AI Literacy in Art Education: Exploring Art Teacher Education Students’ Perspectives With Google Teachable Machine

Discipline-based art education, an extension of Penn State Seminar model, has implications for art and classroom teacher education. This article (a) reviews definition and distinguishing characteristics of discipline-based art education; (b) compares these characteristics with those of current practice in public schools; (c) examines national standards for art teacher education programs in relation to theory and practice; and (d) draws implications from this inquiry for making recommendations for changes in preservice classroom and art teacher education programs. From inception of art (drawing) in public schools in service of industry to improve design of manufactured goods in 1870s, to centering on art as a discipline in 1960s, and its extension to discipline-based art education in 1980's, process of value clarification and of self-definition as a field of study continues to be a major focus in art education. Significant progress was made towards redefinition of field as a result of federally funded 1965 Penn State Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development. At Seminar a consensus was achieved regarding character and purpose of art education. Since 39 participants and 20 observers at Seminar were representative of leaders in fields of art education, education, visual arts, art criticism, and aesthetics, reaching a consensus was a remarkable feat. Efland (1984) in his retrospect and evaluation of Seminar, concludes that the most pervasive theme of Seminar was notion that art or art education is a discipline in its own right, with goals that should be stated in terms of their power to help students engage independently in disciplined inquiry in arts (p. 207). Professional scholars in art - historians, artists, and critics - were identified as models for inquiry. Curriculum in art education, it was agreed, should derive its structure from processes that artists, historians, and critics use in their work, Content in art education would consist of language, concepts, and processes derived from fields of studio practice, art history, and art criticism. Concepts of sequence, continuity, and integration from area of curriculum theory in general education were identified as useful in developing art curriculum. Twenty years have passed since Penn State Seminar. The concepts that emerged from Seminar differentially affected theory and practice in art education. Although art education concepts from Seminar permeated literature and were bases of large-scale federally or privately funded curriculum development projects, practice in field lagged behind movement. With recent national focus on excellence in education, concern for

Contents: E.W. Eisner, M.D. Day, Introduction to Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education. Part I:Historical Currents in Art Education. F.G. Chalmers, Learning From Histories of Art Education: An Overview of Research and Issues. M.A. Stankiewicz, P.M. Amburgy, P.E. Bolin, Questioning the Past: Contexts, Functions, and Stakeholders in 19th-Century Art Education. J.H. White, 20th-Century Art Education: A Historical Perspective. Part II:Policy Perspectives Impacting the Teaching of Art. R.A. Smith, Policy and Arts Education. S. Hope, Art Education in a World of Cross-Purposes. C.B. Gee, Spirit, Mind, and Body: Arts Education the Redeemer. L. Hetland, E. Winner, Cognitive Transfer From Arts Education to Non-Arts Outcomes: Research Evidence and Policy Implications. R.A. Smith, Aesthetic Education: Questions and Issues. H.G. Blocker, Varieties of Multicultural Art Education: Some Policy Issues. E.L. Lankford, K. Scheffer, Museum Education and Controversial Art: Living on a Fault Line. Part III:Learning in the Visual Arts. A.M. Kindler, Introduction: Development and Learning in Art. A.M. Kindler, Researching Impossible? Models of Artistic Development Reconsidered. J. Matthews, The Art of Infancy. B. Wilson, Child Art After Modernism: Visual Culture and New Narratives. C. Golomb, Sculpture: Representational Development in a Three-Dimensional Medium. N.H. Freeman, Aesthetic Judgment and Reasoning. D. Pariser, E. Zimmerman, Learning in the Visual Arts: Characteristics of Gifted and Talented Individuals. Part IV:Teaching and Teacher Education. E. Zimmerman, Introduction to Teaching and Teacher Education. L. Galbraith, K. Grauer, State of the Field: Demographics and Art Teacher Education. M. Stokrocki, Contexts for Teaching Art. M. Erickson, Interaction of Teachers and Curriculum. F. Thurber, Teacher Education as a Field of Study in Art Education: A Comprehensive Overview of Methodology and Methods Used in Research About Art Teacher Education. F.R. Sabol, An Overview of Art Teacher Recruitment, Certification, and Retention. J.M. Burton, The Practice of Teaching in K-12 Schools: Devices and Desires. Part V:Forms of Assessment in Art Education. E. Soep, Assessment and Visual Arts Education. D. Boughton, Assessing Art Learning in Changing Contexts: High-Stakes Accountability, International Standards and Changing Conceptions of Artistic Development. H. Persky, The NAEP Arts Assessment: Pushing the Boundaries of Large-Scale Performance Assessment. C.M. Myford, A. Sims-Gunzenhauser, The Evolution of Large-Scale Assessment Programs in the Visual Arts. E. Soep, Visualizing Judgment: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment in Arts Education. Part VI:Emerging Visions of the Field. A.D. Efland, Emerging Visions of Art Education. S.M. Dobbs, Discipline-Based Art Education. T. Barrett, Investigating Art Criticism in Education: An Autobiographical Narrative. A.D. Efland, Art Education as Imaginative Cognition. M. Parsons, Art and Integrated Curriculum. G. Sullivan, Studio Art as Research Practice. K. Freedman, P. Stuhr, Curriculum Change for the 21st Century: Visual Culture in Art Education.

