Overview and Assessment of Selected Arts-Infused Programs

Integrating Arts across the School Curriculum: Review of Literature and Implications for Teaching and Learning*

Joan Russell, McGill University Michalinos Zembylas, Open University of Cyprus

Presented at

Arts and Learning Special Interest Group American Educational Research Association Chicago, 2007

This presentation is a synthesis of the authors’ chapter in the International Handbook of Research in Arts Education (2006), Liora Bresler (Ed) Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers. 2

Integrating Arts across the School Curriculum: Review of Literature and Implications for Teaching and Learning

Joan Russell, McGill University Michalinos Zembylas, Open University of Cyprus

OBJECTIVES/PURPOSES The idea of the integrated curriculum recurs from time to time, in tandem with other social progressive movements (Beane, 1997). The notion that curriculum should be integrated has regained much popularity among educators in recent years (Parsons, 2004). Proponents of the integrated curriculum argue that an integrated approach promotes holistic education--unity rather than separation and fragmentation (Wineberg & Grossman, 2000)--and cognitive gain (e.g. Efland, 2002; Mansilla, 2005). In addition, as Parsons (2004) argues, recent societal changes, changes in the contemporary world, the faster pace of life, and the enormous growth of technology and visual communication require more information--and its critique--from many different sources. From these perspectives, an integrated curriculum seems to make sense. But what happens with arts integration? Are arts integrated in the curriculum with the same enthusiasm and commitment as other subjects? What does research tell us about the value and effectiveness of arts integrated programs? What are the indicators of “value” and “effectiveness” for arts integrated programs and how are these terms defined? How is success measured? How should success be measured? Does arts integration require that arts be defined as disciplines—an idea that emphasizes the intrinsic values of art in education—or simply as “handmaidens”—an idea that focuses on the instrumental values of arts in education? (Bresler, 1995; Parsons, 2004; Winner & Hetland, 2000). These kinds of questions are particularly important in defining arts integration in school curricula. Therefore, if we stop thinking in dualisms and move beyond the either (disciplines)/or (handmaidens) dichotomy, we may begin to examine arts integration on a different level of thinking—i.e. as multi-layered and symbiotic with other learning. This presentation is a review of recent research on the implementation and evaluation of arts-integration efforts and the implications of these efforts for teaching and learning. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK It has been argued that the boundaries among disciplines and subject areas are artificial and limit students’ access to broader meanings in life (Beane, 1997; Doll, 1993). Disciplinary curricula are associated with current practices that place a high value on efficiency, behavioral objectives and high-stakes achievement tests (Parsons, 2004). Whereas rigid boundaries inhibit students’ proper preparation for participation in a democratic society (Dewey, 1916; Parsons, 2004), “soft” (Detels, 1999) or “porous” (Bresler, 2003) boundaries invite cross- fertilization, and lead to new ideas and perspectives (Russell, 2006). Beane and Brodhagen (1996) suggest that subject integration has the potential to offer the challenging curriculum, the higher standards, and the world- class education that is often talked about, but not always experienced. Arguments for and against arts integration Arguments for and against arts integration abound. On the one hand, it is argued that the integration of arts in the curriculum offers students and teachers learning experiences that are intellectually and emotionally stimulating (Barrett, McCoy & Veblen, 1997; Burton, Horowitz & Abeles, 1999; Chrysostomou, 2004; Deasey, 2002; Goldberg, 2001; Mansilla, 2005; Patteson, 2002; Veblen 2000). It is also claimed that arts integration can help students learn to think more holistically, thus contributing to the development of connected ways of knowing (Mason, 1996). Research findings, and theories from cognitive science that describe learning as situated, socially-constructed, and culturally mediated (Efland, 2002; Freedman, 2003), claim that integration promotes learning and creativity (Marshall, 2005). These arguments validate arts integration because integration is essentially about making connections among things. Finally, it is suggested that arts-integrated curricula promote socially relevant democratic education, because the issues involved transcend disciplinary boundaries and engage students in self-reflection and active inquiry (Parsons, 2004). 