First published in 2007, Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education by Lois Hetland, Ellen Winner, Shirley Veenema, and Kimberly M. Sheridan offers a new approach and perspective on the “real benefits” of visual arts studio education. The authors believed that by studying the intrinsic value of teaching art rather than its instrumental effect on other subjects, like math and reading, they would be able to make a stronger case for the importance of studying art.

Summary

Studio Thinking presents the researchers’ careful observations and analysis of 28 visual art projects taught in five high school level studio art classrooms at two Boston area high schools with “exemplary” arts programs. Using an admittedly subjective approach, Hetland, Winner et al. worked to incorporate evidence-based methods in the study as much as possible and developed a code system to calculate how often specific habits and skills observed being taught. Through this rigorous process, they were able to identify four “Studio Structures of Learning” and eight “Studio Habits of Mind.” A second edition published in 2013, Studio Thinking 2, features a new addition to the core Studio Structures of Learning, further explanation and examples of habits of mind, and new information on the application of the authors’ research since the book’s first publication.

According to the authors, the Studio Structures for Learning are four modes of instruction germane to the studio classroom: Demonstration-Lecture; Students-at-Work; Critique; and Exhibition (with Transitions functioning as a sub-structure between the other four). These Studio Structures create a supportive atmosphere for learning eight so-called Studio Habits of Mind (SHoM): Develop Craft, Engage and Persist, Understand Art Worlds, Stretch and Explore, Envision, Express, Reflect, and Observe.

These habits are taught in a non-hierarchical manner, each no more important than the rest, and a class may consist of several habits taught in “clusters” and/or interwoven into the Studio Structures. The combination of Studio Structures and SHoM is what Hetland, Winner et al. call the “Studio Thinking Framework.”

Studio Thinking notes that the Studio Thinking Framework can be useful as a method of self-assessment for both teachers and students, as well as in non-classroom settings. The authors are now using the framework as a guide to conduct a study that examines the transference of studio thinking – i.e. the degree to which students’ engagement with the SHoM leads to their using similar dispositions when engaging with subjects such as math and reading.

Analysis

The Studio Thinking Framework has been widely embraced since it was first introduced, with the original Studio Thinking making the New York Times bestseller list and the authors consulting on a number of national, state and local arts education initiatives. While well executed on the whole, Studio Thinking suffers from several limitations in its methodology and design that narrow the extent to which it truly “makes a case” for different forms of arts education.

The Studio Thinking study focused solely on the visual arts and more research is needed to determine how applicable the framework is across all arts disciplines. Furthermore, the visual art classes studied mimic a pre-professional studio teaching style commonly found in college-level and adult arts courses, which implies that the research may have little to say about the art classes more common to secondary and primary settings. By the authors’ own admission, Studio Thinking’s descriptive and theoretical approach makes no attempt to “prove” anything about the benefits of arts education. Given these methodological limitations, the use of the framework in transfer studies, the promotion of it as a tool of advocacy, and arts advocates’ quick adoption of it, all seem a bit premature. It would be more prudent and helpful to conduct research that compares the differences between teaching arts and non-arts subjects from the perspective of studio habits of the mind to more accurately pinpoint the benefits of arts education relative to other subjects and students.

Implications

Studio Thinking‘s reception to date, and in particular the alignment of the Studio Thinking Framework with federal and state arts education initiatives, suggest that the authors’ findings will have some long-term influence on the way educators, advocates, and policymakers think about studio arts and education as a whole. Does Studio Thinking promote a space in society where teaching the arts is valued for its own sake and not a means to an end? In one sense it does isolate how studio learning encourages the development of important critical skills necessary to produce creative, engaged individuals. However, the decision to focus on the results of the method of teaching and use the study to once more look for arts transference to other subjects should concern arts advocates. It suggests an easy leap for policymakers to say, “Thanks for showing us how to better structure curriculum and classes for the other still ‘more important’ subjects. So now we really don’t need the arts.”

As the emergent Studio Thinking movement focuses more on expanding and generalizing what is learned in studio classes beyond the studio, a clear distinction between the effects of the art and the effects of the teaching will become increasingly important.

For a 75% shorter read than what you’re about to experience below, try Studio Thinking: the condensed version.

At the turn of the millennium, arts education found itself increasingly under the axe in a school system beleaguered by budget cuts, low grades and poor test scores. Arts advocates and educators were scrambling to prove the worth of the arts as a means of boosting those test scores and grades in academic subjects deemed “more important,” like math and reading. Motivated by claims of evidence supporting this case, Project Zero researchers Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner conducted a meta-analysis of related research studies dating back to the 1950s to determine if there was in fact a direct correlation. They found no evidence to support the notion that studying the arts caused students’ standardized test scores or academic grades to improve. Arts advocates reeled at this disclosure, which provoked no small amount of controversy in arts education circles. Nevertheless, Hetland and Winner believed that by taking a different approach to the research—one based on the intrinsic value of teaching art rather than its instrumental effect on other subjects—they would be able to make a stronger case for the importance of studying art. They thus set out to determine the “real benefits” of a visual arts studio education. The result was the first edition of Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education, authored in 2007 by Hetland, Winner, Shirley Veenema, and Kimberly M. Sheridan.

Studio Thinking exhaustively presents the researchers’ careful observations and analysis of 28 visual art projects taught in five high school level studio art classrooms. Their findings suggest that students not only learn “dispositions” specific to visual art, but also six general “habits of mind” that are potentially useful in other subjects. A second edition published in 2013, Studio Thinking 2, features a new addition to the core Studio Structures of Learning, further explanation and examples of habits of mind, and new information on the application of the authors’ research since the book’s first publication.

Summary

Studio Thinking and its update present what the authors identify as the “real curriculum” of a visual art studio education. The authors focused on the visual arts to establish parameters for the study, but hoped that others would look more closely at other arts disciplines. At the time the initial research for Studio Thinking was conducted, there was no other arts-related research that examined the day-to-day teachings of studio art, so the authors developed a methodology based on traditions established by three pioneering non-arts classroom studies: Magdalene Lambert’s Teaching Problems and The Problems of Teaching; James W. Stigler & James Heibert’s The Teaching Gap; and Harold Stevenson’s The Learning Gap.

To observe studio instruction in practice, Hetland and Winner worked with five visual arts teachers at two Boston area high schools with “exemplary” arts programs, the public Boston Arts Academy and the private Walnut Hill School for the Arts. They chose the former for its student demographics, which mirrored those of the Boston area. The Walnut Hill student body, by contrast, was mostly middle and upper-middle class, with a diverse mix of local and international urban and suburban students, and a high concentration of Koreans. At both high schools, students were admitted by portfolio review and/or admissions assignments and interviews. They spent a minimum of three hours a day working on their art under the guidance of their teachers, all of whom were also practicing artists with Master’s degrees in art or art education.

The setting of the study is the studio class environment, which, according to the authors, differs from a “traditional” classroom setting in a number of ways. Traditional classrooms arrange desks in rows facing the front of the class. The teacher often lectures or gives a presentation, and sits at his/her desk while students work on tests or other in-class assignments. In an art studio,  by contrast, easels, horse-stools, and various seating apparatus are typically arranged in a loose circle. In the center of the room the teacher lectures, demonstrates, or sets up a still-life model. When not giving a presentation, the teacher roams the studio space executing tasks or visiting students at work. Special lighting and music may also be employed in the studio class to promote an active and focused atmosphere.

Over the course of the yearlong study, Hetland, Winner et al. observed the instruction of 28 art projects. Using an admittedly subjective approach, they worked to incorporate evidence-based methods in the study as much as possible. By videotaping the classes, they were able to compare their direct observations with documentation and more thoroughly analyze student-teacher interactions. They requested post-class written reflections from teachers, conducted interviews with students, and examined samples of the student’s artwork for learning patterns. A code system was created based on their initial analysis, which took into account teacher’s intentions as stated in their interviews and calculated how often specific habits and skills were taught. The code was further refined with the assistance of consulting field specialists and distilled into categories that described what the researchers had observed being taught. Through this rigorous process, they were able to identify four “Studio Structures of Learning” and eight “Studio Habits of Mind.”

According to the authors, the Studio Structures for Learning are four modes of instruction germane to the studio classroom. Initially observed in each teacher’s class were three structural elements: Demonstration-Lecture; Students-at-Work; and Critique. Each studio class features a combination of these activities. In Studio Thinking 2, Hetland, Winner et al. introduce a fourth culminating structure called Exhibition. It is described as an “overarching” structure that encompasses the original three. The authors also identify a fifth sub-element called Transitions, which is the time spent transitioning between all other structures.

An illustration of how four Studio Structures are integrated into Walnut Hill teacher Jim Woodside’s studio class. The authors call this studio time organization a Punctuated Class whereby the structures are layered with shorter intervals between them.

These Studio Structures create a supportive atmosphere for learning eight “Studio Habits of Mind” (referred to in the text by the somewhat unwieldy acronym SHoM): Develop Craft, Engage and Persist, Understand Art Worlds, Stretch and Explore, Envision, Express, Reflect, and Observe. The authors assert that these SHoM are what the studio arts “actually” teach. Each is considered a “disposition”—a term and theory borrowed from the work of Project Zero co-founder David Perkins and his colleagues—or way of thinking that includes specific core skills, an inclination to use those skills, and an alertness to opportunities to put them to use. Not all eight habits of mind are not necessarily present within each studio project, but usually several are learned within a successful course. The authors found that the habits are taught in a non-hierarchical manner, each no more important than the rest, and a class may consist of several habits taught in “clusters” and/or interwoven into the Studio Structures.

Each structure emphasizes the studio habits in different ways. For example, when Walnut Hill teacher Jason Green gave a presentation on clay assembly, the researchers observed four SHoM embedded in the Demonstration-Lecture segment of his class. As he manipulated the clay and spoke, the students “learn[ed] to observe as they look[ed] carefully at ceramics; they learn[ed] to envision as they plan[ned] their designs; they learn[ed] to express as they think about conveying some kind of idea or feeling in their set; and all the while they [were] learning to acquire technical skills required for expertise in ceramics.” Put in the authors’ terminology, the teacher “used a ‘cluster’ of Observe-Express-Envision-Develop Craft: Technique.”

The Students-at-Work structure allows students to spend in-class time working on an assignment, while keeping the classroom focused on art-making goals. Teachers are able to give individual attention and address the specific needs of each student, creating a tailored approach to learning studio habits when students require help. While a cluster of SHoM are embedded in the art project, the teacher draws each student’s individual habit needs into the foreground as he circulates the room to offer one-on-one guidance. For example, a student may be encouraged to “Envision” what another color would do for a painting, or “Persist” in pulling the final composition together.

In the context of the Critique structure, the period when students and teacher collectively analyze individual artworks, the students integrate SHoM through a process of inquiry, observation, and discussion. This structure allows them to make connections with habits different from those that may have been taught in other stages of the class. During a critique, the teacher may compare a student’s unique style to a particular artistic movement unfamiliar to the class (Understand Art Worlds). Another student may be asked to explain why she made a particular artistic decision (Reflect) and how the work would differ if she had done it another way (Envision and Express).

New to the second edition of Studio Thinking is the fourth structure, Exhibition, which the authors claim incorporates all eight SHoM. Through the staging and presentation of the artwork produced within the Studio Structures, students learn different but supportive skills that provide a broader context for understanding the purpose of art, and for deepening their comprehension of the studio habits.

The combination of Studio Structures and SHoM is what Hetland, Winner et al. call the “Studio Thinking Framework.” An interesting outcome of the original study, described in the second edition, has been its application as a method of self-assessment for both teachers and students. Rather than focusing solely on skill development, such as drawing techniques, instructors may evaluate their own teaching weaknesses and strengths through the lens of the framework, or set goals to improve certain dispositions in their students by altering their teaching approach. The authors also report instances where students themselves have used the framework to assess and improve their skills and dispositions.

Other Applications of the Studio Thinking Framework

Hetland, Winner et al. suggest that the Studio Thinking Framework can also be useful in non-classroom settings, such as teacher education programs, museum and gallery education, new technology research, and even policymaking. The authors suggest using the framework to inform new teachers of the “purpose and rigor” of arts education and to improve museum- and gallery-offered courses. They also present ideas for adapting the framework to non-arts subjects, and attest to witnessing its use in a variety of classroom environments:

Teachers have reported to us that the Studio Habits of Mind are broad enough to offer guidance for curriculum and teaching in their disciplines, and the Studio Structures for learning foster classroom cultures of thinking and learning across disciplines by modeling how to organize classroom time and interactions around personalized and collaborative projects.

According to the authors, non-arts subjects can easily make use of the Studio Thinking Framework by dedicating most classroom time to the Students-at-Work structure. By using a studio, laboratory, or workshop model, teachers can personalize the classroom setting, provide instruction across a wide range of skill levels, and more effectively guide students in their dispositional learning.

Hetland and Winner, with the help of Lynn Goldsmith of Education Development Center, are currently using the framework as a guide to conduct a study that examines the transference of studio thinking – i.e. the degree to which students’ engagement with the SHoM leads to their using similar dispositions when engaging with subjects such as math and reading. At the time of Studio Thinking 2’s publication, the authors were only able to cite one instance of potential direct transference of a SHoM (Envision) to a non-arts discipline (geometry). Preliminary findings from comparing the performance of arts majors, theater students, and after-school squash players on spatial geometry problems developed from standardized tests indicated that the art majors performed better initially and also gained more on the test than the other two groups. The authors caution, however, that the experiment does not conclusively demonstrate transfer because they were unable to assign students randomly to the three groups to create a “level playing field.”

Analysis

According to the authors, the Studio Thinking Framework is “a set of lenses for observing and thinking about teaching and learning in the visual arts and beyond.” In Studio Thinking and its second edition, the authors succeed in presenting visual arts studio teaching as a flexible model that not only promotes art techniques and skills, but also critical observation and thinking habits that are applicable in many disciplines. The four Studio Structures and eight Studio Habits of Mind are easy to comprehend and have broad appeal. Together they provide a dispositional vocabulary that augments the skill-building aspects of an arts curriculum with an alertness to opportunities and inclination to use those skills beyond the classroom. With the Studio Thinking Framework, the authors have created a common language and working model that can be used by educators, administrators, and policymakers in discussing arts education. That enables advocates to speak more broadly about what is achieved through arts learning.

Indeed, the Studio Thinking Framework has been widely embraced since it was first introduced, with the original Studio Thinking making the New York Times bestseller list. On a national level, the authors have consulted on the development of Turnaround Arts Initiative, a project of the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, which pairs several under-performing urban elementary schools with famous artists like Yo-Yo Ma and Chuck Close to provide enriching studio-style arts classes. At the state and local level, the new Common Core State Standards place an emphasis on the dispositional vocabulary invoked in Studio Thinking and are arguably supportive of the authors’ position that SHoM is the core of arts education. As part of a K-12 arts integration program in Alameda County, California, the framework has been implemented as a shared conceptual language across disciplines to communicate with teachers, administrators, advocates, and parents. Their students have been taught to use SHoM as a method of self-assessment and critique.