International Handbook of Research in Arts Education

Journal of Art & Design EducationVolume 4, Issue 1 p. 19-33 Some Student-Teachers' Experiments in Art Education and Humanistic Understanding RACHEL MASON, RACHEL MASON RACHEL MASON is Lecturer in the Centre for Postgraduate Studies and Research at Leicester Polytechnic with responsibility for Postgraduate Certificate and MA (Art Education) courses, and was previously Assistant-Professor of Art Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979-81), and Lecturer in Art Education at Kelvin Grove College of Advanced Education, Brisbane (1975-77). Before this she had wide experience of teaching in adult evening centres and English secondary schools. In 1975 she was awarded MEd (Aesthetic Education) by Manchester University, England, and in 1980 PhD by the Pennsylvania State University. Rachel Mason's publications include, Norman Adams—Catalogue for Exhibition at Herbert Art Gallery, Coventry 1979; An Exercise in Artistic Understanding: Studies in Art Education 23/2/1982; Norman Adams’ Religious Paintings: Research Bulletin, Institute for the study of Worship and Religious Architecture, University of Birmingham 1983; Art Teacher Training in England, Australia and the USA Some Observations: British Journal of Teacher Education 1983; Paul Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory: Its Implications for Art Education; Journal of Aesthetic Education, and recently, A Romantic/Religious Interpretation of Artistic Reality; Journal of Art & Design Education Vol 3, No 1, 1984.Search for more papers by this author RACHEL MASON, RACHEL MASON RACHEL MASON is Lecturer in the Centre for Postgraduate Studies and Research at Leicester Polytechnic with responsibility for Postgraduate Certificate and MA (Art Education) courses, and was previously Assistant-Professor of Art Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979-81), and Lecturer in Art Education at Kelvin Grove College of Advanced Education, Brisbane (1975-77). Before this she had wide experience of teaching in adult evening centres and English secondary schools. In 1975 she was awarded MEd (Aesthetic Education) by Manchester University, England, and in 1980 PhD by the Pennsylvania State University. Rachel Mason's publications include, Norman Adams—Catalogue for Exhibition at Herbert Art Gallery, Coventry 1979; An Exercise in Artistic Understanding: Studies in Art Education 23/2/1982; Norman Adams’ Religious Paintings: Research Bulletin, Institute for the study of Worship and Religious Architecture, University of Birmingham 1983; Art Teacher Training in England, Australia and the USA Some Observations: British Journal of Teacher Education 1983; Paul Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory: Its Implications for Art Education; Journal of Aesthetic Education, and recently, A Romantic/Religious Interpretation of Artistic Reality; Journal of Art & Design Education Vol 3, No 1, 1984.Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1985 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.1985.tb00142.xCitations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume4, Issue1March 1985Pages 19-33 RelatedInformation

