Arts in Education

Studies based on the contribution of art to children's holistic development claim its relevance to professional development, especially within the field of SEN (Craft et al., 2008; Peter & Walter, 2010) by highlighting the significance of emotion for cognition and learning. Findings from neuroscience (Iverson, 1996) propose that emotionally coloured experiences are more readily etched in the memory, through integrated processing of emotionally charged activity, unlike the disconnected experiences of those with autism, where brain functioning impairs evaluation of feelings (Damasio, 2004). Bruner (1986) highlighted the importance of analytical and paradigmatic thinking and that education systems should be promoting both logical types of activity and also narrative, holistic activity as in creativity.

Integrating the Arts in schools (Flowers, 1998; Gould, 2000; Schramm, 2002), through collaboration with art teachers and specialists (Tunks, 1997; Burnaford et al., 2001), has been shown to bring multifaceted rewards. For example, increasing creativity and higher-order thinking skills in students (Burnaford et al., 2001; Brown, 2007); higher levels of student interest and motivation (Flowers, 1998; Burnaford et al., 2001; Schramm, 2002; Brown, 2007); higher academic achievement and standardised test scores (Tunks, 1997; Gould, 2000; Burnaford et al., 2001) and greater levels of community involvement (Gould, 2000; Burnaford et al., 2001).

This approach is in line with Dewey's (1934) belief that having an experience such as art leads to curiosity and inquiry. Influenced by Dewey (1934), Eisner (2004) stressed the importance of creating conditions for students to have experiences in the classroom. In addition, Witkin's (1974) work relates to knowing through the senses and to 'aesthetic learning' as to do with sensate knowledge through direct experience.

In developmental psychology (Eyiah, 2004), it has been found that art as a subject can cater for all types of knowledge and is central to life. Art helps people manage personal resources to achieve optimum satisfaction and fulfilment (Maslow, 1968). Moreover, art, music, dance, and drama help people to form their own opinions, applying aesthetic ideas to their own situation. Thus, they may become self-reliant economically, socially, philosophically, and culturally (Eyiah, 2004). Art promotes creativity through its inter- disciplinary approach to learners' development (Alexenberg, 2010).

Gardner's (1983) theory focused on alternative ways of thinking, leading to a broad vision of education as it involves opting for depth over breadth. According to Gardner (1983), people who create art apply their multiple intelligences: manual skills, physical intelligence, intelligence of their heart, competency of thinking, and literacy; which, in turn, enhance the informed experience (McNiff, 1993; Peter, 1995; Elliott, 1998; Robinson, 2006, 2010; Craft et al., 2008).

Gardner (1999) maintained that effective arts education presupposes two conditions: a mind/brain that is capable of mastering the Arts, and a supportive environment. His theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI), although contested, provides a common-sense basis for education in the Arts. According to this theory, all human beings possess a number of intellectual potentials. Schools have generally addressed the linguistic and logical intelligences, but other institutions and situations can encourage the nurturance of at least six other intelligences: spatial, musical, naturalistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and bodily-kinaesthetic.

The majority of recent cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology research programmes on human mental abilities have focused on three core explanatory paradigms for human cognition (Waterhouse, 2006). These are general intelligence, multiple information processing systems, and adapted cognition modules. These quasi-theories of the brain are significant for the learning process as they guide the practice of teaching, integrating all dimensions of the learner. Waterhouse (2006) claims that three theories—Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory (Gardner, 1983), the Mozart Effect (ME) theory (Rauscher et al., 1993), and Emotional Intelligence (EI) theory (Salovey & Mayer, 1990)—have impacted the education field but generated serious problems as they lack empirical evidence support. MI theory has no validating data, the ME theory has more negative than positive findings (Waterhouse, 2006), and EI theory lacks a unitary empirically supported construct (Waterhouse, 2006). This is in contrast to cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience that have better empirical support.

The claim concerning the lack of empirical evidence support of MI theory is defended by Chen (2004) stating that “intelligence is not a tangible object that can be measured” (p. 22). She suggests that the novelty of these intelligences requires new measures and that MI theory has already been validated through its successful classroom application.

Chen (2004) further claimed that MI theory better accounts for cognitive skill profiles in both brain-injured and typical individuals than do IQ measures. Both Chen (2004) and Gardner (2004) hold that evaluating the positive outcomes of applying the MI theory in a range of educational settings can be viewed as empirical support. According to Waterhouse (2006), none of Chen’s five arguments can serve to exempt MI theory from the need for validating empirical data lack of empirical evidence for MI Theory.

