Bethel University

Spark

All Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2019

Impact of art education on student development and achievement

Shanna Marie Slice
Bethel University

Follow this and additional works at: https://spark.bethel.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Methods Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional
Development Commons

Recommended Citation
Slice, S. M. (2019). Impact of art education on student development and achievement [Masterʼs thesis,
Bethel University]. Spark Repository. https://spark.bethel.edu/etd/586

This Masterʼs thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Spark. It has been accepted for inclusion in All
Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Spark.
IMPACTS OF ART EDUCATION ON STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT

A MASTER’S THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF BETHEL UNIVERSITY

BY

SHANNA SLICE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION

NOVEMBER 2019
 2
BETHEL UNIVERSITY

IMPACTS OF ART EDUCATION

Shanna Slice

November 2019

APPROVED

Thesis Advisor: Lisa Silmser, Ed.D

Program Director: Molly Wickem, Ph. D

 3
Acknowledgements

I’m extremely grateful for my advisor Dr. Lisa Silmser who gave me excellent

guidance and instruction for completing this paper as well as timely and thoughtful

feedback. In addition, my husband, Chris Slice, who has been unconditionally supportive

to me throughout this entire process and without him this would have taken much

longer to complete. I’m also thankful for my sisters, Alyssa Larsen and Brittany Wedlund,

who watched my daughter on many occasions so I could have time and space to work

on this literature review. Lastly, I would like to thank Bethel University for not only

providing me with an incredible Master’s of Education program but also the resources

needed to complete this thesis.

 4
Abstract

The significance of art education as a part of public education in America has been

greatly debated since public education’s inception. While the most recently passed

education bill includes art as a part of a well-rounded education, there is a simultaneous

shift in focus towards standardized test scores. This raises several questions around art

education’s impact not only on standardized test scores but on the academic and

personal development of students. The current relevant research shows compelling

evidence that art education does positively impact critical thinking, creativity, and

problem solving skills. However, there is inconclusive evidence whether art education

positively impacts student performance in math, science, or English. In addition, there is

some research that shows art education positively impacts students’ self-confidence,

empathy, and civic engagement. There is also compelling evidence that shows students

from low socioeconomic families are more positively impacted by art education than

students from high socioeconomic families. Overall, the present research points to art

education enhancing the academic and personal development of students of all ages.
 5
Table of Contents

Signature Page .................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 3

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 4

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 5

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7

Chapter II: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 11

Literature Search Procedures ............................................................................... 11

Art Education and Critical Thinking ...................................................................... 11

Art Education and Creativity ................................................................................. 17

Art Education and Problem Solving ...................................................................... 24

Art Education and Achievement in Core Subjects ................................................ 29

Art Education and Literacy ........................................................................ 29

Art Education and Mathematics ............................................................... 35

Art Education and Science ........................................................................ 40

Art Education and Personal Development ........................................................... 44

Art Education and Self-Efficacy ................................................................. 45

Art Education and Communication Skills .................................................. 48

Art Education and Attention ..................................................................... 50

Art Education and Student Participation .................................................. 51

Art Education and Civic Engagement ........................................................ 54

Chapter III: Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................. 55

 6
Summary of Literature .......................................................................................... 55

Limitations of the Research .................................................................................. 59

Implications for Future Research .......................................................................... 60

Implications for Professional Application ............................................................. 61

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 64

References ........................................................................................................................ 66
 7
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The arts have been an embedded part of every culture since the dawn of

civilization. The same is true for the arts and public education. Horace Mann, who

launched the American public education movement in the 1830s and 1840s, included

drawing as part of the original curriculum on the grounds that it developed better eye

hand coordination (Raber, 2017). However, it took over 150 years for America to include

the arts as part of public education on a federal level, until then each individual state got

to choose. Massachusetts was the first state to make the arts a part of is general public

education in 1860 (The Art of Education, 2015). While most states followed

Massachusetts’ lead eventually, the arts were not included as a core subject in public

education in American under federal law until the passage of the Goals 2000 Education

Reform Act in 1994 and then the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which provided states

federal funding for the arts in addition to their state funding for the first time. Currently

art education is included under the Every Child Succeeds Act of 2015 that states that the

arts are part of a well-rounded education.

The nation adding art education to public education on a federal level in this 21st

century matches the value Americans have for the arts. In a national survey done in

2018 by the Americans for the Arts, 72 percent of Americans believe “the arts unify

communities regardless of age, race, and ethnicity” and 73 percent agree “the arts help

them understand other cultures better.” Along with that, 91 percent of Americans

believe that arts are part of a well-rounded education for kindergarten through 12th

grade students and 93 percent believe it is important for students to receive an

 8
education in the arts whether they are in elementary, middle, or high school (Americans

for the Arts, 2018). This same value Americans have is also where their money is spent.

In 2016, the arts and culture sector contributed 804.2 billion dollars to the nation’s gross

domestic product (Hutter, 2019). That same year, the total economic impact of the arts

and culture sector in Minnesota alone was over two billion dollars and generated 245

million in state and local revenue (Creative MN, 2019).

With or without the arts, a key purpose of public education is to prepare children

to be skilled, productive, and contributing members of society. Therefore, it is critical

that effort is made to ensure the skills being taught in schools are what students will

need to succeed in the current global economy. The National Association of Colleges

and Employers 2018 survey of employers from 172 organizations found the most

essential competency that employees need is critical thinking and problem solving skills.

In addition, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a national organization of business,

education, and government leaders working together to assist in preparing every child

for the 21st century, include critical thinking and problem solving, and creativity and

innovation in their top four skills that children need to succeed in today’s world (Battelle

for Kids, 2018).

With these essential skills in mind, the questions arise in regards to whether art

education impacts these skills that are needed in today’s world and in a more generally

how does art education impact students’ academic and personal development. In

addition, besides the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Every Child Succeeds Act

of 2015 including art education as a part of a holistic public education they also made a
 9
strong shift towards focusing on state standardized test scores as a measure of

individual, district, and state academic performance. This emphasis on state

standardized test scores has caused many educators and legislators to question how art

education impacts student academic performance on those exams.

Therefore, this literature review will explore the questions: How does art

education impact students’ educational and personal development? How does art

education specifically impact critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving skills?

Does art education impact performance in the core subjects? How does art education

impact students’ self-efficacy and civic engagement?

For the purpose of this literature review, art education includes media arts,

dance, music, theater, and visual arts. Critical thinking is a student’s reflective

processing of their thoughts and incorporates the components of observation,

interpretation, evaluation, associations, problem finding, and flexible thinking. While

creativity is frequently solely associated with the arts it is in fact much broader than that

and is about idea generation, manipulation and use. It also consists of the components

of fluency, originality, elaboration, and persistence. Additionally, problem solving is a

student’s ability to process, confront, and resolve real often cross-disciplinary situations

and includes the components of imagining, experimentation, flexibility, resource

recognition, connection of ends and aims, and reflection. In the realm of personal

development, self-efficacy refers to a student’s belief of their ability to make things

happen for themselves, their capacity to conceive and carry out actions, and their

general sense of agency in life which includes self-confidence and self-esteem. Also, low
 10
socioeconomic families are those that qualify for free and/or reduced lunch in the public

school system. Lastly, while standardized tests vary by state they are consistently

conducted in the subject areas of math, science, and literacy which generally includes

reading and writing.

 11
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Search Procedures

To locate the literature for this thesis, searchers of Education Journals, ERIC,

Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and EBSCO MegaFILE were conducted for publications

from 2000-2019. An extensive investigation of relevant empirical studies’ reference lists

was also conducted to locate additional literature. This is was narrowed by only

reviewing published empirical studies from peer-reviewed sources that focused on art

education and its effects and impacts that addressed the guiding questions. The key

words that were used in these searches included “art education and critical thinking”,

“art education and creativity”, “art education and academic achievement”, “art

education and skill transfer”, and “learning in the arts and divergent thinking”. The

structure of this chapter is to review the literature on the effects and impacts of arts

education in five sections in this order: Art Education and Critical Thinking, Art Education

and Problem Solving, Art Education and Creativity, Art Education and Achievement in

Core Subjects, and Art Education and Personal Development.

