1. Art Education / July 201112
I
nfusing technology into art education practice has been a continuous endeavor for
preservice and in-service art teacher education (Bastos, 2010; Mayo, 2007). In recent years,
art educators around the world have researched issues related to the preparation of art teacher
technology competencies, including art teacher perceptions of working with technology (Black,
2009; Phelps & Maddison, 2008), implementations of digital media in art teaching practice (Shin,
2010; Taylor, Carpenter, Ballengee-Morris, & Sessions, 2006), identifications of the key factors and
obstacles of art and technology integration (Delacruz, 2004; Wood, 2004), recommendations of
educational resources and applications (Burton, 2010; Gregory, 2009; Roland, 2010), and the chal-
lenges and potential of art and technology infusion (Delacruz, 2009a). Such research offers direc-
tions and models on what art teachers themselves can do to engage art and digital media more
deeply in the art room, yet relatively little evidence exists on the interplay between art teachers’
engagement of technology and technological support from the school administration.
A Learning Ecology
Perspective: SchoolSystems
SustainingArtTeachingwithTechnology
By C h i n g - C h i u L i n
This article presents a case study of an art
teacher’s adoption of and engagement with
technology in association with the admin-
istrative support and technological infra-
structure in a public high school, in which
the vision of technology innovation fans out
from the school administration to faculty
and students. It describes how a technologi-
cally supportive school environment can
influence the school culture and learning
climate, as well as teacher motivation and
satisfaction. Adopting a learning ecology
perspective that highlights the network of
learning relationships, I suggest the need to
better understand how learning institutions,
contexts, and conditions may support and
foster art teachers’ professional development
in technology.
Toward an Ecology of Learning
A learning ecology perspective (Bruce,
1998; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009)
might help art educators to conceptualize the
use of technology in relation to art teaching
practice and art teacher professional develop-
ment. Unlike the common ecological under-
standings of art education as an inquiry
into the physical conditions of the natural
world, the learning ecology perspective
employs ecology as a metaphor for describing
a space for learning with technology, and
learning institutions are seen as an ecological
system (Nardi & O’Day, 1999; Zhao &
Frank, 2003). John Seely Brown (2000)
described an ecology as an “open, complex,
adaptive system comprising elements that
are dynamic and interdependent” (p. 19),
whereas Brigid Barron (2006) defined a
learning ecology as the “set of contexts found
in physical or virtual spaces that provide
opportunities for learning” (p. 195). Such
views consider learning not only as existing
simply in the minds of individuals, but also
as embedded in a network of relationships
between participants, practices, pedagogies,
and technologies in a situated environment.1
Recently, art educators have responded to the
value of an ecological, networked frame-
work in understanding artistic inquiries
associated with digital media, examining the
dynamic relationships of learning in art and
technology infusion (Castro, 2009; Sweeny,
2004). Building on these scholarly insights,
this article contributes to an understanding
of the contextual interplay of art teachers’
technology engagement and support.

2. July 2011 / Art Education 13
Interplay of Technology Engagement
and Support
Administrative Support
Newark Community High School is
located in a rural Midwestern town with
a population of less than 1,000, mostly
Caucasians, whose principal industries are
construction and agriculture.2
With fewer
than 200 students, Newark is the only high
school in this district and has a reputa-
tion for integrating technology into the
schoolwide curriculum. Newark’s vision of a
technological focus began with the dedica-
tion of its previous superintendent, Mr.
Roger Sanders, and has since been continued
by the current superintendent, Ms. Pauline
Berggren. In Berggren’s words, “Mr. Sanders
was a tremendous force in making the
faculty realize the importance of technology
and using technology as a tool in education;
not that it’s something separated, but that
it’s integrated within the courses” (personal
communication, April 24, 2007).3
Carrying on this shared school vision,
administrative staff see themselves as a
supportive force for teachers, financially
ensuring the availability of resources and
equipment and retaining responsibility
for the school’s overall technical support.
For example, the school regularly updates
software programs and a collection of
stock images and footage, provides several
Windows- and Macintosh-specific computer
labs for different educational uses, and
offers technical and operational support
through a full-time technology specialist.
Newark’s commitment to technology is also
amply illustrated by the faculty’s teaching
equipment. For example, William Blidy,
an art teacher in his early 30s, has access
to one laptop and two desktop computers:
one for his studio classroom and another
for the computer lab. Blidy also oversees a
computer lab with about 30 Apple Macintosh
computers that is fully stocked with white
screens, camcorders, scanners, and printers.
Blidy has expressed his gratitude to succes-
sive superintendents and principals as the
school has regularly purchased any software
programs he requested for the classes.
Blidy’s Inspiration
Blidy has taught at Newark for about 10
years. As a one-man visual arts department,
he has designed and taught all art courses
at this school as part of a 4-year visual art
curriculum of eight courses classifiable as
either hands-on (e.g., Ceramics, Art I, and
Design I) or based on digital media (e.g.,
Computer Graphics and Multimedia).
Besides being an art teacher, Blidy serves as
the Webmaster for Newark’s school website,
the technology workshop instructor for his
colleagues, and a teacher-researcher on a
funded project that explores the implementa-
tion of videoconferencing in art teaching. He
also manages an online school art gallery and
an art class blog on which he posts students’
artwork and communicates with students
and parents online.
Blidy attributes most of his proficiency in
teaching art with technology to Mr. Sanders,
an advocate of school technology innova-
tion and the former superintendent. Blidy’s
initial encounter with technology began in
his first year of teaching art at another high
school. At that point, his usage of tech-
nology consisted only of scanning pictures
to make transparencies of his ceramics class
for overhead projection. His later educa-
tional use of technology as an art medium
was sparked by Sanders’s encouragement,
beginning at Blidy’s job interview with
a question about teaching a Photoshop
class. At that point, Blidy knew little about
computer graphics programs but appreciated
the opportunity to learn and grow. As he
recalls, on his first day of teaching at Newark,
Sanders placed a Macintosh computer,
scanner, and printer in his art room and
Multimedia class conducts a
videoconference with Paul Ewen,
a producer of public service
commercials from New York City.

3. Art Education / July 201114
continued such encouragement on a regular basis: “Mr. Sanders
would bring boxes of software and say, ‘Look, this is a 3D
modeling program you might be interested in trying out. Hang
on to that for a while’ ” (personal communication, May 3, 2007).
With Sanders’s support, Blidy’s knowledge about and experience
with teaching art with technology has developed greatly over his
10 years teaching at Newark, mostly through self-instruction:
he researches online resources, reads manuals, and tries out the
new programs.
Blidy also recognizes that the technologically infused partner-
ship with his colleagues has broadened his horizon as a teacher,
as he frequently modifies his teaching by implementing new
ideas taken from his colleagues. In return, understanding only
too well the time-consuming process of learning technology
alone, Blidy has designed and instructed technology workshops
for his colleagues. Though burdened with multiple school
duties, he has nevertheless been able to focus on his teaching,
freed from concerning himself with the school budget and
technical support. As Blidy remarked, “I have always been able
to do whatever projects I wanted, and I have never had to worry
about supplies or equipment” (personal communication, April
25, 2007). Although the workload at Newark is much heavier
than at his previous school, Blidy admits to enjoying the current
working environment: “I found the right fit. I think I found the
school primarily fit for me” (personal communication, May 3,
2007). In addition, in my observation, Blidy’s achievement stems
not only from the support of his colleagues and supervisors
but also from his self-expectation of maintaining the quality of
his teaching. Constantly seeking ways to improve his practice,
Blidy’s perfectionist work ethic pushes him to do his best and
never allows him to be satisfied.
Blidy’s Instructional Strategies
Blidy’s technological knowledge is mostly gleaned from his
independent study, which is in turn motivated by a school-wide
commitment to technology. Thus his instructional strategies
exemplify the cultivation of a two-way collaborative knowledge
production between teacher and students. I have observed that
in his teaching technology-infused art curricula, Blidy shifted
from being the sole source of knowledge about content and
media to sharing expertise and authority with students.
One major instructional strategy is evident in Blidy’s
technology-related classes: program discovery, in which he
encourages art student involvement through the explora-
tion of software programs. As Blidy notes, he has developed
his technology competencies through learning along with
students in a school atmosphere that promotes peer assistance
and knowledge sharing. When introducing a new software
program, he first practices until he knows enough to teach it.
He admits to his students that he does not have a full under-
standing of the program tools and must learn along with them.
