Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

In Action

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2018)

Teaching for the Ambiguous, Creative, and Practical: Daring to be A/R/Tography

October 30, 2018


This purpose of this inquiry is to explore how an a/r/tographic model of shared inquiry led to deeper insights about learner-centered pedagogy. Invited to teach and redesign a very large ‘Art & Society: Visual Arts’ course at a large university with a 21st century issues-based focus, together with my commitment as a constructivist, learner-centered teacher, the current phenomenological study was born. The phenomena studied was whether a large, lecture-style class taught from a more non-traditional, non-lecture, art-as-experience, learner-centered epistemology might affect students’ balanced thinking and perceptions about their learning. Students’ perceptions, along with the regulatory role of emotions, are critical factors in motivation and behavior; students’ self-beliefs about learning and their capabilities affect their behavior, resilience, and persistence in the face of challenge.


  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
  2. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.J., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  3. Brien, D. L. (2011). Learning the “lessons of the arts”: Creativity, creative arts education and creative arts educators today. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 8(2), 96-107.
  4. Buffington, M. & McKay S.W. (Eds.) (2013). Practice theory: Seeing the power of art teacher researchers. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
  5. Burden, R. (1998). Assessing children’s perceptions of themselves as learners and problem-solvers: The construction of the myself-as-a-learner scale (MALS). School Psychology International, 19(4), 291-305.
  6. Claxton, G. (2007). Expanding young people’s capacity to learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 115-134.
  7. Commeyras, M. & Montsi, M. (2000). What if I woke up as the other sex? Batswana youth perspectives on gender. Gender & Education, 12(3), 327-347.
  8. Constantino, T. E. (2002). Problem-based learning: A concrete approach to teaching aesthetics. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education, 43(3): 219-231.
  9. Cullen, R., Harris, M. & Hill, R. (2012) The learner-centered curriculum: Design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  11. Eisner, E. (2002). Arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  12. Doyle, T. (2011). Putting the research on learning into practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
  13. Eisinger, R.M. (2011, Feb. 21). Inside higher ed: Teaching ambiguity. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from
  14. Fink, L.D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  15. Freedman, K. (2007). Artmaking/troublemaking: Creativity, policy, and leadership in art education. Studies in Art Education, 48(2), 204-217.
  16. Gadamer, H. (1974). Hermenutics and social science. Cultural Hermenutics, 2(4).
  17. Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  18. Ingalls Vanada, D. (2014). Balance, Depth and Beyond: Tapping in to Design Thinking in Art Education. The International Journal of Arts Education (IJAE), 10(1), 1-14. Common Ground Publications.
  19. Ingalls Vanada, D. (2011). Designing thinking: Developing dynamic learners in the arts. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.
  20. Immordino-Yang, M. H. & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10.
  21. Irwin, R. & de Cosson, A. (Eds.) (2004). A/r/tography: Rendering self through arts-based living inquiry. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
  22. Marshall, J. (2014). Art practice as research in the classroom: Creative inquiry for understanding oneself and the world. The International Journal of Arts Education, 8(1), 13-24.
  23. Marshall, J. & Donahue, D. (2014). Art-centered learning across the curriculum: Integrating contemporary art in the secondary school classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
  24. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Mitchell, W.J. (2002). Showing seeing: A critique of visual culture. Journal of Visual Culture, 1(2), 165-181.
  26. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach in education. New York: College Press.
  27. Palmer, P. & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart of Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  28. Plano Clark, V. & Creswell, J. (2008). The mixed methods reader. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  29. Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited.
  30. Sameshima, P. (2007). Seeing red—a pedagogy of parallax: An epistolary bildungsroman on artful scholarly inquiry. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.
  31. Springgay, S., Irwin, R. & Wilson Kind, S. (2005). A/r/tography as living inquiry through art and text. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(6), 897-912.
  32. Sternberg, R. (2008). Increasing academic excellence and enhancing diversity are compatible goals. Educational Policy, (22)4, 487-514.
  33. Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2000). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 274-280.
  34. Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts.
  35. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
  36. Winner, E. & Hetland, L. (2007). Art for our sake. The Boston Globe, 2 September. Retrieved from