Arts Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes on Arts Integration While Participating in a Statewide Arts Integration Initiative

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions and attitudes of the Beverley Taylor Sorenson Arts Learning Program (BTSALP) arts specialists on arts integration. BTSALP arts specialists (N = 50) throughout the state of Utah responded to a 20-item survey. Results indicated that a majority of BTSALP arts specialists believe that arts integration serves as a support for both arts and nonarts subjects. BTSALP art specialists also indicated that teacher collaboration is essential for effective integration models; however, collaboration continues to be one of the greatest challenges. Also, results indicated a need for arts integration training for undergraduate preservice arts specialists. Open-ended response questions revealed the perceived benefits of arts integration as a positive impact on students both academically and socially. The limitations of arts integration identified were time constraints, the inability to “teach art for the sake of art,” and a lack support from both teachers and administrators.

Keywords

elementary music methods general music integrated curriculum music education majors music teacher preparation nonmusic majors preservice teachers professional development team teaching undergraduate

The desire of educators and policymakers to improve education in the United States has led to an ongoing dialogue surrounding arts integration. Key to this exchange are publications such as Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning (Fiske, 1999) and Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development (Deasy, 2002). In these documents, the authors advocate for the arts in public schools and affirm the need for arts integration by highlighting the academic, social, and motivational benefits of the arts, such as increased academic achievement, enhanced student engagement, and an improved self-concept (Catterall, 2002).

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act brought about the recognition of the arts as a core academic subject and defined what every student should be able to do in each core subject area at respective grade levels. Goals 2000 emphasized the need for cross-curricula exchange between subject areas to empower students to become critical and creative thinkers (Battersby & Cave, 2014; Bohannon & McDowell, 2010). This benefit is amplified through arts integration, which provides students with occasions to engage in the subject material they are learning in their classroom with and through the arts—magnifying their creative problem-solving processes (Cornett, 2006). Integrated curricular practices can provide students with meaningful learning experiences, which may enable students to construct their own informed perspectives (Krug & Cohen-Evron, 2000) and learn concepts from several cognitive and experiential viewpoints (Cosenza, 2005). Often integrated projects provide both breadth and depth of concepts that later become selected experiences students remember throughout their lives (May, 2012). It has also been expressed that the arts are essential to promoting the necessary 21st-century skills of critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2010; Shuler, 2011).

In 2011, the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities released a document titled Reinvesting in Arts Education: Winning America’s Future Through Creative Schools that addresses the need for equitable and substantial arts education for all students to assist in closing the achievement gap, stimulating increased academic performance, and promoting creative thinking. It is possible that arts-integrated curricula can serve as a portal to develop these three academic components. As the discussion about the importance of arts education and the need to increase academic learning continues, some policymakers look toward arts integration models as a way to provide quality instruction in both arts and nonarts subjects. As more arts integration models develop, it is important for educators to critically examine what arts integration is, the challenges of implementation, and teacher training and professional development processes.

According to Burnaford, Brown, Doherty, and McLaughlin (2007), the term arts integration has evolved as national, state, and local leadership in both education and the arts have experimented with the various models of implementation. The Kennedy Center “Changing Education Through the Arts Program” defines arts integration as “an approach to teaching in which students construct and demonstrate understanding through an art form. Students engage in a creative process, which connects an art form and another subject area and meets evolving objectives in both” (Silverstein & Layne, 2010). At its core, arts integration is “combining at least one [core] subject (e.g., math, science, social studies) with an arts subject (e.g., music, art, and dance) to create a consolidated curriculum where both subject areas receive equal priority as a blended unit” (May, 2012). This process provides an opportunity for one to create, perform, and/or respond through the art form while simultaneously learning content in other subject areas.

The ideal arts integration model is one that presents an arts subject and a core academic subject with equal emphasis (Burnaford et al., 2007). Bresler (1995) identifies four arts integration “styles”: subservient integration, coequal integration, affective integration, and social integration. In the subservient integration model, the arts are used to serve the basic academic curriculum (e.g., singing a song on a theme presented in another discipline). The affective integration style is using the arts to evoke personal expression, and social integration is using the arts as a way to increase participation in community or school events. Coequal-cognitive is the style of integration widely accepted in scholarly articles and definitions, where both the art and core academic subjects are treated equally. However, the coequal-cognitive style of integration is the most difficult to put into practice because it requires content-specific knowledge, and skills that characterize expert teachers (Bresler, 1995). Due to the challenges of developing effective coequal-cognitive, integrative lessons, many arts and nonarts teachers resort to using subservient integration models.

Unfortunately, the interaction between arts content and core subjects is frequently superficial, where the arts are often subservient to other academic subjects (Bresler, 1995). For true arts integration, one content area should not overshadow another (Irwin, Gouzouasis, Grauer, & Leggo, 2006). Additionally, arts-integrated lessons should use both content areas in a way that makes practical and intellectual sense (Burnaford, 1993). Equal treatment of the content areas can occur only when there is a shift from emphasizing the differences between the subjects being taught to making connections between them, allowing more consequential learning (Bohannon & McDowell, 2010).

In an effort to encourage integrated learning in elementary schools, many colleges and universities require preservice early childhood and elementary education majors to take a methods course in one or more art form to become certified in their field (Battersby & Cave, 2014; Berke & Colwell, 2004). However, elementary classroom teachers often avoid arts integration due to a lack of self-efficacy in arts subjects, time, and priority (Battersby & Cave, 2014; Colwell, 2008; Jeanneret, 1997; Oreck, 2006; Siebenaler, 2006). According to Battersby and Cave (2014), for preservice teachers to implement music in their future classrooms, they need to develop not only skills and strategies in music but also confidence and self-efficacy.

Unlike early childhood and elementary preservice teachers, undergraduate preservice arts specialists often lack coursework opportunities that prepare them for teaching integrated curricula. However, like elementary classroom teachers, arts specialists face similar challenges with arts integration. Music specialists, in particular, find it difficult to balance teaching two subjects with the limited amount of time per week they have for music classes and to still be able to meet required music objectives and performance goals (Burnaford, 1993).

Another issue for arts integration is the time necessary for meaningful collaboration with classroom teachers (Whitaker, 1996). An effective and efficient collaborative team will have members with complementary skills and will communicate well to target important questions, analyze data, focus on the larger purpose, and communicate decisions (Cane, 2009). Arts integration should not be the task of the arts specialist alone but should be a collaborative effort of the team—a “two-way street” with equal responsibility for planning the collective goals and objectives (Berke, 2000; Cornett, 2007; Fisher & McDonald, 2004). Finally, music specialists are concerned about maintaining music integrity and validity, where music is not distorted or trivialized but connected meaningfully and organically to another subject (Barrett, 2001; Barrett, McCoy, & Veblen, 1997).

The document Arts Integration Frameworks, Research, and Practice: A Literature Review issued by the Arts Education Partnership identifies both large- and small-scale arts integration research studies, providing a glimpse into the design and implementation of several arts integration models (Burnaford et al., 2007). Some of the most common components mentioned in the research on arts integration models are in-service programs, arts-based professional development, side-by-side teaching of arts specialists and classroom teachers, artists in schools, university partnerships and mentoring, and community and philanthropic engagement. However, most arts integration models are a combination of these components (Andrews, 2006; Burnaford et al., 2007; Garrett, 2010; Ruppert, 2006; Scripp, 2000; Smithrim & Upitis, 2005).

The Utah Model

Utah founded the first state arts agency in 1899 with its “objective being to advance the interests of the fine arts, develop the influence of art in education and to foster the introduction of art in manufactures” (Utah Department of Administrative Services, n.d.). With Utah’s rich history of art in education, it was fitting that in March 2008, the Utah Legislature authorized the Beverley Taylor Sorenson Arts Learning Program (BTSALP), which was to promote arts education and arts integration in Utah elementary schools.

BTSALP is a statewide collaborative partnership with the State Office of Education, State Arts Council, State Parent Teacher Association, various community organizations, and six state higher education institutions. The purpose of BTSALP is to provide an “art-rich” education to Utah elementary children. The four components of the BTSALP model are (a) the integration of arts core into core subject areas, (b) planning time, (c) side-by-side teaching, and (d) professional development. The BTSALP model emphasizes integrating the arts with core subject areas as a strategy for improving the social, emotional, academic, and arts education of students in elementary schools.

Collaborative planning time between the arts specialists and classroom teachers is integral to the BTSALP model. The goal of the BTSALP is to design lessons that intentionally integrate the art core standards with other core subject matter. Arts specialists and classroom teachers are expected to blend their expertise by conducting integrated lessons together to improve student engagement and mastery of subject matter. BTSALP provides ongoing professional development through mentoring and on-site visits in which Professional Development Partners observe classrooms and offer feedback about lessons, provide additional resources, and attend planning meetings. In addition, partnering Utah universities host regional and state-level professional development meetings that provide arts integration training and resources to help schools implement the BTSALP model (Rorrer et al., 2011; Rorrer & Groth, 2009).

At the time of this study, 130 elementary schools throughout Utah were awarded a grant through the Utah State Office of Education to implement the BTSALP arts integration model. BTSALP Schools are organized geographically into six regions. Each region partners with one of the six participating state higher education institutions within the state, which has a program director who oversees the professional development, training, and mentoring of BTSALP arts specialists and classroom teachers in their respected regions. Additionally, individual mentors (Professional Development Partners) are assigned to each BTSALP arts specialist to collaborate, observe, and help implement effective and meaningful arts-integrated lessons.

Implementation of the BTSALP began during the 2008-2009 academic school year. Each participating school selected a primary art focus (i.e., drama, dance, music, or visual art) as part of their grant application (Rorrer et al., 2011; Rorrer & Groth, 2009). In 2011, the Utah Education Policy Center (UEPC) at the University of Utah conducted a third-year implementation evaluation of BTSALP. The evaluation revealed that visual arts were the chosen arts focus in 50% of the schools, followed by music (24%), dance (18%), and drama (8%) as the arts focus. Arts specialists reported a total of 18,538 integrated lessons during the 8-month data collection period in the 2010-2011 academic year. Implementation of arts integration occurred across four subject areas—math, science, social studies, and language arts—however, language arts was the most frequently integrated subject area across all art forms.

The third-year evaluation of the BTSALP conducted by the UEPC revealed successes and challenges with the implementation of arts integration. Reported successes were increased student engagement; increased enthusiasm for the arts; increased, albeit small but statistically significant, student achievement in the core content areas; and improved school culture, including teacher morale, parent attendance at arts-related events, and partnerships with community artists and art organizations (Rorrer et al., 2011). Consistent with arts integration research, reported challenges were inadequate time and opportunity for collaboration with classroom teachers and difficulty soliciting support and participation from classroom teachers and administrators (Rorrer et al., 2011).

Recommendations to remediate such challenges that were provided in the third-year evaluation were increasing the planning, contribution, and participation of classroom teachers with arts specialist teachers by implementing side-by-side arts integration instruction; increasing the participation of classroom teachers in arts integration professional development; and increasing the knowledge of arts specialists’ familiarity with core academic subject content (Rorrer et al., 2011).

Purpose of the Study

The successes and challenges identified in the third-year evaluation of the BTSLAP program conducted by the UEPC as well as an extensive review of arts integration literature prompted the need for this study. Specifically, the researchers wanted to obtain a better understanding of the perceptions and attitudes of BTSALP arts specialists about the role/support of classroom teachers and administrators, best practices and implementation processes, training and preparedness for teaching arts integration, and limitations and benefits of the BTSALP program. Two research questions guided this study:

Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of BTSALP specialists on arts integration and its implementation?

Research Question 2: What are the perceptions of BTSALP specialists on training and teacher preparation to implement arts integration?

Method

BTSALP arts specialists—music, visual art, dance, and theatre teachers—participated in this study. The researchers contacted the BTSALP program directors (N = 6) at each participating university, who provided a list of the BTSALP arts specialists’ names and contact information in their respected region. A comprehensive list was generated that consisted of 87 BTSALP arts specialists throughout the state. Although 130 schools participated in the BTSALP program, several teachers were itinerant, assigned to teach at more than one school.

The researchers e-mailed the BTSALP arts specialists a cover letter describing the study, consent of participation, and a link to the SurveyMonkey™ electronic survey. A week later, the researchers sent e-mail reminders to nonrespondents. Fifty participants responded to the survey, resulting in a 57% response rate.

The 20-question survey comprised 4 demographic questions, 12 Likert-type scale questions, and 4 open-ended response questions. The researchers used demographic questions to request information concerning the respondents’ art specialty or discipline, years of teaching experience, and primary methods of arts integration training. Both the Likert-scale questions and open-ended response questions were designed based on extensive review of existing arts integration literature and the UEPC third-year evaluation. The Likert-scale questions (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) were designed to determine BTSALP arts specialists’ perceptions and attitudes on the following topics: role/support, best practices and implementation processes, and training and preparedness (see Table 1). The open-ended response questions provided participants an opportunity to convey perceived benefits and limitations of the BTSALP program.