Welcoming student input, Blidy then names the techniques
after the students who discover it, such as “the Emily effect,” and
then uses both the invented and actual names of the program
elements interchangeably in his teaching. According to Blidy,
his students, in turn, “seem receptive to this strategy and are
eager to show me new things” (personal communication, April
A screenshot of Newark Community High School’s online art gallery
(www.newarkhs.k12.il.us/artgallery/index.html).
The technologically infused partnership with Blidy’s
colleagues has broadened his horizon as a teacher,
as he frequently modifies his teaching by
implementing new ideas taken from his colleagues.
A screenshot of Mr. Blidy’s art classes blog (http://nchsart.blogspot.com/).

4. July 2011 / Art EducAtion 15
23, 2007). Within this all-learning-together environment,
the art students seem less anxious about figuring out the
software programs. In fact, they become visibly attached to
the filters uncovered by their peers and themselves, as well
as being willing to try these tools out and take the initiative
in exploring the programs.
Art Student Responses
Blidy’s art students commented on the ease of learning
technology, career preparation, and the collaboration
related to their technology-enriched learning environ-
ment. Although Blidy teaches sophisticated computer
graphics and video editing programs, his students reported
that learning these programs is not difficult. For example,
Steve and Ashlee4
pointed out that Blidy always begins
with small components so students can become familiar
with the program techniques and imperceptibly develop
their abilities to operate the applications. Likewise, Lindsey
noted that Blidy makes it easy to adapt to new programs
by comparing similar tools and concepts among several
graphic programs. Having acquired the confidence to
operate the program, the students enjoy expressing their
ideas and trust that Blidy will help them to realize their
ideas through the chosen medium and tools. Because of
this trusting relationship, Blidy’s students are willing to
take up the challenges he lays down. For instance, several
students remarked that Blidy pushes his students to try
their best but still respects student opinions and decisions.
Referring to how strenuous and time consuming video
production and graphic design can be, Ashlee and Ian
admitted that Blidy’s encouragement and support have
stimulated their persistence in challenging and refining
their assignments. Exhibiting little panic at handling
sophisticated computer programs, Jason and Emily
acknowledged their technological knowledge has built up
gradually through sequential learning in a step-by-step
process.
The art students are also aware of how Newark’s
computer-enabled environment affects their learning by
exposing them to technology in various other subjects:
for example, learning video editing and photo manipu-
lation programs in keyboarding class, creating a blog
in history class, or making a video of a student-acted
play in literature class. Thus, Ian reported an awareness
of being “in an environment where we can put all our
ideas and efforts into computer” (personal communica-
tion, May 3, 2007), with which Lindsay concurred: “The
atmosphere here at school is very computer friendly.
It doesn’t matter what classes you take, you’ve got to
be in contact with computers at some point” (personal
communication, May 14, 2007). Technology also serves
student career aspirations at Newark as staff and faculty
convey to their students that technological competence
is imperative in both society and the workplace. Affected
by this orientation, many students see their learning with
technology as a serious part of building for their careers
and post-secondary education opportunities. Likewise,
the art students commented on the school culture that
values peer-assistance in learning technology. As they are
encouraged to learn from, help, and inspire each other,
they are exposed to technology-related collaboration
and competition. Thus, Madison remarked that audience
response was part of her motivation in making her video
in Blidy’s class because the students have high expecta-
tions for their peers’ digital productions, while Ellie
reflected she got to work with friends constantly because
most of her school projects required technology-involved
cooperation among her peers.
Student artwork showcases in the school hallway.Mr. Blidy’s computer lab.

5. Art Education / July 201116
Implications for Art Education
Three particular implications of my study relate to the
question of how school administrators and teachers can work
together toward the development of a technology-enriched
learning environment.
Ecological Attention to Technology Integration
The case study presented serves as an example, from a
learning ecology perspective, of how a school can achieve tech-
nological innovation. Newark can be viewed as an ecosystem of
learning that sustains the network between its members (admin-
istrators, teachers, and students), who work together toward a
shared value of developing student potential through technology
integration. This learning model highlights a set of collabora-
tive efforts from institutional, pedagogical, and organizational
aspects. It serves as an important reminder to both educa-
tional policymakers and school practitioners across disciplines
that successful school technology innovations are tied to the
contextual relationship among the technological participations
of all school members. Within this model, the understanding of
technology moves beyond its function as a tool to highlight its
social practice that involves human interaction and collaboration
served by technology. Just as members of school communities
can view school in general as an ecological system that supports
interrelated collaborations between all roles, the responsibility
and development of infusing technology into art education
practice are shared and formed among administrators, teachers,
and students.
