement gap? Learning First Alliance. http://www.learningfirst.org/can-arts-education-help-close-achievement-gap (2012)
  43. 43.
    Perkins, D.N.: The Intelligent Eye: Learning to Think by Looking at Art, vol. 4. California, Los Angeles (1994)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Phillips, J., Harper, J., Lee, K., Boone, E.: Arts Integration and the Mississippi Arts Commission’s Whole Schools Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.mswholeschools.org (2013)
  45. 45.
    Plucker, J.A. (ed.): Creativity and Innovation: Theory, Research, and Practice. Prufock Press Inc., Texas (2017)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Plucker, J.A., Beghetto, R.A., Dow, G.T.: Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educ. Psychol. 39(2), 83–96 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Plucker, J.A., Kaufman, J.C., Beghetto, R.A.: What We Know About Creativity. P21 Research Series. Partnership for 21st Century Learning, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/4cs-research-series/creativity (2015)
  48. 48.
    Plucker, J.A., Kennedy, C., Dilley, A.: What We Know About Collaboration. P21 Research Series. Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.p21.org/our-work/4cs-research-series/collaboration (2015)
  49. 49.
    Posner, M.L., Patoine, B.: How arts training improves attention and cognition. Cerebrum, 2–4. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ (2009)
  50. 50.
    Qian, M., Plucker, J.A.: Creativity assessment. In: Plucker, J.A. (ed.) Creativity and Innovation Theory, Research, and Practice, pp. 223–234. Prufock Press Inc., Texas (2017)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Richardson, C., Henriksen, D., Mishra, P.: The courage to be creative: an interview with Dr. Yong Zhao. Tech Trends 61, 515–519 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0221-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rinne, L., Gregory, E., Yarmolinskaya, J., Hardiman, M.: Why arts integration improves long-term retention of content. Mind Brain Educ. 5(2), 89–96 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01114.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rostan, S.M.: Studio learning: motivation, competence, and the development of young art students’ talent and creativity. Creat. Res. J. 22(3), 261–271 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Runco, M.A.: Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. San Diego, California (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sawyer, R.K.: Educating for innovation. Think. Skills Creat. 1(1), 41–48 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sawyer, R.K., Berson, S.: Study group discourse: how external representations affect collaborative conversation. Linguist. Educ. 15(4), 387–412 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Scripp, L., Burnaford, G., Vazquez, O., Paradis, L., Sienkiewicz, F.: Partnerships in Arts Integration Research final Reports. Arts Education Partnership, Washington, DC. Retrieved http://www.artsedsearch.org (2013)
  58. 58.
    Slamecka, N.J., Graf, P.: The generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Learn Mem. 4, 592–604 (1978).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Walker, T.: The testing obsession and the disappearing curriculum. The National Education Association Today. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/ (2014)
  60. 60.
    Weisberg, R.W.: Expertise and reason in creative thinking: evidence from case studies and the laboratory. In: Baer, J. (ed.) Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development. New York, pp. 7–42 (2006)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Welch, M., Barlex, D., Lim, H.S.: Sketching: friend or foe to the novice designer? Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 10(2), 125–148 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008991319644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Workman, E.: Beyond the Core: Advancing Student Success Through the Arts. Education Commission of the States, Denver. https://www.ecs.org/beyond-the-core-advancing-student-success-through-the-arts/ (2017)
  63. 63.
    Yee-King, M., Grierson, M., d’Inverno, M.: STEAM WORKS: student coders experiment more and experimenters gain higher grades. In: Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017. IEEE, pp. 359–366 (2017)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yusuf, S.: From Creativity to Innovation. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zaromb, F.M., Roediger, H.L.: The effects of ‘‘effort after meaning’’ on recall: differences in within-and between-subjects designs. Mem. Cogn. 37, 447–463 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.4.44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zhao, Y.: Reach for Greatness: Personalizable Education for all Children. Thousand Oaks, CA (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Hopkins University School of EducationBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations