This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Lupton, Mandy(2013)Reclaiming the art of teaching.Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), pp. 156-166.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/51047/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.694098

1

Reclaiming the art of teaching Mandy Lupton

This paper explores the art and craft of teaching in higher education. It presents a model of the relationship between art and craft drawn from the author’s theoretical and empirical work, and provides examples from the higher education context to illustrate the model. It discusses the characteristics of teaching as art and craft and critiques the move towards standardisation and conformity in favour of originality, creativity and innovation. It suggests that to see teaching as art is more holistic, satisfying and transformative than to see it as craft. It argues for reclaiming the art of teaching and provides strategies for encouraging and supporting artistic teaching.

Keywords: teaching; learning; higher education; art; craft

Introduction

‘The aesthetic in teaching is the experience secured from being able to put your own signature on your work – to look at it and say it was good’ (Eisner 1993, 12).

Teaching in higher education has been increasingly characterised by an environment

that limits originality and risk taking. Calls for efficiency, standardisation, consistency

and accountability related to the corporatisation of higher education (Sawyer, Johnson

and Holub 2009) have emphasised a view of teaching as a craft. In this paper, I

present a model of the relationship between art and craft that I relate to teaching in

higher education. As I demonstrate in the model, craft is usually associated with

conformity, utility and preconception of outcome, while art is usually associated with

uniqueness, improvisation, expression and communication of meaning. I argue that in

reclaiming the art of teaching it is possible to reconceptualise teaching in higher

education wherein expressing one’s ‘own signature’ (Eisner 1993, 12) through

originality, imagination, creativity and innovation is encouraged and celebrated.

First, I present my model of the relationship between art and craft and

provide examples from the higher education context to illustrate the model. Second, I

2

discuss the characteristics of teaching as art and craft. Last, I argue for reclaiming the

art of teaching and suggest strategies for encouraging and supporting artistic teaching.

The art and craft of teaching in higher education Discussion of teaching as art in relation to school teaching has enjoyed a tradition

dating back to the 1970s (see for example Black 1971; Smith 1971; Eisner 1979;

Dawe 1984; Hill 1985; Rubin 1985; Reitman 1986; Barrell 1991; Eisner 1993;

Grumet 1993; May 1993; Sarason 1999; Eisner 2002; Sawyer 2004). In particular,

arts educator Elliot Eisner has been a prominent and influential voice, and this paper

owes a debt to Eisner’s views. However, it is notable that there has not been a similar

body of work in relation to teaching as art in the higher education sector. Rather,

similar issues have been addressed in a small body of work on creativity in teaching

and curriculum design in higher education (McGoldrick 2002; Clegg 2008; Kleiman

2008; Oliver c2002).

While there is not a body of work that directly addresses the art-craft of

teaching in higher education, there has been a related discussion that critiques the

privileging of conformity and standardisation in teaching over originality,

imagination, creativity and risk-taking (Priest and Quaife-Ryan 2004; Palmer 2007;

Yair 2008; Sawyer, Johnson and Holub 2009) which is set within a larger body of

work that critiques the corporatisation and bureaucratisation of higher education (see

for example Hayes and Wynyard 2002; Naidoo and Jamieson 2005; Schapper and

Mayson 2005; Churchman and King 2009; Barnett 2011).

In this paper, I illustrate conformity and standardisation as being grounded in a

perception of teaching as craft, and originality, imagination, creativity and risk-taking

as being grounded in teaching as art. I will show that teaching as craft is exemplified

in the view of ‘curriculum as technology’ (Eisner and Vallance 1974, 7-9). This view

3

contends that the curriculum (and teaching) can be ‘teacher-proofed’ through the

provision of re-usable materials and standardised structures and activities. I argue that

such a view fails to acknowledge the highly complex interactions between teachers

and students – on the basis of which we can construe teaching as an expression of art

and limits teaching to being understood as a craft.

