Chapter II: Review of the Literature
Introduction: Restatement of the Problem
The specific research problem identified in this study pertains to how educators of students in Grades 3-5 develop and implement effective instructional curricula that integrates the arts—e.g, visual arts, music, dance, and drama—into classroom environments. Since 2001, the enactment of federal legislative directives including No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has left educators of students in all grades concerned about how best to improve individual and aggregate learning outcomes on standardized tests (Simons, 2011). However, the current era of standardization reinforces a divided institutional climate between high-achieving and low-performing students. As such, the purpose of this literature review is to highlight the theoretical frameworks and conceptual foundations that motivate educators to integrate the arts into instructional curricula. By applying the educational philosophy of John Dewey (1938), the theory of multiple intelligences espoused by Howard Gardner (2011), and Lev Vygotsky's (1980) sociocultural theory and the theory of the zone of proximal development, this literature review suggests that educators of students in Grades 3-5 may foster improvements to learning outcomes in subjects such as English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science by providing ample opportunities to attribute personal meanings towards aesthetic objects of cultural production as observed in daily life. Subsequently, the literature review considers the importance of six key themes highlighting differences in instructional curricula between gifted/talented students and low-performing students. As students in Grades 3-5 throughout the United States have diverse learning needs based on factors such as cultural and/or socioeconomic background, the literature review outlines specific implications for participation in professional development programs that entail the integration of arts into instructional curricula.
Theoretical Framework
The educational philosophy of John Dewey (1938) anchors this study on the importance of arts education for students in Grades 3-5. Dewey believed that education functions as a public institution considered essential for improving the quality of life among individuals of all ages. Educators who follow Dewey’s (1938) philosophy believe that the integration of arts into instructional curricula stimulates creativity in children and improves observational skills (Myers, 2010). More importantly, educators who follow Dewey’s philosophy believe that arts education into instructional curricula promotes intellectual curiosity and also improves learning outcomes on standardized tests in subjects such as English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science. Accordingly, educators who integrate arts into instructional curricula consider all unique experiences as worthy of expression, especially if students struggle with improving reading and math skills (Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, & 2014). Students who apply the knowledge acquired from unique lived experiences improve cognitive functions by attributing meaning and relevance of instructional curricula into daily life (Huang, 2012). Arts education among followers of Dewey's philosophy, in other words, promotes improvements in language acquisition and concrete thinking skills through the reorganization of knowledge to promote agency and autonomy (Graham & Brouillette, 2016; Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014; Huang, 2012; Morgan & Stengel-Mohr, 2014). More so, applications of Dewey's philosophy into alternative instructional curricula that include arts education fosters improvements in scientific thinking required for economic and career success.
Alongside the educational philosophy of John Dewey (1938), the theory of multiple intelligence outlined by Howard Gardner (2011) implies that educators of students in Grades 3-5 must not allow negative public perceptions of arts to influence the goal of developing instructional curricula that caters to unique learning needs. Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences implies that each individual has the mental capacity to develop alternative learning styles related to the mastery of ELA, mathematics, and science (Myers, 2010). The types of intelligence outlined by Gardner include visual/spatial, musical, rhythmic, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and existential. When combined, each eight intelligence types provides students in Grades 3-5 with opportunities to develop critical thinking skills as educators promote artistic and media literacy (Myers, 2010). The implication of Gardner's theory, when applied to arts education for students in Grades 3-5, is that the development of critical thinking skills through alternative curricular instruction will allow students to make deductive logical arguments, draw accurate inferences, and reach valid conclusions.
Gardner (2011), in fact, advanced the argument that educators at all grade levels should integrate musical content into alternative instructional curricula to promote improvements in cognitive and socio-emotional development (Huang, 2012). From integrating arts education into instructional curricula, students in Grades 3-5 may apply their creativity towards connecting material contained in standardized tests with real-world examples. Ideally, the integration of arts education into instructional curricula promote improvements in learning outcomes on standardized tests by as educators remind students that individual expression through art and music will continue to have a significant presence in all aspects of life. Primarily because Gardner advanced arguments for the integration of music into instructional curricula, the types of intelligence that students in Grades 3-5 may cultivate overlap as artistic expression also cuts across all disciplinary confines.