Table 1.

Summary of Data of Arts Specialist Perceptions and Attitudes about Arts Integration.

Questions	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
Role/support
I believe arts integration has the capacity to serve as a support for the arts.	—	2% (1)	—	20% (10)	78% (39)
I believe arts integration has the capacity to serve as a support for non-art subjects.	—	—	2% (1)	14% (7)	84% (42)
Best practices and implementation processes
I am able to equally integrate both an art subject with a non-art subject (e.g., math, science) in an integrated lesson.	—	2% (1)	2% (1)	36% (18)	60% (30)
I am able to meet both art and non-art objectives in an integrated lesson.	—	—	2% (1)	42% (21)	56% (28)
Teacher collaboration is important to successful arts integration practice.	—	—	10% (5)	36% (18)	54% (27)
I have an adequate amount of time to collaborate with non-arts teachers about integrated lessons.	4% (2)	26% (13)	30% (15)	32% (16)	8% (4)
In my experience, classroom teachers are actively involved and engaged in arts integrated lessons.	4% (2)	16% (8)	30% (15)	44% (22)	6% (3)
Training and preparedness
I believe it is important that undergraduate arts education majors (i.e., music, visual art, theater, dance) are knowledgeable about arts integration.	—	—	4% (2)	24% (12)	72% (36)
I believe it is important that undergraduate arts education majors (i.e. music, visual art, theater, dance) are taught how to plan and implement arts integration lessons.	—	—	6% (3)	22% (11)	72% (36)
I believe that my undergraduate degree program adequately prepared me to teach arts integrated curricula effectively.	10% (5)	37% (18)	22% (11)	16% (8)	14% (7)
I believe that my participation in continuing education opportunities (e.g., teacher workshops, professional development) following my undergraduate degree program adequately prepared me to teach arts integrated curricula effectively.	2% (1)	2% (1)	16% (8)	62% (31)	18% (9)
I believe there are a sufficient number of arts integration professional development opportunities.	4% (2)	18% (9)	24% (12)	42% (21)	12% (6)

The researchers piloted the survey with music education doctoral students and faculty members (N = 6), all of who had taught in public schools, to determine the validity and reliability of the survey. Piloting the survey ensured that the survey addressed the study’s research questions and that questions were unambiguous. At the conclusion of the pilot study, the researchers reworded one question and made minor editorial corrections. The institutional review board approved the survey for use in the study.

Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for individual questions and summed categories. The four open-ended response questions were coded and analyzed independently by the two researchers for reliability. Each researcher independently analyzed the open-ended responses to identify recurring language, concepts, and ideas, which were subsequently indexed, correlated, and collapsed into emerging themes. Emerging themes identified by each researcher were compared. Once themes were determined, open-ended response questions were coded, analyzed, and categorized accordingly. Several open-ended responses referenced more than one theme; therefore, each reference to a specific theme was counted each time it was referenced. To determine interrater reliability, the researchers divided the total number of agreements for each response categorized by the total number of agreements plus disagreements (i.e., 92/107). The interrater reliability for this study was 86%.

Results

Demographic data revealed that participants represented all art discipline areas, including music (30%), visual art (48%), dance (12%), and theatre (16%). Some participants identified as teaching more than one discipline. The amount of teaching experience of BTSALP arts specialists reported was 21 or more years (34%), 16 to 20 years (6%), 11 to 15 years (16%), 6 to 10 years (20%), and 0 to 5 years (24%). BTSALP arts specialists indicated that their primary training in arts integration derived from professional development (58%), conferences and workshops (60%), arts integration courses (28%), self-study (60%), and degree programs (54%). The total number of responses was more than the number of participants as participants were allowed to check multiple responses.

Based on a 5-point Likert-type scale, the majority (98%) of BTSALP arts specialists believed that an arts integration curriculum has the capacity to serve as a support of the arts (M = 4.74, SD = 0.56). The majority (98%) also believed that an arts integration curriculum has the capacity to serve as a support for nonarts subjects (M = 4.82, SD = 0.44). When teaching arts-integrated lessons, 96% of participants believed that they were able to equally integrate both art and nonart subjects into the lesson (M = 4.82, SD = 0.44). Additionally, 98% indicated that they were able to meet both art and nonarts objectives within the integrated lesson (M = 4.54, SD = 0.54).