Art Education and Critical Thinking

Several studies have provided evidence that instruction and experiences in the

arts increase students’ abilities to think critically (Adams, 2006; Bowen, 2013; Housen,

2002; Huye, 2015; Lampert, 2006, 2012). To help give greater validity to these studies, in

2007, Luke, Stein, Foutz, and Adams conducted a study to examine if critical thinking

could be measured through an assessment tool. Thirteen art museum educators at six

art museum used an observational critical thinking assessment in their existing art
 12
education programs with children and youth. Through the analysis of the critical

thinking assessments along with interviews of the art museum educators, all thirteen of

the art museum educators were able to observe participants in their programs using

and demonstrating critical thinking with the critical thinking assessment tool. This study

showed that critical thinking could be observed, identified, and measured in art

programs by art museum educators.

Bowen (2013) conducted a study of 3,811 students in grades third through

twelfth, about half of the students attended a guided field trip to an art museum. Two

week post the museum visits all students including those that did not visit the art

museum completed a critical thinking survey. An analysis of the surveys showed that

students who went on the art museum tour overall performed nine percent higher on

the critical thinking measure than those who did not go on the tour. Breaking the

surveys down by grade level, students in grades third through eighth outperformed

their similar peers by 11 percent on the critical thinking measure. Demographically,

students who visited the art museum and were from low socioeconomic families and/or

were non-white performed eighteen percent higher on the critical thinking measure

than their similar peers who did not visit. Additionally, students who visited the art

museum who were living in rural areas (less than 10,000 people) performed 33 percent

higher on the critical thinking measure than their similar peers who did no visit.

While the Bowen study analyzed the impact of a single art museum visit the

critical thinking skills of students, the same researchers that investigated the capability

of measuring of critical thinking skills conducted a study on the impact of a year-long

 13
multiple visit art museum education program on third to fifth grades students’ critical

thinking skills (Adams, Foutz, Luke, & Stein, 2006). For this study, students who

participated in the multiple visit art museum education program and similarly

academically and demographically matched students were individually interviewed by

researchers and completed a unguided art museum tour where they audio recorded

during their visit. Both were then transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a critical

thinking measurement rubric (Housen, 2002). This study found that students who

participated in the multiple visit art museum education program generated significantly

more instances of critical thinking skills and were able to provide significantly more

evidence to support their critical thinking than their peers who did not participate.

More specifically, the art program students had significantly higher frequency in the

critical thinking skills of observation, interpretation, association, comparison, and

flexible thinking than their peers. However, there was no differences found in the

frequency of the evaluation and problem finding critical thinking skills between the art

program students and the non-art program students.

The relationship between learning through the arts and critical thinking skills

have been studied outside of art museums settings as well. In 2011, Lampert conducted

a very small study of the improvement of critical thinking skills in ten elementary

children aged eight to ten who participated in a twelve week after school art education

program. Through a pre and post critical thinking test, on average the children

increased their critical thinking scores by 20 percent. A year after that study, Holdren

(2012) conducted a study with 21 high school juniors who elected to create a visual arts
 14
project in their English class to evaluate their level of reading comprehension and their

engagement with critical thinking skills. Based on observations and interviews, the

researcher found the students repeatedly demonstrating the critical thinking skills of

metaphoric connections, synthesizing details, and problem solving. Additionally, of the

of 21 high school students in the study, 14 produced visual artworks that demonstrated

critical thinking by making connections beyond the illustrative and ten produced

artworks that demonstrated critical thinking by establishing metaphorical connections

or synthesized details related to the thematic concepts in the texts. Most interestingly,

it was observed that when the students had an in-depth understanding of the text, their

art reflected critical thinking sometimes despite the lack of artistic ability or training.

Likewise, when students struggled to comprehend the text, their artwork tended to

show far less critical thinking in their artwork despite artistic ability or training.

However, a qualitative study of high school students in the United Kingdom done by

Harland in 2000 found that only 15% of the 79 students interviewed over three years

made statements of increased critical thinking skills being an outcome of their

participation in the arts.

In none of the above studies were students taught about their critical thinking

before they were evaluated in it. Goldberg (2005) conducted a study with 40 third grade

students where all the students over a year received art instruction but only half were

taught about critical thinking through metacognition. All students in the study were

given pre and post art tasks that were then analyzed which showed the third grade

students who received instruction on critical thinking through metacognition scored

 15
significantly higher on the critical thinking skills of understanding the problem,

strategies for solutions, and solving the problem in the development of their artworks

than their peers who did not receive the instruction. In fact, the third grade students

who were taught about critical thinking through metacognition averaged three times

the number of critical thinking statements when working on their post art tasks than

their peers. This study suggests that collaboration between elementary classroom

teachers and art teachers to teach about critical thinking could increase students’

overall use of critical thinking skills.

So far the studies presented have been with students in grades K-12, however,

Lampert (2006) and Huye (2015) conducted studies with undergraduate students and

how the arts relate to their critical thinking skills. With 77 undergraduates enrolled in

fine arts courses and 64 in non-art courses, Lampert had all students complete the

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory that tests the internal motivation to

approach problem solving by using thinking and reasoning. The results of this survey

showed that all students in art courses scored higher in the critical thinking subscales of

truth-seeking, critical thinking maturity, and open-mindedness. However, there was no

significant difference between the students in art courses and not on the subscales of

analyticity, inquisitiveness, and critical thinking confidence. In fact, students in non-art

courses scored significantly higher than students in art courses in the subscale of

systematicity. Lampert concluded that since students in art courses scored higher in

their dispositions for truth-seeking, critical thinking maturity, and open-mindedness this

suggests that visual arts curriculum and instruction may significantly enhance critical
 16
thinking dispositions. Along with that, this study shows early indications that immersion

in a discipline such as art may condition the mind to approach experiences with a

disposition for accepting that there are many possible solutions to complex problems

thus causing the mind to think critically. Related, Huye (2015) did a small study with

twelve undergraduate nursing students on whether the use of art analysis could invoke

their critical thinking. Through a survey the students trended toward agreement that

the analysis of art helped them with their critical thinking skills with mean score of 3.9

out of 4 on the critical thinking survey questions.

Critical thinking skills in art are important but more important are if those skills

can be transferred across domains. Therefore, not only has the relationship between

critical thinking skills and arts education been studied but also the ability to transfer

critical thinking skills used in art to other contents and subject areas has also been

studied (Holdren, 2012; Housen, 2002; Huye, 2015). Using the same critical thinking

skills rubric as used in the Adams et al. study (2006), prior to that in 2002, Housen

conducted a five year study to investigate the relationship between visual art instruction

and the development and transfer of critical thinking skills. With 52 elementary and

middle school students who received visual arts instruction and 47 who did not, all

students completed a pre and post survey, individual interviews, written essays, and

observed by teachers and researchers over a five year period. The data was compiled,

coded and found that students who received and didn’t receive the art visual instruction

increased their critical thinking transfer across social contexts, however, the students

who received the art visual instruction showed significantly more critical thinking
 17
context transfer than their peers who did not receive the arts instruction. The significant

differences in the critical thinking context transfer scores between the students who

received the arts visual thinking strategies instruction and those who did not began one

and half years into the study and remained consistence through year five of the study.

Besides transferring across social context, this study found that students who received

the art visual instruction had a mean critical thinking transferring across content score

that was twice that of the students who did not receive the art strategies instruction.