How, then, is teaching an art? To explore this, I will turn to the model of the

relationship between art and craft that I have previously constructed and reported

elsewhere (Lupton and Bruce manuscript).

Background The model of the relationship between art and craft was originally constructed from

the literature describing the nature of art and craft per se, not from the literature

dealing with the art and craft of teaching. The model was initially used to analyse the

experiences of undergraduate students learning music composition. In undertaking the

analysis for the previous research I was struck by the similarities between the music

students’ experiences (Lupton and Bruce 2010) and my own experiences as a high

school teacher, academic and academic developer. Thus, in the current paper I apply

the art-craft model to teaching in higher education. It should be noted that in doing so

I have made the assumption that the media (i.e. material) we work with in engaging in

the art and craft of teaching comprises our students, the curriculum, and our discipline

as well as the physical and virtual spaces where we enact our teaching.

One of the challenges in attempting a discussion of the art and craft of

teaching is the weight of centuries of tradition of debate in relation to art and craft

theory. This tradition has produced dichotomies such as ‘art vs craft, artist vs artisan,

aesthetic vs utility…originality vs imitation, productive vs reproductive’ (Shiner

2008, 466). Embedded in this tradition is an examination of power relations in terms

4

of who is considered an artist or a craftsperson and what is considered art or craft

using a range of critical approaches including feminist and post-colonial perspectives.

Whether one is considered an artist or craftsperson can dictate access to grants, prizes,

performance/exhibition spaces, type of audience and remuneration. It is serious

business, akin to the difference in status between teaching and research in higher

education. It also can be represented in the hierarchy that exists between ‘higher’

education and vocational education and training. However, due to the scope of this

paper, my intention is not to represent the contested nature of this debate, rather, it is

to use the relationship between art and craft and the dichotomies thus embedded as a

metaphor for the ways I and others are experiencing the current higher education

environment.

My choice in using the art-craft distinction is coloured by my experience in the

last decade of teaching a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education in several

Australian universities, in sitting on numerous teaching and learning committees, and

of being a union activist. Over this time I have noticed a number of alarming

consequences of the current climate of standardisation, performity and efficiency. For

instance, I have noticed that at one university where the same program is taught at

different campuses to student cohorts with different demographics the policy of

‘across campus consistency’ translated into lecturers presenting exactly the same

lecture slides at each campus. I have noticed that despite being urged (in the name of

efficiency) to teach using another teacher’s materials and course structure, I am

unable to do so and maintain my sense of integrity. I have noticed that the online

‘learning management system’ is so restrictive and homogenised that in teaching

several courses concurrently entirely online I found that I was not able to visually

distinguish between them. I have noticed that the temptation to reproduce online

5

curriculum from semester to semester without modification is irresistible. I have

noticed my university has introduced standardised templates for course outlines and

assessment that restricts the ability to customise courses and assessment in response to

student need. I have noticed a fear of standardised student evaluations of teaching, and

a learned helplessness in colleagues who are disempowered to design customised

evaluation tools that will provide them with more relevant data. In this paper I argue

that these are symptoms of seeing teaching as a craft rather than as art.

The model of the relationship between art and craft The model of the relationship between art and craft is based on existing normative

‘cluster criteria’ from the art theory literature (Gaut 2000; Dutton 2009, 51-61). The

criteria characterise both the properties of an artwork, and the experience of creating

an artwork. They include elements such as aesthetics (pleasure, beauty), skill

(virtuosity), creativity (originality, novelty, unpredictability, individuality), emotion

(artist and audience), intellectual challenge (the perceptual and intellectual ability of

the artist and the audience needed to create, appreciate and criticise/evaluate),

imaginative experience (artist and audience) and the intention to create art.

