Teaching and Learning How to Create in Schools of Art and Design

References

• Awang, H., & Ramly, I. (2008). Creative thinking skill approach through problem-based learning: Pedagogy and practice in the engineering classroom. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 2(4), 334–339.
   Google Scholar
• Balfour, A. (Ed.). (1981). The architecture education study. New York, NY: Mellon Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Botella, M., Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2011). A dynamic and ecological approach to the artistic creative process of arts students: An empirical contribution. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29(1), 17–38. doi:10.2190/EM.29.1.b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresler, L. (Ed.). (2007). International handbook of research in arts education. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buster, K., & Crawford, P. (2010). The critique handbook: The art student’s sourcebook and survival guide (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, J. (1992). The artist’s way: A spiritual path to higher creativity. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Chávez, V., & Soep, E. (2005). Youth radio and the pedagogy of collegiality. Harvard Educational Review, 75(4), 409–434. doi:10.17763/haer.75.4.827u365446030386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A., & Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 109–127). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cossentino, J., & Shaffer, D. W. (1999). The math studio: Harnessing the power of the arts to teach across disciplines. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33(2), 99–109. doi:10.2307/3333689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costello, F., & Keane, M. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 299–349. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2402_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council on Competitiveness. (2005). Innovate America: National innovation initiative summit and report. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, C., Harrison, S., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Applying the “studio model” to learning technology design. In C. DiGiano, S. Goldman, & M. Chorost (Eds.), Educating learning technology designers (pp. 145–164). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1992). Modelling the design process. Journal of Engineering Design, 3(4), 325–337. doi:10.1080/09544829208914765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1997). Descriptive models of creative design: Application to an example. Design Studies, 18, 427–455. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00010-0
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 112–148). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• D’Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M., Hawley, P., McMullan, B., & Spilka, G. (1997). Design as a catalyst for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• DeZutter, S. (2008). Cultural models of teaching in two non-school educational communities ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
   Google Scholar
• Elkins, J. (2012). What do artists know? University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elkins, J. (2014). Art critiques: A guide (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: New Academia.
   Google Scholar
• Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). A discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Greeno, J. G., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2016). Some early contributions to the situative perspective on learning and cognition. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 59–75). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27–51. doi:10.1080/10400418809534285
   Google Scholar
• Halverson, E. R. (2013). Digital art-making as a representational process. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 121–162. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.639471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). Arts education and the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 626–646). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harwood, E. (2007). Artists in the academy: Curriculum and instruction. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 313–334). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207–236. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2302_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hundhausen, C. D., Fairbrother, D., & Petre, M. (2011, August). The “prototype walkthrough”: A studio-based learning activity for human-computer interaction courses. Paper presented at the ICER (International Computing Education Research), Providence, RI.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1980). Culture and inference: A Trobriand case study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Searle, K. A. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556. doi:10.17763/haer.84.4.46m7372370214783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., … Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lasky, D., & Yoon, S. A. (2011). Making space for the act of making: Creativity in the engineering design classroom. Science Educator, 20(1), 34–43.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, N. (2009). Project methods as the vehicle for learning in undergraduate design education: A typology. Design Studies, 30(5), 541–560. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2009.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945. doi:10.1111/tcre.2003.105.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, J., Bridges, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2014). Problem-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 298–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lubart, T. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mace, M., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 179–192. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau, C. P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 13–22. doi:10.1086/jcr.2005.32.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Rieter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122. doi:10.1080/10400419109534380
   Google Scholar
• Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 21–43). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ockman, J. (Ed.). (2012). Architecture school: Three centuries of educating architects in North America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, Y., Ishikazi, S., Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y.-L. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302–325. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Innovating to learn, learning to innovate. Paris, France: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Paper Monument. (Ed.). (2012). Draw it with your eyes closed: The art of the art assignment. Brooklyn, NY: n+1 Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Peppler, K. A. (2010). Media arts: Arts education for a digital age. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 2118–2153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt Institute. (2013). The art of the art and design assignment. New York, NY: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 44–62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L., White, A., Callahan, C., & Hartman, R. (2001). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students, rev. ed. Manual and nine rating scales. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester, UK: Capstone.
   Google Scholar
• Salazar, S. M. (2013). Studio interior: Investigating undergraduate studio art teaching and learning. Studies of Art Education, 55(1), 64–78.
   Google Scholar
• Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Emergence in creativity and development. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K. (2016). How artists create: An empirical study of MFA painting students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London, UK: Royal Institute of British Architects.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388. doi:10.1080/10400410409534549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality: Understanding excellence in arts education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy (Working Paper No. 2003-11). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In R. A. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 99–125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Somerson, R., & Hermano, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). The art of critical making: Rhode Island School of Design on creative practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Stouffer, W. B., Russell, J. S., & Oliva, M. G. (2004, June). Making the strange familiar: Creativity and the future of engineering education. Paper presented at the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1994). A cognitive/cultural anthropology. In C. Strauss, N. Quinn, & R. Borofsky (Eds.), Assessing cultural anthropology (pp. 284–297). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. W. (Ed.). (1959). The third (1959) University of Utah research conference on the identification of creative scientific talent. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, E. W. (2006). Making meaning of local nonformal education: Practitioner’s perspective. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), 291–307. doi:10.1177/0741713606289122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, E. W., & Caldarelli, M. (2004). Teaching beliefs of non-formal environmental educators: A perspective from state and local parks in the United States. Environmental Education Research, 10(4), 451–469. doi:10.1080/1350462042000291001
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, B. E. (2002). Studio pedagogy for engineering design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(1), 39–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114–143. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00923.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. News and World Report. (2016). Best fine arts schools. Retrieved from http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-fine-arts-schools
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, T. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Wallach, M. A. (1988). Creativity and talent. In K. Grǿnhaug & G. Kaufmann (Eds.), Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 13–27). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waters-Eller, S., & Basile, J. J. (2013). Beyond critique: Different ways of talking about art. Baltimore: Maryland Institute College of Art.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 63–87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar