1. The Art of Making Meaning With Technology By Shaunna Smith, ARED 7315, Spring 2011

3. Implications for Education

5. Art is representation of “an embodiment of things that matter and a testament to the human condition (Delacruz, 2009, p. 26).”

7. Creativity and innovation are invaluable skills that will be rewarded in an increasingly competitive global economy(Obama, 2011; Berry, et al. 2010).

8. There is a need to provide students with the necessary tools to transition from a culture of consumption to a culture of creation(Eisenberg, 2011).

10. Software and hardware.Community: Technology as collaboration or isolation? SECTION TWO: Meaningfully Integrating Technology in Art Education Purposefully immersing in new technologies. Purposefully selecting a tool that is a pedagogical compliment. Purposefully thinking outside of the “tech”. Purposefully being prepared for technical difficulties.

12. Access

14. Use student-centered, constructivist activities that meaningfully integrate technology and not only provide hands-on opportunities, but “minds-on” opportunities as well (Gregory, 2001, p. 48).

15. “Given the prevalence of technology in our world – all the designed products we use every day – every student should have a basic understanding of how and why those products are designed and produced. Each student should have a basic literacy of the designed world they inhabit (Foster, 2007, p. 1).”

16. Considerations should include embracing technology as:a new medium, an opportunity for access, and a prospect for developing a sense of community (Stoner & Abrahams, 1996).

22. Creativity may be hindered or heavily influenced by the particular perspectives and examples seen online(Sabieh, 2002).

24. Offer students a motivating and engaging technology experience (Soloman & Schrum, 2007).

25. Cell phones are a veritable multimedia studio in a pocket (Kendall, 2008).

28. Effects of anonymity

29. Cyber bullying

32. Purposefully selecting a tool that is a pedagogical compliment

33. Purposefully thinking outside of the “tech”

35. “Teachers need to know how and why to use technology in meaningful ways in the learning process (Gorder, 2008, p. 64)”.

36. To meaningfully integrate technology effectively, art educators should proceed with purpose by: immersing themselves in new technologies, selecting a tool that is a pedagogical compliment, thinking outside of the “tech”, and being prepared for technical difficulties.

38. Gregory (2001) suggests that educators immerse themselves in current technologies so as to get a proper feel for how to use them and/or to see why others, particularly students, find them so appealing.

40. Some educators are quick to generalize that the chosen technology wound up hindering the creative potential or limiting the possibilities of the students, which is simply a result of it being the wrong tool for the job (Randall, 2010).

42. “Indeed, technology through its ability to allow access to data as well as the ability to communicate in a quick, and inexpensive manner… enhances learning and allows students to ‘think with technology rather than thinking about it’ (Diem, 2008 ,p. 148). ”

43. “These kids are so technology adept that all you have to do is show them the basics and they just take off (Devaney, 2008, p. 2).”

45. A wise art educator would have a backup plan in mind when integrating technology much like they would if they were teaching a non-technology activity such as a unit that is dependent upon pleasant weather (i.e. what if it rains and I can’t take my students outside to do nature drawings today?).

48. “Technology is fast becoming the new alpha competency – an indispensible skill for the business of 21st century learning (Choi & Piro, 2009, p. 29).”

49. The integration of technology into art education has numerous opportunities to embrace a new medium with vast potential, provide access to art beyond the limitations of the physical classroom, and foster a sense of a global community.

51. References Delacruz, E. M. (2009). Old world teaching meets new digital cultural creatives. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(3), 262-268. Devaney,L. (2008). Technology makes art education a bigger draw. eSchool News. Retrieved from: http://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/09/19/technology-makes-art-education-a-bigger-draw/ Diem, R. A. (2006). A Positive or Negative Force for Democracy: The Technology Instructional Paradox. International Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 148-154. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ782137.pdf Eisenberg, M. (2011). Educational Fabrication, In and Out of the Classroom. Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education, 2011, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Charlottesville, VA. XXX-XXX. Foster, J. (2010, October 26). Study points to uncertainty of K-12 engineering standards. eClassroom News. Retrieved from: http://www.eclassroomnews.com/2010/10/26/study-points-to-uncertainty-of-k-12-engineering-standards/ Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York.

52. References Gorder, L. (2008). A Study of Teacher Perceptions of Instructional Technology Integration in the Classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63-76. Retrieved from ERIC database. Gregory, D. (2001). Boxes with fires: Wisely integrating learning technologies into the art classroom. Art Education. 62(3), 47-54. Hendrix, S., (2008). Popup workshop: Computationally enhanced paper engineering for children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado). Retrieved from: http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~hendrixs/dr_diss/diss.html ISTE – International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Standards for Global Learning in a Digital Age. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx Kendall, S. (2008). Considering cell phones as instructional tools. Carmel Middle School Website, Carmel, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.carmelunified.org/17452081216735793/Blog/browse.asp?C=56188&A=398&DomainID=2026&PostID=336

53. References Mishra, P., and Koehler, M.J, (2008) Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association New York City, March 24–28, 2008. NAEA – National Art Educators Association. (2011a). 2011-2014 NAEA strategic plan. Retrieved from: http://www.arteducators.org/about-us/naea-next/2011_Strategic_Plan_Full.pdf NAEA – National Art Educators Association. (2011b). The national visual arts standards. Retrieved from: http://www.arteducators.org/store/NAEA_Natl_Visual_Standards1.pdf NCTE – National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Standards for the English Language Arts. Retrieved from: http://www.ncte.org/standards Obama, B. (2011). State of the union address. U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 25, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2011 P21 – Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 Framework Definitions Document. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

54. References Pierson, M. E. (1999). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(03), 711. (AAT 9924200). (Doctoral Dissertation) Pink, Daniel H. (2005). A whole new mind: moving from the information age to the conceptual age. Riverhead: New York. Randall,B. (2010). Using technology in the classroom – art education. eZine Articles. Retrieved from: http://ezinearticles.com/?Using-Technology-in-the-Classroom---Art-Education&id=5797973 Robin, B. (2008) The effective uses of digital storytelling as a teaching and learning tool. Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy through the Communicative and Visual Arts, 2, 429-440. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY. Roblyer, M. D., & Knezek, G. (2003). New millennium research for educational technology: A call for a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 61-72. Sabieh,C. (2002). The age of technology: Friend or foe to the expression of art? Paper presented at the InSea World Congress, New York, NY. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED479097.pdf

55. References Schweitzer, K. (2009). 25 places for kids to learn and experiment with art. NAEA lesson resources. Retrieved from: http://www.arteducators.org/learning/25_Places_for_Kids_to_Learn_and_Experiment_with_Art.pdf Solomon, G, & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. Stoner, S., and Abrahams, J. (1996). Weaving a future for the arts in education through technology. The Future of Networking Technologies for Learning. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/stoner.html Vaz, R. (2004). The Promise of Computer Literacy. Liberal Education, 90(4), 2-3. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Voogt, J., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Fisser, P., Allayar, G., Agyei, D., Koehler, M., Shin, T.S., Wolf, L.G., DeSchryver, M., Schmidt, D. & Baran, E. (2010). Strategies for teacher professional development on TPACK, Part 2. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3940-3943). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Wood, J. (2004). Open minds and a sense of adventure: How teachers of art and design approach technology. Journal of Art& Design Education, 23(2), 179-191.