Introduction Dream job: Working where valued as a professional art educator; teaching professionally committed students; working with quality school personnel; having time and support to continue active research and writing interests; working in a supportive and collegial atmosphere. (Professor) There is a developing consensus that the preparation of teachers should become central to art education research (Davis, 1990; Day, 1997; Galbraith, 1995; Zimmerman, 1994; 1997). Research exists on specific art teacher preparation programs (Carroll, Jones, & Sandell, 1995; Day, 1997; Galbraith, 1997; Sevigny, 1987; Thompson & Hardiman, 1991; Willis-Fisher, 1993; Zimmerman, 1997), and there is a growing interest in examining art preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching art (Grauer 1998; Kowalchuk, 1999; Short, 1995). Yet there is a lack of research on college level faculty-the teachers of teachers-whose qualifications, expertise, beliefs, and practices, shape and define art education within over 600 diverse institutions that have some association with preparing art teachers today (Galbraith, 1997; Hutchens, 1997). This lack of attention to faculty issues is not surprising, given that the data on faculty members associated with teacher education, in general, is sparse (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996; Howey & Zimpher, 1989; Murray, 1995). Ducharme (1993) suggested that faculty members who prepare teachers are formerly public school teachers who enter higher education to seek better rewards and to have more autonomy in their professional lives. Faculty work involves paying attention to issues affecting conditions of employment and institutional expectations (Boyer, 1990; Fullan, 1996). It also involves paying attention to decisions that affect job satisfaction, career patterns, as well as professional and personal happiness (Ducharme, 1993). As with teachers teaching in school settings (Goodson, 1992; Huberman, 1993), faculty work is intimately affected by daily interactions with students, colleagues, and administrators (Jordan, 1994). Who then are the art education college-level faculty members that prepare future art teachers? Where do they teach? What are their jobs like? What are their roles, responsibilities, and beliefs in relation to art teacher education? This article reports on data taken from an ongoing research project that aims to identify faculty who teach art education within the U.S., the institutions in which they teach, their specific faculty roles and responsibilities, and their practices and beliefs about art teacher education. Given the broad context of this research and its overall qualitative nature, my intention is to provide the reader with a sense of the issuesthe flavor-that part of this research has uncovered. To this end, I will report on where education faculty members teach, their qualifications, and what they teach, and on specific aspects of their job descriptions, especially those related to teaching and research. I will briefly discuss how selected faculty members view their jobs currently and in the best possible worlds. I will conclude with implications for developing a research agenda that studies art teacher education faculty. Data Sources The data for this article are taken from two sources: First, I sent an open-ended questionnaire to 500 faculty members who worked at a variety of institutions (e.g.; research, teaching, liberal arts, religious, professional art school, private, public, large, small, and so forth) within the U.S. Faculty names, addresses, and institutions were gathered from the NASA Higher Education Division membership list, intensive searches of institutional homepages on the Internet, annual NAEA Convention programs, and the Internet listserv associated with the NAEA Research Task Force on Teacher Education. Of the 500 questionnaires mailed, 167 were returned from 44 states, with a return rate of 33 percent. Of these, 19 questionnaires were unusable, because, for example, art education was no longer taught at that institution. …

The purpose of this study is to analyze research trends on the art and culture education instructor system through systematic literature review and to explore the role of art and culture education instructor as lifelong education instructor. To this end, researchers summarized and analyzed the discussions on the system of art and culture education instructors and discussed the role of culture and arts education history from a lifelong education perspective, and find implications for the development of the culture and arts education history system. Researchers selected 59 papers out of 131 research papers from 2012, a year before the system was implemented, to 2022 and analyzed focusing on the research methods, topics, research purposes and discussed the role of culture and arts education teachers as lifelong education instructors.

Art education plays a crucial role in fostering creativity, critical thinking, and cultural appreciation among students. Central to the effectiveness of art education is the role of fine art teachers who serve as mentors, guides, and facilitators in the learning process. This abstract explores the perceptions of art education and students' perceptions of their fine art teachers, shedding light on the impact of teacher-student dynamics on the overall educational experience. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys and interviews to gather data from a diverse sample of students enrolled in various art education in fine art programs [i](Smith et al., 2022; Brown & Jones, 2021) suggest that positive teacher-student relationships in art education contribute to increased student engagement, motivation, and a deeper understanding of artistic concepts. Furthermore, the research delves into the role of fine art teachers in nurturing students' individual artistic voices and fostering a sense of community within the classroom. Insights from interviews reveal students' perspectives on the qualities that make an art teacher effective, such as approachability, passion for the subject, and the ability to provide constructive feedback. This abstract concludes by highlighting the implications of the findings for both educators and policymakers in shaping art education curricula and professional development programs. By understanding the dynamics between art education and students' perceptions of fine art teachers, stakeholders can work towards creating a more enriching and supportive learning environment for aspiring artists.

Meta-aesthetics is the aesthetic field relating to the images of products where the conversion value, separate from the product’s function, takes part directly in its value. Meta-aesthetics is among the subjects that today’s art and design world must address more sensitively. This study was based on a 2009 dissertation measuring university students’ awareness and understanding of meta-aesthetics. In 2014, the study was repeated using a different sample and was published as an essay in 2015. Using these data, this research compared the meta-aesthetic awareness of the group of students receiving art education and trained to be art educators in 2009, and another group of students trained as artists and designers receiving art and design education in 2014. The study found that neither the teenagers training as artists and designers nor the art educator students had full knowledge of the meta-aesthetic subjects of their awareness or of aesthetics. Aesthetic function of education, and especially art education, does not meet expectations to improve and crystallize students’ aesthetic awareness. This research underlines the obligation of art and design education institutions to renew their focus on aesthetic subjects. It will serve as a resource for researchers concerned with the future of art and design education. Key words: Art and design education, meta-aesthetic, visual arts and design, aesthetics, aesthetics education.

In Finland, art teachers are currently trained at the Aalto University, Helsinki, and at the University of Lapland,Rovaniemi. This review is based on research on and other literature discussing art education. In addition, experiencesof art teacher education program provided at the University of Lapland provided the basis of our analysis of theessence of teacherhood in art education. Our purpose in this article is to review the theoretical and practical basis ofteacherhood in art education. We will discuss the phenomenon from two points of view: What internal and externalfactors does teacherhood in art education theoretically and practically consist of? Through answering these questionswe aim at creating a model of the framework of teacherhood in art education that can help the study anddevelopment of art education and art education teachers’ training.

Arts Teacher Education in Lithuania: Aspects of Postgraduate Arts Education Research

Multimodality research offers a rich paradigm for revitalizing and enhancing art education practice; however, its successful implementation depends on evidence-informed integration into the educational system, particularly in the training and development of art teachers. This review interrogates the existing literature on multimodality in education, teacher education, and art education, drawing recommendations tailored for the implementation of multimodality in Chinese art teacher education. The interpretation of multimodality in education encompasses both a multimodal social semiotic approach and multimodal pedagogies. The critical discussion of teacher education in China draws attention to its specific ongoing issues, as well as its developmental and reform history. The discussion on art education in China reviews its evolution and its influence on art teacher education, highlighting the persistent issues within the field. The articles’ findings chart the “working space” for multimodality within the Chinese art education context, offering insights and recommendations for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers. We position multimodality as an approach that has the potential to contribute to the development and internationalization of Chinese art teacher education in the current era.

Art Teacher Profile and Preference Thomas M. Brewerl University of Central Florida The primary purpose of this Art Teacher Profile and Preference Survey is to better understand the educational background, educational needs, and scheduling preferences of art teachers. All too often, higher education designs programs for teachers without really exploring the interests ofthat population. Results from this study have implications for graduate programs, and also for district and state in-service programs. Some 141 of approximately 440 teachers (32.0%) responded to the survey. According to the survey, 67% of the art teachers do not have a master's degree, and 55% are in one. They are most in attending evening classes (62%) and one- or two-week summer classes (60%). Only 8 1 % of the teachers claim to have backgrounds in art/art education, and 37% received their degrees from out-of-state institutions. The teachers' interested rating is easily twice as much for studio courses as for art education, aesthetics, criticism, or art history. When the very and moderately interested categories are combined, interest in various art education courses ranges from 68% to 52%. Studio art classes range from 81% to 76%. Teachers' combined interest in aesthetics is 62%, art criticism 63%, and art history 61 %. The Art Teacher Profile and Preference Survey was conducted to better understand the educational background, educational needs, and scheduling preferences of art teachers in four central Florida school districts. The results were used to shape the graduate art education program at a state university by estimating the potential interest in the M.Ed. program and/or graduate course work. Along with this direct use of data, the survey also provides some general information and perspective about art teachers. All too often, higher education designs programs for teachers without really exploring the interests of that population. This is but one way we can better align interests and needs in art education. The findings shed some light on the education and interest of many visual art teachers. Results from this study also have implications for district and state-level in-service art programs and special workshops for art teachers. Review of Literature This study relates to the Demographic and Teacher Preparation Task Forces established by the NAEA Research Commission. The NAEA Briefing Papers (1996) served as a primary source for this review. It is somewhat surprising that so few studies have examined the educational profiles and preferences of art teachers. The surveys by Rogers (1990), Degge (1987), Jeffers (1993), and Burton (1996), vary in purpose, but do touch on the need and content in teacher preparation programs (Rogers), the highest degree held (Degge), and college major Ueffers). To these variables Burton adds the number of years teaching, and at what grade level. The purpose of the Rogers (1990) survey was to obtain information on art teacher preparation programs, and to see how these compare with the NAEA's recommendations. Of the 225 surveys sent out, 169 (75%) were returned. The survey asked specific questions about what types of classes the art teachers had to take while they were working on their degrees. Fifty-nine of the 169 respondents said that their programs equaled or exceeded the NAEA's recommendations for total credit hours in studio art and art history courses. The requirements ranged from 20 to 81 credit hours. The author says it is important to be aware of current practices in teacher preparation programs because these can suggest in practical terms what is deemed important by those in charge of drafting curricula. The Degge (1987) research article is a descriptive study of community art teachers with implications for teacher preparation and cultural policy. In this research, a questionnaire was developed which addressed four specific areas: personal background, including professional preparation; perceptions about programs and students; career goals and aspirations; and instructional aims and practices. …