Despite this positive reception, Studio Thinking suffers from several limitations in its methodology and design that narrow the extent to which it truly “makes a case” for different forms of arts education. The authors acknowledge that the study’s reliance on ethnographic methods renders it inherently subjective. Another set of researchers might have identified a different set of habits, such as those outlined in Eric Booth’s “The Habits of Mind of Creative Engagement.” It is important to understand that Studio Thinking‘s descriptive and theoretical approach makes no attempt to “prove” anything about the benefits of arts education, but rather “make a case” for them.

Studio Thinking focuses on the visual arts at the expense of other arts disciplines, although the authors report a few positive findings and comparisons by other researchers and experts in the areas of dance, theater, and music. Notably, Boston Ballet’s Center for Dance Education conducted a two-year study to determine whether the habits were taught in dance and concluded that all eight were present in their dance studio classrooms. Matthew Hazelwood, former conductor of the National Youth Orchestra of Colombia, reported using SHoM as a way to enrich his orchestra class instruction, and theater teacher Evan Hastings is using the framework to help his students track and assess their own development. Nevertheless, more research is needed to determine how applicable the framework is across all arts disciplines.

Finally, the study was conducted in just two high schools in the Boston area, both of which cater to students who already have a strong interest in and aptitude for the arts. The visual art classes studied by Hetland, Winner et al. mimic a pre-professional studio teaching style commonly found in college-level and adult arts courses, which is unusual in most high and middle schools and practically non-existent at the elementary school level. If the “real benefits” of arts education are found only in a college-style course, the research may have little to say about the art classes more common to secondary and primary settings, taught as they are in most cases by teachers less skilled or credentialed than those the authors observed. Would the eight studio habits have been as evident if classes serving students new to the visual arts, or younger students, or special-needs students, had been a part of the study? And would those same students learn the SHoM as readily as the arts-inclined students in a studio-structured environment?

Given these methodological limitations, the authors’ use of the framework in transfer studies, their promotion of it as a tool of advocacy, and arts advocates’ quick adoption of it, all seem a bit premature. While Studio Thinking has certainly added to the arts education conversation, the findings arguably appear only to scratch the surface of the benefits of teaching art. Rather than rushing to test transference and apply the framework across disciplines, it would be more prudent and helpful to conduct research that compares the differences between teaching arts and non-arts subjects to both arts-interested and uninterested students from the perspective of studio habits of the mind. Doing so might more accurately pinpoint the benefits of arts education relative to other subjects and students, and go much further in supporting the authors’ claim that the arts teach “a remarkable array of mental habits not emphasized elsewhere in school.”

Implications

Studio Thinking‘s reception to date, and in particular the alignment of the Studio Thinking Framework with the President’s Committee’s agenda and the Common Core State Standards movement, suggest that the authors’ findings will have some long-term influence on the way educators, advocates, and policymakers think about studio arts and education as a whole. In doing so, will it make an intrinsic case for the value of teaching the arts?

The eight Studio Habits of the Mind as implemented by Alameda County “Art is Education” program. Note: Understand Art Worlds has been altered to Understand Communities.

On the one hand, these developments are encouraging in a country where arts education has been increasingly marginalized over the last couple decades. The success of these early programs will have a hand in determining whether the Studio Thinking Framework will continue to have influence and application. If the results are favorable, perhaps more studio-style arts classes will be incorporated into students’ everyday curriculum in the interest of promoting a studio-centric version of increasingly popular habits-of-the-mind learning. Studio Thinking openly advocates for incorporating studio teaching methodology into these other classroom formats and, in this way, the authors offer a way of valuing arts education that could potentially encourage a demand for it.

But this also implies that Studio Thinking makes a case for studio format arts education as the only area where these particular skills and habits can be learned, which it doesn’t. The authors make a pointed effort to illustrate how SHoM can be applied to non-arts subject areas. If students can get the same benefits from conducting a chemistry experiment or building a physical model based on mathematical theory as long as there is an emphasis on habits like Envision, are we once more back to the drawing board in trying to articulate why arts education is important?

The decision to focus on the results of the method of teaching should concern arts advocates. It suggests an easy leap for policymakers to say, “Thanks for showing us how to better structure curriculum and classes for the other still ‘more important’ subjects. So now we really don’t need the arts.” As it is, the authors’ ongoing research into using the Studio Thinking Framework as “the foundation for more precisely targeted and plausible transfer studies” hews closely to the instrumental language of looking for causal relationships between the arts and other academic disciplines. If the studio structures and habits are indeed the “the real benefits of visual arts education,” then using the framework to once again test for improved performance in other subject areas is more than a little ironic.