A Human Infrastructure for Supporting Art Teachers’
Technological Engagement
Blidy’s case suggests that school support can significantly
affect an art teacher’s use of technology. Research has shown
that issues like time constraints, lack of resources, and limited
support make the use of digital media a continual challenge
to art teachers’ ability to maintain professional competen-
cies (Delacruz, 2004, 2009b; Gregory, 2009). Moreover, such
challenges influence art teachers’ motivation to implement
technology in the classroom; they suggest a need for a “healthy
human infrastructure and a functional and convenient technical
infrastructure” that can stimulate teachers’ motivation to use
technology in school settings (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers,
2002, p. 512). Obviously, overwork is common for dedicated
teachers, but the difference lies in its consequences: Whereas
satisfaction with working conditions motivates teacher dedica-
tion, frustration with it diminishes teacher vitality. Even though
many art teachers are resourceful and persistent in overcoming
the obstacles to exposing students to the technology-infused art
learning experience, providing art teachers with adequacy of
resources and support in their technology uses can effectively
encourage them to make changes in teaching and learning.
Particularly, when art teachers have no need to worry about
issues like technical maintenance, computer system compat-
ibility, or negotiation of technology-related policies and
procedures, they can dedicate most of their energy to innovative
pedagogical practice.
The Art Teacher as a School Technology Leader in
Sustaining a School Technology Plan
As Nardi and O’Day (1999) observed, “teacher leaders are
nurtured with an ecology of information that supports diverse
partners staying connected in continuous evolution and growth,
and where local experience and experimentation provides
guidance to a larger-scale planning and implementation
process” (p. 75). My study provides evidence that technologically
competent art teachers are capable of assuming such leadership
positions in schools. An art teacher can act as a school tech-
nology facilitator and leader to assist other teachers’ technology
adaptation and implementation. Such an approach to the growth
of teachers is important because it responds directly to teachers’
need for efficient professional development and practical
knowledge.
Why art teachers? Blidy, as the technology leader at Newark,
offers an example of the deep ties between art education and
technological innovation in teaching. His technological knowl-
edge has enabled him to teach technology workshops to his
colleagues. In these workshops, Blidy shares his teaching strate-
gies and experiences, discusses ways to integrate digital media
into a variety of subjects, offers applicable examples that can be
modified to teachers’ situated teaching contexts, and encourages
teachers to consider the aesthetic quality of their technology-
infused presentations and projects in terms of effective visual
communication. Commenting on Blidy’s school technology
leadership, Newark’s Superintendent Berggren, herself a former
art teacher, said, “Art itself is an integrated subject, and Blidy’s
knowledge in art and technology helps the faculty to see the
connections among subjects they teach and new technologies”
(personal communication, March 21, 2007). Many of Blidy’s
colleagues also showed respect for his contribution to Newark’s
reputation for technology integration by positively commenting
on his ability to oversee the technological potential and inspire
other teachers’ technological engagements.
In fact, scholarship on teachers’ need for productive, practical
professional development in technology infusion has strongly
suggested employing art teachers as school technology leaders
(Dunn, 1996). It is important for administrators and teachers
to recognize this value, since art teachers as technology leaders
are capable of offering strength and expertise in coping with
sustainable school technology innovation, as well as working
with colleagues across subjects as a team to undertake the chal-
lenges and opportunities arising from their technology use.
The art teacher’s leadership is especially relevant to a school’s
professional development program in technology, which helps
to promote a school-wide commitment of pursuing a balance of
creative and critical inquiries in the information age.
Why art teachers? Blidy, as the technology
leader at Newark, offers an example of the deep
ties between art education and technological
innovation in teaching.

6. July 2011 / Art Education 17
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-
sustained learning as catalysts of
development: A learning ecologies
perspective. Human Development,
49(4), 193-224.
Bastos, F. (2010). Editorial: New media
art education. Art Education, 63(1),
4-5.
Black, J. (2009). Necessity is the mother
of invention: Changing power
dynamics between teachers and
students in wired art classrooms.
Canadian Review of Art Education,
36, 75-118.
Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital:
How the web changes work and
education and the ways people learn.
Change, 11-20.