In constructing the model I found that there are a number of elements that

characterise the relationship between art and craft. These are: function, skill, degrees

of freedom and expression. The model portrays art as going beyond craft, while at the

same time being inclusive of craft. In other words, ‘there is no art without craft’

(Sennett 2008, 65). Skill and function have particular implications for both art and

craft, with greater degrees of freedom being considered as a characteristic of art rather

than craft. Likewise, expression is seen as a particular characteristic of art as it

CRAFT

6

emphasises the uniqueness that one brings to the work. Below, I briefly outline the

elements of the model, and relate these to teaching in higher education.

Function is related to utility and is regarded as being a particular

characteristic of craft, while non-utility may or may not be a characteristic of art

(Becker 1978). A view of ‘knowledge for knowledge’s sake’ (Côté and Allahar 2011,

13) that is espoused in some conceptions of the nature and purpose of higher

education is directly related to the idea of ‘art for art’s sake’. This view holds that it is

enough to pursue art/knowledge for its own sake, rather than for any particular

purpose or function.

The function of teaching can be perceived in a range of ways, for example as

utilitarian or as transformational. In a utilitarian view, the purpose of teaching in

higher education might be in preparing students for work and to create a competitive

economy, while a transformational view might hold that the role of a teacher is to

transform the individual, the discipline and society (Barnett 1990).

In higher education, the art-craft relationship can be seen in lists of graduate

attributes, some of which are skill related and tangible (information and

communication technology literacy, teamwork, written communication), while others

are aspirational and intangible (cultural awareness, lifelong learning). A functional-

craft view would be to see graduate attributes as skills needed for successful

university study and professional practice, while a transformative-art view would see

the development of graduate attributes as ‘potentially changing and transforming

disciplinary knowledge’ (Barrie 2006, 227).

In terms of art and craft, function can be related to the market for which the

work has been created. Consistency, efficiency and standardisation (craft) are valued

in a mass market, while uniqueness, divergence, novelty and originality (art) are

7

valued in an elite market (Becker 1978; Boden 2000; Gaut 2000; Dutton 2009). In

higher education, this dichotomy has been has been critiqued as ‘McDonaldization’

(Hayes and Wynyard 2002; Garland 2008), thus creating a tension between the ideals

of equity, access and participation and concerns over quality and academic standards,

including grade inflation and ‘dumbing down’(Côté and Allahar 2011). It is also seen

in the hierarchy of institutions from the ‘new’ universities that are characterised by a

more diverse student body and a vocational focus to the older, prestigious, elite,

research-intensive universities that generally cater to a more affluent student body.

Skill is seen in the execution of techniques and methods used to construct and

create (Collingwood 1958; Becker 1978). It is usually regarded as characteristic of

both art and craft (Sennett 2008). Skill in teaching is associated with the techniques,

‘tips and tricks’, toolkits and repertoire that we draw upon to deliver classes. The skill

element of teaching is emphasised in a view of teaching as ‘what the teacher does’

(Biggs 2003) and in conceptions of teaching that involve presenting and transmitting

information (Dall'Alba 1991).

A craft view of teaching would foreground delivery techniques, while an art

view would consider the techniques to be a point of departure. As Palmer (2007, 6-10)

argues, ‘technique is what teachers use until the real teacher arrives…good teaching

cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity

of the teacher’.

However, a corporatised higher education system can lead to a deskilling and

de-professionalisation of teachers. Schapper and Mayson (2005, 186) argue that this

‘Taylorization’ of higher education casts ‘academics in the role of process labourer’.

The more we rely on standardised structures, the more the system is teacher-proofed,

the more chance there is of a culture of learned helplessness amongst academics.

8

Degrees of freedom relates to the level of preconception and planning. For

instance, preconceived outcome is seen as a characteristic of craft, while art is seen as

involving interpretation and improvisation (Collingwood 1958; Bassin 1994).

According to Eisner, the level of preconception is a primary indicator of teaching as

craft. He argues ‘the craftsperson in the classroom has the repertoire, is skilled in its

use, and manages the performance quite well indeed. But the craftsperson creates

essentially nothing new as a performer. This person’s mark is known by the skill with

which he or she uses known routines’ (Eisner 1993, p. 11).

