ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Art & Writing Connections:
Cornett, C.E. (2003). Creating meaning through literature and the arts. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
The focus of this book is upon methods for integrating the arts across the
curriculum. Chapter 5 deals with the integration of visual art in particular. This
chapter discusses the rationale for art integration, what teachers need to know
and be able to do, how visual art can be used to enrich core content teaching
and specific connections between art and core content areas. On page 164 of
the chapter, “Teaching Students to Do and View Art” is particularly applicable to
our research topic. Two lists, one of Artistic Media and the other of Artistic Styles
in Children’s Literature are provided to encourage examination of the pictures in
books that students might read in school. Several books on each list are
storybooks that deal specifically with art and artists.
Fletcher, R. (2006). Boy writers: Reclaiming their voices. Portland, ME: Pembrooke
Publishers.
This book addresses issues related specifically to teaching boy writers. Author Ralph Fletcher examines why boys frequently “fail to thrive” in American classrooms and why the writing achievement gap between boys and girls in recent years has widened. In each chapter, however, he offers things that can be done in the classroom to support boy writers. Suggestions include everything from ensuring the boy student is engaged with topics that are of interest to him (whether or not they are “appropriate” for school writing) to providing frequent
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Mary Franco
and varied audiences with which to share his writing to allowing him to write in a physical space and manner that feels like “home”: on the floor, in the corner, etc.
Chapter 13, entitled “Drawn to the Page” is particularly applicable to this research. It discusses the importance and role of drawing in nurturing writing by boys, stating that the benefits are experienced by upper grade level boys as well as the youngest writers.
Horn, M. & Giacobbe, M.E. (2007). Talking, drawing, writing: Lessons for our youngest
writers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Horn and Giacobbe present writing instruction that begins with what students
already know and are able to do; namely talking and drawing. Their research focus was the professional development of kindergarten teachers and their 5-6 year-old students, although their findings provide insight into issues faced by older elementary students as well. Specifically, they propose that “talk” has a significant role in prewriting; that giving students the opportunity to verbalize what they want to say assists them greatly when time comes to put it on paper. Drawing is another supportive strategy that is examined by Horn and Giacobbe who acknowledge drawing as meaning-making. They advocate for drawing, not only as a precursor to writing, but throughout the school day, encouraging students to practice their storytelling through the symbol system that does not employ the written word. They explicitly state that “Drawing is not rehearsal for writing; drawing IS writing” (p. 3).
Olshansky, B. (1995). Picture this: An arts-based literacy program. Educational
Leadership, 53(1), 44-47. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from
This article illuminates a program called “Image-Making Within the Writing
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Mary Franco
Process.” It is an art-based literacy program that assists student writers (K-8) with diverse learning styles by integrating art-making into all stages of the writing
process. Benefits described include enhancement of writing in students of all
abilities, not just those who struggle. Student choice is provided as students may write first or make art first, according to their strengths and motivations. Research conducted by the Laboratory of Interactive Learning at the University of New Hampshire found that the program’s infusion of visual and sensory experiences throughout the writing process resulted in higher quality writing products that were more imaginative, more descriptive, and more fully developed than the writing of students who did not participate in the program. The strategies described in this article warrant further investigation, especially as we investigate whether art-making before or art-making after writing makes a difference in the written product.
Olson, J. L. (1992). Envisioning writing: Toward an integration of drawing and writing.
Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Olson introduces her book by contrasting verbal and visual learners, stating that
those who learn visually often do poorly in school, not because they perceive
or understand less, but because they are less interested or inclined to
express the world and their experiences in it verbally. That visual image-making
is seldom recognized as a language and therefore not scaffolded to be
expressed in verbal form dooms less verbally-inclined students to remain
deficient. In response, Olson describes her visual-narrative drawing program that
capitalizes upon children’s tendencies to be storytellers and upon visual learners’ preferences for communicating in pictures. “Evaluating Students: What
to Look For” on p. 74 offers suggestions for identifying these visual learners and
evaluating their knowledge/narrative skills. Subsequently, teaching writing
through visual modes as well as verbal is introduced and discussed. Olson
concludes by reviewing instructional practices which impact the learning of both
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Mary Franco
visual and verbal learners. This book clearly has much to offer in the way of support for the instructional approach we are using with our boys’ writing club and ideas for making our intervention even better.
Dialogue and Learning:
Renshaw, P. (2004). Dialogic learning, teaching and instruction: Theoretical roots and
analytical frameworks. In J. van der Lindendagger & P. Renshaw (Eds.) Dialogic learning: Perspectives to Learning, Instruction, and Teaching. Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York. Full text retrieved February 9, 2011 from
Renshaw introduces the dialogic approach to instruction and learning in his
essay, tracing its historical foundations to the work of Socrates, Freire, and
Bakhtin. He briefly describes all three. He then presents four contemporary “varieties” of dialog, three of which have pedagogical relevance to this research. Dialogue as instruction is illustrated as a scaffolding model of assistance which is both interactive and cooperative. Dialogue as conversation seeks to unveil diverse thinking within the group and reconcile it by moving toward “mutual understanding, intersubjectivity and consensus” (p. 7) Dialogue as inquiry is “exploratory talk” that invokes listening and reasoning with evidence as a common understanding is sought. These three dialogic functions are clearly present in VTS and their analysis in this article is expected to be beneficial. Renshaw finally establishes the analytical framework for dialog, examining it as a social phenomenon, as an “internalized process for reflection and thinking” (p.11), and as an interactive process with both identify-forming and community-forming features” (p. 11). Again, this analysis is expected to help in the examination of both individual and collective benefits of dialogic encounters provided by VTS.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Mary Franco
Yenawine P. (1998). Visual art and student-centered discussions. Theory Into
In his review of the tenets of the Visual Thinking Strategies, Philip Yenawine
illuminates the use of dialogue and student-centered discussions in the learning
process. He cites Vygotskian theory, proposing that higher order thinking requires opportunities to verbalize thought and that learning is scaffolded by collaborative discourse with more able peers (zone of proximal development.). One exciting statement made by Yenawine, and certainly applicable to this study when considering the limited amount of time we will have to work with these students, is Housen’s 1997 finding that “there is a trend toward growth even in cases where experiments have lasted only a few months.” A second exciting statement in this article is Yenawine’s observation that “when an expert – someone of greater knowledge- is present, discussion among peers seems generally truncated. A question, then, for future research is to see if inhibited discussion actually limits growth, as Vygotskian logic indicates it will” (p. 317).
Integration/Transmediation:
Goldberg, M. (2006). Integrating the Arts: An approach to teaching and learning in multicultural and multilingual settings. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
This book presents the arts as “languages for learning” and stresses their importance as alternative opportunities for students to engage deeply with content and interpret their understanding into creative form. Chapter 1 discusses integration of art across the curriculum and presents its strengths in this capacity; on page 25, the discussion under the subheading “Methodology for Learning” is
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Mary Franco
particularly insightful as it describes how artists work intently with ideas and translate them into form. Clearly, this applies to student artists and curricula
ideas as well. Chapter 4 reiterates this claim as it connects the arts and literacy specifically, stating that as students “become actively involved in working with the ideas of [a] story…the act of transforming or translating is fundamental to attaining understanding or comprehension” (p. 71). With regard to assessment of learning, Chapter 9 adds that “when students create [they offer] evidence for
assessing their grasp of important concepts” (p. 199). In conclusion, these aspects of concentrated focus through art making and the translation and/or transformation of ideas into a unique creative product that permits assessment of understanding offer support for our efforts with the boy writers of Ridgeway Elementary School.