Also, an important finding was that all students showed transfer of their critical thinking

across social contexts before the content and the more artistic ability students had the

greater they were able to demonstrate their critical thinking transferring social contexts

and content. Lastly, Adams et al. found that students who received art visual instruction

used significantly more supported observations and speculations both evidence of

critical thinking than their peers who did not receive the instruction. Similarly, the Huye

(2015) study and the Holdren (2002) studies already discussed, both showed the

transfer of critical thinking skills across content with the Huye study transferring to

nutrition curriculum in an undergraduate nursing course and the Holdren study

transferring to reading comprehension in a high school English class. Overall, these

studies done have shown critical thinking skills to be impacted by arts education and can

be transferred across context and content.

Art Education and Creativity

While critical thinking is viewed as an important 21st century skills, in our ever

advancing technological age, creativity is also viewed as a vital skill needed for today’s
 18
world (Battelle for Kids, 2018). In 2011, Kim conducted a study to examine the current

levels of creative thinking and possible changes that have occurred in it over the past

forty years. Quantitative data was taken from the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking –

figural scores from 272,599 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade

geographically located across the United States from 1966-2008. The Torrance Test of

Creative Thinking breaks creativity down into the five components of fluency, originality,

elaboration, abstractness of titles, and resistance to premature closure. An analysis of

the scores indicated that creative thinking in all five of its components individually and

collectively are declining over time among Americans of all ages and is particularly

significant in kindergarten through third grade students where the decline was shown to

be steady and persistent since 1990.

Four other studies have used the same Torrance Test of Creative Thinking that

Kim analyzed, in their investigations of the relationship between art education and

creativity (Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 2000; Catterall & Peppler, 2007; Luftig, 2000;

Schlegel et al., 2014). In 2000, 2,406 students in grades, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th from twelve

public schools with varied to no art programs in the eastern part of the United States,

completed the Torrance Test of Creativity in order to evaluate the effects of art

education on students (Burton et al.). In addition to the Torrance Test of Creativity, the

students also completed a Self-Description Questionnaire and a Student Arts Background

questionnaire. On top of that, five of the twelve schools were chosen for additional

qualitative research through interviews, observations, and examinations of students’

artworks, performances, and writings. An analysis of the student data found students
 19
who had a greater number of years of in-school and/or private art lessons consistently

scored higher on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking – figural than their peers who

had a smaller number of years of in-school and/or private art lessons in almost every

component of creativity. The creative thinking component of elaboration had the

widest score gap between the students with more years of arts lessons scoring high and

the student with fewer years of arts lessons scoring low. This quantitative data was

consistent in correlation with the qualitative data gathered and analyzed.

That same year Luftig (2000) used the same creativity measurement tool with

615 elementary students in Southwest Ohio in grades two, four, and five. In this study a

third of the total number of participating students received comprehensive arts

educational programming, a third received new curriculum but not in the arts, and a

third did not received new curriculum or arts based instruction. An analysis of the pre

and post Torrance Test of Creative Thinking – figural scores of all the students found the

students who received the arts education programming scored significantly higher in

their total creativity scores than the students who did not receive the arts programming

by a mean score difference of 11 percent. Breaking down the scores by each creative

component found the students who received the arts instruction scored significantly

higher on the creative component of originality than the students who did not receive

the arts programming by a mean difference score of 14 percent. In addition, the

students with the arts education scored significantly higher on the creative component

of elaboration than the students who did not receive the arts programming but not

higher than the students who received the new non-arts curriculum. The second and
 20
fifth grade students in the study with the arts instruction made large gains on the

creative component of resistance to closure scores between the pre and posttests,

whereas the students in those same grades who did not receive the arts programming

had minimal gains or losses in their elaboration scores. However, all the fourth grade

students regardless of receiving arts instruction, new curriculum, or nothing had losses

on resistance to closure scores between their pre and posttests. The creative

components of fluency and abstractness of titles component scores showed no

difference between the students who received the arts programming, new curriculum,

or neither of those two.

Schlegel and colleagues found similar results with undergraduate students in

their 2014 study. Thirty-five college students participated in this study with 17 of them

taking a three month drawing or painting course and 18 of them not. The Torrance Test

of Creative Thinking – figural was given to all participating students at before the three

month course and at the end of it. The scores showed the undergraduate students with

the visual arts course improved their creative thinking over their peer who did not take

an art course.

These results differ from those of Catterall and Peppler’s 2007 study of a 179

students in the third grade attending urban public schools in California and Missouri

who completed pre and post surveys based on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking.

In this study, 72 percent of the participants received 20-30 weeks of art education

instruction and the rest did not. The analysis of the pre and post creativity scores

showed that between one-third and one-half of all the students made gains in the
 21
creative thinking components of fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. However, there

was no significant differences in the scores of those three creative thinking components

between the students who received the arts instruction and those who did not.

Conversely, the students who received arts instruction scored significantly higher on the

creative thinking component of originality than their peers without arts instruction by

33-55 percent. This particular finding is similar to what Burton et al. found in 2000.

Beside the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Test

has been used in three research studies that investigate the relationship between art

education and creativity (Chan & Zhao, 2010; Chishti & Jehangir, 2014; Han & Marvin,

2002). In 2002, Han and Marvin examined whether creativity is domain specific or is

transferrable across domains. One hundred and nine second grade students aged seven

to eight from five urban elementary schools participated in this study by not only

completing the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Test but also completed the Real-World

Divergent Thinking Test and three performance based assessments each in the domains

of art, math, and literacy. Han and Marvin found no significant relationship between the

performance based art assessment of collage making and the Wallach-Kogan Creativity

Test scores or the Real-World Divergent Thinking Test scores. There was also no

significant relationship between the performance based art assessment and the math or

literacy assessments. In fact, there was no combination of the Wallach-Kogan Creativity

Test or the Real-World Divergent Thinking Test that could predict any combination of

the performance based assessment scores for the students. This study provides

evidence that creative thinking test measures and performance in art, math, and literacy
 22
are independent of one another because no significant correlation was found between

the tests or the performances.

Chan and Zhao found similar results in their 2010 study with 223 students in

Hong Kong aged 6-24 years old. In their study, all the students completed a Creative

Characteristics Rating Scale that included items from the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Test

and a fantasy drawing task. The students in the study who were in grades kindergarten

through twelfth grade also completed a Drawing Activity Checklist in order to assess

their level of artistic involvement whereas the undergraduate students’ artistic

involvement was assessed by their major in fine arts or not. The results of this study

found that the creative thinking test scores did not contribute significantly to the

prediction of artistic creativity in their drawings. This supports the evidence that

creativity test measures may not correspond with domain specific creative performance

such as art. However, the study also showed that children aged six to ten and more

significantly adolescents aged eleven to sixteen years old with greater involvement in

the arts had significantly higher drawing skills and artistic creativity shown in their

drawings than their similar aged peers who had little artistic involvement. In addition,

artistic involvement was a significant predictor of artistic creativity for adolescents.

Also, there was a substantial correlation between drawing skills and artistic creativity

shown in the drawings for participants across all ages. In fact, drawing skills was the

most significant predictor of artistic creativity shown in the drawings. This finding

suggests that students who have technical art skills are the more likely to be able to

express artistic creativity in their artwork.

 23
Rostan’s 2010 study of the relationship between artistic talent and creativity

found similar results as Chan and Zhao did. There was 51 children aged nine to sixteen

who were enrolled in a private after school art program for at least a year and half by

the recommendation of one of their public school teachers that participated in this

study. Through two drawing tasks: one from life and one from their imagination, Rostan

found the technical skill on the drawing from their imagination was significantly

correlated with the assessed creativity of the drawing. In addition, the number of years

the students attended the art program was significantly correlated with the technical

skill and creativity of the students’ drawings. Therefore, unsurprisingly the older

students aged 11-16 had greater technical skills and creativity in their drawings as many

of them had been in the art program longer than their younger peers. Rostan’s study

provides more evidence that students who participate in high quality arts education

develop technical art skills while simultaneously increasing their artistic creativity.