According to 90% of the BTSALP arts specialists, teacher collaboration is an important component of successful arts integration practice (M = 4.54, SD = 0.54). However, 40% of participants indicated having an adequate amount of time to collaborate with nonarts teachers about integrated lessons (M = 2.86, SD = 1.03). Half (50%) of the BTSALP arts specialists indicated that classroom teachers are involved and engaged in arts-integrated lessons (M = 2.68, SD = 0.96).

About training and preparedness to teach an arts integrative curriculum, 96% of BTSALP arts specialists believed that undergraduate arts education majors (i.e., music, visual arts, theatre, and dance) should be knowledgeable about arts integration (M = 4.68, SD =0.55). Additionally, 94% of BTSALP arts specialists believed that undergraduate arts educations majors should be taught how to plan and implement arts integration lessons during their undergraduate training (M = 4.66, SD = 0.59). However, 30% of participants believed that their undergraduate degree program adequately prepared them to teach arts-integrated curricula effectively (M = 3.12, SD = 1.24). Many (80%) BTSALP arts specialists believed that continuing education opportunities (e.g., teacher workshops and professional development sessions) following their undergraduate degree program adequately prepared them to teach arts-integrated curricula (M = 3.92, SD = 0.78). More than half (54%) of participants believe that there are a sufficient number of arts integration professional development opportunities (M = 2.6, SD = 1.05). Tabulated results and a copy of the survey appear as supplemental material.

The researchers developed the open-ended questions to allow the participants to provide specific feedback and examples of their perceptions of arts integration. The BTSALP arts specialists’ perceived both academic and social benefits of arts integration. Academic benefits included increased student engagement, improved student behavior, and increased academic learning. Perceived social benefits of arts integration included increased self-esteem, improved interpersonal skills, and enhanced classroom community. One BTSALP arts specialist commented,

Students retain the information taught. Students are more motivated to learn. Students are physically, mentally, and emotionally involved. Critical thinking skills are enhanced. Creativity flourishes. Students learn to interact socially. They learn to lead, follow, listen, cooperate, etc. Peer relationships are strengthened. Students make more connections to the world around them. No doubt about it, it works!

Three overarching themes emerged about the perceived limitation of arts integration: lack of time for collaboration, limited amount of support from teachers and administrators, and the inability to teach art for the sake of art. BTSALP arts specialists indicated that there is a limited amount of time to create, develop, and implement arts-integrated curricula, especially with regard to planning and collaborating with classroom teachers. Furthermore, arts specialists indicated limitations such as a lack of classroom teacher participation and administrative support. One BTSALP arts specialist stated,

Limitations include getting all teachers and administrators “on board.” Sometimes it is difficult to find time to meet and collaborate with every teacher or grade. Also, it can be difficult for the arts teacher to come up with fresh, new ideas and lessons. . . . Classroom teachers have an outline or a scope and sequence to follow. Arts teachers have to create their own outlines and lesson plans, which can sometimes be challenging.

BTSALP arts specialists also indicated the inability to teach art for the sake of art as another limitation of arts integration. As one BTSALP arts specialist explained,

I see art integration as a way to cement topics that students are learning in other courses but perhaps not a way to adequately teach that other subject in its entirety. Sometimes I feel it undervalues the importance of teaching art for arts’ sake. . . . I think “art for arts sake” has gone away. We can’t just paint or draw or sculpt to create anymore, it has to be tied to math, science, language arts or social studies. I think that limits opportunities to be creative at some level.

Discussion

As active arts integration practitioners, BTSALP arts specialists throughout the state of Utah were surveyed in an effort to compare their perceptions of arts integration, its benefits, challenges, and implementation in relation to current research and literature. Research purports that cross-curricula exchange between subject areas empowers critical thinking (Battersby & Cave, 2014), magnifies creative problem-solving processes (Cornett, 2006), provides meaningful learning experiences (Krug & Cohen-Evron, 2000), and provides both breadth and depth in student learning (May, 2012). Policymakers are looking toward the arts to close the achievement gap, increase academic performance, and promote creative thinking among students (President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, 2011). Observations reported by BTSALP arts specialists in the open-ended response section of the survey were consistent with arts integration literature, as it was reported that the implementation of arts integration increased academic learning, promoted student engagement, and provided valuable social benefits such as improved behavior, self-esteem, interpersonal skills, and classroom community.

