Integrated curriculum: What benefit?

Arts Education Policy Review

Volumn 103, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 31-36

  Brewer, Thomas M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899435944     PISSN: 10632913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10632910209600296     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bickley-Green, Cynthia. 1995. Math and art curriculum integration: A postmodern foundation. Studies in Art Education 37 (1): 6-18.
2. Brewer, Thomas. 1998. Arts advocacy and research: To what end? Arts Education Policy Review 99 (5): 16-20.
3. Brewer, Thomas. 2002. An examination of domain specific and instrumental instruction in art education. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Burton, Judith, Roth Horowitz, and Harold Abeles. 1999. Learning in and through the arts: The issue of transfer. Paper presented at AERA National Conference, Montreal, Canada
5. Colbert, Cynthia. 1984. The relationship of language and drawing in description and memory tasks. Studies in Art Education 25 (2): 84-91.
6. D’Amico, Victor. 1942. Creative teaching in art. Scranton, Penn.: International Book.
7. Efland, Arthur. 1990. A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual arts. New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Eisner, Elliot. 1991. What the arts taught me about education. Art Education 44 (5): 10-19.
9. Eisner, Elliot. 1997. Educating artistic vision. Reston, Va.: National Art Education Association.
10. Eisner, Elliot. 1998a. Limits and uses of research in the teaching of art. Videotape presentation at seminar. Research in Art Education. 1998 NAEA Conference, Chicago, 111.
11. Eisner, Elliot. 1998b. Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Art Education 51 (10): 7-15.
12. Florida Department of Education. 2000. Teacher preparation rule proposal. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida Department of Education.
13. Forseth, Sonia Daleki. 1980. Art activities, attitudes, and achievement in elementary mathematics. Studies in Art Education 21 (2): 22-27.
14. Hamblen, Karen. 1997. Theories and research that support art instruction of instrumental outcomes. Arts Education Policy Review 96 (3): 28-33.
15. Hope, Samuel. 1997. Drumbeats and cadences, creativity and education. In Proceedings and Recommendations for the Drumbeat96 Conference, ed. T. Brewer and D. Morris. University of Southern Mississippi: College of the Arts, 7-11.
16. Kindler, Anna. 1987. A review of rationales for integrated arts programs. Studies in Art Education 29 (1): 52-60.
17. Kindler, Anna. 1991. Integrated curriculum and the visual arts. Journal of Art Teachers 31: 5-7.
18. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. 1998. Program Standards for Elementary Teacher Preparation (Review and Comment Edition). Washington, D.C.: NCATE.
19. National Endowment for the Arts and Morrison Institute for Public Policy. 1995. Schools, Communities, and the Arts: A Research Compendium: .
20. Ross, Jerrold, and Ellyn Berk. 1991. Principal findings of the National Arts Education Research Center. New York: New York University Press.
21. Walker, Deck., and J. Schaffarzick. 1981. Comparing curricula. In Foundations for curriculum Development and Evaluation in art education, ed. G. Hardiman and T. Zemich, 213-241.
22. Winner, Ellen. 2000. The arts and academic improvement: What the evidence shows. Reston, Va.: National Art Education Association.
23. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. The NAEP arts report card, NCES 1999-486, by H.R. Persky, B.A. Sandene, and J.M. Askew. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
24. Willett, Leslie. 1992. The efficacy of using the visual arts to teach math and reading concepts. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center PS 020784. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.