A third study done in 2005 by Heath and Wolf also had a similar finding. They

examined the effects of visual arts instruction in a public elementary school in the

United Kingdom on children aged four to seven. Heath and Wolf found that over a year,

the children made large gains in their artistic creativity particularly the component of

elaboration as demonstrated through their drawings that contained more precise visual

details and the verbal expressions of their ideas about their drawings. In Harland and

colleagues (2000) quantitative study, also conducted in the United Kingdom, 36 of the

79 high school students interviewed made 67 statements that they believed an outcome

of their participation in the arts was the development of their creativity.

 24
Most of the studies done on the relationship between creativity and art

education did not break down their results by gender or socioeconomic status.

However, in 2007 Liu conducted a study in Taiwan that did just that. Four hundred and

twenty seven third grade students from 16 elementary schools in the Hsinchu area of

Taiwan completed the Milne-Kasen Story Pictures Assessment (a test of creativity), the

Young Artist’s Checklist, Portfolio Review of Measurement, and the Milne Visual Spatial

Intelligence Checklist, all of which are American in origin. The results for each of these

were scored, coded, compiled, and analyzed. Lui found every component of the

creativity test (fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration) was significantly

correlated with the students’ visual arts understanding, performance, and visual/ spatial

intelligence. When the results were broken down by gender, girls scored significantly

higher on the creativity components of originality and elaboration. There was no

significant difference in scores by gender for creativity components of fluency and

flexibility. When the socioeconomic status of the students was examined in relation to

their test scored, the students from higher socioeconomic families scored higher on all

the components of the creativity test than their peers from lower socioeconomic

families.

Overall, the studies on the relationship between art education and creativity

show that increased education and experiences in the arts increase students’ technical

artistic abilities and their artistic creativity. However, the studies have shown that the

artistic creativity does not seem transferable to other subject areas or domains.
 25
Art Education and Problem Solving

The skill of problem solving requires a balance of both critical thinking and

creativity (Chishti & Jehangir, 2014). Therefore, it makes sense that research has been

conducted in examining the relationship between art education and problem solving

(Chishti & Jehangir, 2014; Holdren, 2012; Korn, et al., 2010; Lampert, 2011; Liem,

Martin, Anderson, & Gibson, 2014; Naghshineh, et al., 2008; Rostan, 2010). In the

Lampert (2011) study with ten elementary children already presented, not only did the

study find that the children increased their critical thinking but also found that over the

course of the afterschool art program it was observed that the children became

significantly more comfortable and confidence with problem solving when it came to

choosing, creating, and discussing art images. Also, during the Holdren (2012) study

with high school juniors, it was observed that in the process of the students creating

their visual art projects to demonstrate their reading comprehension, the students

regularly engaged in both collaborative and individual problem solving in addition to

critical thinking.

In 2010, Rostan conducted a study to examine the changes that occur in art

students’ artistic processing and products as they get older. There were 51 children

aged nine to sixteen who were enrolled in a private after school art program for at least

a year and half by the recommendation of one of their public school teachers that

participated in this study. Through two drawing tasks and a Need for Cognition Scale

Likert Survey, Rostan found the greater number of years of arts training the students

had increased their technical drawing skills, creativity, amount of time spent generating
 26
ideas, and more efficient in their problem solving. Therefore, not surprising that the

older students, aged, 11-16, had greater problem solving skills than the younger

students aged nine-ten.

That same year with similarly aged children, Korn and colleagues conducted a

study to specifically examine arts instruction’s ability to teach and build problem solving

skills and found differing results than Rostan. A pre and post student questionnaire

completed by 418 fifth grade students aged ten to eleven half of whom received arts

instruction and a field trip to an art museum and the other half not, showed that all the

students’ overall problem solving skill scored did not significantly change between the

two tests. More specifically, all students’ problem solving strategies for math remained

the same from the pre to post test. Interestingly, the questionnaire results showed the

students’ who received arts instruction had more positive attitudes in regards to the

problem solving components of flexibility, where students resist giving up when

encountering problems, and connections of end to aims, where students plan out the

solution to their problems, than their peers who did not receive the arts instruction. In

a second part of this study that involved 447 fifth grade students half of whom received

arts instruction and the other half not, all completed an artistic problem solving activity

that was observed, recorded, scored, and analyzed. The results showed the students

who received arts instruction scored higher than their peers on the problem solving

components of flexibility, connection of ends to aims, and resource recognition, where

students identify helpful materials but lower than their peers on the problem solving

component of experimentation, where students test the properties of materials, tools,

 27
and techniques and no differences in the scores between the two groups of students on

the problems solving components of imagining, and self-reflection.

In a larger and broader study that does not involve students receiving direct art

instruction but rather their use of art-related information and communication through

technology, Liem, Martin, Anderson, and Gibson (2014) examined the role of art-related

information and communication technology use in students’ problem solving skills. In

this study, 197,024 fifteen year old students from twenty five countries completed the

Programme for International Student Assessment in 2003. This assessed students’

problem solving skills, math and science skills, perceptions about their academic

behaviors and school, and their use of arts related information and communication

technology. An analysis of the assessment data, found that the quality of the arts-

related information and communication technology use had significant positive effects

on students’ problem solving skills, whereas the quantity of arts related information and

communication technology use was a negative predictor of students’ problem solving

skills. In other words, the higher quality of arts-related information and communication

technology used was associated with students’ heightened problem solving skills,

whereas the quantity of such use was inversely connected to problem-solving skills.

Interestingly, in addition, the negative effect of the quantity of arts-related information

and communication technology use on problem solving skills was greater for students

who had low quality information and communication technology use than for those

with moderate or high quality information and communication technology use. Also,

Liem et al. (2014) found that students’ problem solving skills positively predicted both
 28
science and mathematics achievement with a higher effect on science achievement than

mathematics. Taken further through analysis of the indirect effects of quality and

quantity of arts-related information and communication technology use mediated

through problem solving skills on students’ mathematics and science achievements,

students’ problem solving skills significantly mediated the relationship between arts-

related information and communication technology use and students’ mathematic

achievements. The same was found to be true for science however the students’

problem solving skills was a greater mediating link to mathematics achievement than to

science achievement.

Looking at an older student population, there are two studies that have been

conducted with undergraduate and graduate students in examining their problem

solving skills and visual arts training. In Pakistan, Chishnti and Jehangir (2014) did a

study with 150 undergraduate students aged 18-20 from two universities and examined

their current problem solving skills in relation to their elementary visual arts educational

experiences. Chishnti and Jehangir found that the students who had visual arts

education in elementary school scored significantly higher on the problem solving test

used as compared to their peers who did not have early visual arts education. The

results of this study suggest that people who receive visual arts education in their early

years of school have better problem solving skills when they become adults.

While, Chishnti and Jehangir (2014) looked at the retrospective impact of

childhood art education on later problem solving skills, Naghishineh did an earlier study

in 2008 with Harvard medical students and on whether visual arts training would
 29
improve their medical diagnostic skills which require acute problem solving. This study

involved 56 pre-clinical medical students with the mean age of 24 who all completed pre

and posttests than included written visual skills examination questions and a report of

observation and interpretations of three medical patients and two artworks. Twenty

four of the fifty six students in the study took an eight week course co-taught by art

museum art educators and Harvard medical faculty on visual arts literacy and medical

diagnosis. Naghishineh found that the medical students who completed the visual arts

course increased their visual observations by 38 percent over their peers who did not

complete the course. This improvement was evidenced in both the clinical and art

components of the post test. This improvement was followed by better interpretations

of both the artworks and medical patients on the posttest than their peers who did not

take the course. This study suggests that visual art education can be transferred to

problem solving in other fields such as medicine. White some of the results of the

research is promising, overall, it is somewhat weak and mixed on the relationship or

impact that art education has on problem solving skills.

Art Education and Achievement in Core Subjects

Since the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act that supported standards-based school

reforms, there has been great focus and emphasis on student performance in math,

science, and literacy. Consequently there have been many studies done to examine the

impact of arts education on those core subjects and if any skills gained the arts is

transferable to academic achievement in them as well.