Does Studio Thinking promote a space in society where teaching the arts is valued for its own sake and not a means to an end? In one sense it does isolate how studio learning encourages the development of important critical skills necessary to produce creative, engaged individuals. However, as the emergent Studio Thinking movement focuses more on expanding and generalizing what is learned in studio classes beyond the studio, a clear distinction between the effects of the art and the effects of the teaching will become increasingly important.

Additional Reading:

• Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland, Art for Our Sake
• Peggy Burchenal, Abigail Housen, Kate Rawlinson, and Philip Yenawine, Why Do We Teach Arts in the Schools?
• Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland, Continuing the Dialogue
• John Broomall, Is This The Book That Will Change Arts Education?
• Lois Hetland, Why do we need the Studio Thinking Framework, anyway? 
• Ellen Winner, Lois Hetland, Shirley Veenema, Kimberly M. Sheridan, et al., Studio thinking: How visual arts teaching can promote disciplined habits of mind

• “Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development” is a literature review featuring 62 arts education research studies, summarized and analyzed by leading experts across the disciplines of dance, drama, “multi-arts,” music, and visual arts.
• “Critical Links” has two ambitious goals: first, to identify strong arts education research that explores transference (“instances in which learning in one context assists learning in a different context”); and second, to inform curricular designs and practices that will enhance the quality and impact of student learning in the arts.
• The review examines studies by discipline (dance, drama, “multi-arts,” music, and visual arts) and found a broad range of correlations between the arts and various skills in diverse contexts. Particular attention was paid to reading and language skills, and of note were findings that appeared specifically related to a discipline, such as music linking to spatial-temporal reasoning (“the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations,” Wikipedia, modified as of June 30, 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial-temporal_reasoning).
• The studies cover a wide range of different types of research methodology, including qualitative research (which takes a number of variables into consideration, and emphasizes looking at those variables in the environments where they’re found) and meta-analysis, a high-level process that compares the results of multiple studies addressing a set of related research hypotheses.
• Regardless of the methodology, most of the studies revealed correlations between learning in the arts and academic and cognitive development.
• However, throughout the Compendium, reviewers emphasized a need for further research to reveal the qualities of learning so that we can be better informed with how to move forward with future program design. In other words, we may see a link between engagement in the arts and improved SAT scores in a meta-analysis study, but we do not know exactly what the students were learning in their arts experiences that may have led to academic achievement.
• To better understand what is being learned and transferred to other skill-sets suggests a need to focus on more rigorous qualitative research that asks rich inquiry questions that may point to the nature of the learning. Meta-analysis has already corroborated some of the broader claims for why the arts are important in educational settings by showing links between learning in the arts among a myriad of students to academic and cognitive development. With the knowledge of vast previous research, we can begin to look more closely at the nuances of what is being learned in the arts, and how what is being learned transfers to other areas of learning.

SUMMARY

The story of “Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development,” an extraordinarily ambitious collection of research on arts education, begins in 1997, when a report published by the Arts Education Partnership’s Task Force on Research emphasized a need for a review of up-to-date research to help inform program design and policy. The National Endowment for the Arts and the U.S. Department of Education commissioned “Critical Links” – eventually published in 2002 – to address this need.

The Compendium is a literature review featuring 62 arts education research studies, summarized and analyzed by leading experts across the disciplines of dance, drama, “multi-arts,” music, and visual arts. To develop criteria for inclusion in the Compendium, James S. Catterall, Lois Hetland, and Ellen Winner were chosen as “researchers” by Arts Education Partnership (AEP) through a competitive selection process. They are joined by 11 other reviewers who summarize the studies, provide initial and secondary inquiry questions, and analyze each study, with recommendations for future research. While each study is presented individually in one to two pages, the original texts of the studies are not included. After each arts section (e.g., drama or dance), a reviewer delves into deeper inquiries revealed from links among the findings in the studies.

The Compendium sets out to achieve two ambitious goals:

1. Identify strong arts education research that includes the academic and social effects of arts learning, beyond the arts learning experiences themselves. In brief, the Compendium sets out to explore transference, which “denotes instances where learning in one context assists learning in a different context.”  The foreword by AEP explains that the purpose of this Compendium is “to make a contribution to the national debate over such issues as how to enable all students to reach high levels of academic achievement, how to improve overall school performance, and how to create the contexts and climates in schools that are most conducive to learning.”
2. “Giv[e] insight into curriculum designs and practices that will enhance the quality and impact of student learning in the arts.” Through the examined research studies, the Compendium reviewers hope to pave the way for more informed educational program design.

The Links: What Was Studied, What They Found
The studies in “Critical Links” are organized meticulously by discipline. The drama, multi-arts, and music sections examine 19, 17, and 15 studies respectively, with concluding essays by James Catterall, Rob Horowitz and Jaci Webb-Dempsey, and Larry Scripp. Notably, the dance section features only 7 studies and the visual arts section contains only four, with final essays by Karen Kohn Bradley and Terry L. Baker respectively. A final essay by Catterall called “Overview” discusses the issue of transference and makes recommendations about “where to go from here.”

