Toward an Aspirational Learning Model Gleaned from Large-Scale Assessment

References

• Ambrose, D., Cohen, L. M., & Tannabaum, A. J. (2003). Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T. (1993). Defining and structuring art criticism for education. Studies in Art Education, 34(4), 199–208.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, T., & Clark, G. (Eds.). (1995). Lessons for teaching art criticism. Retrieved from ERIC database. (392658).
   Google Scholar
• Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 41–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, T. (2011). Lessons learned from the Bundled Visual Arts Assessment. Visual Arts Research, 37(1), 79–95.
   Google Scholar
• Broudy, H. S. (1987). The role of imagery in learning. Los Angeles, CA: Getty.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, D. (2012, April). The so-called achievement gap between white and black students on 2008 NAEP assessment. In R. Diket (Chair), Discussing educational policy and implications. Symposium conducted at the AERA National Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Diket, R., Burton, D., McCollister, S., & Sabol, R. (2000). Taking another look: Secondary analysis of the NAEP Report Card in the Visual Arts. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 202–207.
   Google Scholar
• Dorn, C. (2003). Models for assessing art performance (MAAP): A K-12 project. Studies in Art Education, 44(4), 350–371.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, E. B. (1976). Visual literacy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10(4), 195–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (1990). Arts and human development. Los Angeles, CA: Getty.
   Google Scholar
• Greer, D. W. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 212–218.
   Google Scholar
• Gude, O. (2007). Principles and possibilities: Considerations for a 21st century art & culture curriculum. Art Education, 60(1), 6–17.
   Google Scholar
• Hagaman, S. (1990). The community of inquiry: An approach to collaborative learning in art. Studies in Art Education, 31(3), 149–157.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 22.0) [computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
   Google Scholar
• jagodzinski, j. (2012). Commentary: Materialist nonrepresentational thought. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 54(1), 84–87.
   Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Keiper, S., Sandene, G. A., Perskey, H. R., & Kuang, M. (2009). The nation’s report card: Arts 2008 music and visual arts. (NCES 2009-488). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, S. (2008). Comic liberation: The feminist face of humor in contemporary art. Art Education, 61(2), 47–52.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, R. L. (2001). The influence of external evaluations on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. ED457243.
   Google Scholar
• McCollister, S. (2002). Developing criteria rubrics in the art classroom. Art Education, 55(4), 46–52.
   Google Scholar
• National Assessment Governing Board. (1994a). Arts education assessment and exercise specifications; excerpts for the visual arts. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
   Google Scholar
• National Assessment Governing Board. (1994b). 1997 & 2008 arts education assessment framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/arts-framework08.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2011). A snapshot of arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 2009-10 (NCES 2011-078). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10 (NCES 2012–014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Persky, H. R., Sandene, B. A., & Askew, J. M. (1999). The NAEP 1997 arts report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
   Google Scholar
• Rea, D. (2003). Optimal motivation for creative intelligence. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen, & A. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 221–236). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reeff, J., Zabal, A., & Blech, C. (2006). The assessment of problem-solving competencies: A draft version of a general framework. Bonn, Germany: German Institute of Adult Education. Retrieved from www.die-bonn.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-2006/reeff06_01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other cognitive domains. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stankiewicz, M. A. (1999). Spinning the arts NAEP. Arts Education Policy Review, 101(1), 29–32.
   Google Scholar
• The College Board. (1994). Arts education assessment and exercise specifications: Excerpts for the visual arts. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
   Google Scholar
• Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, B. G. (1967). The development and testing of an instrument to measure aspective perception of paintings (doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus. Retrieved from University Microfilms. (No. 66-15, 153).
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, E. (2003). How should students’ progress and achievements in art be assessed? A case for assessment that is responsive to diverse students’ needs. Visual Arts Research, 29(1), 96–102.
   Google Scholar