3 On the other hand, there are serious concerns about the benefits and effectiveness of arts-integrated curricula, and about the lack of strong empirical research to support claims that arts integrated curricula are actually effective in terms of student achievement. In their evaluation of the impact of arts in education, Hetland and Winner (2000) concluded that while arts-integrated approaches to teaching academic subjects sometimes led to improvement in an academic subject, the improvement was not significant when compared to a traditional approach to teaching the same subject. They pointed out the folly of expecting that arts integration will cause academic improvement: if improvement does not result, integration will likely be blamed. Winner (2003) also questioned sweeping, unsupported claims for the benefits of arts integration made by arts integration proponents. Finally, there are other concerns about the benefits and effectiveness claimed for arts-integrated curricula. These include teachers’ complaints that integration adds to their already overloaded curriculum, and their apprehensions about meeting curriculum requirements (e.g., Horowitz, 2004). Artists’ concerns include fears that integrating the arts across the curriculum integration undermines the disciplinary understanding and experience of an art, and could lead to the disappearance of arts specialists in schools (e.g., Elliott, in Veblen & Elliott, 2000). REVIEW OF RESEARCH Selecting the Studies for Review We conducted a search for studies that evaluated arts-integration initiatives. To qualify for our review the study had to meet the following criteria: English-language, empirical, focus on integration of arts in school curricula, published in refereed journals or presented in conferences between 2000-2005. We used electronic searches of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), phone conversations with individual researchers, general request for information from listserves, online journals in Arts Education, and keyword searches via internet search engines for research reports on arts integration programs. The following questions guided our critical review:  Who conducted the research?  What was the research focus?  What methods were used?  What were the findings?  Were the obstacles and disadvantages of arts integration clearly mentioned?  What do these studies contribute to the discourse on arts integration? Our review examined evaluation reports on three large-scale, and 15 small-scale arts-integrated programs. This presentation reports on some of the methodological and political issues that emerged from our review. Methodological Issues Evaluations of arts integration initiatives use both quantitative and descriptive approaches, and there are many examples of their combined use in an attempt to obtain a fuller picture (see also Horowitz, 2004). These evaluations reveal the challenges and successes of arts integrated programs, and they make a valuable contribution to the study of arts integration processes and outcomes. Most of the studies in our review reported positive learning outcomes, including claims that engagement with subject matter through the arts helps students and teachers approach school tasks with increased intensity, commitment and capacity for critical thinking. Yet, policy makers in many educational jurisdictions increasingly focus on high-stakes standardized tests as measures of success in learning, therefore there is an incentive to identify positive outcomes in arts integration initiatives. We agree, with Horowitz (2004) that it is important to acknowledge that arts-integrated programs “are inherently complex and multi-dimensional, and don’t easily lend themselves to experimental designs and purely outcome-based evaluations” (p. 7). Certainly, more is involved besides student academic achievement when trying to capture the diversity of experience and the effects of programs and initiatives. The assessment of student learning is particularly problematic because it is difficult to obtain data1 that serve as evidence of learning, other than what is measurable - which is a somewhat limited view of what it means to learn. Mansilla (2005) argues that the purpose of subject integration is to achieve cognitive advancement. She

1 Aprill & Burnaford (2007) have been working on a measurement instrument. To read about it, go to http://www.centrepompidou.fr/streaming/symposium/en/session4.htm 4 proposes guidelines for assessing cognitive gain built on a “performance view of understanding.” This view privileges the capacity to use knowledge over that of simply having or accumulating it. From this perspective, individuals are judged to have understood a concept when they are able to apply it, or think with it accurately and flexibly in novel situations. Berghoff (2005) contends that growth in students’ ability to think abductively— what we do when we create new or more complex mental models for ourselves—depends upon students’ engagement with a variety of rich experiences. Berghoff argues that abductive thinking occurs when students engage with arts-infused curriculum, therefore, discipline-specific knowledge is an important asset in promoting learners’ ability to think abductively. Berghoff (2005) and Borgmann (2005) explain that it is difficult both to obtain data that capture learning and to show learning in art-infused curriculum. It is difficult because the learning looks qualitatively different from learning in other models of curriculum. Moreover, student-produced artifacts or their behaviors are not necessarily dependable indicators of students’ thinking and therefore analysis of such data is not necessarily reliable. It seems clear that any evaluation of arts-integrated programs will be misguided if it is primarily focused on measuring success in terms of improvement on high-stakes tests. Policies, politics and the evaluation of program effectiveness There are two troublesome issues in determining the impact of arts integrated programs and evaluations of their outcomes on ethical, policy, and political levels. One such issue has to do with who does the evaluation, and what the evaluation seeks to evaluate. An issue not raised in the literature we reviewed pertains to the distance that is achievable by researchers conducting studies of their own practices in arts integration. Therefore we think it is important to ask, with Constance Gee (2003, 2004): Who is conducting the research, for which/whose purposes, and how can transparency be ensured? What are the vested interests, or motivations, of the evaluator(s)? Programs that aim to enrich school curricula through the arts are aware of the importance of satisfying various – and sometimes competing – constituencies, especially the demand that students’ academic achievement will not be compromised. We noted earlier that two approaches are used to evaluate outcomes of arts integration programs: test score analysis and qualitative procedures. The statistical studies responded to concerns about students’ abilities to do well on tests in the core curriculum. The qualitative studies aimed to elicit deeper understandings of how the arts experiences affect students’ and teachers’ behaviors, attitudes, and learning strategies, parents’ and administrators’ outlooks, and so on. Some of the studies we examined used mixed methods to assess measurable outcomes (test scores) and outcomes that do not lend themselves easily to measurement, such as enthusiasm, intrinsic motivation, affective connections, analytic thinking skills, and so forth. These studies show the kinds of findings that current research methods permit. DeMoss & Morris (2002) contend that researchers should seek to develop a variety of ways to represent the multiple kinds of student growth in arts integrated programs. Further research should investigate how students’ arts integrated learning provides both cognitively and affectively different experiences. DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS As the vigorous debates between those supporting arts as disciplines and those arguing for arts integration continue, our review has sought to move beyond these dichotomous positions in order to explore the outcomes and implications of learning and teaching in integrated learning environments. Our hope is to show that, as researchers and practitioners in arts education, we need to engage in more in-depth research on the role of arts integration in education so that recommendations and decisions regarding arts integration are based less on belief and more on evidence. The studies and programs we reviewed here suggest that the benefits and challenges associated with the implementation and evaluation of arts-integrated programs warrant ongoing investigation. In the next section, we discuss some of the benefits and challenges of arts integration in schools, drawing particular attention to pedagogical, methodological and political issues. Benefits. Anxieties about the abilities of students who have experienced arts-integrated curricula to achieve test success in core school subjects persist despite a plethora of quantitative studies that show repeatedly that students’ grades do not suffer, and may even improve. At the same time, qualitative studies and anecdotal evidence suggest strongly that an important, possibly more long-lasting, benefit to students is a positive change in attitude towards school itself. Such change lends itself well to description, less so to measurement. Description seems to work less well than measurement for large-scale advocacy, such as media reports, presentations to school boards, where a table, presented as neutral, scientific, reliable, valid and generalizable 5 can show results at a glance. Such results are apt to be taken as truthful, even when there are methodological flaws.2 It is clear that each type of assessment speaks to different audiences in different ways; each has a role to play in advocacy, curriculum planning and implementation, and program design. Challenges. Earlier we identified and discussed some of the challenges that arose in our literature review. These challenges include: the concerns that arts integration undermines the concepts that distinguish one discipline from another, issues of teacher self-efficacy, the structure of the school day in traditional educational systems, and issues associated with teacher education in implementing integrated approaches. At the centre of concerns with the adoption of arts integrated curricula, the issue of the integrity of individual subject matter areas persist. The concern is that teaching all the arts together along with other subject areas undermines deep understanding of the concepts in each subject area. The pedagogical side of this argument is that demands for cognitive operations involved in each subject area are fundamentally different and discrete. The political side of this argument is that blending all the arts together undermines the place of each particular art in the school curriculum and sends the message that it is acceptable to do so. In any case, it is clear that a key requirement for successful arts integration is the close collaboration of the teacher-artist partnership. Yet, without arriving at some common vision about objectives or how to attain them, it is unlikely that constructive work can occur. Bumgarner (1994) argued that “to expect professional artists to inculcate teachers and school administration with a conception of arts education so vastly different from prevailing practice is illogical and unrealistic” (p. 11). This argument is borne out by the experience of Meban (2002) a Canadian artist-in- residence, whose art education agenda conflicted with that of school personnel such that she was unable to reach her goal of transformation. Meban’s experience