As discussed above, an art view of teaching would assume that the teacher will

draw upon established techniques and methods (craft) but that these simply form a

point of departure for the myriad ways a teacher constructs and improvises their

teaching (Eisner 1979; Eisner 1993). Thus, teaching as art would allow for the action

unfolding, for spontaneity, for responding to students’ needs. A craft view of teaching

would assume that the teacher designs their teaching around predicting what the

outcome will be and not envisaging or allowing another outcome.

In higher education, preconception is highly valued. Teachers are required

predict intended learning outcomes and construct criteria and standards for assessment

items well in advance of actually meeting their students (Blackmore 2009). Subject

readings must be specified in advance in order to create reading list databases or print

packages. Lectures are generally tightly bound and highly structured in terms of

delivery, with the content being pre-specified. However, as Blackmore (2009, 870)

points out, ‘academic pedagogy is necessarily, as intellectual work, informed by

theories and research, open to discussions that cannot be predetermined, requiring

new inputs and directions, as each teaching moment is situated and non-replicable.’

9

Expression is usually regarded as a particular characteristic of art. Art

involves intellectual and affective responses by both the creator and the audience for

the work (Markowitz 1994). Thus, the work is an expression of the creator’s meaning

and a medium through which they may communicate (Dewey 2008). This expression

is seen as highly personal and original. It has the potential to be transformative for

both the creator and the audience (London 1992; Galef 2006). By contrast, craft,

while being an expression of skill, is not expected to involve high levels of originality

and transformative potential.

The elements of function, skill, degrees of freedom and expression are drawn

together in aesthetic quality. This aesthetic quality has at its basis the idea of a unique

‘signature’ (Eisner 1993) and original voice (Markowitz 1994). Performing and

creative artists strive to attain their own style, for their works to be recognisable as an

expression of them (Lupton and Bruce 2010; Lupton and Bruce manuscript).

Likewise, artistic teachers cannot be reduced to a formula for good teaching (Palmer

2007, 11) as they are ‘highly personal and idiosyncratic’ (Yair 2008, 457).

However, as Barnett (2011, 51-56) argues, the ‘bureaucratic’ university

requires staff to ‘subjugate their academic personae with the corporate persona..,[it]

tends to suffocate creativity and spontaneity; it limits academic identify; it corrals

academic life into an undue uniformity; it allows no escape’.

In the next section, I explore these elements in more detail in relation to

teaching as art.

Teaching as art The literature exploring teaching as an art sees teaching as an aesthetic experience. ‘It

is an art in the sense that teaching can be performed with such skill and grace that, for

the student as well as for the teacher, the experience can be justifiably characterized as

10

aesthetic’ (Eisner 1979, 153). For some, musical metaphors are evoked. Thus, for

Eisner (1993, 10), the teacher is akin to the orchestra conductor, drawing forth the

best performance from the sections of the orchestra. For Grumet (1993, 206), teaching

is an improvisation, where ‘content, sequence and structure provide notes of the scale,

and the melody for every member of the classroom is heard in counterpoint to the

order from which they came.’ Others see teaching as akin to acting (Dawe 1984;

Rubin 1985; Sarason 1999; Sawyer 2004). They advocate a performing arts

pedagogical model for teacher education.

The primary theme running through the notion of teaching as art is that of ‘the

tension between automaticity and inventiveness’ (Eisner 1979, 154). Eisner (1979)

argues that teaching draws on ‘routine and repertoire’ (craft), but uses these to

respond and adjust as the action ‘unfolds’ (art). In other words, the work of art is

created through undergoing the artistic process. This idea is consistent with the

findings of my empirical study into university students’ experiences of learning music

composition, where applying techniques and developing an artistic process

contributed to experiencing art (Lupton and Bruce 2010; Lupton and Bruce

manuscript).

In regard to the relationship between art and craft, teaching as art could be

characterised by the following: the function of teaching would involve the

transformation of students, teachers, the curriculum and the discipline. The skill of

execution would be high, and the teacher would use technique as a point of departure.

The degree of freedom would be high, as teachers would allow for improvisation and

flexibility. Expression that allows communication of meaning and interpretation

would be high, as students and teachers would work in partnership to co-create

11

learning. Both teachers and students would be encouraged to express their identity and

unique signature.

Teaching as art thus acknowledges the role of the teacher and students as co-

creators while still placing the teacher at its centre. This foregrounding of the teacher

is seen in a perspective which asks ‘who is the self that teaches?’ (Palmer 2007, 4).

This perspective acknowledges the soul of the teacher (Priest and Quaife-Ryan 2004).

It includes their personal qualities (Banner and Cannon 1997) and their intellectual,

emotional and spiritual dimensions (Palmer 2007). In short, this view places the

‘identity and integrity’ (Palmer 2007) of the teacher at its heart. The foregrounding of

the teacher might seem at odds with the student-centred approach which has

dominated the higher education teaching literature over the last 20 years (see for

example Marton and Booth 1997; Biggs 2003), however, it could be argued that

acknowledging the mind-body-spirit of the teacher as a crucial dimension in teaching

and learning is integral to a student-centred approach. I will return to this point later in

the paper.

Those who see teaching as art use terms such as imagination, creativity,

originality, uniqueness, risk-taking, innovation and exploration. They describe artistic

teaching as making meaning and they remind us that art can also ‘jar, unnerve, indict,

and estrange us’ (May 1993, 214). This idea that art can confront is a direct challenge

to the more comfortable craft perspective. If we see teaching and learning as

transformative (Säljö 1979; Dall'Alba 1991; Marton, Dall'Alba and Beaty 1993); then

teaching and learning must necessarily be risky for both teachers and students.

But what of a higher education system which does not value imagination,

creativity, originality, uniqueness, risk-taking, innovation and exploration; rather it

12

promotes standardisation, consistency, conservativeness and accountability (Yair

2008; Sawyer, Johnson and Holub 2009; Barnett 2011)? In the next section, I discuss

instances where teaching might be viewed as a craft.

Teaching as craft It would be evident by now that to engage in the art of teaching we need a certain

level of freedom. This freedom would allow us to express our identity and to

communicate meaning. Just as composers draw upon standard musical structures to

create their own unique work, so does the artistic teacher use standard pedagogical

structures as their point of departure. But what if they are so constrained by these

structures that they become ends in themselves (Marginson 2010)?

I am not alone in experiencing an increase of standardisation in the structure

that is imposed upon me (Priest and Quaife-Ryan 2004; Sawyer, Johnson and Holub

2009). In my own university, this is seen in subject outline templates, standardised

teaching and subject evaluation questionnaires and non-customisable learning

management systems that conform to a corporate design. Many of these structures

have been implemented with the worthy aim of providing consistency, accountability

and transparency. However, taken in their most extreme form, they strip the teacher of

freedom in favour of generic structures that provide a lowest common denominator,

teacher-proof experience for both teachers and students.

For me, online learning is the primary site of this loss of degree of freedom.

An online learning management system (LMS) has a number of controls built into it.

The university and the capabilities of the system dictate the learning environment that

is available to me, rather than any notion of good pedagogy. The LMS also affords a

13

level of electronic surveillance by management akin to CCTV cameras being placed

in physical classrooms. As Coates et al (2005, 25) point out,

LMS offer universities a hitherto undreamt-of capacity to control and regulate

teaching. From a managerial perspective, the disorder associated with academic

independence and autonomy in the teaching and learning process can appear chaotic

and anarchic. The management and leadership of academic communities requires,

correspondingly, a high tolerance of uncertainty, but such tolerance is in increasingly

short supply in an era of attention to quality assurance and control. LMS may appear

to offer a means of regulating and packaging pedagogical activities by offering

templates that assure order and neatness, and facilitate the control of quality.