Bruce, B. (1998). The disappearance of
technology: Toward an ecological
model of literacy. In D. Reinking,
M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer
(Eds.), Handbook of literacy and
technology: Transformations in a
post-typographic world (pp. 269-281).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burton, D. (2010). Web-based student
art galleries. Art Education, 63(1),
47-52.
Castro, J. (2009). An inquiry into
knowing, learning, and teaching
art through new and social media.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The University of British Columbia.
Delacruz, E. (2004). Teachers’ working
conditions and the unmet promise of
technology. Studies in Art Education,
46(1), 6-19.
Delacruz, E. (2009a). Old world
teaching meets the new digital
cultural creatives. International
Journal of Art & Design Education,
28(3), 261-268.
Delacruz, E. (2009b). Art educa-
tion aims in the age of new media:
Moving toward global civil society.
Art Education, 62(5), 13-18.
Dunn, P. (1996). More power:
Integrated interactive technology
and art education. Art Education,
49(6), 6-11.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes,
J. (2009). Learning, teaching, and
scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0
and classroom research: What path
should we take now? Educational
Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
Gregory, D. (2009). Boxes with fires:
Wisely integrating learning tech-
nologies into the art classroom. Art
Education, 62(3), 47-54.
Mayo, S. (2007) Implications for art
education in the third millennium:
Art technology integration. Art
Education, 60(5), 45-51.
Nardi, B., & O’Day, V. (1999).
Information ecologies: Using tech-
nology with heart. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Phelps, R., & Maddison, C. (2008). ICT
in the secondary visual arts class-
room: A study of teachers’ values,
attitudes and beliefs. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology,
24(1), 1-14.
Roland, C. (2010). Preparing art
teachers to teach in a new digital
landscape. Art Education, 63(1),
17-24.
Shin, R. (2010). Taking digital creativity
to the art classroom: Mystery box
swap. Art Education, 63(2), 38-42.
Sweeny, R. (2004). Lines of sight in
the “network society.” Studies in Art
Education, 46(1), 74-87.
Taylor, P., Carpenter, S., Ballengee-
Morris, C., & Sessions, B. (2006).
Interdisciplinary approaches to
teaching art in high school. Reston,
VA: National Art Education
Association.
Wood, J. (2004). Open minds and a
sense of adventure: How teachers of
art & design approach technology.
The International Journal of Art &
Design Education, 23(2), 179-191.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors
affecting technology uses in schools:
An ecological perspective. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(4),
807-840.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers,
J. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers
College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
References
Endnotes
1The notion of learning in this article refers both to
art teachers’ professional growth in teaching art with
technology and to students’ digitally mediated learning
experience.
2 The school and faculty names have been used with
their permission.
3 All quotes are taken from individual interviews with
the research participants.
4 All student names are pseudonyms.
Conclusion
The case study of Newark Community High School’s commit-
ment to technology, together with art teacher William Blidy’s
technology engagement, presents one possibility of how the
promise of technology innovation can be delivered in a public
school setting from administrators to faculty and students.
Although the success of this case ties to its context of the entire
network relationship, this study shows the need for a technolog-
ical infrastructure in sustaining a technology-enriched learning
environment for art education. It also highlights a necessity
of examining the practice of art and technology integration as
posited in contexts and relationships, rather than looking into
the single element, such as the teacher or digital media per se.
As art teachers’ knowledge about, attitudes toward, and practices
of technology are considerably conditioned by the adequacy
of resources and support in the workplace, this article reminds
policymakers and school administrators about their powerful
and important role in providing frontline teachers with func-
tional infrastructure and institutional support. Such support not
only can contribute to working conditions that facilitate teacher
engagement with technology, but also can provide students with
a positive learning climate and a dynamic school culture. Indeed,
given enabling conditions, art teachers are capable of integrating
technology into their teaching, acting in the role of school
technology leaders, sharing their expertise with colleagues, and
contributing to school technology innovation.
Ching-Chiu Lin is Faculty Advisor, Teacher Education Office,
at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada. E-mail: jingchiu@gmail.com
NAEA Awards Nomination Deadline
The deadline for the submission of nominations for
most 2012 NAEA Awards is October 1, 2011.
Watch www.arteducators.org/awards for revised guidelines
for 2012 award submissions.
For additional information, contact Kathy Duse, Executive
Assistant and Convention/Programs Coordinator: awards@
arteducators.org, 703-889-1281.

7. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.