More broadly, this study on the importance of arts education for students in Grades 3-5 draws from Lev Vygotsky's (1980) sociocultural theory to explain how learning itself functions as part of larger social and institutional processes. For Vygotsky, arts education improves cognitive development and develops interpersonal skills as students recognize the inner capacity for self-expression (Huang, 2012). Specifically, the theory of the zone of proximal development also espoused by Vygotsky (1980) suggests that gaps between cognitive development and critical thinking skills have negative implications for how students in Grades 3-5 succeed in adolescence and early adulthood (Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014; Hargreaves, North, & Tarrant, 2016). In concurrence with Dewey's educational philosophy and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence, Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and the theory of the zone of proximal development entail that improvements to learning outcomes on standardized tests as a result of arts education requires educators to promote interpersonal skills among students.
However, as Gorham (2013) noted in her dissertation, the promotion of interpersonal skills between students with noticeable differences in learning outcomes on standardized tests requires educators to engage in professional development programs that support culturally responsive practices. Largely because national-level educational reforms implemented since NCLB assume that all students have the equal opportunity to achieve the highest learning outcomes possible on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science, the introduction of culturally responsive teaching practices grants educators of students in Grades 3-5 opportunities to address which institutional and administrative barriers reinforce a widening achievement gap (Simons, 2011). More importantly, the introduction of culturally responsive practices encourages students with diverse cultural backgrounds to express the meaning attributed to lived experiences (Pierce, Bolt & Vandell, 2010). If students from one cultural attribute significant meaning to arts and music while students from another may also attribute similar levels of meaning to academic and scholarly achievements, culturally responsive training entails a hybridization of different intelligence types that ideally foster improvements to cognitive development.
Educators who promote social interaction among students in Grades 3-5 provide an immediate context for attributing meaning to lived experiences (Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014; Myers, 2010). Accordingly, the integration of arts education into instructional curricula allows students in Grades 3-5 to acknowledge which verbal and non-verbal cues have the most appropriate contextually-based meaning. As arts education promotes improvements in cognitive development, educators who apply Vygotsky's (1980) sociocultural theories and the theory of the zone of proximal development facilitate comprehension of simple solutions for complex problems found in standardized tests that focus on ELA, mathematics, and science (Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014). More ideally, Vygotsky's theories suggest that students in Grades 3-5 who have a proven track record of succeeding on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science help struggling students as educators who integrate arts educational into instructional curricula promote social interaction.
Conceptual Foundations
In connection with the three theories noted in the previous subsection, a minimum of six key research themes highlight the importance of arts education for improving learning outcomes on standardized tests among students in Grades 3-5. The first theme of "expanded conceptions of giftedness and talent development" pertains to how students in Grades 3-5 have diverse learning needs that require unique attention from educators responsible for promoting improvements in learning outcomes on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science (Reis & Renzulli, 2010, p. 309). The fact that many students do not realize their full potential to use their inner creativity towards making connections between the types of intelligence outlined by Gardner, for instance, implies that sociocultural factors identified by Vygotsky (1980)—e.g., psychological profile, neighborhood environment, and parental involvement—overlap to influence self-perceptions of academic achievement (Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014; Huang, 2012; Martin & Pickett, 2013; Myers, 2010; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Yet while expanded conceptions of giftedness and talent development imply that all students in Grades 3-5 will immediately apply arts education towards fostering improvements in learning outcomes on standardized tests, current research identifies a wide range of conceptual domains for identifying which sociocultural and cognitive factors educators should address (Reis & Renzulli, 2010). As such, expanded conceptions of giftedness and talent development have relative contextual meanings across learning cohorts that shape individual perceptions of academic achievement in the present and professional/economic achievement in the future.
The second theme of "continuing absence of challenges for gifted and talented students" refers to how the general status of education in the United States reflects arguments for maintaining a performance-based, standardized learning climate among students at all grade levels in elementary and secondary schools. As education in the United States focuses primarily on how well students in all grades perform on standardized tests, the lack of attention paid to how gifted and talented students may assist struggling students poses a cause for concern (Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Reforms made to education since the advent of NCLB have especially reduced the opportunities for gifted and talented students to apply their inner creativity towards fostering overall improvements to learning outcomes among students in Grades 3-5 (Brandon & Lawton, 2013; Myers, 2010; Panagopulos, 2015; Simons, 2011). Despite how gifted and talent students in Grades 3-5 continue to achieve the highest possible learning outcomes on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science, a large gap also continues to exist as struggling students are likely to receive a form of remedial education that fails to promote creativity in thinking and rigidly discourages the overlapping of multiple types of intelligence (Myers, 2010; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Moreover, gifted and talented students in Grades 3-5 may report feelings of boredom and disenfranchisement associated with having to participate in a classroom environment with educators who inhibit creativity to focus on the improvements of learning outcomes on standardized tests among struggling students (Panagopulos, 2015). As educators deliver instructional curricula that solely emphasizes the mastery of subject material found in standardized tests, gifted and talented students, as well as struggling students, report feelings of boredom and disenfranchisement as administrators of the immediate institutional environment ascribe value to quantitative data ultimately determining long-term academic and career success.
Following from the second key theme, Reis and Renzulli (2010) reported further that the third key research theme of "grouping patterns for gifted students" has implications for how educators of students in Grades 3-5 reinforce the tracking of learning outcome on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science through the implementation of rigid instructional curricula. As a feature unique to the American educational system, tracking reinforces the traditional conception that gifted and talented students cannot effectively impart knowledge acquired from classroom instruction onto struggling students whose behaviors may not exactly conform to institutional norms (Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Along these lines, Gorham (2013) suggested in her dissertation that tracking systems reinforce the unwarranted belief that students from marginalized cultural backgrounds will never develop the cognitive abilities to improve learning outcomes through the integration of art education into instructional curricula. Though some educators of students in Grades 3-5 may want to integrate arts education into instructional curricula, tracking systems reinforced by administrators suggest further that some students from marginalized cultural backgrounds will have their attention distracted away from the institutional problem at hand (Gorham, 2013; Pierce, Bolt & Vandell, 2010). Consequently, educators with a compelling desire to implement culturally responsive practices that involve the possible integration of arts education remain left to their own devices as institutional policies maintain a distinctive gulf between successful and failing groups.
The fourth theme of “enrichment, differentiation, acceleration, and curriculum enhancement” has implications for how students in Grades 3-5 may benefit as educators introduce culturally responsive practices and apply them broadly to students with noticeable differences in learning outcomes on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science. Accordingly, educators of students in Grades 3-5 who introduce culturally responsive educational practices that emphasize the integration of arts and music into curricular instruction transfer learning opportunities available for a high-achieving group and impart them onto another, lower-achieving group (Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Enrichment, differentiation, acceleration, and curriculum enhancement, furthermore, entails that educators of students in Grades 3-5 may integrate arts and music into instructional curricula to foster a learner-centered classroom environment (Martin & Pickett, 2013). Differentiated instruction indicates overall that some students whose learning outcomes on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science do not meet rigorous institutional standards may succeed from having placement in alternative classroom environments that foster creativity and encourage the development of critical thinking skills applicable to real-world contexts (Huang, 2012; Martin & Pickett, 2013). Differentiated instruction, in other words, may promote accelerated improvements in student learning outcomes as culturally responsive practices provide the space for educators to identify which specific learning needs coincide with the development of overlapping intelligence types.
Fifthly, the theme of "gifted education programs and pedagogy for diverse populations and twice exceptional students" indicates further that the introduction of culturally responsive practices by educators of students in Grades 3-5 fosters improvements to learning outcomes on standardized tests as arts and music promote individual expression connected with real-world contexts. Of particular note here is how the under-representation of African-American and Latino/a students in programs for gifted and talented students remains an ongoing problem as these cultures use art and music as unique forms of expression (Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). However, one implicit assumption of programs for gifted and talented assumption resides in how administrators reinforce noticeable cultural differences despite arguments for promoting diversity and inclusion. Although teachers of Grades 3-5 may integrate arts education into instructional curricula that draw from culturally responsive practices, the risk of appropriation may indicate that administrators may permit only a limited and short-term effect relevant to the task of fostering improvements on learning outcomes of standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science.
Lastly, the sixth theme of "longitudinal benefits of gifted education programs and pedagogy for gifted and talented students" suggests that the integration of arts education into instructional curricula has long-term effects linked with improvements to learning outcomes on standardized tests. While educational programs for gifted and talented students encourage the development of critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in future careers, an institutional tracking system that maintains learning disparities between students from diverse cultural backgrounds connects low performance on standardized tests with the inability to achieve future career or economic success (Graham & Brouillette, 2016; Pierce, Bolt & Vandell, 2010; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Longitudinally, gifted and talented students who have educators that integrate arts education into current instructional practices also have greater opportunities to obtain support from a wide range of sources while struggling students have no alternative than to internalize administrative and institutional norms systematically defining them as failures. Conversely, students in Grades 3-5 who internalize such a negative message may report over time that neither teachers, principals, nor parents encourage the development of creativity and critical thinking skills necessary to succeed. More implicit here is the internalization of an institutional system that effectively denies creativity on all fronts as educators also have no other alternative than to apply rigid educational practices that deliberately ignore how art and music have significance for understanding which types of intelligence align with the meaning attributed to unique lived experiences.