At my current university, the LMS is standardised and locked down to the

extent that (in the name of consistency) the main menu items are unable to be edited

so that every single course in the university has the same main menu. The menu

navigation bar is the corporate brand colour, also uneditable. For me, this is akin to

being forced to wear a uniform. My own signature and voice is lost in this one-

dimensional cyberspace.

Teaching as craft is exemplified in this ‘teacher-proofing’ approach that

characterises the view of curriculum as technology (Eisner and Vallance 1974). In this

view, curriculum is regarded as ‘finding efficient means to a set of predefined,

nonproblematic ends’ and where learning is seen as ‘systematic’ and ‘predictable’

(Eisner and Vallance 1974, 7-8). As I have discussed above, this view is often

associated with online learning. It is also seen in the legacy of traditional ‘distance’

education that involved packages of materials sent out to students – the ultimate in a

teacher-proof and teacher-absent curriculum.

14

A teacher-proof approach is also student-proof. In other words, the teacher and

the student are both absent, as they have no impact on structures. The structures are

entities unto themselves. Here, the traditional dichotomy between a student-centred

and teacher-centred approach loses its significance, as in order to experience teaching

as art, the teacher (as artist) and the student (as medium, audience and co-creator)

must necessarily both be central.

So, what might teaching as craft look and feel like? First, the function of

teaching would be utilitarian. Teaching would involve training students for jobs. The

skill of execution would be fore-grounded. Professional development for teachers

would emphasise delivery and presentation techniques. The level of degree of

freedom would be low. Teachers would be required to set learning outcomes,

assessment methods, semester schedules and teaching materials well in advance of the

semester, with no opportunities to adjust these in response to the needs of students,

teachers and the discipline once the semester commences. Expression would be

absent, as those aspects which enable teachers to express their identity and unique

voice would suppressed in favour of standardisation and consistency.

Strategies for reclaiming the art of teaching

What would teaching in higher education look like if we were to go beyond craft and

engage in teaching as art? First, we would be encouraged to see our integrity and

identity as integral to our teaching. We would be encouraged to talk about teaching

and to share our individual teaching practices, beliefs and values. We would be

encouraged to take risks in teaching. We would be given the freedom to customise

teaching and learning environments unconstrained by assumptions inherent in

timetabling systems and learning management systems. We would be encouraged to

15

develop teaching and subject evaluations that exemplify that which is unique about

our teaching and our context.

Artistic teachers would not have to justify their non-bell curve spread of

results to faculty assessment boards. Artistic teachers would write subject outlines in

response to students’ learning needs rather than pre-conceiving the curriculum.

Artistic teachers would expect to improvise classes rather than providing pre-ordained

packages of reading materials, lists of topics and learning activities. Artistic teachers

would not be expected to teach another teacher’s curriculum design and use another

teacher’s materials, as they would be given enough time to re-design and re-create.

Artistic teachers might not arrive at a lecture with a PowerPoint presentation, but with

a list of learning outcomes to be achieved by the end of the lesson. They might create

the class around questions and issues raised by the students. They would have a

framework and a repertoire of strategies and techniques that they use to improvise,

using the students, the curriculum and the discipline as their medium.

What would artistic teaching feel like? It would feel as if artistic teaching was

a solution rather than a problem. Artistic teaching would be celebrated, and artistic

teachers rewarded. Pedagogy would be ‘“fat”: resource rich in terms of time and

labour, reflective and dialogic, situated, culturally contextualised and inevitably

inefficient’ (Blackmore 2009, 866).

