Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning, Assessment and Signature Pedagogies in the Visual Arts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contextualized Practices in Arts Education

Part of the book series: Education Innovation Series ((EDIN))

Abstract

This chapter explores the dynamic intersection of three conceptual frameworks: a) making learning visible (e.g., Project Zero, 2001; Seidel, et al., 2001); b) assessment in the visual arts (Eisner, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007); and c) signature pedagogies (Shulman 2005; 2008), within the context of a vibrant pre-tertiary arts school in the Republic of Singapore. Two pedagogies, consultation and critique, emerge for consideration as signature pedagogies in the visual arts. The process of consultation and critique provide opportunities for students to reflect on their own works as well as the works that are critiqued. They foster dynamic opportunities to examine and adjust expectations and judgments regarding students’ works and progress. The hallmark characteristics of critiques in the visual arts are that feedback is offered, and the presenter is expected to be accountable by responding to feedback through explanation, examples, reflections, self-questioning, and thinking. Signature pedagogies provide ways in which visual arts teachers dynamically explore, develop and shape the evolution of students’ learning, growth and development as artists. The chapter closes with an insightful response written by Susan Wright, who extends the discussion through an emphasis on dynamic processes of meaning-making and ways in which artistic processes are co-created through the interactions of students and teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cushman, K. (1996). Looking collaborative at student work: An essential toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.essentialschools.org/resources

  • Eisner, E. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 8(1), 658–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. (2005). Opening a shuttered window. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (2003). The arts and the creation of mind. Language Arts, 80(5), 340–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (2007). Interlude. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 423–426). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Given, H., Kub, L., LeeKeenan, D., Mardell, B., Reddit, S., & Twombly, S. (2010). Changing school culture: Using documentation to support collaborative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 49, 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidici, C., & Rinaldi, C. (Eds.). (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2006). A moral epistemology of knowing subjects: Theorizing a relational turn for qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(1), 621–627. doi:10.1177/1077800405282800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klebesadel, H. (2009). Critique as pedagogy. In R. Gurung, N. Check, & A. Haynie (Eds.), Exploring signature pedagogies (pp. 99–117). Sterling: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krechevsky, M., Rivard, M., & Seidel, S. (2007). The making learning visible project. Project Zero: Update on current work, July 2007, 12–14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Project Zero. (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renaissance City Report. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.mica.gov.sg/renaissance/FinalRen.pdf

  • Richardson, L. (2003). Writing a method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 499–541). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. (2008). Making thinking visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S., Blythe, T., Allen, D., Simon, D., Veenema, S., Turner, T., & Clark, L. (2001). A collaborative approach to understanding and improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S., Tisham, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134, 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2008). Pedagogies of interpretation, argumentation, and formation: From understanding to identity in Jewish education. Journal of Jewish Education, 74(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soep, E. (2005). Where art meets assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 38–40. 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Arts and Culture Strategic Review. (2012). Singapore: Ministry of Information, Communication & the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.acsr.sg

  • Turner, T., & Wilson, D. G. (2010). Reflections on documentation: A discussion with thought leaders from Reggio Emilia. Theory into Practice, 49, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, E., Hetland, L., Veenema, S., Sheridan, K., & Palmer, P. (2006). How visual arts teaching can promote disciplined habits of mind. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & D. Leontiev (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 189–205). Amityville: Baywood Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, G. (2008). Documentation: Ideas and applications from the Reggio Emilia approach. Teaching Artist Journal, 6(2), 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful for the support of the National Institute of Education and the School of the Arts (Singapore).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, Yakima, WA, USA

    Libby Gordon Cohen

Authors
  1. Libby Gordon Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Libby Gordon Cohen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

    Chee-Hoo Lum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cohen, L.G. (2013). Learning, Assessment and Signature Pedagogies in the Visual Arts. In: Lum, CH. (eds) Contextualized Practices in Arts Education. Education Innovation Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-55-9_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation