The Evidence on Teaching

Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education

Hetland L, Winner E, Veenema S, Sheridan KM · 2007

grade Dreviewdeveloper-lednot-applicable
Sample
Qualitative ethnography of 5 visual-arts teachers, 28 art projects across 38 observed and videotaped classes, over one school year
Population
Two selective-admission Boston-area arts high schools (Boston Arts Academy and Walnut Hill School for the Arts) where students spend three or more hours a day on art
Design
Included because it is the flagship work of visual-arts education research and because what it is matters more than what it finds. There is no student outcome measured quantitatively, no control group, no pre-post design and no effect size anywhere in it. It is an ethnography producing a framework - the eight "studio habits of mind" - from classroom observation, teacher reflections and student interviews. Graded D as expert opinion and qualitative work, and marked developer-led because the authors are the framework's originators. Also note the generalisability problem: the classes observed mimic pre-professional college studio teaching with selectively admitted arts students, a setting almost absent from ordinary school art rooms.
Key findings
The eight studio habits of mind (develop craft, engage and persist, envision, express, observe, reflect, stretch and explore, understand the art world) are proposed as what serious art teaching cultivates. The book makes no outcome claim and does not test one; as one published review of it puts it, its "descriptive and theoretical approach makes no attempt to prove anything about the benefits of arts education, but rather make a case for them." The intellectual history is the interesting part for this archive: these are the same authors whose REAP meta-analyses found no causal transfer from arts education to academic achievement, and Studio Thinking is what they did next - having failed to find spillover, they turned to describing the intrinsic habits art class builds. That is a defensible move. It is not evidence that art class builds them.
Genetic confound
Not applicable - nothing is measured and no comparison is made.
Replication notes
Not applicable. No quantitative evaluation of the Studio Thinking framework with an independent outcome measure has been located.
DOI / URL
ISBN 9780807748183 (Teachers College Press; 2nd edition, Studio Thinking 2, 2013, ISBN 9780807754351)

Effects

OutcomeMetricValueMeasureTimingVsHorizonClass
Student artistic or cognitive outcomesnoneno outcome was measured; the work is a qualitative framework derived from classroom observation, with no control group, no pre-post design and no effect sizeunknownone school year of observationnonenot-applicableunclear

Cited by