 30
Art Education and Literacy

The first place people often look to for student achievement in literacy is

standardized test scores. There have been several studies that have examined the

relationship between arts education and student achievement in standardized literacy

test scores (Catterall, Dumias, & Hampden-Thompson, 2012; Harland et al., 2000;

Housen, 2002; Ingram & Seashore, 2003; Kinney & Forsythe, 2005; Luftig, 2000; Sharp &

Tiegs, 2018; Vaughn & Winner, 2000). In 2012, Catteralll and colleagues did a large

analysis of data taken from four national longitudinal studies of students with high and

low levels of arts engagement and from high and low socioeconomic families. The data

showed that eighth grade students from low socioeconomic families who had high

levels of arts engagement from kindergarten through elementary school scored higher

on standardized writing tests than similar students who had low levels of arts

engagement over that same time period. However, there was no difference in writing

scores for the students from high socioeconomic families with high and low levers of

arts engagement.

Ten years earlier, Housen concluded a six year longitudinal study of 52 students

in a public school who received visual arts instruction over that time found somewhat

similar results in standardized reading scores as Catterall et al. did with eighth grade

writing scores. The students who received five years of visual arts instruction increased

their average eighth grade Minnesota standardized reading test scores by 23 percent

from the eighth grade students from the previous year who had not receive any of the

visual arts instructions. The following year’s eighth grade students who had received six
 31
years of visual arts instruction increased their state reading scores by 11 percent over

the previous year. Another study done in Minnesota found similar results. Ingram and

Seashore (2003) examined the Minnesota standardized test scores in English/Reading

for third and fourth grade students from 35 Minneapolis public elementary schools with

77 percent of those students receiving arts integrated into their English lessons. The

scores revealed the third and fourth grade students who received the arts integrated

into their English lessons had higher gains in their reading test scores than their peers

who did not receive the integrated instruction. In addition, the relationship between

arts integrated instruction and reading achievement was stronger for third grade

students from low socioeconomic families and students who were English language

learners than the rest of their peers. These results indicate a significant relationship

between arts integrated instruction and improved student learning in reading.

However, a similar study done by Kinney and Forsythe in 2005 also with fourth

grade students found differing results. The Ohio reading and writing standardized test

scores of four elementary schools’ fourth grade students were analyzed with half of the

students having received comprehensive arts instruction outside of their core subjects

and half not. The mean scores on the test revealed no significant differences in

achievement between the students who did and did not receive the comprehensive arts

instruction. Five years previous to this study, Luftig (2000) examined the standardized

test scores of 615 students in second, fourth, and fifth grade also in Ohio from two

school districts with a third of those students receiving arts education programming, a

third receiving new non-arts curriculum, and a third receiving neither of those. The
 32
literacy scores on the Iowa Basic Skills in Reading standardized test for the fifth grade

students for one district showed no difference between the students who did receive

the arts instruction and those that did not, however for the other district, the students

who did receive the arts education programming scored significantly better than their

peers in the same district who did receive the arts programming. Mixed results were

also found by Sharp and Tiegs 2018 study in Texas with students in grades three, four,

and five. Fifty four elementary schools in the study received fine arts programming and

135 elementary schools did not. The annual Texas Academic Performance reports from

2012-2016 were used in this study that include the standardized test reading scores for

each of the schools years within that timeframe. The data analysis found the fourth

grade writing scores for the students receiving fine arts programming was slightly

significantly higher than the students not receiving such programming for the 2013-

2014 school year. Additionally, the fourth and fifth grade reading scores for the rural

public schools involved in the study the students receiving fine arts programming scored

significantly higher than their peer not receiving the programming for the 2012-2013

school year. However, there was no statistical difference in the standardized reading or

writing scores for the students receiving and not receiving arts programming for the

2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.

Meanwhile during that same year, Harland and colleagues’ (2000) study in the

United Kingdom also found mixed results. The United Kingdom’s National Exam (GCSE)

scores of 27,607 eleventh grade students from 152 schools for the years 1994-1996

were examined in relation to the self-reported arts courses they had taken. The results
 33
showed that 11th grade students who took music and drama courses scored significantly

higher on their English national exams than students who took no art courses. The

students who took visual art courses scored no different than the student who took no

art courses. That same year, Vaughn Winner (2000), conducted a very similar study with

the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores from 1996-1998 in relation to the art courses

students had taken as self-reported on the Student Descriptive Questionnaire that is a

voluntary part of the SAT. The analysis of the verbal SAT scores showed a positive

significant relationship between the numbers of high school art courses the verbal SAT

scores. The verbal SAT scored increased linearly from zero to three art courses taken

and then there was a sharp jump in score up at four or more art courses taken.

Outside of standardized test scores, two small studies have found art education

to have a somewhat positive impact on students’ literacy achievement (Heath & Wolf,

2005; Wandell et al., 2008). Forty nine children aged seven to twelve who were part of

the National Institute of Health’s three year study of reading development were

assessed through reading fluency tests and phonological awareness tests as part of

Wandell and colleagues 2008 study on arts instruction and literacy. During the first year

of the study when the participants had a mean age of ten, those who had early training

in visual arts had statistically significant higher degree of phonological awareness than

their peers with no such training. However, these differences dissipated two years later

when the participants had a mean age of twelve. Also, the amount of musical training

participants received was significantly correlated with the amount of improvement in

their reading fluency scores over the three year period. There was no significant
 34
correlation between the participants’ visual arts training and their reading fluency

scores. In the 2005 study by Heath and Wolf, conducted in the United Kingdom with

four to seven year old students at a public elementary schools, the qualitative data

showed large gains in the students’ vocabularies after receiving visual arts instruction as

demonstrated in their verbal comparative analysis and stated cause and affect

relationships of their artworks.

There are two studies that specifically examine the impact of art education and

the literacy achievement of English language learners (Brouillette, Childress-Evan, &

Farkas, 2014; Craig & Paraiso, 2008). In 2014, Brouillette and colleagues conducted a

study with students who were English language learners at ten urban Title I elementary

schools in San Diego with half of the schools have arts education programming and

other have not. The scores of the students’ performance on the California English

Language Development Test were analyzed and showed that the kindergarteners who

were English language learners and who received the arts education programming

scored significantly higher on the listening and speaking subtests than their peers who

were English language learners but did not receive the programming. However, there

was no difference in scores for the first and second grade English language learners who

did and did not receive the arts education programming. Previously in 2008 there was a

small qualitative study done by Craig and Paraiso with 34 urban middle school

immigrant students who were all English language learners with arts integrated into

their English class to examine the impact of such instruction on the students’ language

development. Craig and Paraiso found the students increased their oral English
 35
proficiency skills through the creation and discussion of their artworks in particular their

vocabulary grew. It was also observed that the students transferred the language they

used to describe and discuss their art to other content in their English class.

All the studies presented thus far examined arts education on the literacy

achievement of students in school, however, an interesting part of the Catterall et al.

(2012) study referenced earlier, looked at literacy engagement of adults in light of their

middle school and high school arts engagement. With data taken from the National

Education Longitudinal Study of 24,599 students, the Educational Longitudinal Study of

15,361 students, and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth of 8,984 analysis

showed that 26 year old adults from low socioeconomic families who had engaged in

the arts in middle school through high school were more likely to read at least one book

during the preceding year (82 percent) compared to peers of the same socioeconomic

families who did no engage in the arts (74 percent). In addition, 55 percent of the 26

year old adults from low socioeconomic families who engaged in the arts in middle and

high school had visited a library at least one in the past year compared with 43 percent

of the peers of the same socioeconomic families who did not engage in the arts. While

the studies show that overall positive impact of arts education and student achievement

in literacy is somewhat small to none, there are no studies that showed a negative

impact on the literacy achievement of students and even could possible assist in

students becoming literacy engaged adults.

 36
Arts Education and Mathematics

Just like the relationship between art education and literacy has been analyzed

through standardized test scores in reading and writing, the same has been done with

standardized test scores in mathematics in an effort to examine the relationship

between art education and student achievement in math (Harland et al., 2000; Ingram &

Seashore, 2003; Kinney & Forsythe, 2005; Korn et al., 2010; Luftig, 2000; Sharp & Tiegs,

2018; Vaughn & Winner, 2000). In 2003, Ingram and Seashore examined the Minnesota

standardized test scores in mathematics for third and fifth grade students from 35

Minneapolis public elementary schools with 77 percent of those students receiving arts

integrated into their English lessons. The test scores showed the third and fifth grade

students who received integrated arts instruction in their math classes had significantly

higher gains in their scores than the students who did not receive the integrated arts

instruction. Kinney and Forsythe found similar results in their 2005 study with fourth

grade students at four public elementary schools in Ohio. The students in the study who

received comprehensive arts instruction had a significantly higher mean score on the

Ohio Proficiency test in mathematics compared to the students who did not receive the

arts curriculum. Interestingly, when the scores were broken down by the socioeconomic

status of the schools, the lower socioeconomic schools had a significantly greater mean

difference in math scores between the students who did and did not receive the arts

instruction when compared to the higher socioeconomic schools. This finding suggests

that comprehensive arts instruction could have a greater effect on the students’

achievement in math who come from low socioeconomic families.

 37
In looking at older students, in the same study where Vaughn and Winner (2000)

examined the verbal SAT scores of high schools students in relation to the self-reported

art classes they had taken, they also examined the SAT mathematics scores in relation to

the art courses completed. The scores showed a significant positive relationship

between the number of high school art courses and the SAT math scores. The math

scores of students with zero to three art courses was significantly lower than the scores

of the students with four or more art courses. However, it is important to note that the

math SAT scores in comparison to the verbal SAT scores for students with zero to three

art courses show that the effect of the number is of art courses is significantly smaller

on the math SAT scores than the verbal scores. This finding suggests that there may be

a greater relationship between the number of high school art courses and the verbal

SAT score than the math score.

Four other studies found different results than the previous studies. In 2010,

Korn and colleagues examined the New York state standardized mathematics test scores

of 418 fifth grade students from six elementary schools. Half of those students received

in school arts education for a year including a field trip to an art museum and the other

half did not. The scores showed the students who did not receive the arts instruction

scored significantly higher than the students who did receive arts curriculum. Ten years

prior, Harland and colleagues’ (2000) analyzed the United Kingdom’s National Exam

(GCSE) scores in math of 27,607 eleventh grade students from 152 schools in relation to

the self-reported arts courses they had taken. The results showed overall there was no

difference in mathematic scores between students who took arts courses and those
 38
who did not. However, when the scores were broken down by the type of art courses

taken, analysis showed that students who took music courses scored significantly higher

on their national exam in math than their peers without any art courses and students

who took art and drama courses scored significantly lower than their peers who did not

take any such classes.

That same year in two Ohio school districts, Luftig (2000) examined the

standardized math test scores of 615 second, fourth, and fifth grade students who had

taken the Iowa Test of Basic Skills math exam with a third of the students in each district

receiving fine arts programming, a third receiving new non-arts curriculum, and a third

receiving neither of those. The math scores for one of the district’s fifth grade male who

did not receiving the fine arts programming or the new curriculum scored the highest

followed by the male students who received the arts programming while the female

students who received the arts programming scored the lowest of all the students. For

the other school district the in study there was no difference in math scores between

any of the students whether they received the arts programming, new non-arts

curriculum, or neither of those.

Eighteen year later in Texas, Sharp and Tiegs (2018) examined the standardized

math scores for third, fourth, and fifth grade students from 54 elementary schools who

did received fine are programming and 135 who did not from 2012-2016. The State of

Texas Assessments for Academic Readiness Level II in math was the standardized test

used in this study. The data analysis showed that for the 2013-2014 school year the fifth

grade math scores for the rural public schools receiving arts programming were
 39
significantly higher than the rural public schools not receiving the programming.

Additionally, the fifth grade math scores for all schools during the 2015-2016 school

year showed the schools with arts education instruction had slightly significantly higher

scores than the schools no receiving the instruction. However, there was no difference

in math scores between the schools receiving and not receiving arts education

programming for the 2012-2013, 2014-2015 school years for the fifth grade students or

any of the years for the second and fourth grade students.

There are three studies that examined the relationship of arts education and

achievement in mathematics outside of standardized test scores (Catterall et al., 2012;

Liem et al., 2014; Wandell et al., 2008). Wandell and colleagues’ did a small study in

2008 with 49 children aged 7-12 who completed an arts education questionnaire, the

Woodcock-Johnson III Calculations Test and the Memory for Digits Test (CTOPP). The

test results showed a positive correlation between the children’s weekly visual arts

experience hours and their math calculations scores. There was also a moderate

correlation between the children’s weekly music experience outside of school and how

well they could remember a series of numbers which is a measure of their working

(short-term) memory that is critical for mathematical calculations. In Catterall and

colleagues’ large scale data analysis of four national longitudinal studies in 2012

involved 48,944 students. They found the students from low socioeconomic families

who took art courses in high school were more likely than their similar peers without

those courses to complete and pass a calculus course. In addition, the data showed that

students from low socioeconomic families who took art courses in high school had
 40
slightly higher grade point averages in math courses than their similar peers who did not

take art classes.

Two years after this study, Liem, Martin, Anderson, and Gibson (2014) did a

broad study that did not involve students receiving direct art instruction but rather their

use of art-related information and communication through technology as it related to

the achievement in mathematics. Parts of this study were presented earlier in art

education’s relationship to problem solving. In this study, 197,024 fifteen year old

students from twenty five countries completed the Programme for International

Student Assessment in 2003. Liem and colleagues found the quality of art related

information and communication technology use had a significant positive effect on

students’ mathematics achievement, whereas the quantity of arts related information

and communication technology use was a negative predictor of students’ mathematics

achievement. In other words, when students interacted with quality arts related

information and communication technology they also had greater mathematics

achievements, however, if they interacted with a high quantity of arts related

information and communication technology they had lower mathematics achievement.

An analysis of the indirect effects of quality and quantity of arts related information and

communication technology use mediated through problem solving skills showed to have

a larger effect on students’ mathematics achievement than their direct effects. Overall,

the studies that examine the relationship between art education and student

achievement in mathematics show a weak, mixed, and even negative correlation.

Art Education and Science

 41
The relationship between art education and student achievement in science has

been examined through standardized test scores just as with mathematics and literacy

(Harland et al., 2000; Kinney & Forsythe, 2005; Sharp & Tiegs, 2018). The results that

Kinney and Forsythe found in the fourth grade Ohio Proficiency standardized test scores

in math were the same for the science. The students in the study who received

comprehensive arts instruction had a significantly higher mean score on the Ohio

Proficiency test in science compared to the students who did not receive the arts

curriculum. Similar to the math scores, when they were broken down by the

socioeconomic status of the schools, the lower socioeconomic schools had a

significantly greater mean difference in science scores between the students who did

and did not receive the arts instruction when compared to the higher socioeconomic

schools. This finding suggests that comprehensive arts instruction could have a greater

effect on the students’ achievement in science who come from low socioeconomic

families.

In the 2018 study in Texas Sharp and Tiegs examined fifth grade standardized

science scores for 54 schools receiving arts education programming and 135 not. They

found there was no difference in scores between the schools receiving and not receiving

arts programming from 2012-2016. However, the 2013-2014 science scores for fifth

grade students in rural schools receiving arts programming were significantly higher

than the rural public schools not receiving arts programming. This small but significant

finding suggests that comprehensive arts instruction could have a greater effects on

students’ achievement in science for students in rural areas.