Drama
The bulk of drama research examines the connection between arts education and linguistic skills, with an emphasis on reading and writing comprehension. Overall, the studies found that drama – and in particular, role-playing activities – did have a positive effect on linguistic development in the focus groups as compared with the control groups. Some of the other overarching findings from the drama research include:

• Drama education has an impact on improving concentrated thought
• Formal reflection on experiences in drama elicits/fosters interpersonal relations
• Drama improves story comprehension

Example: A study by Ann Podlozny exemplifies the link between dramatic arts and verbal skills. Entitled “Strengthening Verbal Skills Through the Use of Classroom Drama: A Clear Link,” the research study focuses on whether classroom drama helps students develop verbal ability. This is a meta-analysis combining the results of 200 studies since 1950 that address story understanding (oral and written measures), reading achievement and readiness, oral language development, vocabulary, and writing. Catterall explains that “positive effects are shown in… written and oral measures of story recall, reading achievement, reading readiness, oral language development, and writing,” and hopes that “the report will encourage teachers, teaching artists, and school administrators to include drama in their classroom practice.”

Dance
The dance research included in the Compendium focuses on, and strongly suggests, the impact of dance on creative problem-solving, reading skills, creative thinking skills, self-reflection and self confidence.

Example: In a study by Dale Rose called “The Impact of Whirlwind’s Basic Reading Through Dance Program on First Grade Student’s Basic Reading Skills: Study II,” first-graders were studied for three months to determine whether their reading abilities could be improved through a dance program in which the students used their bodies to physically represent letters. These students were studied against a control group. The experimental group improved compared to the control group, especially in their ability to relate written consonants and vowels to their sounds.

Multi-arts
The multi-arts programs in the Compendium focus on the correlation between arts experiences and academic achievement. These studies suggested connections between arts programs and improved reading skills, verbal skills, math skills, and creative thinking.

Example: James Catterall’s study from 1998 called “Involvement in the Arts and Success in Secondary School” shows a clear link between arts involvement and improved academic achievement. The data came from 25,000 students from eighth to tenth grade who were participating in the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. The outcomes demonstrated that the students who were highly engaged in artistic experiences in middle school and high school performed better in academics than their non-arts-involved peers, regardless of socio-economic status. “High arts students… earned better grades and scores, were less likely to drop out of school… had a more positive self concept, and were more involved in community service.” Nevertheless, the results do not prove causation and underscore a need for further research to unpack the nature of the association between arts and academics.

Music
The research studies on music reveal correlations between musical study and cognitive development, language development, reading, self-efficacy (the degree to which a person believes that he can attain a goal or succeed in a certain situation), math proficiency, and spatial-temporal reasoning (“the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations”). Spatial-temporal reasoning is an important skill for solving problems in math, science, and everyday life.

Example: For “Learning to Make Music Enhances Spatial Reasoning,” Lois Hetland selected fifteen studies for a meta-analysis to explore whether active instruction in music enhances preschool and elementary students’ performance on spatial tasks. The data across the fifteen studies are so consistent in determining that music-making leads to spatial reasoning skills that differences in the type of musical instruction hardly change the results. The meta-analysis suggests that “offering a wide range of music programs in preschools and elementary schools similar to the ones reviewed… will predict that nearly 70 percent of young children will ‘show spatial improvement as a result of the music program.’”

Visual Arts
With only four studies examined, the visual arts are the least-represented discipline in the Compendium. The studies had different variables and goals, and as such, very different outcomes. As Catterall explains in his book summary, “[In the visual arts studies] we see only preliminary indications of impacts: that drawing is an effective communicator of learning in history and contributes to organization and persistence in writing — training in visualization contributes to reading skills — reasoning about visual art seems to transfer to reasoning about science — and instruction in visual art increases reading-readiness among preschoolers.”

Example: Jeffrey D. Wilhelm’s ethnographic case study, “Reading Is Seeing: Using Visual Response to Improve the Literary Reading of Reluctant Readers,” examines whether the visual arts can be used to help reluctant and learning-disabled readers to become better readers. Over the course of nine weeks, he studies two seventh-grade boys who were asked to make arts and crafts that represented characters in the stories they were reading and draw pictures of visual impressions they had. By the end of the nine weeks, the boys “took a more active role in reading, and began to interpret the text rather than just passively read it.”

Among the 84 effects that the researchers found the arts to have on student participants, a few emerged across all of the disciplines, including reading and math skills, and social interaction. Moreover, it is suggested that the findings in these studies may be of most importance to developing social and cognitive skills in impoverished children who may not have access to gaining such skills in other environments. (See James Catterall’s book summary for a concise overview of the findings and implications of “Critical Links.”)

ANALYSIS

Thankfully for the benefit of readers, the Compendium already contains a great deal of independent analysis to aid interpretation of the study results. Each study summary is followed by a thoughtful and informed commentary section, and each larger essay on the specific arts areas explores broader themes such as transference from the arts to other subject areas, implications for future research, and implications for policy. The Compendium seems to leave no stone unturned (or in this case, no inquiry forgotten). Any time I had an analysis that I felt was original, a researcher said it a few pages later with far more eloquence than I ever could.

