Study on the Positioning of Training Objectives and Development Strategies in Higher Education Art Programs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71222/1wz1hg14Keywords:
higher education art programs, training objectives, development strategies, theoretical framework, case analysisAbstract
This paper takes higher education art programs as its research subject, employing methods such as literature review, theoretical exploration, and comparative case analysis to investigate the issues and underlying logic concerning the positioning of training objectives and development strategies in contemporary higher education art programs. The study begins by analyzing the new demands placed on art talents by modern society and the current state of art education in higher institutions. It then constructs a theoretical framework supported by pedagogy, art aesthetics, and systems theory. The findings reveal an urgent need to shift the training objectives of higher education art programs from a focus on singular skill transmission to the cultivation of comprehensive competencies. Furthermore, multidimensional strategies — including curriculum reform, faculty development, university-industry collaboration, and policy support — are identified as critical pathways to facilitate the transformation and upgrading of higher education art programs. This paper aims to provide theoretical references and practical guidance for the development of art education in higher institutions, promoting an effective alignment between art education and societal needs.
References
1. O. Malytska, et al., "Development of art education as a basis for sustainable development of society," Postmod. Openings, vol. 13, no. 1 Sup1, pp. 247-265, 2022, doi: 10.18662/po/13.1Sup1/425.
2. K. O’Connor, "Constructivism, curriculum and the knowledge question: tensions and challenges for higher education," Stud. High. Educ., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 412-422, 2022, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1750585.
3. S. Mystakidis, A. Christopoulos, and N. Pellas, "A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education," Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1883-1927, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10682-1.
4. C. A. Bredow, et al., "To flip or not to flip? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of flipped learning in higher education," Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 878-918, 2021, doi: 10.3102/00346543211019122.
5. E. Jones, et al., "Global social responsibility and the internationalisation of higher education for society," J. Stud. Int. Educ., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 330-347, 2021, doi: 10.1177/10283153211031679.
6. M. K. Islam, M. F. Hossain Sarker, and M. S. Islam, "Promoting student-centred blended learning in higher education: A model," E-Learn. Digit. Media, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 36-54, 2022, doi: 10.1177/20427530211027721.
7. Y.-S. Tsai, et al., "Learning analytics in European higher education — Trends and barriers," Comput. Educ., vol. 155, p. 103933, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103933.
8. K. Okoye, et al., "Impact of digital technologies upon teaching and learning in higher education in Latin America: an outlook on the reach, barriers, and bottlenecks," Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 2291-2360, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11214-1.
9. J. Southworth, et al., "Developing a model for AI across the curriculum: Transforming the higher education landscape via innovation in AI literacy," Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 4, p. 100127, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100127.
10. R. Ajjawi, et al., "Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: The challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context," Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 304-316, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1639613.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ji Zhao (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