While some researchers have expressed concern that the interaction between arts content and core subjects is often superficial, with the arts being subservient to other academic subjects (Bresler, 1995; Irwin et al., 2006), BTSALP arts specialists indicated that they believe arts integration is beneficial to both arts and nonarts subjects. However, some BTSALP arts specialists expressed concern for being unable to teach art for the sake of art. Furthermore, researchers have expressed concern about maintaining integrity and validity of arts subjects in integrated lessons (Barrett, 2001; Barrett et al., 1997) and meeting required objectives and performance goals with the limited time arts teachers see their students (Burnaford, 1993). However, BTSALP arts specialists dispelled these concerns reporting that they believed that the arts could be integrated equally with nonarts subjects. BTSALP arts specialists also believed that meaningful learning objectives from more than one subject could be met in an integrated lesson.

A key component to arts integration is teacher collaboration. An effective and efficient collaborative team should include teachers with complementary skills who will share equal responsibility for planning collective goals and objectives to provide meaningful integrated lessons (Berke, 2000; Cornett, 2007; Fisher & McDonald, 2004). However, having enough time for meaningful collaboration with classroom teachers is often a challenge (Whitaker, 1996). BTSALP arts specialists confirmed that collaboration with classroom teachers is important; however, the time to create, develop, and implement arts-integrated curricula is limited.

There is a limited amount of research available discussing the most appropriate arts integration coursework and training for arts specialists. The researchers asked BTSALP specialists to reflect on their arts integration training and identify the primary sources of their training. BTSALP arts specialists indicated that it is important that undergraduate arts education majors (i.e., music, visual art, theatre, and dance) have an applicable understanding about arts integration and its implementation. However, the teachers were neutral (M = 3.12, SD = 1.24) as to whether their particular undergraduate degree program adequately prepared them to teach arts-integrated curricula effectively. Instead, BTSALP largely credited participation in continuing education opportunities such as teacher workshops and professional development sessions as their primary source for their arts integration preparation.

Conclusions

Arts integration is not new, and much of the focus on training preservice teachers to integrate the arts has focused on the training of elementary classroom teachers, not arts specialists. Arts integration is a collaborative effort where teachers from various specialties and backgrounds work together to create strong curricular connections. For best practices in arts integration to be actualized in the schools, it is necessary to train preservice arts specialists and classroom teachers on how to integrate effectively. Preservice arts specialists and classroom teachers should have opportunities to collaborate, develop, and implement integrated lessons to make meaningful connections between subjects.

According to Mason (1996), it is necessary to establish teacher preparation programs that focus on disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge. Mason claims,

It is inappropriate to ask preservice teaches to make connections among elements of the curriculum if they have no opportunities to observe, reflect upon, and engage in the development of interdisciplinary curriculum through the course of their teacher education experience. Nor can they integrate content if they do not possess adequate understanding of concepts within disciplines. (p. 269)

About the arts integration preparation and training of teachers, arts specialists, and administrators, one BTSALP arts specialist commented,

Arts integration is the best kind of instructional differentiation there is. It hooks all types of learners, builds reflective and collaborative capacities and deeply increases comprehension and retention of materials. Pre-service teachers and classroom teachers need more understanding as to the depth and breadth of benefits available through arts integration. Principals need training in the use and benefit of arts integration every bit as much as the classroom teacher. Universities do not yet adequately prepare their graduates, be they arts-based or education-based, in being able to integrate traditional core with arts cores. This is because the artists and educators do not collaborate sufficiently themselves. Integrative artist-educators belong in education departments (and not individual arts colleges), just as much as math and literacy specialists belong in education departments. Arts specialists should be placed in every school as an on-going support to arts integration, and to build integrative capacity within new and incoming teachers. Integration saves classroom time, and would even permit arts-only explorations.

It is important that music education teacher preparation programs in universities and colleges consider ways to increase the exposure of preservice music teachers to arts integration concepts. Preservice music teachers should have opportunities to learn how to create and implement lessons that effectively integrate music with other subjects. For effective integration to occur, preservice music teachers should be exposed to the standards of other subject areas.