As observed in a more extensive review of the research literature, the history of arts education in the United States from the early twentieth century into the early 2000s after the passage of NCLB indicates a steady decline of culturally responsive practices as standardized testing in ELA, mathematics, and science remains a major institutional norm. Though arts education initially thrived across many school districts located in major urban centers of the United States—e.g., Philadelphia, New York City, and Los Angeles—federal legislation such as NCLB has left such a negative impact that arts education slowly dwindles into a state of near-elimination as budget cuts at local and state levels reflect how poorly students from diverse cultural backgrounds perform on standardized tests (Anderson & Loughlin, 2014; Huang, 2012; Myers, 2010; Pierce, Bolt & Vandell, 2010; Somerville, 2013). How educators of students in Grades 3-5 today effectively develop and implement culturally responsive practices depends on which strategies comply with currently adopted institutional norms (Gorham, 2013; Somerville, 2013). In turn, the modes of expression by students who struggle to achieve high learning outcomes on standardized tests may influence how educators develop unique instructional curricula that have a direct relationship with unique lived experiences.
Review of the Literature
The following review of the literature outlines the history of arts education in the United States as reflecting a type of cultural production that initially encouraged the development of creativity and critical thinking skills among students from diverse cultural backgrounds but produced noticeable disparities in learning outcomes as the drive for standardization influenced how educators developed and implemented instructional curricula. This literature review also highlights the effects of federal legislative milestones such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to illustrate how standardization for mastery of subjects such as English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science overshadows a need for integrating arts education into instructional curricula. From there, the literature outlines broad and specific implications for improving learning outcomes on standardized tests through professional development programs as federal and state funding continues to diminish the value of cultural production within a dominant institutional framework. Lastly, this literature highlights examples of programs currently in place that encourage educators at all grade levels—specifically, educators of students in Grades 3-5—to integrate arts education into instructional curricula and produce significant longitudinal effects reflecting learning outcomes on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science. Overall, the literature review identifies numerous implications for developing a rigorous methodology that effectively integrates arts education into standard practice as students from diverse cultural backgrounds recognize the need to engage in artistic expression and appreciate the inherent aesthetic qualities found in nearly all aspects of daily life. The methodological implications that develop from this literature indicate how issues of reliability and validity influence how educators of students in Grades 3-5 impart knowledge that transfers easily into later grades and beyond.
History of Arts Education in the United States
Arts education in the United States dates back to as early as the turn of the twentieth century when many educators argued for the rejection of industrial ideas by situating aesthetic properties of cultural production within the realm of liberal arts. As Myers (2010, p. 22) suggested in her dissertation, aesthetic qualities of perception and invention implied that students from all cultural backgrounds have the innate cognitive ability to appreciate the underlying value of objects produced for a mass consumer public. Accordingly, the ability to read and write proficiently in the English language functions as a type of cultural production requiring students to apply principles of composition and structure to make deductive logical arguments, draw accurate inferences, and reach valid conclusions. Yet while the earliest efforts at integrating arts education into instructional curricula had implications for educators attended to the individual learning needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds, the development of the industrial arts evidently produced conditions in which some students required administrative interventions. As Huang (2012) suggested in her dissertation, administrative interventions designed to improve students learning outcomes through the introduction of arts and music into instructional curricula eventually resulted in the increased standardization of institutional processes that unilaterally defined the inherent value and meaning that students from diverse cultural backgrounds attributed to education. While music indeed has inherent value to the overall infrastructure of the American education system, the standardization of instructional curricula, particularly at the federal level, greatly influenced how educators would integrate artistic expression into practice.