 42
Conversely, the results that Harland and colleagues found in their study in 2005

with 11th grade students are opposite of Kinney and Forsythe. The United Kingdom’s

National Exam (GCSE) scores in science of 27,607 students from 152 schools in relation

to the self-reported arts courses they had taken. The results showed that music was

positively correlated with higher attainment on the national science exams, while art

and drama were negatively correlated with science attainment.

There are three studies that examine the relationship between art education and

student achievement in science outside of standardized test scores (Catterall et al.,

2012; Liem et al., 2014; Naghshineh et al., 2008). Catterall and colleague’s 2012 analysis

of the data from four national longitudinal studies of children and youth found that

eighth grade students from low socioeconomic families who had high levels of arts

engagement from kindergarten through elementary school had higher test scores in

their science classes than similar students who had low levels of arts engagement over

the same period. Two years after this study, Liem, Martin, Anderson, and Gibson (2014)

did a broad study that did not involve students receiving direct art instruction but rather

their use of art-related information and communication through technology as it related

to the achievement in mathematics. Parts of this study were presented earlier in art

education’s relationship to problem solving and mathematics. An analysis of 197,024

completed Programme for International Student Assessment by fifteen year old

students from twenty five countries found the quality of art related information and

communication technology use had a significant positive effect on students’

achievement in science, whereas the quantity of arts related information and

 43
communication technology use was a negative predictor of students’ science

achievement. In other words, when students interacted with quality arts related

information and communication technology they also had greater science achievement,

however, if they interacted with a high quantity of arts related information and

communication technology they had lower science achievement. An analysis of the

indirect effects of quality and quantity of arts related information and communication

technology use mediated through problem solving skills showed to have a larger effect

on students’ achievement in science than their direct effects.

In a study with a slightly older population, Naghshineh et al. analyzed if graduate

medical students from Harvard received arts education whether this would improve

their medical diagnostic ability. This study was presented earlier with problem solving,

however, the scientific nature of the practice of medicine makes the finding relevant

here as well. Naghshinah et al. found that the medical students who received eight

weeks of visual arts training course improved their visual observations both artistically

and medically by 38 percent over their peers who did not take the course as evidenced

in the post course evaluation. Additionally, a qualitative analysis of the data collected

showed the medical students who participated in the visual arts course used more fine

arts concepts linked to medical findings making them more descriptive and accurate

such as the specific mention of color, shadow, light, contrast, and balance in their post

course evaluations than the students who did not take the course.

In 2008, Root-Bernstein et al. did a study to examine if success in sciences is

correlated with creative and artistic activities of scientists outside of their field of study.
 44
He and his team of researchers gather data from all Nobel laureates between 1901 and

2005, all obituary notices, and biographical memoirs of the Royal Society members

between 1932 and 2005, all National Academy of Science members biographies and

memoirs between 1877 and 2005, a 1936 avocation survey of Sigma Xi members, and a

1982 survey of public participation in the arts among the United States public. Roots-

Bernstein et al. found a very significant relationship between the success of a scientist

and adult arts and craft pursuits. The data showed that eminent scientists were more

likely to have arts and crafts avocations than typical scientist or the general public. The

eminent scientists who were Royal Society and National Academy of Science members

were almost twice as likely to have arts and craft pursuits as the typical scientists who

were Sigma Xi members or the American public. The Nobel laureates were almost three

times more likely to have arts and craft hobbies than the Royal Society and National

Academy of Science members. The data showed not only that successful scientists are

much more likely to be polymaths but the increasing success in science is accompanied

by developed ability in a variety of other fields particularly arts and crafts. As a result of

this study, Roots-Bernstein stated, “Purely academic skills are not sufficient to train a

person for creative scientific work. Such creative work requires the entire range of

abilities subsumed in the arts and crafts, integrated and focused on specific scientific

problems and techniques” (p.60).

Overall, studies shows that arts education is weak and marginally related to

student achieve in science. However, there is some evidence of more indirect skills
 45
learned in the arts such as observation, problem solving, creative solutions, and more

that can be learned in the arts and impact achievement in the sciences indirectly.

Arts Education and Personal Development

The personal development of students into moral and engaged citizens

throughout their compulsory education and beyond is an often overlooked aspect of

schools especially in light of standardized testing. Several aspects of personal

development that have been studied in relationship to education in the arts and will be

presented here: self-efficacy, communication skills, sustained attention, participation,

and civic engagement.

Art Education and Self-Efficacy

The relationship between art education and various aspects of students’ self-

efficacy have been examined in several studies (Burton et al., 2000; Catterall & Peppler,

2007; Catterall et al., 2012; Craig & Paraiso, 2008; Harland et al., 2000; Korn et al., 2010;

Liu, 2007; Luftig, 2000). The study done in 2000 by Burton et al. with 2,406 students in

grades, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th from twelve public schools with varied to no art programs in

the eastern part of the United States, who a Self-Description Questionnaire and a

Student Arts Background questionnaire. An analysis of these two sets of data revealed a

significant but weak correlation between students’ art education experiences and their

academic self-concepts which included their perceived abilities in school as a whole and

specifically in reading and math. The students with greater art education training had

higher academic self-concepts scores than their peers with little art educational training.

Meanwhile, there was no significant associations between students’ art education

 46
experiences and their non-academic self-concepts which included their perceived

physical ability, physical appearance, peer relations, and parent relations. In addition to

the student questionnaires, qualitative data was collected through interviews,

observations, and examination of students’ artworks, performances, and writings. The

qualitative data analysis showed students exposed to strong and varied art experiences

over time were more confident, willing to explore and take risks as well as take

ownership and pride in their work. The students involved in Craig and Paraiso’s 2008

study also demonstrated increased self-confidence. In their study, 34 urban middle

school immigrant students had arts integrated into their English language learning. It

was observed that the students conversed with more self-confidence and personal

strength after having arts integrated into their English curriculum. Similar qualitative

results were found in Liu’s 2007 study with 427 third grade students from 16 elementary

schools in the Hsinchu area of Taiwan. A positive relationship was found between the

student’s self-image and their ability to produce high quality artworks as observed by

art educators and classroom teachers. Interestingly, Liu found that females had better

self-images and simultaneously demonstrated more original ideas and could apply more

elaborate details in their artworks than the males.

Related, in 2000, Harland et al. concluded a three year study of 79 students from

five secondary schools in the United Kingdom who completed multiple interviews over

that time. In the student interviews over the three years, 70 percent of the students

made 141 statements that an outcome of their participation in the arts was increased

self-confidence. Similarly, 38 students of 79 (48 percent) made statements that an

 47
outcome of their participation in the arts was increased self-esteem. In addition, 68

percent of the students stated that their participation in the arts increased their ability

to express who they are including their emotions, ideas, and opinions. Taking that

further, 48 percent of the students stated that an outcome of their arts experiences

included an increased ability to deal with difficult emotional states like anger. A similar

result was found by Korn and colleagues in the 418 student questionnaires completed

by fifth grade students with half having received arts instruction and half not. An

analysis of the questionnaires showed students who received arts instruction felt less

mad when they made a mistake on their art projects between their pretest at 82

percent and their posttest at 92 percent whereas the students who did not receive arts

instruction did not change between the tests and remained at 82 percent.

Catterall and Peppler found mixed results in their 2007 study with 179 third

grade students in public elementary schools in Los Angeles, CA and St. Louis, MO. One

hundred and three of the students participated in visual arts educational programming

and 76 did not, all completed pre and post surveys that included a general self-concept

scale and self-efficacy questions and were formally observed several times. The

quantitative and qualitative data showed more than half of the students who received

arts instruction made significant gains in the beliefs of their general self-efficacies

compared to only one third of the students who did not receive the arts instruction

between the pre and post surveys. More specifically, there was significant growth in the

self-efficacy beliefs related to perceived control over their futures and their confidence

in overcoming obstacles to achieve their goals for the students who experienced the
 48
arts programming. While the majority of students in the study registered gains on the

general self-concept scale, the pre and post surveys showed the students who received

the visual arts education did not gain relatively more in their self-concepts than their

peers who did received the visual arts training. Similarly, Luftig’s study in 2000 with 615

public elementary school students in Ohio who completed the Culture-Free Self-Esteem

Inventory Form A half of whom received arts integrated programming and half did not

found no difference in the self-esteem scores between the students who did and did not

received the arts integrated instruction.