Also, it is recommended that preservice music teachers have experience collaborating with elementary preservice teachers and/or practicing elementary classroom teachers. Collaboration with elementary teachers would expose preservice music teachers to the standards of other subject areas. Preservice music teachers should also be guided on the best ways to establish meaningful connections to ensure that academic learning occurs in all integrated subjects. Across the United States, several university–school partnership programs, such as ArtsBridge America, provide opportunities for preservice music, visual art, theatre, and dance teachers to collaborate and work in tandem with K–12 classroom teachers in order to create and implement lessons that integrate the arts.

At the University of Utah, a three-course sequence was developed for preservice elementary teachers to provide students with experience integrating the arts in actual elementary classrooms. The course sequence is composed of two courses in a specific arts discipline (i.e., music, visual art, theatre, and dance) and a cumulative integration course titled Integrating the Arts Into Academic Learning. This course provides preservice elementary teachers with a substantial amount of field experience working alongside an elementary classroom teacher to develop and execute integrated lessons of the four arts areas over the course of a semester. Preservice elementary teachers are guided through the development and delivery of integrated lessons by faculty representing all four arts discipline areas. Although this sequence of courses at the University of Utah is available to nonarts elementary majors, music preservice teachers are not afforded the same opportunities to study arts integration. This may be primarily due to the extensive requirements of the music education major and the limited flexibility in the degree schedule for allowing time for such coursework. Although music education majors may not need to take an extensive load of integration courses, particularly courses in the arts discipline areas, it is recommended that preservice music teachers have the opportunity to take a similar course in arts integration. This course would allow preservice music teachers to learn about the process of arts integration and its implementation into the curriculum, and provide field experience opportunities to learn how to develop, implement, and teach arts-integrated lessons with classroom teachers.

While the inclusion of a separate course into the overall music education curriculum may not be feasible, incorporating arts integration learning experiences in existing elementary music methods courses may be beneficial. Preservice music teachers could also be encouraged to develop and implement integrated lessons during their elementary music student teaching experience, where they will have the invaluable opportunity to collaborate with their mentor teacher and elementary classroom teachers.

The value of arts integration makes it worthy of discussion, continued research, and increasingly more effective implementation. Studies should consider various integration models to determine the most beneficial ways to introduce, expand, and institutionalize arts integration models that are currently in place or in development. Comparing the effectiveness of one arts integration models to another’s and exploring the different components used in each model can help establish best practices for the implementation of arts integration. An examination of the perceptions and attitudes of elementary and secondary teachers and administrators can assist in understanding the training and professional development needs in arts integration practice. Exploring what is being taught to arts specialists, classroom teachers, and administrators about arts integration in university teacher preparation and continuing education programs will assist in bettering the understanding of higher education curriculum development. Most important, this exploration will continue to raise awareness of an indispensable tool in the education of generations to come.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Andrews

(2006). Re-play: Re-assessing the effectiveness of an arts partnership in teacher education. International Review of Education, 52, 443–459. doi:10.1007/s1159-006-9003-2

Barrett

J. R.

(2001). Interdisciplinary work and musical integrity. Music Educators Journal, 87(5), 27–31. doi:10.2307/3399705

Barrett

J. R.

McCoy

Veblen

(1997). Sound ways of knowing: Music in the interdisciplinary classroom. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Battersby

Cave

(2014). Preservice classroom teachers’ preconceived attitudes, confidence, beliefs, and self-efficacy toward integrating music in the elementary curriculum. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 32(2), 52–59. doi:10.1177/8755123314521033

Berke

M. K.

(2000). Curriculum integration: A two-way street. General Music Today, 14(1), 9–12. doi:10.1177/104837130001400104

Berke

M. K.

Colwell

C. M.

(2004). Integration of music in the elementary curriculum: Perceptions of pre-service elementary education majors. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(1), 22–33. doi:10.1177/87551233040230010104

Bohannon

R. L.

McDowell

(2010). Art, music, and movement connections for elementary education teacher candidates. General Music Today, 24(1), 27–31. doi:10.1177/1048371310361675

Bresler

(1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(5), 31–37. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ515409

Burnaford

(1993). The challenges of integrated curricula. Music Educators Journal, 79(9), 44–47. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ475071

10.

Burnaford

Brown

Doherty

McLaughlin

(2007). Arts integration frameworks, research, and practice: A literature review. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

11.

Cane

(2009). Collaboration with music: A noteworthy endeavor. Music Educators Journal, 96(1), 33–39. doi:10.1177/0027432109341165

12.

Catterall

J. S.

(2002). The arts and the transfer of learning. In Deasy

(Ed.), Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development (pp. 151–157). Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

13.

Colwell

C. M.

(2008). Integration of music and core academic objectives in the K-12 curriculum: Perceptions of music and classroom teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(2), 33–41. doi:10.1177/8755123308317954

14.

Cornett

C. E.

(2006). Center stage: Arts-based read alouds. The Reading Teacher, 60, 234–240. doi:10.1598/RT.60.3.3

15.

Cornett

C. E.

(2007). Creating meaning through literature and the arts: An integration resource for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

16.

Cosenza

(2005). Implications for music educators of an interdisciplinary curriculum. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 6(9). Retrieved from http://www.ijea.org/v6n9/v6n9.pdf

17.

Deasy

R. J.

(Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

18.

Fisher

McDonald

(2004). Stormy weather: Leading purposeful curriculum integration with and through the arts. Teaching Artist Journal, 2, 240–248. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ939775

19.

Fiske

(Ed.). (1999). Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

20.

Garrett

(2010). Arts integration professional development: Teacher perspective and transfer to instructional practice. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3402414)

21.

Irwin

Gouzouasis

Grauer

Leggo

(2006, March). Investigating curriculum integration, the arts and diverse learning environment. Paper presented at the United Nationals Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Congress on Arts Education, Lisbon, Portugal.

22.

Jeanneret

(1997). Model for developing preservice primary teachers’ confidence to teach music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 37–44. Retrieved from www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40318837

23.

Krug

D. H.

Cohen-Evron

(2000). Curriculum integration positions and practices in art education. Studies in Art Education, 41, 258–275. Retrieved from www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1320380

24.

Mason

T. C.

(1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 263–270. doi:10.1177/088840640803100104

25.

May

(2012). Arts integration: What’s the problem? General Music Today, 26(2), 5–8. doi:10.1177/1048371312464374

26.

Oreck

(2006). Artistic choices: A study of teachers who use the arts in the classroom. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 7(8), 1–26.

27.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century skills map: The arts. Tucson, AZ: Author. Retrieved from www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_arts_map_final.pdf

28.

President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. (2011, May). Reinvesting in arts education: Winning America’s future through creative schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.pcah.gov/

29.

Rorrer

A. K.

Groth

(2009). Beverley Taylor Sorenson Arts Learning Program year 1 implementation evaluation interim report 2008-2009: Executive summary. Salt Lake City: Utah Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://uepc.utah.edu/_documents/executive-summary.pdf

30.

Rorrer

A. K.

Groth

Yoon

Shooter

Swenson

Raphael

(2011). Beverley Taylor Sorenson Arts Learning Program year 3 implementation evaluation 2010-2011: Technical report. Salt Lake City: Utah Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://uepc.utah.edu/_documents/BTSALP-Year3.pdf

31.

Ruppert

(2006). Critical evidence: How the arts benefit student achievement. Washington, DC: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529766.pdf

32.

Scripp

(2000). Introduction: The premise of learning through music. Journal of Learning Through Music, Summer, 2–11. Retrieved from www.music-in-education.org/articles/1-B.pdf

33.

Shuler

(2011). Music education for life: The three artistic processes—paths to lifelong 21st-century skills through music. Music Educators Journal, 97, 9–13. doi:10.1177/002743211409828

34.

Siebenaler

(2006). Training teachers with little or no music background: Too little, too late? Application of Research in Music Education, 24, 14–22. doi:10.1177/87551233060240020102

35.

Silverstein

Layne

(2010). Defining arts integration. Retrieved from http://www.kennedy-center.org/education/partners/defining_arts_integration.pdf

36.

Smithrim

Upitis

(2005). Learning through the arts: Lessons of engagement. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(1/2), 109–127. Retrieved from www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1602156

37.

Utah Department of Administrative Services. (n.d.). Division of fine arts. Retrieved from http://archives.utah.gov/research/agencyhistories/369.html

38.

Whitaker

N. L.

(1996). Elusive connections: Music integration and the elementary classroom. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 130, 89–99. Retrieved from www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40318814

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.22 MB