What I can offer instead is an overview of what seemed to be the most significant takeaways from the body of research investigated here. In the spirit of “links,” I’ve tried to address common issues that arose throughout the Compendium as a whole, and to highlight some of the thought-provoking findings and questions that emerged from the studies. I’ll also examine some of the potential weaknesses in the research cited in the report.

Understanding who is being studied
Many research studies used experimental designs involving control groups of students. While the students are often at the same grade level, we don’t always know if they’re at the same emotional or behavioral levels. Do the sample groups tell us what we want to know about the research, or does it tell us about the demographic/age of the participants? One study that highlights this issue is Jennifer Ross Goodman’s “A Naturalistic Study of the Relationship Between Literacy Development and Dramatic Play in Five-Year-Old Children.” The study examines how literacy is developed within dramatic play by integrating daily dramatic play into a preschool classroom of 17 children. Reviewer Bruce Wilson points out that despite the detailed observations and findings in the study, “the biggest shortcoming of this type of research is the lack of generalizability to other settings… [T]he sample included a preponderance of females… Might the relationships look different in a predominantly male or balanced-gender context?” To further investigate the external validity of these findings, it would be helpful to compare this study with others that explore literacy development in preschool-age children, in order to ensure that demographics are not overly skewing the results.

Understanding the mechanisms of learning
In every arts section, one question appeared repeatedly: what exactly is being learned in an artistic experience that transfers to development in another area? For example, a student may have been taught a movement class, which resulted in her achieving better test scores. But what we don’t know is exactly what element of the dance class led to her developing certain academic skills. This information is essential to inform how we develop better arts education programs going forward.

One study that shows a specific relationship between an “arts” activity and reading ability is Dale Rose’s “The Impact of Whirlwind’s Basic Reading Through Dance Program on First Grade Students’ Basic Reading Skills: Study II.” Over the course of three months, a group of 174 children improved their basic reading skills by learning to put their bodies in the shapes of letters. They were compared with a control group of 198 children. While this finding indicates that first graders may improve their basic reading skills through movement, Ellen Winner observes that “this study does not allow the conclusion that dance leads to reading, but rather that putting one’s body in the shape of letters improves basic reading skills in young children. Whether or not this activity is ‘dance’ (a matter dancers could debate), we can conclude that this activity is an innovative and enactive way of helping children master sound-symbol relationships.”

In other studies, however, the correlation between artistic learning and developed skill is not as clear. For example, Kathryn Vaughn’s and Ellen Winner’s study “SAT Scores of Students Who Study the Arts: What We Can and Cannot Conclude about the Association” is a meta-analysis exploring the relationship between SAT scores and student involvement in the arts. Vaughn and Winner seem to have found significant relationships between involvement in the arts and higher math and verbal scores, but as reviewer Robert Horowitz points out, “the correlation between participation in high school arts programs and SAT scores is not sufficient in itself to claim that arts study leads to improvement in academic performance.”

The SAT study is one of a few studies that reveal a possible issue with meta-analysis research itself. Meta-analysis is a high-level process that compares the results of multiple studies addressing a set of related research hypotheses. The Vaughn/Winner study asked students taking the SAT to voluntarily fill out a questionnaire about the number of years they participated in arts classes. While meta-analysis allows for broad observations – in this case, that students who took four or more years of arts classes had the strongest SAT scores – it tends to gloss over the specific qualities of the arts programs or the learning experiences, due to the necessary heterogeneity involved in the process of combining disparate studies. What did those students do in their art classes that led to better test scores? Which activities triggered the cognitive development to improve math and verbal test-taking skills? To paraphrase reviewer Bruce Wilson’s commentary about the meta-analysis study “Mute Those Claims: No Evidence (Yet) for a Causal Link between Arts Study and Academic Achievement,” meta-analysis oftentimes takes a very limited range of factors into consideration, and excludes unanticipated outcomes.

One way to address this issue is to look at the findings of the qualitative and ethnographic research methodology. As indicated in the Martha C. Mentzer/Boni B. Boswell study “Effects of a Movement Poetry Program on Creativity of Children with Behavioral Disorders,” qualitative methods of reporting on research can be helpful in understanding the nature of the learning that is happening. Such methods include anecdotal records, observational checklists from videos of the sessions, questionnaires and interviews, and student work. In the study, the use of this methodology helped reveal the learning styles and creative thinking (defined here as “originality, fluency, and flexibility”) of two boys, aged 7 and 10. With meticulous documentation and citations from earlier studies, this study captured the rather nuanced development of behavior changes. As reviewer Karen K. Bradley comments, “… since one boy improved in social behavior and the other in motor coordination, the union of creative movement and poetry writing provided a ‘stronger fabric’ for development, especially for children of different and challenging learning styles.” She continues that “the most useful data for understanding the outcomes the boys achieved came from anecdotal records. The field needs to recognize that movement analysis may offer the clearest depiction of what cognitive or behavioral changes occur through involvement in dance.”

In fact, this last sentence could be applied to every arts discipline. Analysis of what exactly is being learned can reveal what changes happen cognitively in all of the artistic disciplines.

