The 2008 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A visual arts replication study

References

• Barkan, M. 1966. Curriculum problems in art education. In A seminar in art education research and curriculum development, ed. E. Mattil (U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. V-002), 240–55. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• Braunreuther, J. 2010. Public school arts classes and academic achievement: A study of the relationship between middle school outcome measures and the extent to which students engage in art courses. An unpublished dissertation. University of South Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Broudy, H. S. 1966. The structure of knowledge in the arts. In Aesthetic and criticism in art education: Problems in defining, explaining and evaluating art, ed. R. A. Smith, 23–45. Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. 1960. The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burton, D. 2001. A quartile analysis of the1997 NAEP Visual Arts Report Card. Studies in Art Education 43 (1): 5–40.
   Google Scholar
• Catterall, J. 1998. Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? A response to Eisner. Art Education 51 (4): 6–11.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2002. The arts and the transfer of learning. Critical Links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.
   Google Scholar
• Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. 1994. National standards for arts education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Diket, R. M., and T. M. Brewer. 2011. NAEP and policy: Chasing the tail of the assessment tiger. Arts Education Policy Review 112 (1): 35–47.
   Google Scholar
• Eisner, E. 1966. Concepts, issues and problems in the field of curriculum. In A seminar in art education research and curriculum development, ed. E. Mattil (U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. V-002), 222–25. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 1998. Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Art Education 51 (1): 7–15.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 1999. The National Assessment in the Visual Arts. Arts Education Policy Review 100 (6): 16–20.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2001. Should we create new aims for arts education? Arts Education 54 (5):6–10.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, E. 1972. Varieties of visual experience. New York: H.N. Abrams.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 1987. Varieties of visual experience. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
   Google Scholar
• Greer, W. D. 1984. Disciplined based art education: Approaching a subject of study. Studies in Art Education 25 (4): 212–18.
   Google Scholar
• Hatfield, T. A. 1999/2007. The unevenness of arts education policies. Arts Education Policy Review 101 (2): 5–13.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman-Davis, J. 2008. Why our schools need the arts. New York: Teacher's College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keiper, S., B. Sandene, H. Persky, and M. Kuang. 2009. The nation's report card: Arts 2008. Publication Number NCES 2009488. Accessed March 8, 2016, at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid = 2009488.
   Google Scholar
• Kollwitz, K. 1933. Self portrait drawing. Charcoal on laid brown paper. National Gallery of Art, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Lanier, V. 1963. Schismogenesis in contemporary art education. Studies in Art Education 5 (1): 10–19.
   Google Scholar
• McBurney, D. H., and T. L. White. 2010. Research methods: Eighth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• National Assessment Governing Board. 2008. 2008 Arts Education Assessment Framework. Project. 2008. Accessed June 17, 2014, at https://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/arts/2008-arts-framework.html
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Schiele, E. 1912. Self portrait, bust. Watercolor and pencil. Galerie St. Etienne, a promised gift to the National Gallery of Art.
   Google Scholar
• Siegesmund, R., R. Diket, and S. McCulloch. 2001. Re-visioning NAEP. Amending a performance assessment for middle school students. Studies in Art Education 43 (1):45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. A. 1966. Aesthetic and criticism in art education: Problems in defining, explainingand evaluating art. Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Stemler, S. E., and J. Tsai. 2008. Inter-rater reliability: Three common approaches. In Best practices in quantitative methods, ed. J. Osborne, 29–49. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Winick, D. M., A. P. Avallone, and M. Crovo. 2008. NAEP arts: Arts Education Framework Project. National Assessment Governing Board: US Department of Education. Accessed http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworksarts-framework08.pdf.
   Google Scholar