In this article, I describe how Frances Thurber (1946–2012) and I began in the early 1990s to conduct research concerning empowerment and leadership themes in art teacher education. Over the next decade, we were involved in researching leadership issues in art teacher education and conducted a series of studies that focused on both theory and practice related to developing voice, collaboration, and social action as components of feminist leadership in art education. Our goal was to educate in-service art teachers to become empowered and take leadership roles in programmes in Nebraska and Indiana. By 2002, we had constructed several pedagogical models as a result of our studies of various components of leadership and empowerment. I describe how I then used these models from 2003 to 2012 to study three different populations of undergraduate and graduate students in the United States. Finally, I make a case for extending the leadership models to include creativity as a new component for considering leadership and art education. Rethinking my past decade of work about building leadership models for art education, from a more extended lens than the one through which the two leadership models were originally constructed, provides an avenue for new collaboration, community building, and consideration of the role of creativity in empowerment and leadership in art education and considers a variety of populations and organizations that can be enriched by using these extended leadership models in the future.

Art education plays a crucial role in fostering creativity, critical thinking, and cultural appreciation among students. Central to the effectiveness of art education is the role of fine art teachers who serve as mentors, guides, and facilitators in the learning process. This abstract explores the perceptions of art education and students' perceptions of their fine art teachers, shedding light on the impact of teacher-student dynamics on the overall educational experience. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys and interviews to gather data from a diverse sample of students enrolled in various art education in fine art programs [i](Smith et al., 2022; Brown & Jones, 2021) suggest that positive teacher-student relationships in art education contribute to increased student engagement, motivation, and a deeper understanding of artistic concepts. Furthermore, the research delves into the role of fine art teachers in nurturing students' individual artistic voices and fostering a sense of community within the classroom. Insights from interviews reveal students' perspectives on the qualities that make an art teacher effective, such as approachability, passion for the subject, and the ability to provide constructive feedback. This abstract concludes by highlighting the implications of the findings for both educators and policymakers in shaping art education curricula and professional development programs. By understanding the dynamics between art education and students' perceptions of fine art teachers, stakeholders can work towards creating a more enriching and supportive learning environment for aspiring artists.

The Basic Design (Art) Education constitutes the basis of Fashion Design Education as same in all fields of art and design education. The political freedoms occurred with the French Revolution caused radical changes in the social life structure, social roles and social order; it also has prepared the appropriate ground for the Industrial Revolution. While production processes have evolved from the human body to mechanization, production methods have changed as a result of changing of production processes and technology in terms of quantity and quality, and ultimately the production amount has increased significantly. While some artistic movements have emerged as a reaction to the industrial products production in increasing numbers and away from aesthetics, basic design (art) education has emerged in order to produce more aesthetic products in the fields of design and art education. Basic design (art) education is the most basic education for students studying in the fields of art and design. The fashion design field, which has an important place in visual culture emerges as an important field requiring visual aesthetic pleasure, creativity, originality and original ideas, closely related to human life and living. Basic design (art) education, which is one of the cornerstones of fashion design education introduces the student many skills such as perceiving what s/he sees, organizing what s/he perceives, discovering, developing creative thinking, producing original ideas, developing a visual thinking system and making new inventions based on existing ones. The place and importance of basic design (art) education in fashion design education was tried to be determined within the framework of the basic design elements and principles included in this education through supporting with examples from the field of fashion design in this research that was executed based on literature review.