Connecting specifically with the first theme of expanded conceptions of giftedness and talent development articulated by Reis and Renzulli (2010), the history of arts education in the United States does not consider the needs of students from ethnic minority backgrounds and whose families have a lower socioeconomic status. Vygotsky’s (1980) sociocultural theory applies here to suggest that the history of arts education in the United States places gifted and talented students at the upper economic echelons of society (Huang, 2012). As students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds continue to perform poorly on standardized tests, the need for arts education to enhance creativity and stimulate intellectual curiosity seems less important as students from the upper echelons have resources at their near-immediate disposal to express oneself freely (Pierce, Bolt & Vandell, 2010). Similarly, students from the upper echelons of society are the most likely to attend schools whose faculty encourage collaboration across districts as educators of arts and music have the academic freedom to develop effective instructional curricula that also comply with content standards mandated since the passing of NCLB in 2001 (Huang, 2012; Panagopulos, 2015; Simons, 2011). Since NCLB, as explained in the next subsection, the institutional pressures that educators of students in Grades 3-5 confront deny opportunities to integrate arts, music, drama, and dance into curricular instruction (Brandon & Lawton, 2013; Campbell, 2013; Simons, 2011; Somerville, 2013). Though factors such as parental involvement may influence how educators may elect to integrate the arts into instructional curricula (Martin & Pickett, 2013), federal legislation reinforces a tracking and student placement that limits the types of education that students in Grades 3-5—and beyond—may receive. However, the short- and long-term implications of limiting arts education among students in these specific grades remain largely ignored in the research literature.
Presently, the development of instructional curricula that encourages artistic engagements among elementary school children have both long- and short-term implications, especially as students from families with a lower socioeconomic status have noticeably limited opportunities to participate directly in programs that promote critical thinking (Graham & Brouillette, 2016). Two separate reports published by the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities (PCAH), however, noted how the integration of arts and music into instructional curricula remains largely unequal as learning outcomes on standardized in ELA, mathematics, and science influence the level of federal and state funding that school districts in impoverished receive annually (Stoelinga, Joyce & Silk, 2013; Stoelinga, Silk, Reddy & Rahman, 2015). Largely because students from economically impoverished backgrounds often perform poorly on standardized tests, arts programs throughout schools that predominantly serve these students frequently experience budget shortfalls to the extent that a lack of sufficient institutional resources results in the elimination of classes in art, music, drama/theater, and other forms of cultural production.
Dacey and Donovan (2013) observed that the integration of arts into instructional curricula by educators of students in Grades 3-5 produce memorable experiences that result from more direct engagement with learning materials. Educators who apply concepts from dance and drama into practice provide students with opportunities to explore a wide range of perspectives about characters, historical figures, and other notable contributions to cultural production (Anderson & Loughlin, 2014; Campbell, 2013; Greenfader, Brouillette & Farkas, 2014; Mendelson et al., 2016; Morgan & Stengel-Mohr, 2014; Panagopulos, 2015). Likewise, educators who apply concepts from art and music into practice provide students with opportunities to improve upon language acquisition skills, writing competence, and interpersonal communication techniques (Dacey & Donovan, 2013; Lloyd, 2017; Martin & Pickett, 2013; Rule & Montgomery, 2011; Somerville, 2013). However, as noted in the following section, federal legislation that led to the implementation of NCLB in nearly every school located throughout the United States limited the scope of arts integration into current educational practice.
The Effects of NCLB and Standardized Testing on Arts Education
In 2001, the United States government reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to establish a core purpose of eliminating achievement gaps between students from diverse cultural backgrounds and who have diverse learning needs. ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required that all students achieve high proficiency levels in ELA and mathematics prior to the end of the 2013-2014 school year. However, as Panagopulos (2015) observed in her dissertation, the federal government provided educators with considerable levels of flexibility to apply for a state-level waiver as long as schools whose students performed poorly on standardized tests made significant improvements to learning outcomes specifically in ELA and mathematics. For example, the state of Maryland successfully allowed educators at all grade levels to revise standards for implementing effective instructional curricula based on how principals and other members of administrative staff measure academic performance based on engagement and achievement. As states like Maryland encourage educators to integrate arts into instructional curricula, students there noticeably improve in their ability to develop multiple types of intelligence that shape interpersonal communication and critical thinking skills not limited to synthesis, analysis, and reasoning (Lloyd, 2017; Panagopulos, 2015). As of 2015, at least 57 elementary schools in Maryland have arts education integrated into instructional curricula while a total of 12 school districts throughout the state apply institutional frameworks to meet the diverse learning needs of students as reflecting outcomes on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science.
The passing of NCLB has produced numerous conflicts over how schools throughout the United States that serve students who consistently produce poor learning outcomes on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science apply continuously reduced budgets towards developing effective instructional curricula that integrate forms of cultural production such as art, music, dance, and drama into practice. While public sector agencies such as the United States Department of Education have advanced the Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination (AEMDD) to integrate arts-based projects into instructional curricula designed specifically for elementary and middle school students, Brandon and Lawton (2013) noted in their study that applied the Student Interest-in-the-Arts Questionnaire how more rigorous methodological frameworks are necessary for understanding what internal and external motivating factors drive improvements in learning outcomes on standardized tests. However, the methodological frameworks that educators of students in Grades 3-5 implement to improve learning outcomes on standardized tests entail an acknowledgment of professional development programs foster a sense of community among administrators, educators, and students.