Teaching development programs would be given credit in workload allocation

models. Teaching retreats would allow teachers the time and space to share

approaches and to critically reflect (Priest and Quaife-Ryan 2004). The emphasis

would be on beliefs, values and the self. Therefore, teaching development programs

would be based not only on Biggs’ (2003) three levels of teaching: 1. What the

16

student is, 2. What the teacher does, 3. What the student does; but would also

incorporate a fourth level - who the teacher is (Palmer 2007).

Conclusion Artistic teaching is inherently risky. In engaging in teaching as art we challenge and

confront our students, our colleagues, our discipline and ourselves. But that is what

universities should be about. It is only by taking risks that we are able to experience

teaching and learning as transformative. It is only by taking risks that we are able to

re-energise and re-invigorate our students, our colleagues, our discipline and

ourselves. But too often we are constrained by university structures and views of

curriculum that homogenise learning and teaching, that value standardisation and

conformity and that do not allow us to express our own unique signature. Finally,

Because teaching can be engaged in as an art is not to suggest that all teaching can be characterized as such. Teaching can be done as badly as anything else. It can be wooden, mechanical, mindless, and wholly unimaginative. But when it is sensitive, intelligent, and creative – those qualities that confer upon it the status of an art - it should…be regarded… as an example of humans exercising the highest levels of their intelligence. (Eisner 1979, 155)

17

References

Banner, J. and H. Cannon 1997. The personal qualities of teaching. What teachers do can't be distinguished from who they are. Change. 29, no. 6: 40-43.

Barnett, R. 1990. A liberal higher education regained. The idea of higher education. Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press: 189-205.

Barnett, R. 2011. Being a university. Milton Park: Routledge.

Barrell, B. 1991. Classroom artistry. The Educational Forum. 55, no. 4: 333-42.

Barrie, S. 2006. Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education. 51, no. 215-41.

Bassin, J. 1994. The art of musicianship in performance. Music Educators Journal. 80, no. 5: 30-32+48.

Becker, H. 1978. Arts and crafts. The Americian Journal of Sociology. 83, no. 4: 862-89.

Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education.

Black, M. 1971. Education as art and discipline. Aesthetics and problems of education. R. Smith. Chicago: University of Illinos Press: 529-69.

Blackmore, J. 2009. Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities: Evaluating teaching and what students want. Studies in Higher Education. 34, no. 8: 857-72.

Boden, M. 2000. Crafts, perception, and the possibilities of the body. British Journal of Aesthetics. 40, no. 3: 289-301.

Churchman, D. and S. King 2009. Academic practice in transition: Hidden stories of academic identities. Teaching in Higher Education. 14, no. 5: 507-16.

Clegg, P. 2008. Creativity and critical thinking in the globalised university. Innovations in Education and teaching International. 45, no. 3: pp. 219-26.

Coates, H., R. James and G. Baldwin 2005. A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management. 11, no. 1: 19-36.

Collingwood, R. G. 1958. The principles of art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18

Côté, J. E. and A. Allahar 2011. Lowering of higher education: The rise of corporate universities and the fall of liberal education. Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Dall'Alba, G. 1991. Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education. 13, no. 293-297.

Dawe, H. 1984. Teaching: A performing art. Phi Delta Kappan. April, no. 548-52.

Dewey, J. 2008. Art as experience. Aesthetics. A comprehensive anthology. S. Cahn and A. Meskin. Carlton, VIC: Blackwell Publishing: 296-316.

Dutton, D. 2009. The art instinct. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Eisner, E. 1979. On the art of teaching. The educational imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillian: 153-67.

Eisner, E. 1993. The art and craft of teaching. Educational Leadership. Jan, no. 4-13.

Eisner, E. 2002. From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education. 18, no. 375-85.

Eisner, E. W. and E. Vallance 1974. Five conceptions of curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. E. W. Eisner and E. Vallance. California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation: 1-18.

Galef, D. 2006. The art of art. Southwest Review. 91, no. 1: 121-33.