IMPLICATIONS

The research included in “Critical Links” is so diverse, from the methodology used to the discovered outcomes, that it is difficult to make a statement about the merits of one study over another. Taken as a whole, the Compendium offers strong evidence of correlation between arts study and academic and cognitive development.

Despite the comprehensiveness of the commentary sections, two questions seemed to be missing from the conversation:

1. If visual arts, music, multi-arts, dance, and drama all possibly impact a similar skill set (e.g. reading), how do we know which arts programs are most effective at promoting these skills?

Before we even go there, it should be reiterated that the dance and visual arts studies in this Compendium are vastly outnumbered by the other studies (7 and 4, respectively, compared with at least 15). This tells us that if and when we suggest which of the arts to focus on to develop specific cognitive abilities, we first need further research in the visual arts and dance arts.

Yet there is a need to not only develop arts research within specific disciplines, but among the disciplines as well as across academic learning, as suggested in the second of Paul DiMaggio’s three fallacies in identifying the effects of the arts on communities. As described in DiMaggio’s prospectus for the “Taking the Measure of Culture” symposium at Princeton University in June 2002, the second fallacy is that of homogeneity of effects. “We …often speak as if the arts …have undifferentiated effects on people and communities, whatever these effects may be. So we ask, ‘does art education improve math learning?’ or ‘do communities with lots of artistic resources have stronger economies?’ It is unlikely that there are general answers to these questions. Effects may be heterogeneous due to interactions with other factors, so that benign effects of artistic resources or experiences are visible only in the presence of other factors that facilitate the expression of those benign effects…. [D]ecisive effects of specific kinds of arts programs on a relatively small proportion of communities will be hidden unless we know where to look for them.

In other words, we need to look at multiple and potentially confounding factors when determining the impact that any given arts activity has on an unrelated skill. We could certainly use more longitudinal studies across different academic disciplines if we are to determine how the skills that are emerging through research are being used in other contexts.

2. What is research methodology telling us about the quality of outcomes?

While it may seem that arts involvement is desirable, it isn’t usually clear how rich or textured student involvement is in other subject areas as a result of their engagement with the arts.

The most compelling studies in “Critical Links” – at least for me – were those that explored the nuances of learning that took place.  One particularly resonated with me both in terms of methodology and in terms of outcome: “’Stand and Unfold Yourself,’ A Monologue on the Shakespeare & Company Research Study,” by Steve Seidel. In it, a team of research staff looked closely at the Shakespeare & Company’s National Shakespeare Institute to identify what made the program so successful and which elements of it could be transferable. (Note that there is already an assumption that the program is successful.) The program includes a one-month teacher training, followed by two months in which teaching artists guide about 400 students in 10 schools through the study and performance of Shakespeare plays.

What struck me at first was the ambiguity of the inquiry question: “How do participants [in the Shakespeare & Company program] identify the value of their participation for themselves?” The second question seemed even more elusive: “What elements of the program seemed most critical to creating those benefits?” I wondered how the study could possibly measure these things.

This is where the unique methodology of the study shone through. Unlike other studies, this one had the resources to assess two of the four years of students’ and staff participation. By the standards of the Compendium, this is a very long time. In addition, researchers held meetings with participants throughout the year and organized yearly retreats to extract what was being observed and learned; developed rich inquiry questions “around authenticity, academic rigor, applied learning, active exploration, adult relationships, and assessment practices,” and included teacher and student responses to these questions as evidence of the impacts and success of the program.

Along with these elements, Seidel focuses “on learning in … the language itself, acting, working in creative communities, and learning about oneself and linking that to social and intellectual development.” The findings were numerous, but most importantly, the study revealed that the complexity of studying Shakespeare plays allowed participants to delve into their own feelings and emotions. As Catterall comments, “the complexity of issues and emotions in the plays promotes word-by-word, emotion-by-emotion, thought-by-thought investigation of meaning. This step-by-step approach invites those who study Shakespeare to go deeply into their own experience, a process that is linked to all types of learning.”

So, do we all need to study more Shakespeare? Maybe. But I came away from this study thinking that, while it may not be realistic to replicate this kind of work extensively, it may nevertheless be prudent to invest in more in-depth qualitative research like this: research that asks more ambiguous inquiry questions and systematically measures both expected and unanticipated outcomes.

Building on the field’s existing and expansive arts education research, we have an opportunity to unlock the deeper inquiries about how the arts shape human development. If we can use what already exists (such as the wealth of findings from studies like those included in the Compendium), and take a step-by-step approach at looking at the nuances of learning, perhaps we’ll begin to form stronger links within and beyond arts education to develop rich, holistic learning experiences that can help shape future generations of critical thinkers, and creative learners and leaders.

Further reading:

• James S. Catterall, Book Summary
• Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner, Beyond the Evidence Given: A Critical Commentary on Critical Links (in this essay, Hetland and Winner take Catterall and editor Richard Deasy to task for inflating, in their opening and concluding essays, the degree to which causal interpretations can be drawn from the studies contained within the volume)
• Summary/synthesis by Americans for the Arts