However, nothing in the Kuhn vs. Popper debate (Fuller, 2004) suggested that theories should be tested by experimental methods. Although Gardner (2004) admitted that “it is important to identify defining features” (p. 214), he stated that he has not proposed testable components for the intelligences because his “basic paradigm clashes with that of psychometrics” (p. 214). Without defined components the intelligences cannot be tested for validity (Allix, 2000; Fuller, 2004).

Gardner claims that “it is difficult to specify how multiple intelligences work synergistically on complex tasks” (Gardner & Connell, 2000, p. 292) and concluded that EI could successfully be measured by self-report scales.

According to Gardner (1999), each intelligence can be mobilized for the Arts. Moreover, Gardner argues that the Arts should be framed as motivational, and as a way of learning a variety of disciplines, "Parts of the brain are dedicated to the Arts, and it's a shame not to develop these parts," (Hildebrand, 2004, p. 59). Therefore Gardner calls for a broader vision of education, as an environment that stimulates creativity within both personal and professional dimensions of learners (Waterhouse, 2006).

Art integrates learners' perception of experience contrary to the linear logical thinking defined by narrow boundaries, leading towards a united image of experience by connecting its varieties. Hence, art may create a dialogue between outer expression and inner feelings and the internal mind/body dichotomy (Bruner, 1963). The developmental process within personality through art and creativity is inspired by cognitive psychology, personality, and developmental theories (Vygotsky, 1997; Steiner, 2003).

In the second half of the 20th century, the shift towards a child-centred pedagogical and curricular approach paved the way for embedding art and creativity within educational pedagogy (U.S.A. National Curriculum, 1989, 1999; Salant, 2008-2012). The fact that

the Arts are not included in educational policy reflects governments' more recent concerns with global economic functioning and preparation of the workforce with skills in numeracy, literacy, and computing. Hence, the Arts are not seen as a priority in initial teacher education nor in continuing professional development of in-service teachers. However, there is a need for creative, flexible, life-long thinkers who can be problem- solvers, negotiators, and adaptable within fast-changing systems, as demonstrated in NACCCE 'All our Futures Report' (DfEE, 1999) and Craft's view on 'possibility thinking' and the importance of creativity (Craft et al., 2008).

Peter (1998) raises the question whether Leonardo was an artist or a scientist, arguing that one cannot distinguish between art and science, particularly with the development of culture and technology. According to her, art includes an option of integrating pupils' knowledge, skills, and comprehension of themselves and of their unique forms of expression. In fact, art allows practice and combinations of meanings and interpretations and encourages attention to oneself and to others. Creating the inner experience – thought and emotions – provides a tool that embodies the inner experience, forming it so that it creates a bridge to the communication between oneself and others as well as empathy for others (Rosenblum, 2010).

Art is a natural means of self-expression, and so there is an argument for increasing the awareness of the contribution of the Arts to pupils with and without special educational needs (SEN). Research findings indicate the significant role and contribution of non- verbal modalities for working with children with SEN. These findings highlight the impact of play, drama, and movement (Sherratt & Peter, 2002; Peter, 2003; Peter and Walter, 2010) and art (Knill et al., 2005; Moon, 2007; Atkins & Williams, 2007; McNiff, 2009) as enhancing communication, social interaction, imagination, creativity, and flexible thinking. According to Carter (1991), Peter (2003), and Park (2010), this creative combination of non-verbal and verbal channels of communication is significant for children with SEN as a tool for building their social competence and social understanding.

Using the creative arts in teaching in higher education can engage and empower individuals who learn in different ways (Gardner, 1983), and who may have been excluded from traditional forms of learning that value cognitive and verbal means of learning and assessment (Simons & Hicks, 2006). Evaluation of a creative arts module

in higher education (Simons & Hicks, 2006) using drama, movement, music, and visual art as teaching methods, indicates its positive influence on students' learning. Therefore, Simons and Hicks (2006) argue that, given the current emphasis on inclusive education, an opportunity exists to use the creative arts as a bridge to facilitate inclusion and open doors to those previously disenfranchised in the education system.

Dunn-Snow & D'Amelio (2000) suggest four ways by which educators can enhance the therapeutic aspects of their lessons through the use of art: (1) recognise the similarities between the therapeutic and creative processes; (2) empathetically talk with students about their artwork; (3) understand the Expressive Therapies Continuum (ETC); and (4) work in collaboration with faculty and staff members.