Garland, C. 2008. The McDonaldization of Higher Education?: Notes on the UK Experience. Fast Capitalism. 4, no. 1.

Gaut, B. 2000. "Art" as a cluster concept. Theories of art today. N. Carroll. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press: 25-44.

Grumet, M. 1993. The play of meanings in the art of teaching. Theory into Practice. 32, no. 4: 204-09

.

Hayes, D. and R. Wynyard, Eds. 2002. The Mcdonaldization of Higher Education. London: Bergin & Garvey.

Hill, J. 1985. The teacher as artist: A case for peripheral supervision. The Educational Forum. 49, no. 2: 183-87.

Kleiman, P. 2008. Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 45, no. 3: 209-17.

London, P. 1992. Art as transformation. Art Education. 45, no. 3: 8-15.

19

Lupton, M. and C. Bruce 2010. Craft, process and art: Teaching and learning music composition in higher education. British Journal of Music Education. 27, no. 3: 271-87.

Lupton, M. and C. Bruce manuscript. The art and craft of composition.

Marginson, S. 2010. University. Imagination. Three models of imagination in the age of the knowledge economy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing: 167-223.

Markowitz, S. 1994. The distinction between art and craft. Journal of Aesthetic Education. 28, no. 1: 55-70.

Marton, F. and S. Booth 1997. Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marton, F., G. Dall'Alba and E. Beaty 1993. Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research. Learning Discourse: Qualitative Research in Education. 19, no. 3: 277-300.

May, W. 1993. Teaching as a work of art in the medium of curriculum. Theory into Practice. 32, no. 4: 210-18.

McGoldrick, C. 2002. Creativity and curriculum design: What academics think. LTSN Generic Centre. Retrieved 12 January, 2012, from http://78.158.56.101/archive/palatine/files/1038.pdf.

Naidoo, R. and I. Jamieson 2005. Knowledge in the marketplace: Ther global commodification of teaching and learning in higher education. Internationalizing higher education: critical explorations of pedagogy and policy. P. Ninnes and M. Hellesten. Dordrecht: Springer: pp. 37-52.

Oliver, M. c2002. Creativity and the curriculum design process: A case study. LTSN Generic Centre. Retrieved 12 January, 2012, from http://78.158.56.101/archive/palatine/files/1037.pdf.

Palmer, P. 2007. The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Priest, A.-M. and M. Quaife-Ryan 2004. Re-enchanting education: The recovery of teaching as a sacred activity. Lifelong Learning Conference. Yeppoon, Central Queensland University Press.

Reitman, S. 1986. Daring to make teaching an art. The Educational Forum. 50, no. 2: 137-48.

Rubin, L. 1985. Artistry in teaching. New York: Random House.

Säljö, R. 1979. Learning in the learner's perspective. I. Some common-sense conceptions. Reports from the Department of Education, University of Göteborg.

Sarason, S. 1999. Teaching as a performing art. New York Teachers College Press.

20

Sawyer, K. 2004. Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher. 33, no. 2: 12-20.

Sawyer, K., J. Johnson and M. Holub 2009. Decline in academe. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 5, no. 2: 10-28.

Schapper, J. and S. Mayson 2005. Managerialism, internationalization, Taylorization and the deskilling of academic work: Evidence from an Australian university. Internationalizing higher education: critical explorations of pedagogy and policy. P. Ninnes and M. Hellesten. Dordrecht: Springer: 181-97.

Sennett, R. 2008. The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shiner, L. 2008. Western and non-western concepts of art. Arguing about art. Contemporary philosophical debates. A. Neill and A. Ridley. London: Routledge: 464-69.

Smith, R. 1971. Is teaching an art? Aesthetics and problems of education. R. Smith. Chicago: University of Illinos Press: 565-69.

Yair, G. 2008. Can we administer the scholarship of teaching? Lessons from outstanding professors in higher education. Higher Education. 55, no. 447-59.