International
Journal of
Educational
Technology

Humanities-based Curriculum Online:  A Role for the Arts in Designing Web-Based Interdisciplinary Inquiry

 - Anastasis (Tassos) D. Petrou, University of California – Los Angeles

Abstract

The ability of ArtsOnline, a web site designed byprofessionals at the Los Angeles Educational Partnership (LAEP), to supportinterdisciplinary inquiry for an arts-centered, humanities-based, program atthe Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), was evaluated from June toAugust in 1999.  As research findingsreported herein show, design barriers and challenges can lessen the benefitsfrom application of IT for interdisciplinary inquiry. Some of the designbarriers and challenges mentioned included inadequate web site design,insufficient editing and information presentation, along with low access to ITby teachers and students, lack of funding, low administrative support and lackof teacher training.  Findings detailedin this paper are from transcripts developed from five focus groups (N=30)convened at UCLA to evaluate ArtsOnline. The UCLA Armand Hammer Museum andGrunwald Center for the Graphics Arts and LAEP funded the evaluation.

Introduction

Application of web-based information technology (IT) can provide access to a wide varietyof information resources from a number of disciplines and subject access areasof interest to interdisciplinary information users.  In 1999, in an effort to tap into the Web's possibilities forenriched educational practices, ArtsOnline, an arts-centered web site, forinterdisciplinary teaching and learning in a humanities-based program (TheHumanitas Program) at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), became areality. The web site created by professionals at the Los Angeles EducationalPartnership (LAEP) came to life based on preliminary input from a small groupof administrators and teachers from LAUSD.

The web site's overall ability to support interdisciplinary inquiry(teaching and learning practices) online still needed evaluation, however, byteachers and students and also by other interested groups with expertiserelevant to the web site's design and arts-centered, humanities-based,interdisciplinary inquiry.  Inparticular, evaluation input was needed and it was sought from teachers, studentsand academic support professionals (such as librarians, museum educators and website designers) who were directly and indirectly involved in the existinghumanities-based (Humanitas) program the web site's content was intended tosupport.  As the literature reviewrevealed, emphasis on research for use of IT web-based applications forlearning or instruction is relatively new whether the focus is on museums or onother educational settings such as libraries and schools.

Most previous museum studies represent efforts to assess the in-museumbehavior, or exit knowledge, of visitors and devote no time examining use ofweb-based information access from a user-oriented perspective. In general,during the past seventy years, much has been said about who visitors to museumsare and what they do in museums (Bitgood,1986; Hood, 1983; Robinson, 1931; Screven, 1990) in terms of their interaction with works of art.  Some exceptions to the past seventy years ofresearch in museums, include recent articles and studies that discuss issues ofinformation presentation, information literacy and the intentions, preferencesand concerns of information users about new media and technologies such as theWWW (Sledge, 1995; Zorich, 1991; Zorich,1997a; Zorich, 1997b). 

Zorich (1997) offers a significant perspective on the progress museumshave made in carving a place for themselves on the Internet and the futureroles they can play in terms of providing better, instead of just more accessto cultural heritage information on the Internet.  According to Zorich (1997) museums must re-evaluate theinstitution specific information they offer their users or visitors online byusing new information technologies and by increasing efforts to offer integratedinformation to respond to different user needs and practices online.  In addition, museums need to have moreinformation than the user demographics most [Internet] surveys reveal (Zorich,1997).  Museums must learn more abouthow context impacts user access to museum resources (Zorich, 1997a) and about the questions people ask of museums, howthey search for information and how they wish to see information presented (Zorich, 1997a, 187).

The need to improve interactivity, usability, and the overalleducational value of instructional web sites is not unique to museumsand to the services that museum professionals provide.  In addition, and while technology is at thecenter of discourse about investments in museums, libraries and in schools, theconclusion is, once again, that little is really known about the role thatweb-based IT plays in user activities that focus on education (Burbules andCallister, Jr., 2000).  It is safe tosay that each user visits a web site for different reasons andresponds to the web site's content differently based on needs andinfrastructure levels of access. Users get frustrated if a web site containstoo many graphics, which slow down loading time, especially if the users'equipment and network levels of access do not support heavy downloads at alltimes (Zeldman, 1999).  Some usersvisit web sites to get specific information and these people will not be therefor a total web experience or to be entertained or for the thrill of visiting akiller web site.  Technical aspects andavailable technologies such as plain html vs. java scripts for web site designshould never be ignored, however (Homer,1997). 

Web site developers must push the content and the limits of technologyfor better design and user access while embracing new ideas and innovative userlearning frameworks (Carey, 2001;Rosch, 1995; Schroeder, 2000).  In otherwords, the "push" for using the most up-to-date educationaltechnologies in the classroom or elsewhere, must be tempered by a"pull" that any design and use of educational technologies mustalways serve the interests of the user as a learner (Burbules and Callister,Jr., 2000).  A similar point about therole that educational technologies must play in how and what users learn wasemphasized in 1997 by the President's Committee of Advisors on Science andTechnology when they argued that focus should be on learning with technology, not about technology (http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html).  "While computer-related skills will unquestionably be quiteimportant in the twenty-first century, and while such skills are clearly besttaught through the use of computers, it is important that technology, beintegrated throughout the K-12 curriculum, and not simply used to imparttechnology-related knowledge and skills" (http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k12ed.html).  Other researchers, concerned with design and uses of technologyto develop critical literacy skills and to promote educational reforms, suggestthat educators concentrate on personally meaningful, authentic and challengingtasks that can be accomplished through the use of educational technologies(Lankshear and Knobel, 1998, Means, et. al., 1993).  Authentic challenging tasks are thought of as "tasks thatare personally meaningful and challenging to students…and also promotecollaboration, interactive modes of learning and a multidisciplinarycurriculum" (Means, et. al., 3-5, 1993). 

Successful web sites for children understand very well this push / pullframework and ifs focus on resolving design challenges, promoting interactivelearning and ensuring user access to needed information.  Disney online, or http://disney.go.com/park/homepage/today/flash/index.html, guides users to availablecontent as quickly as possible, even makes it possible for user to by-passnavigation or other design elements (Roberts, 2000).  For example, personal use of Disney online shows that a searchengine is available on the web site. The web site also offers a user the option to click on an image of aDisney character and information about that character appears without anyadditional searching and navigation needed on the part of the user.  In addition, Disney online offers what'scalled Disney Lite!, a version of the web site that offers fewer graphics and anon-Flash version of the web site. 

Therefore, a focus on users and what they may need in an interactiveinformation technology system, according to Kristoff and Satran (1995) enablesdevelopers of web sites to address most thorny design challenges.  But, shortcomings in interactive designusually allow for user doubts about a web site's credibility to surface(Kristoff and Satran, 1995).  Examplesinclude poor interface and navigation in a web site, links that do not work, ora search engine that is difficult to use. Some of the shortcomings or barriers in a web site are easy to fix bycarefully re-evaluating user needs against web site design.  Others, however, require long-term attentionto infrastructure barriers, such as lack of necessary equipment and networkconnections that prevent users from incorporating web-based technologies in howthey learn on a daily basis. 

The research focused on, and now this article reports findings from,the evaluation of ArtsOnline, highlighting unique design challenges encounteredin teaching arts and humanities. ArtsOnline was of interest to professionals at the UCLA Armand HammerMuseum and Grunwald Center for the Graphic Arts (one of the institutionsfunding the evaluation) because LAUSD teachers, participating in various Museumprograms, had reported using the web site. The latter interest, however, surfaced because professionals at theMuseum had made the decision to re-asses existing technical and operationalassumptions, in existence since the 1970's and 1980's, to embrace new modelsfor services, including use of web-based information technologies.  Interest in the web site evaluation at theHammer Museum was a clear indication of the commitment to explore and learn inactive ways what Museum users had to say about web-based informationdesign.

Information in this article is presented in the following foursections.  First, the article providesadditional background information about design activities relevant to theArtsOnline web site and the LAUSD Humanitas Program.  Second, the focus groups methodology is discussed.  Third, important findings from theevaluation of the ArtsOnline web site are presented by analyzing transcriptsfrom the focus groups.  Due tointeraction in the focus groups, analysis of the transcripts provides a betterunderstanding of user-oriented information design and its role in thedevelopment of an arts-centered, educational web site.  Also, analysis of transcripts from the fivefocus groups improves practical understanding in Information Science in termsof information design challenges relevant to interdisciplinary inquiry ineducational practices by focusing on the needs of different groups ofusers.  Finally, the article concludeswith a short summary.

Additional BackgroundInformation about the ArtsOnline Web site http://www.laep.org/artsonline/and the "Humanitas Program" at LAUSD.

The current version of the ArtsOnline web site is located athttp://www.laep.org/artsonline/. Although changes have been made to the web site, anyone visiting the website today will still see the home page with the ArtsOnline logo and the fourfollowing four entry points (or links to the site's other pages):

AboutARTS Online

The above four entry points were the same as seen by the participantsin the focus groups during the hour each participant spent examining the website prior to participation in focus groups. Additional detail about the make-up of focus groups is provided in theMethodology section.  The home page andsubsequent screens made possible through the above four links are important tokeep in mind because collectively they received a great deal of discussionduring the focus groups in discussions about development of differentinterfaces for the web site.  TheArtsOnline web site was created to facilitate learning and teaching for aHumanitas (or a humanities-based) program at LAUSD that employed arts as partof instruction to facilitate interdisciplinary and thematic learning for itsstudents.  Prior to the introduction ofthe web site, teachers relied on traditional arts materials in libraries andfield trips to museums to make humanities instruction arts-centered.  The use of the web site was a new experiencefor many teachers and students in the learning process.

During1999, thirty participants in five focus groups, convened and led duringdiscussion by the author of this article at UCLA, were called upon toarticulate their experiences and to discuss ideas that come to mind that relateto web-based, humanities-based, arts-centered interdisciplinary inquiry ineducational practices. The thirty participants in the five focus groups werestudents, teachers, museum professionals, librarians and technology expertsfrom eleven high schools, seven museums, one library program, one publiclibrary and one university respectively in Los Angeles County.

TheFive Focus Groups (N=30):

·       HumanitasTeachers -these were humanities teachers in a Humanitas (arts-centered and humanities-centered)team at their respective high schools at LAUSD (N = 4)

·       Mixed-Groupof Teachers (a mix of Humanitas and non-Humanitas teachers group).  This group included teachers who had beenmembers of a Humanitas team in the past or, have never been a member of aHumanitas team, but did want some information in how to create anarts-centered, Humanitas team (N = 5).

·       Students- Students at a Humanitas high school volunteered their time to participate inthe focus group (N = 8).

·       MuseumEducators - educators at major Los Angeles Museums (N = 5).

·       Technologists- participants in this group represented a variety of sites including major LAmuseums, academic libraries and library programs.  The difference between this group and the Museum Educators wasthe requirement that participants in this group be intimately involved withdesigning information technology services at their respective sites (N = 8).

Beforeeach focus group was convened, and for over an hour, participants in each focusgroup were asked to use the preliminary version of ArtsOnline.  Each participant was given access to acomputer with an ArtsOnline CD-ROM installed on it at the UCLA Armand HammerMuseum and Cultural Center for the Graphic Arts.  Thus the same conditions for access and use existed on eachcomputer while each user experimented with ArtsOnline.

Duringthe moderator's opening remarks for each focus group, the main question waspresented as follows: what comes to your mind when someone asks, how would yougo about creating an educational program (web-based or otherwise) to supportarts-centered, humanities-based educational practices?  The main question was phrased in a varietyof ways during all five focus groups to make sure different online and offlineaspects of the ArtsOnline web site were explored.  The findings, reported below, are organized under the followingthree headings.  First,interdisciplinary inquiry for offline (real world) vs. online (web site)educational practices; second, interface and information presentation, andthird, infrastructure. The fourth and final section provides a summary.

Findings

The Website's Jurisdictional Claim for Inter-disciplinary Teaching and Learning

Participantsin the mixed focus group, including both Humanitas and non-Humanitas teachers,were doubtful of benefits from arts-centered instruction and even what thelatter really meant.  For example,participant #3 said, "I teach an English class, and there is a lot ofliterature with art references in it...but, I don't know what you mean aboutart-centered, since my whole thing is literature centered."  Humanitas participant #4, echoing theremarks from participant #3, stated "I don't do much about art, so it'sreally hard for me to incorporate something...but since I have no art backgroundat all, I am starting from step one: what is it? how is it relevant?"

Accordingto participants in the Humanitas Teachers focus group, however, thematicorientation in arts-centered programs empowers students to relate what theylearn in class to specific cultural and political events.  Humanitas participant #1 said that"thematically, I think it helps because it reaches across thecurriculum...therefore for the students it becomes a much easier learning process...suddenlythe world has connections."  Participant#3 in the Humanitas focus group added that arts-centered "it's a visualway to learn, it's a visual way to understand...gives studentsconfidence."  Humanitas Participant#2 added that "we spend as much time, you know, looking at slides...and actuallyturning up more like an academic course, with a language to be, you know,learned, just like science or history and vocabulary, and um...they'rereflecting." 

Ingeneral, Humanitas Teachers described an arts-centered humanities curriculum asa critical way to hold the attention of students and to promote an alternativeway for inquiry and intellectual scaffolding. Through the arts-centered approach students work in smaller groups andare given more project-oriented assignments. Even though art is at the center of the learning process, the goal isnot to turn students into artists or to only produce objects of art.  The intention is to offer students analternative method to reflect and inquire about common themes that studentslearn about in their core classes. According to the discussion among Humanitas Teachers thematicinstruction enables teachers to stress and stretch the same topic across thecurriculum with the help of the arts. In other words, students get to hear the same theme addressed from adifferent point of view in world history, literature, art, biology and otherclasses that may be part of a Humanities-based curriculum.  In the opinion of these teachers what makesa dramatic difference is the use of art (a visual way of presenting the world)to facilitate learning and transfer of meaning where language, words and othertext-based ways of carrying meaning from person to person may fail.  As Humanitas participant #1 stated"students are becoming more...they're entering the dialogue.  And they are becoming more engaged."

Anarts-centered approach to educational practices was substantiated by HumanitasTeachers as useful and effective in a variety of examples the teachers offeredduring their focus group proceedings. For example, discourse on slavery and comparisons of how people dressedin different periods are made easier to undertake by using art form differentperiods.  In the colonial periodchildren were dressed like little adults; what does the latter suggest aboutthe period itself in terms of worldviews and human relations?  In addition, period art may be used in aneffort to critically interpret what was going on in the mind of the artistduring a specific period.  So, anarts-centered approach is broader than specific art objects and offers anopportunity to explore meanings about time periods and context forartists.  A widely known theme, a searchfor democratic ideals, was another example mentioned during the discussion inthe Humanitas Teacher focus group.  Thelatter theme has found many representations in painting and other artisticexpressions.  Easily, many period piecesmay be used to explore this theme.  Yet,the fact remains, as many teachers said, a widespread lack of local informationresources and access to undertake inquiries about the above and also otherthemes.  School libraries do not ownlarge art books in adequate supply or even color copiers to make sufficientcopies for student study.

HumanitasTeachers stated that students in various lessons were guided to enter adialogue with each other and with their teachers and to engage content inactive, critical and using a variety of social research methods.  Although some computer use by students tendsto be high, teachers reported that good use of content, expression of languageand structure of sentences and paragraphs remain the guidelines (or rubric) forgrades on student assignments.

Table 1: Comments by Humanitas Teachers on theusefulness and shortcomings of the ArtsOnline web site

 Table 3: Responses from all Teachers to thequestion: what is the rubric (standards) you use to assess student learning?

HumanitasTeachers said that thematic instruction offers opportunities forinterdisciplinary inquiry as well as makes it possible to teach students withdifferent learning modalities in different ways.  Repetition from class to class offers students different ways tolearn and therefore is at the heart of a thematic, arts-centered,interdisciplinary approach providing students the opportunity to besuccessful.  In addition to interdisciplinarythemes that stretch across the curriculum, the arts-centered humanitiesapproach emphasizes team-based instruction in all four disciplines of art-aesthetics, history, criticism and production- as well as language learningand writing.

Table 4: All Teachers responded as follows to thequestion: what does it take to build, maintain and have a well-functioningteam?

Table 5: All Teachers said the following to thequestion: what hurts new (arts-centered, humanities-based) teams and programs?

Twoof the five participants in the Student focus group reported attendance in aGetty arts-centered curriculum.  Theremaining three students reported attendance in the grade governed Humanitascore program. In general, students said that in order to have a successfularts-centered program you need access to information both online andoffline.  In addition, you should havepassionate teachers and support by parents at home.  Students agreed that since homework does not end at school thereis a need for convenient online access to materials from home and atschool.  In addition, studentspassionately argued that learning at school does not only employ cognitive andtraditional ways of thinking, but also relies on their creativity and differentways of looking at reality.  Studentssaid that their interest in art was not simply about real or virtual objects,but also about abstraction, ideas they come up with in their minds.  For this group of students, their interestsin the arts involved talking with family friends, people they went to churchwith and with local artists and museums professionals.  Students in the focus group had a strongliking for art as a way to make instruction more interesting and to addcultural diversity in how and what they learned.  They said that existing or old print-based ways of teachinglacked imagination and they suggested that perhaps if some color was added tohow they are taught then perhaps they could have a better recollection ofcontent.

Table 6: Response from Students to the question:what has been your experience with arts-centered instruction at your school?

Accordingto students, art provides for a thematic way to connect every single topic thatis taught in each class.  They said,arts-centered curriculum is important because for every thing presented to themin the classroom there is a piece of art to complement it.  For the core Humanities program, whichconsists of English, philosophy, aesthetics, and history/social institutions,everything is tied together with art's help. Students recommended a closer link between stuff on the web site andwhat they learn in the class and outside of the classroom.  Information content, however, as teacherspointed out it is also governed by state standards for performance andachievement. 

Table 7: Response from Students to the question:what suggestions do you have for content improvement in the web site?

Interms of the question, what is an art-centered program or practice, participant#4 in the Museum Educators focus groups said,

"we need to start with the work of art andgetting kids any ages to think about the work of art first and what it mightmean.  Then from there, have ideas thatthey can build on and later think about historically or in whatever othertraditional modes.  The Michael RayCharles piece (included in the web site)…requires you, the visitor to writesomething first, think about the subject, then write your response." 

Museumeducators took issue with some of the thematic content in some of the website's pages.  Even though they likedthe section on artists included in the web site, they disliked what thedescribed as a right/wrong approach to the questions in the section.  They suggested that a more flexible approachshould be utilized that does not seem to rely as much on a single-meaninginterpretation or a "right vs. wrong answer" philosophy.  The approach perhaps should be to encouragestudents to seek different types of information, offer different kinds ofanswers and to engage in different kinds of interpretive mechanisms.  The participants felt that the latterapproach would develop the students' independent critical thinking skills.  In addition, parts of the online assignmentsused what the group felt it was adversarial language and not a neutral,supportive or engaging language.

Discussionby Museum Educators, reflecting similar concerns about instruction as thoseexpressed by participants in the two focus groups for teachers, addressedissues for support mechanisms necessary within and outside a school to supportefforts at the school for a successful arts-centered program.  Based on their experience from working withteachers, Museum Educators said that teachers need help with interpretivestrategies during information searching so that they are better able to examinewhat they have found.  They went on toadd that strategies can be a series of reflective questions teachers can askthemselves about an object of art -- entry point in the interpretationprocess.  To aid with the development ofsuch strategies museums have advocating for some time now use of a variety ofresources such as the ArtsOnline web site and also participation in trainingprograms such as summer academies. 

Tothe question of what comes to mind when someone asks you what is arts-centerededucational practices? Museum Educators said that learning starts with anobject and evolves into different types of inquiry related to writing orconnected to finding information and learning something about art history. Inaddition, museum educators suggested finding out what teachers are teaching andthen developing strategies to present objects that relate to classroom themes.

Agreat deal of the discussion in the Technologists focus group was conceptual innature.  The participants exchangedideas on a number of issues ranging from techniques for evaluating onlineinformation, to design principles for an interactive, virtual reality site, tothe importance of the web offering a genuinely different experience forlearning.  For technologists,arts-centered educational processes and practices are not limited to a particularexperience, period of art, or to a certain kind of art only.  They expressed support in arts-centerededucation that provides intellectual access to the full range of the arts.  They wanted to see web sites that linkeddifferent aspects of art together and in a way to question understandings ofreality. 

Forparticipants in the Technologists focus group, the most important thing for anyart program, including a web site is to teach art with real art content, likecomposition, balance and contrast.  Thetechnique of doing and learning about art then is paramount.  There was a consensus that first, a personmust have a technical understanding of what they are supposed to do and thenthey can just throw the rules out of the window so to speak.  As technologist/artist participant #8 putit, "in my generation that was studying studio arts we did not talk aboutcontent or subject matter.  We onlytalked about composition." 

Table 8: Responses from Technologists to thequestion: how do you put together a successful arts-centered program?

Therewas a brief conversation on authority and information credibility amongtechnologists of different web sites before discussion turned to educationalactivities and arts-based experiences online. In terms of authority there was an exchange of ideas to the effect thata small web site could have just as much authority as a large institutional website so long as information was checked for accuracy.  It all depends on the information each site contains, thepresentation format, and how it resonates with the user.

The Web site's Design: A focus on the Interfaceand Information Presentation

Whilethe preliminary version of the web site offered access to different areas inthe web site (see section about Background, early in this paper), it offeredone common interface to all users. Humanitas Teachers suggested that the interface should be re-designed toallow for the different needs of teachers and students.  In terms of a split of a Teachers vs.Students Interface as an alternative design, teachers said that there should bea division (à students enter here à teachers enter here) that was viewed asdifferent from the initial “one for all” interface approach taken by thedevelopers of the web site.  They didsuggest, however, that only parts of the web site use the interface divisionapproach. 

Table 9: Responses from Technologists to thequestion: what suggestions do you have for improving the web site's interface?

Table 10: Responses form Museum Educators to thequestion: what suggestions do you have for improving the web site's interface? 

Eventhough museum educators voiced their critical concern with the web site theydid like the interdisciplinary approach and the concern for an integratedcurriculum so evident, according to them, in the web site.  Having commented on the web site's positiveinstructional aspects, however, Museum Educators noted that some items on thesite were mislabeled in that what was labeled as aesthetics or art historyturned out to be lessons when clicked on. 

Table 11: Responses from Technologists to thequestion: what suggestions do you have for improving the web site's interface 

Positive comments came from students about the website included their approval of how easy it was to navigate and to findinformation in it about various artists such as Michael Ray Charles for one oftheir assignments.  The web site, as thestudents pointed out, employed a good blend of smart layout, images and text tosteer them in the right direction. Because of the good blend they found, students did not so much mind theweb site's emphasis on teacher related materials

Table 12: Responses from Museum Educators to thequestion: what suggestions do you have for improving the web site's interface?

Twoissues that Museum Educators felt strongly needed attention for in web sitedevelopment to better serve arts-centered, educational practices included a)use of language and b) layout of the information presentation format.  For Museum Educators, language neededediting and restructuring for grade level appropriateness. 

Table 13: Responses from Museum Educators to thequestion: what rules apply in the two environments (online vs. offline) forpresenting information?

Interms of the web site's information presentation format, the structure anddensity of paragraphs, all teachers and museum educators suggested an onlineformat that relied on shorter sentences and statements and stressed clarity indescriptions of assignments.

Table 2:Information Presentation Format [Teachers and Museum Educators]

Inaddition, the paragraph format of information presentation was very dense aswell.  In this latter case, it was notso much the level of language difficulty as much as it was that information waspresented in a traditional print-based format. In addition, the print-based format was difficult to follow from a clearpedagogical point of view.  A readerwould need to read the entire section word for word to get a sense of instructionsof goals for an assignment.  Theysuggested that in many cases the paragraph format should be replaced with theobjectives, goals and standards format, all presented in bullet fashion.  The Museum Educators focus group felt that aclear thinking must take place in terms of what differentiates offline vs.online experiences.  As one participantput it, " I am just sort of a proponent of yes, it starts with the object,but where else can you go and how can a museum become this social space...theweb is its own medium."

Technologistshad strong ideas in response to thequestion, how do we create some kind of an online interactive experience?  In response, participant #1 from theTechnologists Focus Group said, "virtual reality, I' am sick of it. It simplydoes not work.  There is no substitutefor the real thing, for human interaction."  Others, albeit sympathetic to the opening comments emphasize theimportance of the web and one participant in a very eloquent language ask thegroup to reflect on just how perhaps the web invites users to think andperceive differently. 

Participant#6 from the Technologists focus group suggested that a web site could bedesigned as a follow-up to a museum visit and as an added educationalcomponent.  First, a group or a personvisits a museum or a cultural center. Second, you have the online component that provides connections toimages and offers assignments for reflection or completion. 

Andyet, participant #8 in the Technologists focus group argued, studies have foundthat "teachers really want a sense of place."  Others, in the group of technologists,commented a sense of place is one of the reasons why teachers photocopy imagesand distribute them for students to see. In addition, this latter action of copying provides immediate access andsomehow makes the process more real. The issue of equity of access came up and a discussion ensued in termsof how do we design web sites for people who have low levels of access.  Some suggested that perhaps designers shoulddesign "down" or provide low graphics with text.  Others strongly countered the latterposition with the idea that designs should proceed with conceptualization inmind for a full interactive, visual experience to materialize on the web.  On one hand, the web is a democratic placebecause everybody can have it, but the truth of the matter remains that noteveryone has access to it equally. Although the latter is a legitimate concern, Technologists suggested hatplans must go forward to fully exploit the web and also push for more access byall.  The focus should be on how to bestdesign a site that balances text with images the best way possible and offersan educational experience that engages kids and keeps them coming back formore.  One tech suggested that thepurpose of the experimental web site should be to offer teachers tools to getthe kids involved.  On the whole, theTechnologists group felt that there is something for both teachers and kids inthe ArtsOnline web site.

Infrastructureand Access concerns in the focus groups

Duringthe focus groups for teachers it was indicated that, as the importance of theWWW has been growing since 1992, a number of information technologyinfrastructure issues along with minority demographics and economics were addedto a list of factors that should be considered for information designonline.  This last section, relatesinformation design to aspects of infrastructure at schools, homes and in thestate of California that impact how the content and interface of web sites needto be designed to accommodate different aspects of infrastructure such asdifferent levels of access. 

Althougha discussion of content and interface is sufficient to indicate the importanceof information design online, it alone would be incomplete withoutconsideration of infrastructure issues such as equipment and network accesslevels for loading of web sites.  Forexample, an important consideration in the design of a web site is loadingtime.  As mentioned in the focus groups,the fact is that most users do not have T1 line, a cable modem or an ISDNconnection to the WWW.  And there arestill many Internet surfers with modems less than 56kb.  So, web site developers and informationdesigners must see to it that their sites load as quickly as possible withoutloosing anything important.

Interms of incomes and computer access athome, one of the three teachers at the focus group reported that hisstudents have access at home and use computers regularly.  The third teacher reported that his studentslive in an area populated by 92% Latino and 8% African-American.  Computer ownership is not widespread in thisarea according to the teacher.  Thesecond of the three teachers teaches in an area that seems to be in the middleof the other two in terms of income and computer resources at home and atschool.

Duringthe focus groups, students reported that they use computers at home for word processing, doingresearch for assignment and for fun. One of the things they said was that they find images and art online andemail it to each other, they feel this brings them closer together.  Even though their teachers do not requirethem to use the web for research they do it for the fun of it.  The also use the web for news and generalinformation. 

Table 14: Summary of Infrastructure Issues atSchools (from all focus groups)

Table 15:Institutional infrastructure issues at Schools (from Humanitas andNon-Humanitas Teachers): what does it take to start an arts-centered program(web-based or otherwise)?

Summary

Concernsabout the ability in ArtsOnline to adequately support automatedhumanities-based, arts-centered educational practices (teaching and learning)were evident in all focus groups. Participants in focus groups, not only suggested improvements they feltwere necessary in the web site's design, but also doubted the importance of artas opposed to literature to support humanities-based interdisciplinaryinquiry.  For those who accepted anarts-centered, humanities-based program, however, it was clear that studentsare able to examine themes across the curriculum using art objects in ways thatsupport different learning modalities and make instruction fun for allstudents.  There was no doubt that a website, when fully completed and equipped with all necessary tools, could helpteachers prepare for classes, but the current lesson plan content on the website was inadequate for day-to-day classroom needs for all age and gradelevels.

Yet,the web site was a great step in the right direction in making morearts-related resources, particularly for places where art resources werelacking, more accessible to students at all times, assuming ofcourse that thestudents had access to computers.  Basedon their understanding of the role that "arts-centered" played in theeducational practices of humanities-based teachers, participants interpretedand evaluated the web site somewhat differently.  It was clear, however, from discussion in all focus groups thathumanities-based educational practices, art or otherwise, do facilitateinterdisciplinary inquiry.

Informationpresentation and interface design received a great deal of attention in allfocus groups.  The view was shared byall participants that the techniques needed for information presentation onlinediffered dramatically from the offline world in terms of amount of information,aesthetic balance between text and images and ability to link and to promoteinterdisciplinary inquiry.  Yet, in abasic way, good grammar and a well-thought out layout for text was essentialfor learning both the offline and the online world of educational practice in ahumanities-based curriculum. 

Albeitthe planned focus for the research was on inter-disciplinary content andinformation presentation, including interface design, for the web site, a greatdeal of information about infrastructure barriers surfaced during focus groupsdiscussion.  Infrastructure interpretedby the participants in the focus groups to include home and school computeraccess to satisfy content for state-related educational standards was andcontinues to be a hot topic at LAUSD were not all schools are connected to theInternet and do not all have adequate computer facilities.  Sate standards in various disciplinary areaswere discussed and many strong opinions exchanged among teachers about thein-effectiveness of the standards to guide education in a multiculturalinformation society.  Teachers said thatstandards are important in that they shape levels and density of knowledge tiesteachers should make for the grades they teach.  Teachers and students felt that the state's standards were out oftouch with student needs and that current educational practices were surpassingsuch standards.

References

 Bitgood, S.(1986). Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence visitorbehavior. Jacksonville: Jacksonville State University.

Burbules, N. C. & Thomas A.Callister, Jr. (2000).  Watch IT: TheRisks and Promises of Information Technologies for Education. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.   

Carey, P. (2001). Creating Web Pageswith HTML (1st ed. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Course Technology.

Homer, A. (1997). Instant HTML,programmer's reference (2nd ed. ed.). Birmingham, UK: Wrox Press.

Hood, M. G. (1983). Staying away.  Why people choose not to visit museums.Museum News, 61, 50-57.

Kristoff, R. and Satran, A. (1995).Interactivity by Design: Creating and Communicating with New Media. MountainView, CA: Adobe Press. 

LaChance, M. (2000). Building a BasicWeb Site. Smart Computing, 6, 126.

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (1998).Critical Literacy and New Technologies. Paper presented to the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Diego.

Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K.,Middleton, T., Morocco, C., Remz, A., and Zorfass, J. (1993). Using Technologyto Support Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Niederst, J. (1999). Web Design in aNutshell. Sebastopol: O'Reilly.

Presidents' Committee of Advisors onScience and Technology: Panel on Educational Technology (1997). Report to thePresident on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the UnitedStates (Executive Summary). Washington DC. http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html.

Roberts, D. (2000). Children, the Internet and FunLearning. Report to Disney On-line: www.disney.go.com.

Robinson, E. S. (1931). Exit the typicalvisitor. Journal of Adult Education, 3, 418-423.

Rosch, W. L. (1995). Multimedia Bible(1st ed. ed.). Indianapolis, Ind.: SAMS Publishing.

Schroeder, D. (2000). The Key toEffective Design. Available: http://www.pagersource.com [2001, April 19].

Screven, C. G. (1990). Uses ofEvaluation before, during, and after exhibit designs. ILVS Review: A Journal ofVisitor Behavior, 1, 33-66.

Sledge, J. (1995). Points of View. In D.Bearman (Ed.), Multimedia Computing and Museums: Selected Papers from the ThirdInternational Conference on Hypermedia and Interactivity in Museums (ICHHIM '95and MCN '95) (pp. 335-346). Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museums.

Weinman, L. (1999). Designing Webgraphics / words: How to prepare images and media for the web. Indianapolis, Ind.: New Riders Pub.

Zorich, D. M. (1991). Library and MuseumInformation: Beauty and the Beast. Spectra, 18(4), 2-8.

Zorich, D. M. (1997a). Beyond Bitslag:Integrating Museum Resources on the Internet. In K. Jones-Garmil (Ed.), TheWired Museum: Emerging Technology and Changing Paradigms (pp. 171-201).Washington DC: American Association of Museums.

Zorich, D. M. (1997b, July/August).CyberMuse: Linking the Profession. Museum News, 76, 23, 25.