FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W229602616> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W229602616 startingPage "275" @default.
• W229602616 abstract "By scrutinizing shifting and seemingly conflicting or diverging conceptualizations of and as well as recently published report of National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), we can gain some penetrating insights into changing state of affairs in field of art education. If we are willing to see and learn, there also are some valuable lessons for us in work of Committee on Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Their report, a comprehensive review and synthesis of diverse body of research findings on education, demands our attention, I will argue, because it illuminates some striking and instructive parallels between fields of art education and education, both at level of theory and at level of practice. For starters, each field vigorously seeks to understand nature, and implications of a complex human ability. The following conceptualization of and taken from Snow, Burns, and Griffin report, is illustrative. Art educators are invited to read paragraph, and then, to substitute for reading words art instruction, ability, and development, where appropriate: Effective instruction is built on a foundation that recognizes that ability is determined by multiple factors: many factors that correlate with fail to explain it; many experiences contribute to development without being prerequisites to it; and although there are many prerequisites, none by itself is considered sufficient. (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 3) If we agree that there are multiple factors, experiences, and prerequisites associated with artistic development (as with development), and that effective art like effective must address such multiplicities, then it becomes understandable that we would disagree as to what exactly they are and how they are related. Indeed, both fields have been engaged in heated, and at times, politicized and polarizing debates over theory-testing and theory-building activities, shifting conceptions of teaching, philosophical approaches, instructional strategies and outcomes, and curricular rationales-a debate in art education recently joined by Siegesmund (1998). Just as various educators have argued for either implicit or explicit alphabetic learning approaches, so, too, different art educators have argued for either child-centered or discipline-centered models (Jeffers, 1990), for formalist or contextualist approaches (Anderson & McRorie, 1997), and for expressionist or reconstructionist streams (Efland, 1990). Now Siegesmund (1998) argues for a single clearly articulated, persuasive, enduring educational rationale and an epistemological rationale (p. 211) for art education and with this, he wishes to close debate. As he puts it, further debate and lively philosophical discussion are a liability for educational policy (p. 199). At level of practice, debate among teachers centers on which of three classroom approaches to instruction is most effective: whole language, embedded phonics, and direct code. Briefly, whole language is an approach that is associated with meaningful and in which the emphasis is on connected text, with alphabetic learning assumed to go on implicitly (p. 198). This approach differs from that of embedded phonics, in which sound-spelling patterns are systematically embedded in connected text and from that of direct code, in which letter-sound correspondences and practice take place with various kinds of text (p. 198). Current studies of teachers using these approaches have yielded some important findings: groups of children learning to read using either whole language or embedded phonics approach showed no measurable gain in word over school year, while group using direct code approach exhibited growth in word (Foorman et al, in press; as cited in Snow, Burns, & Griffin p. …" @default.
• W229602616 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W229602616 creator A5077865955 @default.
• W229602616 date "1999-04-01" @default.
• W229602616 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W229602616 title "Lessons for Art Education from Reading Education: A Commentary" @default.
• W229602616 cites W140051895 @default.
• W229602616 cites W1501218279 @default.
• W229602616 cites W2055584405 @default.
• W229602616 cites W2762247247 @default.
• W229602616 cites W2795983235 @default.
• W229602616 cites W28027280 @default.
• W229602616 cites W56807952 @default.
• W229602616 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W229602616 type Work @default.
• W229602616 sameAs 229602616 @default.
• W229602616 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W229602616 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W229602616 hasAuthorship W229602616A5077865955 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C2775922551 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C2775969163 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C90734943 @default.
• W229602616 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C127413603 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C144024400 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C154945302 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C15744967 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C166957645 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C17744445 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C19417346 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C199539241 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C2775922551 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C2775969163 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C41008148 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C554936623 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C55587333 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C78519656 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C90734943 @default.
• W229602616 hasConceptScore W229602616C95457728 @default.
• W229602616 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W229602616 hasLocation W2296026161 @default.
• W229602616 hasOpenAccess W229602616 @default.
• W229602616 hasPrimaryLocation W2296026161 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W124483474 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W1486507378 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W1488812207 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W1570706069 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W1592240057 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W1999437904 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2047823403 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2060691435 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2070893146 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2232645 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2297404232 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2377415299 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2550013476 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2600415913 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2625748940 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W269844676 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2750632834 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W1937852471 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2187971093 @default.
• W229602616 hasRelatedWork W2608530893 @default.
• W229602616 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W229602616 isParatext "false" @default.
• W229602616 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W229602616 magId "229602616" @default.
• W229602616 workType "article" @default.