reminds us of what Constance Gee (op. cit.) has to say about the need to keep distinct the backgrounds - training, visions of education, knowledge of students and of the culture of schools and their communities - of artists and the agendas of certified professional art teachers. Another important issue in arts integration relates to teacher self-efficacy and preparation to teach using integrated approaches. Self-efficacy refers to the belief in one’s own capability to execute a task (Bandura, 1997). Most teachers at the secondary level are educated in a particular subject area, while teachers at the elementary level usually teach a range of subjects, and have more confidence teaching more than one subject. Therefore, it is not surprising to learn that teachers, especially at the secondary level, feel uncomfortable when asked to teach in an integrated manner, unless they have had opportunities to develop deeper knowledge in the subjects they are trying to integrate. Research shows consistently that of all the arts, teachers feel the least confidence in their ability to teach – or incorporate – music in their teaching. The literature we examined suggests that when appropriate training and sustained support are provided then the issue of self-efficacy can be successfully addressed (e.g. Borgmann, Berghoff & Parr, 2001; McCammon & Betts, 2001; Oreck, 2002, 2004; Patteson, 2002, 2004; Patteson, Upitis & Smithrim, 2002). Concerns about the allocation of time to accomplish goals are related in part to the very structure of the school day (Groves et al, 2001). This is particularly an issue in jurisdictions where a national curriculum is adopted by all schools, and where the structure does not allow enough time or flexibility for integration. Unless teachers team-teach, they may lack opportunities to collaborate with other teachers. Moreover, if there is a lack of belief in the value of integrated curricula then any effort in that direction may be resisted or subverted. Any changes in culture and practice, must be supported by structural changes, particularly in the use of time (Groves et al, 2001). The programs and studies we have reviewed here suggest that meaningful experiences for teachers and students occur where there is sufficient training in how to use integrated approaches in pre-service or in-service education programs, and where appropriate structures of support are in place. Fostering this kind of teaching presents the more difficult tasks of deciding on the mode of integration, how to implement it and how to monitor and evaluate students’ and teachers’ learning. Not surprisingly, no approach is free of problems. Ultimately, the success of arts integration programs depends upon the commitment of classroom teachers. Our review of the literature suggests that releasing teachers’ creative energy through professional development

2 One such table, presented by an advocacy group at a recent conference of Canadian music educators, made claims based on statistically insignificant results. 6 programs and other types of support seems to empower teachers to create the transformative space where their imaginations and skills may blossom. Educational Significance The most intriguing challenge in integration is to find ways of collaborating across disciplines and professional ideologies. Successful cases of integration are characterized by “transformative practice zones” that “provide spaces to share and listen to others’ ideas, visions and commitments, and to build relationship in collaboration across disciplines and institutions” (Bresler, 2003, p. 24). Integrated curricula have the potential to create transformative zones, thereby encouraging open-endedness, spaces for exploration, connection, discovery, and collaboration by bringing together various areas of knowledge, experiences and beliefs. Current integration initiatives seem to be in tension with the current conservative (in the United States) “back- to-basics” vision of what it means to be educated, what education is for, and how education should be carried out. Our impression is that there is a public perception that the arts are being stripped from the curriculum, yet the body of literature that we examined, and our own experience, seem to suggest otherwise. (Gudmundsdottir, 2007). The growing body of research as well as practical suggestions for program organization, teacher education and classroom applications form a base of knowledge for discussions about arts integration that is grounded in actual experience rather than in perception. Researchers, artists, teachers and teacher educators together have roles to play in sorting out differences between evidence and perception, fact and belief. As debates continue between those supporting arts as disciplines and those arguing for arts integration, our suggestion is to move beyond dichotomous discussions in order to explore the outcomes and implications of learning and, especially, teaching in integrated learning environments. Our hope is that researchers and practitioners, working together, can continue to engage in more in-depth research on the role of arts integration in education so that recommendations and decisions regarding arts integration are based less on belief and more on evidence – as difficult as it may be to produce reliable evidence. We conclude our review of the issues surrounding arts integration across the curriculum with this quote from philosopher David Best (1995): ...the value and intelligibility of integrated work will always depend ultimately on particular cases. Whether and when it is educationally enlightening to work with other subjects, whether arts or non-arts, will depend, as all education ought to depend, primarily upon the informed professional judgment of teachers who are expert in their particular fields. It will depend upon our having confidence in well- educated teachers. They are in the best position to make sound decisions about the value of working collectively with other disciplines. (p. 38) References & Related Readings Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barrett, J. R., McCoy, C. W., & Veblen, K. K. (1997). Sound ways of knowing: Music in the interdisciplinary curriculum. New York: Schirmer / Wadsworth. Beane, J. A. (1991). The middle school: The natural home of integrated curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 9-13. Beane, J. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press. Beane, J. & Brodhagen, B. (1996). Doing curriculum integration. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Berghoff, B. (2005). Views of learning through the arts in elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montréal, Canada. Berghoff, B., Bixler, C. & Parr, N.C. (2006). Semiotic cycles of learning in the arts. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 22(1), 87-118. Best, D. (1995). Collective, integrated arts: The expedient generic myth. Arts Education Policy Review, 97(1), 32-39. Retrieved online September 23, 2005 via McGill University Library. Borgmann, C.B. (2005). Views of learning through the arts in teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montréal, Canada. Borgmann, C.B., Berghoff, B., & Parr, N.C. (2001). Dispositional change in pre-service classroom teachers through the aesthetic experience and parallel processes of inquiry in arts integration. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 17(1), 61-77. Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96 (5), 31-37. 7 Bresler, L. (2003). Out of the trenches: The joys (and risks) of cross-disciplinary collaborations. Council of Research in Music Education, 152, 17-39. Bumgarner, C.M. (1994) Artists in the classrooms: The impact and consequences of the National Endowment for the Arts’ artist residency program on K-12 arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 95(3), 14-30. Burton, J., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (1999). Learning in and through the arts: Curriculum implications. Washington, D.C.: Champions of Change Report, The Arts Education Partnership, and the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. Chrysostomou, S. (2004). Interdisciplinary approaches in the new curriculum in Greece: A focus on music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 10(5), 23-29. Consortium of National Arts Education Organizations. (1994). National standards for arts education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Coufal, K.L. & Coufal, D.C. (2002). Colorful wishes: The fusing of drawing, narratives, and social studies. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 23(2), 109-121. Cowan, K.W. (2001). The arts and emergent literacy. Primary Voices, 9(4). 11-18. Crumpler, T. (2002). Scenes of learning: Using drama to investigate literacy learning. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 18(1), 55-74. Deasey, R. (Ed.) (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington: Arts Education Partnership. DeMoss, K., & Morris, T. (2002). How arts integration supports student learning. Students shed light on the connections. Retrieved online July 15, 2006 from http://www.capeweb.org/demoss.pdf Detels, C. (1999). Soft boundaries: Re-visioning the arts and aesthetics in American education. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Putnam. Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Efland, A. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual arts. New York: Teachers College Press. Efland, A. (2002). Art and cognition, integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E.W. (1985). Learning and teaching the ways of knowing: Eighty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art. New York: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic, Gee, C. B. (2003). Uncritical pronouncements build critical links for federal arts bureaucracy. Arts Education Policy Review, 104 (3), 17-20. Gee. C.B. (2004). Spirit, mind and body: Arts education the Redeemer. In E. Eisner and M. Day (Eds.) Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 115-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Goldberg, M. (2001) Arts and learning: An integrated approach to teaching and learning in multicultural and multilingual settings (2nd ed.). New York: Longman/Addison Wesley. Groves, P., Gerstl-Pepin, C. I., Patterson, J., Cozart, S. C., McKinney, M. (2001). Educational resilience in the A+ Schools Program: Building capacity through networking and professional development. Winston-Salem, NC: Thomas S. Kenan Institute for the Arts. Gudmundsdottir, H. (2007). Is music education thriving or on the brink of extinction? Research Seminar, McGill University) Hanley, M.S. (2002). Bird in the air: Critical multicultural education through drama. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 18(1), 75-98. Hetland, L. & Winner, E. (2000). The arts in education: Evaluating the evidence for a causal link. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 3-10. Horowitz, R. (2004). Summary of large-scale arts partnership evaluations. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Horowitz, R., & Webb-Dempsey, J. (2002). Promising signs of positive effects: Lessons from the multi-arts studies. In R. Deasey (Ed.), Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development (pp. 98-101). Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Maher, R. (2004). “Workin’ on the railroad:” African American labor history. Social Education, 68(5), 4-10. Mansilla, V.B. (2005). Assessing student work at disciplinary crossroads. Change, 37(1), 14-22. Marshall, J. (2005). Connecting art, learning, and creativity: A case for curriculum integration. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 227-241. Mason, T. C. (1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 263-270. McCammon, L. & Betts, D.J. (2001). Breaking teachers out of their little cells. Youth Theatre Journal, 15(1), 81-94. 8 McDermott, P., Rothenberg, J., & Hollinde, P. (2005). “Let me draw!” How the arts foster knowledge and critical thinking in an urban school. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 21(1), 119-138. Meban (2002). The postmodern artist in the school: Implications for arts partnership programs. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 3 (1). Retrieved online July 15, 2006 from http://ijea.asu.edu/v3/n1 Mello, R. (2001). The power of storytelling: How oral narrative influences children’s relationships in classrooms. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 2(1). Retrieved online July 15, 2006 from http://ijea.asu.edu/v2n1 Mello, R. (2004). When pedagogy meets practice: Combining arts integration and teacher education in the college. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 20(1), 135-164. Oreck, B. (2002). The arts in teaching: An investigation of factors influencing teachers’ use of the arts in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Oreck, B. (2004). The artistic and professional development of teachers: A study of teachers’ attitudes toward and use of the arts in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 55-69. Parr, N.C. (2005). Semiotic cycles of learning and the challenges of visual data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montréal, Canada. Parsons, M. (2004). Art and integrated curriculum. In E. Eisner and M. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 775-794). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Patteson, A. (2002). Amazing grace and powerful medicine: A case study of an elementary teacher and the arts. Canadian Journal of Education, 27(2&3), 269-289. Patteson, A. (2004). Present moments, present lives: teacher transformation through art-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada. Patteson, A., Upitis, R. & Smithrim, K. (2002). Teachers as artists: Transcending the winds of curricular change. In B. White & G. Bogardi (Eds.), Professional development: Where are the gaps? Where are the opportunities? Educators’ and artists views on arts education in Canada (pp. 83-100). Montréal, Canada: The National Symposium on Arts Education. Perkins, D. (1989). Selecting fertile themes for integrated learning. In H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 67-76). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Russell, J. (2006). Preservation and development in the transformative zone: Fusing disparate styles and traditions in a pedagogy workshop with Cuban musicians. British Journal of Music Education. 23 (2). Russell, J. & Zembylas, M. (2006). Arts integration in the curriculum: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. In Bresler, L. (Ed.) The international handbook of education in the arts. Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers. Trainin, G., Andrzejcak, N. & Poldberg, M. (2005). Visual arts and writing: A mutually beneficial relationship. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 21(1), 139-156. Upitis, R., Smithrim, K., Patteson, A., & Meban, M. (2001). The effects of an enriched elementary arts education program on teacher development, artist practices, and student achievement: Baseline student achievement and teacher data from six Canadian sites. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 2(8). Retrieved online July 15, 2006 http://ijea.asu.edu Upitis, R., & Smithrim, K. (2003). Learning Through The Arts™: National assessment 1999-2002 Final Report to the Royal Conservatory of Music. Toronto: The Royal Conservatory of Music. Veblen, K. & Elliott, D.J. (2000). Integration: For or against? General Music Today, 14(1), 4-12. Waldorf, L. A. (2002). The professional artist as public school educator: A research report of the Chicago Arts Partnerships inn Education, 2000-2001. UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. Wilson, B., Corbett, D., & Noblit, G. (2001). Executive summary: The arts and education reform: Lessons from a 4-year evaluation of the A+ Schools Program 1995-1999. North Carolina School of the Arts, NC: Thomas S. Kenan Institute for the Arts. Wilson, M. (2002). Integrated arts: A partnership model for teacher education. Symposium paper. In B. White and G. Bogardi (Eds.), Professional development: Where are the gaps? Where are the opportunities? Educators’ and artists’ views on arts education (pp. 119-126). National Symposium on Arts Education. Wineberg, S. & Grossman, P. (Eds.). (2000). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation. New York: Teachers College Press. Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Executive Summary. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 3(4), 1-10. Winner, E. (2003). Beyond the evidence given: A critical commentary on Critical Links. Arts Education Policy Review, 104(3), 1-13.