Connecting with what Reis and Renzulli (2010) highlighted as the second theme that addresses a continued absence of challenges for gifted and high-potential students, the assumption that all students from the upper echelons of society have resources at near-immediate disposal to express oneself freely through arts education does not ring true since the enactment of NCLB in 2001. Even if students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds demonstrate the potential to succeed in the arts, most educators and administrators, as well as parents, actively discourage them from applying their interests accordingly (Martin & Pickett, 2013). Presumably, students in Grades 3-5 whose families have a lower socioeconomic background lack the cognitive ability to master instructional material in the subjects of ELA, mathematics, and science (Anderson & Loughlin, 2014). However, student interest in dance, drama, music, and the visual arts have an overwhelming presence despite the fact that federal legislation since NCLB requires educators to apply rigorous methodologies for measuring individual academic performance (Brandon & Lawton, 2013; Mastrorilli, Harnett & Zhu, 2014). Unfortunately, the emphasis on mastering ELA, mathematics, and science weakens ongoing proposals for educators to effectively develop rigorous methodologies for integrating the arts into instructional curricula as students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds continue to suffer as performance results influence how federal and state government provide funding towards the allocation of resources applicable towards fostering improvements in learning outcomes (Graham & Brouillette, 2016; Jones & Sigmon, 2016; Marshall, 2014; Robelen, 2011). Due to the fact that educators of students in Grades 3-5 must comply with federal guidelines for delivering instructional material in ELA, mathematics, and science, interest in the arts may continue to wane as both governments and school administrators respond to poor learning outcomes by offering no room for compromise.
As NCLB influenced how educators of students at all grade levels integrated the arts into instructional practice, all states must have methodological frameworks in place for assessing academic performance in all subjects for Grades 3-8 and a minimum of one assessment in ELA and mathematics for Grades 9-12. As Huang (2012) observed, meeting the requirements established by NCLB, unfortunately, demand that most schools across the United States focus on sustaining improvements to learning outcomes in ELA, mathematics, and science based on administrative pressures applied at the district level. Longitudinally, NCLB has at least four implications for the professional development of educators who teach students in Grades 3-5 who have a strong desire to foster collaboration between schools and local institutions to integrate the arts into instructional curricula. Pape et al. (2014) noted how four key phases of practical inquiry remain essential for how educators may the cognitive abilities of students in Grades 3-5 by integrating the arts into instructional curricula. The first phase draws attention to triggering events initiated by educators who encourage students to reflect on their unique lived experiences as vehicles for self-expression. Triggering events allow educators to encourage more social interaction among students in Grades 3-5 concerning how art, music, dance, and drama have real-world implications.
Secondly, the exploration phase of practical inquiry allows educators to provide students in Grades 3-5 with opportunities for brainstorming ideas, developing critical thinking skills, and exchanging valuable information for sustaining high performance levels on standardized tests. However, the resource capacity for educators to integrate the arts into instructional curricula may largely depend on how administrators provide sufficient opportunities for implementing age-appropriate extracurricular activities (Pierce, Bolt & Vandell, 2010). The third phase of integration illustrated by Pape et al. (2014) coincides with the fourth theme of differentiation, acceleration, and enrichment discussed by Reis and Renzulli (2010) as students with varying levels of achievement on standardized tests in ELA, mathematics, and science make connections between the delivery of instructional curricula and the construction of meaning associated with the appreciation of aesthetic qualities. Here, the concept of differentiated instruction illustrated by Martin and Pickett (2013) entails that both educators and students in Grades 3-5 have varying levels of motivation for directly influencing performance outcomes on standardized tests. Yet, the fourth phase of resolution described by Pape et al. (2014) suggests that both educators and students in Grades 3-5 may work collaboratively within classroom settings to apply the delivery of instructional curricula towards fostering creativity and individual self-expression. From each of those four phases, the implications for professional development among educators of students in Grades 3-5 indicate how decision-making processes that drive the integration of arts into instructional curricula will likely foster improvements to outcomes on standardized tests regardless of differences in socioeconomic and cultural background.