Eliciting Meaningful Engagement in an Art History Survey Course: Reacting to the Past and Active Learning

  • Marie Gasper-Hulvat
  • David M. Dees
  • Anthony V. Shreffler


This chapter explores two sections of an introductory art history course—the first, playing the Reacting to the Past (RTTP) Duomo game and, the second, utilizing other types of active learning pedagogies. Course sections were randomly assigned to the research conditions. Pre-unit and post-unit essays were evaluated by authors to assess the level of meaningful engagement achieved by the students in both the RTTP course and the non-RTTP class. Although the authors found inconclusive results regarding RTTP’s differing effect on meaningful engagement than instructing students using other active learning techniques, they believe the chapter provides a framework for additional, and perhaps, longitudinal studies.



Special thanks to Dr. Nancy Ross, Dr. Steven Rugare, and Albert Reischuck for their assistance in analyzing data for this study.


  1. Allen, E. (2008). Tradition and innovation: Using new technology in online art history surveys. In K. Donahue-Wallace, L. La Follette, & A. Pappas (Eds.), Teaching art history with new technologies: Reflections and case studies (pp. 98–108). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Baxter, K. (2012). The role of family snapshots in teaching art history within a dialogic pedagogy. Art Education, 65(1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  3. Berstein, D. (2010). Finding your place in the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop-Clark, C., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2012). Engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Sterling: Stylus.Google Scholar
  5. Burnham, R., & Kai-Kee, E. (2012). Teaching in the art museum: Interpretation as experience. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.Google Scholar
  6. Cason, N. (1998). Interactive multimedia: An alternative context for studying works of art. Studies in Art Education, 39(4), 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Donahue-Wallace, K. (2008). A tale of two courses: Instructor-driven and student-centered approaches to online art history instruction. In K. Donahue-Wallace, L. La Follette, & A. Pappas (Eds.), Teaching art history with new technologies: Reflections and case studies (pp. 109–118). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Froschauer, J., Merkl, D., Arends, M., & Goldfarb, D. (2013). Art history concepts at play with ThIATRO. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 6(2), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gioffre, P. (2012). An investigation of interactive, dialogue-based instruction for undergraduate art history. Retrieved from
  11. Gleeson, L. (1997). An interactive multimedia computer program on art history. In D. C. Gregory (Ed.), New technologies and art education: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 87–94). Reston: The National Art Education Association.Google Scholar
  12. Hoffman, E. R., & Cavalier, C. (2008). ARTIFACT: Mapping a global survey of the history of art. In K. Donahue-Wallace, L. La Follette, & A. Pappas (Eds.), Teaching art history with new technologies: Reflections and case studies (pp. 79–96). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Hutchings, P., Huber, M., & Ciccone, T. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Janet, J., & Miles, M. (2009). ARTEMIS: Reinvigorating history and theory in art and design education. Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(1), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lazrus, P. (2015). Santa Maria del Fiore’s Dome – Who shall build it? Art and architecture in 1418 Florence (version 3.1).Google Scholar
  16. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sowell, J. (1991). Learning cycles in art history. College Teaching, 39(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sowell, J. (1993). A learning cycle approach to art history in the classroom. Art Education, 46(2), 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szekely, G. (1997). Instructional resources: The art educator as artist: George Szekely’s new art. Art Education, 50(1), 29–32. 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Torgerson, C., & Torgerson, D. (2008). Designing randomized trials in health, education and the social sciences: An introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Venable, B. B. (2001). Using role play to teach and learn aesthetics. Art Education, 54(1), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yavelberg, J. (2014). Questioning the survey: A look into art history survey and its pedagogical practices. Journal of Mason Graduate Research, 1(1), 23–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Gasper-Hulvat
    • 1
  • David M. Dees
    • 2
  • Anthony V. Shreffler
    • 2
  1. 1.Kent State University at StarkNorth CantonUSA
  2. 2.Kent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations