Research questions

Firstly, we investigate the conceptual framework and methodological possibilities and constraints concerning transfer from the practical aesthetic school subjects to other domains.

Secondly, we analyse the transfer arguments in arts and craft and physical education.

Thirdly, we outline alternative perspectives on transfer in the practical aesthetic school subjects.

Within the framework we have at our disposal, we cannot go as deep into all these issues as we could want and will therefore only indicatively sketch potentials in relation to the third question.

Objectives

This paper investigates the empirical ground for transfer thinking about the practical aesthetic school subjects in the Nordic countries and possible constraints. We investigate the conceptual framework and methodological possibilities and constraints concerning transfer from the PAS subjects to other domains. We also analyse the transfer arguments in arts and craft and physical education.

There are similarities in how these subjects are debated and positioned in the broader Nordic educational discourses, usually involving concepts such as aesthetic(s), activity, bodily experience, (Gulliksen 2016, Lindström 2012, Standal 2016). However, this debate does not say much about how these concepts are experienced and become meaningful by students in practice. The conceptualisation is rather vague, and the knowledge base of the subjects is unclear, thus the subjects have an ambivalent position in the Nordic schools. The PAS are positioned in the discourse on education as both crucial to, and fundamentally different from other school subjects (Prøitz & Borgen 2010). Most common in the Nordic countries is that the subjects have no standard examination and teachers assign final grades to their own students. Furthermore, the subjects are not included in the OECD PISA surveys and other empirical research that examines school performance and learning outcomes.

Practical aesthetic school subjects are expected to impart a specific type of knowledge. Related to the transfer argument, that the artistic and cultural subjects and physical education help to strengthen learning outcomes in schools in general, we hear the argument that this is especially the case for those who have difficulty with the theoretical aspect of school (Bamford 2006). The reason given is that these subjects open up the possibility of more and varied forms of learning. Amplification of these arguments came in with scores at the PISA-tests in the Nordic countries (Kjærnsli et al 2007). The PISA reports revealed mediocre performance for Norwegian fifteen years old students, and signs of panic spread among school politicians. Practical aesthetic school subjects are presented as solution to the distress (Bamford 2011). This illustrates how the transfer argument from PAS to the remaining school subjects and other domains can have impact in the general educational debate. Nordic education policy is strongly influenced by positive expectations about the practical aesthetic subjects' influence on the overall physical and mental health in a lifelong perspective, as well as on the development of cognitive skills and learning.

Theoretical framework

Although the transfer argument is widely recognized and referred to in the PAS in general and in the arts and craft and physical education subjects, the relationship between referred empirical ground and transfer as a result or a consequence of learning seems to be vague in these subject areas.

The transfer domain is a disputed theoretical position, as well as methodologically complicated (Winner et al 2013, Shadish, Cook & Campbell 2002). In the following we will elaborate the problems we are facing when we try to find out if it is possible to find research-based arguments for transfer. We will build on Lobato`s (2012) distinction between what is referred to as mainstream cognitive perspectives and actor-oriented perspectives on transfer.

References: Bamford, A. (2006). The Wow-factor. Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education. Berlin: Waxmann. Bamford, A. (2011). Arts and Cultural Education in Norway. Bodø: Nasjonalt senter for kunst og kultur i opplæringen. Retrieved from: http://www.kulturskoleradet.no/upload/bruker/dokumenter/Dokumentarkiv/10_Forskning/2012_Arts_and_Cultural_Education_in_Norway.pdf Gulliksen, M. S. (2016). Embodied Making, Creative Cognition and Memory Drawing on neurobiological knowledge of creative cognition and the role of the hippocampus in memory storage and recollection to explore the experience of carving green wood. FORMakademisk vol 9, nr 1, 1-19. Hovland, G. & Söderberg, S. (2005). Evaluating the Practical and Artistic School Subjects in Sweden and Norway. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University College Dublin, 7-10 September 2005. Retrieved from: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/143546.doc Kjærnsli, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R. V., & Roe, A. (2007). Tid for tunge løft. Norske elevers kompetanse i naturfag, lesing og matematikk i PISA 2006. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Lindström, L. (2012). Aesthetic Learning About, In, With and Through the Arts: A Curriculum Study. The international journal of art & design education, Volume 31, Issue 2, June 2012, 166–179. DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2012.01737.x Lobato, J. (2012): The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47 (3), 232-247. Prøitz, T.S. & Borgen, J.S. (2010). Rettferdig standpunktvurdering – det (u)muliges kunst? NIFU STEP report 16/2010. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell D.T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, M.A: Houghton Mifflin Company. Standal, Ø. F. (2016). Phenomenology and Pedagogy in Physical Education. London: Routledge. Winner, E., Goldstein, T.R. & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). „The impact of arts education: From advocacy to evidence”. In Art for Art’s Sake? The Impact of Arts Education, OECD Publishing.