First, I read the Greene (2005) chapter in Fosnot (2005), A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Arts. The chapter, like the others in the text wasn’t empirical in nature but I used it as a foundational text to inform the structure of the café and the nature of the research I did. Then, I read the abstracts for a number of empirical articles, but I ultimately focused on those that were applied action research. I wanted the readings to be practical so they would speak to concrete activities for participants in the café. I settled on three articles, each addressing a different population of learners in higher education: Blatt-Gross (2019) examined pre-experience learners in an art-appreciation class new to art practice where it was unrelated to their degree program, Alter (2014) looked at pre-experience teachers learning about teaching arts education who were participating in an entirely online format, and Cocchiarella & Booth (2015) discussed art students in an interdisciplinary work experience as part of a practical arts program. Each of the articles approached the structure of arts education experiences differently, but all were primarily constructivist.

Constructivism and arts education are closely aligned. Greene (2005) in Fosnot (2005) described constructivism as a rejection of an objective truth as it relates to the arts. I took away quite a lot of this chapter and this perspective. The arts is not a field where empiricism is required, which I think helps to avoid some of the tensions in other fields where constructivism as an epistemology/pedagogy meets positivism. So, learning item 1 is: Where Greene resonated with me most strongly is in the quest into the art world as a community of practice, or the “constructed reality” of the arts (p. 114). This informed the rest of my research as I considered learning experiences that would let learners into the arts community whether in understanding how to look at art or participating in making art.

Learning item 2: Greene also elucidates nuances between individual and social constructions of knowledge. Something I took away from this discussion was how connections form in communities of practice around mutually constructed codes used to shape those constructed realities mentioned in learning item 1. Greene (2005) describes how a painting will mean something different to each individual who looks at it but will also bring together everyone who looks at it, connecting them or, making a claim on each mind creating a province of meaning where the subject has as much to say about reality as the object. The process of deciphering meaning is ongoing in how it changes the public, that generates further change and begins the process again (reminds me of accommodation and assimilation).

Learning item 3: These first two learning items were both reflected in and born out in the empirical research I did after reading the Greene chapter. In the first article, Blatt-Gross (2019) shows that participation and developing an actual, physical work helps to consolidate theoretical art criticism by applying knowledge to the care of others or the surrounds in which learning takes place. Using what learners learned about art to improve their environment expanded the community of practice to everyone in the environment. So, the idea of community doesn’t just apply to the community of learners, but radiates out to rope in family and friends, and on to the community at large.

Learning item 4: The above finding begs the question of whether moving arts education online limits the ripple effect constructivist strategies can have on community and belonging. Alter (2014) shows that online learning can be beneficial for building art understanding, practice, and community if: sufficient resources were made available for supporting technical aspects of art practice, choice was given in assignment options, and if multi-modal sources of input were included. The study found that sustaining the learning community was connected with motivation. Creating community and practicing together gave learners more confidence and motivation to learn. The way courses are set up should therefore offer opportunities for learners to shift their attitudes for learning to a more positive, participatory model.

Learning item 5: Such a participatory model was seen in both Blatt-Gross (2019) and Alter (2014) but neither pushed this model as far as Cocchiarella & Booth (2015). This final study demonstrated to me that such participatory or authentic learning experiences that consider the community of practice and the surrounds where the learning happens can’t successfully occur without meticulous planning by faculty. The researchers/facilitators attempted to facilitate the establishment of a sense of place in the learning, a relationship with clients, creative briefs, a cross-disciplinary studio, and rapport between learners and tutors/facilitators. Several of these 5 components were met with well-designed constructivist activities, especially the sense of place and the rapport building of instructors as facilitators. But facilitators felt they needed to restructure the learning activities to provide more support for learners’ interactions with clients and the creative brief. I think this is an important learning item since constructivism as a pedagogy shares connotations of discovery learning and other models of learning that are very open. Clearly, constructivist teaching techniques benefits from structure in the learning as other pedagogies also do.

1. Something I’ve been really working on is teasing out through-lines between seemingly disparate research papers in order to fully articulate an argument or idea. I absolutely think this assignment afforded me another opportunity to do that in a research field new to me.

2. I’ve also worked to exclude research that was interesting but not directly related to the key message I was trying to get across. I have occasionally aimed for volume of research rather than quality and providing research for others to introduce them to the subject area made me really reflect on why these articles were important to read and consider.

3. I found it really interesting to design activities around the articles. This isn’t directly tied to research in the café, but in thinking about replicating research later on, it was interesting to consider how one might design a study to test the conclusions presented in the action research, which I kind of did at a micro level in the café pages in the design of the activities.

I used the articles I selected to help me design specific experiences for the café. I took ideas from each article (and a bit of influence from ETEC540) to construct instructions for participants to create artifacts. Each artifact also varied by level of prior art knowledge. I offered support in technical art aspects that were optional (taking inspiration from Alter, 2014). So, the Blatt-Gross (2019) piece generated a basic introduction to art-making focused on collaboration where participants were invited to pitch a lesson plan for an arts lesson taking into consideration key takeaways from the Blatt-Gross article. Alter (2014) generated an exploration of an online exhibition with a visual note, inspired by Alter’s notes on online exhibits and diary-keeping. The most art-based piece was generated by the Cocchiarella & Booth (2015) article and asked participants to explore interdisciplinarity by visualizing a concept from a different field familiar to the participant.

I also incorporated an exploration of prior knowledge before participants read the pages, via a Padlet page to help prompt participants to consider which page they’d want to explore based on how much prior art knowledge they had. I chose Padlet to differentiate this discussion from the meatier one with the artifacts. Padlet encourages brevity and less formality, I think.

Finally, the Greene (2005) chapter helped me to form the shape of the café into the hero’s journey by describing the construction of arts learning as a quest. I also used selected quotes from the chapter to start each page and frame the activities found there. The discussion forum housed the artifacts and generated conversation about what everyone was making and learning which was different for everyone who participated, literally moving from the individual experience to a social one.

I keep coming back to the same basic point in how this course can be applied to my context – namely, stop the lecturing, stop the lecturing, stop the lecturing. I think that I can use the survey questions developed in Alter (2014) as a foundation for our own surveys assessing students’ experiences in online learning. I can also use the finding that learners preferred multi-modal input with ‘lectures’, or podcast-format inputs at no longer than 15 minutes. I have faculty who lecture for hours online so I might not win that battle, but I can chip away at it with evidence. The cross-disciplinary study yielded results that are harder for me to apply since only a few of our programs offer practicums, but the need for clear instruction giving and scaffolding is nevertheless something I can continue to carry forward (Cocchiarella & Booth, 2015). Last, I will absolutely use the finding that learners enjoy having a physical representation of their efforts that can be used to impact their communities in my designs. I feel that way about my MET experience when I’m able to take something I’ve done and translate it directly into a portfolio piece or apply it directly to a learning design I’m creating at work. Giving learners the opportunity for meaningful, concrete production that is collaborative in nature is extremely valuable.