In a later study done by Catterall, Dumais, and Hampden-Thompson (2012) with

data analyzed from tens of thousands of students gathered from four longitudinal

studies, both eighth grade and high school students from low socioeconomic families

who had high levels of arts engagement were more likely to aspire to attend college

than their similar peers with less arts engagement. Those aspirations where then

followed up with action as 71 percent of students from low socioeconomic families who

had high levels of arts engagement attended some college after high school, whereas

only 48 percent of similar students without the arts engagement did. Breaking that

down further, students from low socioeconomic families with high levels of arts

engagement were more than twice as likely to attend a four year college (39 percent)

comparted to their similar peers without arts engagement (17 percent). In addition,

students from low socioeconomic families with intensive arts education in high school

were three times more likely than their similar peers who lacked those experiences to

earn a bachelor’s degree.

 49
Arts Education and Communication Skills

There were several studies with qualitative data on the impacts of arts education

on students’ communication skills (Catterall & Peppler, 2007; Craig & Paraiso, 2008;

Harland et. al., 2000; Ingram & Seashore, 2003; Korn et al., 2010; Lampert, 2011). In

Harland and colleagues’ 2000 study with 79 secondary students in the United Kingdom

who were interviewed multiple times over three years, 75 percent made statements

during their interviews that an outcome of their participation in the arts was

communication and collaboration with their peers. However, only 22 percent of the

students made statements that improved communication skills was an outcome of their

participation in the arts. Three years later, Ingram and Seashore (2003) conducted

classroom observations at 45 Minneapolis public schools over a three year period with

77 percent of the teachers at those schools integrating arts in their curriculums. The

qualitative data showed that integrated arts instruction in non-art subject areas

improved communication and teamwork within the classrooms between students and

students to teachers

Four years after that study, Catterall and Peppler’s (2007) study with 179 third

grade students in Los Angeles, CA and St. Louis, MO and 103 of them receiving arts

education and 76 not, it was observed that students who had arts instruction

consistently had more positive communications with their peers and teachers, however,

the difference was small between the students who did and did not have art education

programming. In the following year Craig and Paraiso’s (2008) study with 39 English

language learning middle school immigrant students with arts integrated into their
 50
English language classes found that the communication skills of the students improved

as they were given opportunities to create and share their artworks with their peers.

Lampert (2011) found the same qualitative results with the ten elementary students

who participated in an afterschool art program as it was observed that the students

steadily increased their ability to communicate their ideas with words and images as the

art program went on. Meanwhile a year earlier in 2010, Korn and colleagues found all

418 fifth grades students in the study made gains in their communication skills

especially in asking peers for help when they make a mistake as shown on the student

questionnaires they all completed. There was no difference in responses between the

209 students who received arts education programming and the 209 who did not.

Overall, there is qualitative data showing that arts educations increases communication

skills of students but there is not quantitative data to accompany it.

Art Education and Attention

There are three studies that examined the relationship between art education

and student’s sustained attention (Catterall & Peppler, 2007; Heath & Wolf, 2005;

Posner et al., 2008). In Heath and Wolf’s 2005 study with four to seven year old students

at a public elementary school in Kent, England, the qualitative data showed the

students’ sustained attention increased from less than ten minutes at the start of the

school year to a half an hour a month of the students receiving art education. Two

years later, Catterall and Peppler (2007) study with slightly older public elementary

students aged nine and ten in Los Angeles, CA and St. Louis, MO found that the 103

students who received arts classes had sustained attention 15-30 percent more of the
 51
time in their non-art classroom than their 76 peers who did not have art classes. This

finding suggests that there is a modest case for transfer of increased sustained attention

from the art classroom to non-art classrooms. A year later in 2008 Posner and

colleagues did a study with two to seven year old children on how training in the arts

can influence other cognitive processes. They found that for children with an interest

and ability in the arts, art training did also train their attentions which resulted in

improved cognition as evidenced in their intelligence test scores. This finding suggests

art education only improves the sustained attention for children with an interest in the

arts. Overall, there is a small amount of evidence that art education can improve

student’s ability to sustain their attention.

Art Education and Student Participation

In order for students to be engaged and participate in school they first have to

be there. Two studies analyzed the relationship between arts education and student

attendance rates (Brouillette et al., 2014; Sharp & Tiegs, 2018). In Texas in 2018, Sharp

and Tiegs examined the attendance rates for four years (2012-2016) of third, fourth, and

fifth grade students in 54 public elementary schools with fine arts programming and 135

public elementary schools not receiving fine arts programming. For the 2012-2013

school year, the data showed the attendance rates for the public schools receiving arts

programming was slightly significantly higher than the public schools not receiving such

programming. However, for that same year the data showed the attendance rates for

specifically rural public schools with arts programming were significantly higher than the

rural public schools without arts instruction. Then for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school
 52
years there was no statistical difference in attendance rates between the schools

receiving and not receiving fine arts programming. Overall, the data analysis found no

predictable pattern of relationship between attendance rates of elementary schools

receiving fine arts programming and those not.

In San Diego, California, four years earlier Brouillette and colleagues examined

the daily attendance rates of students at five urban elementary schools that all received

arts education programming. They found that student attendance was .65 percentage

points higher on days where students had art lessons than on days they did not. When

this percentage point is applied to the existing attendance rate at these schools the

increase of .65 is a ten percent reduction in absences on the days students had art

lessons. In addition to the attendance rates, the qualitative data gathered through

teacher interviews and surveys found that the arts were linked to increased student

participation in art and non-art classrooms. Additionally, over 90 percent of the

teachers believed the art education instruction was beneficial to their students as

evidenced in the students’ increased participation and improved behavior in class.

Outside of attendance rates, Kinney and Forsythe (2005) did a study in Ohio with

fourth grade students at four elementary schools with two of those receiving arts

education and two not. They found that there was lower staff and student turnover

rates at the schools with comprehensive arts curriculum than those that did not. This

finding suggests that the arts contributes to teacher and student engagement both in

and out of the art classroom. Five years prior to that study, Burton and colleagues

(2000) conducted a study with all the teachers and principals at seven elementary
 53
schools and four middle schools in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Illinois

who all completed the School Level Environment Questionnaire that measured the

perceptions of eight school dimensions: affiliation, student support, professional

interest, achievement orientation, formalization, centralization, innovativeness, and

resource adequacy. In analyzing the questionnaire scores, there was a positive

correlation between the years of arts programming and the school dimensions of:

affiliation, student support, professional interest, innovativeness, and resource

adequacy. However, there was negative correlations between the years of arts

programming and the school dimensions of: achievement orientation, formalization,

and centralization. These findings suggests that arts programming may support the

engagement and participation components of school. The teachers also completed the

Classroom Teacher Arts Inventory survey that provided data on their integration of the

arts in their classrooms, collaboration with other art providers, use of arts as a tool to

teach other subjects, and perceived arts teaching self-concept. The results of this survey

showed classroom teachers who integrated the arts and collaborated with other arts

providers were more likely to have good relationships with their students which

increased engagement and participation.

Catterall and colleagues looked at students’ participation outside of the

classroom in extracurricular activities. Their 2012 analysis of student data collected

from four national longitudinal surveys found that students from low socioeconomic

families with a high level of arts engagements were twice as likely as their similar peers

with low arts engagement to participate in extracurricular activities during their senior
 54
year of high school. Overall the evidence is weak and does not seem to show arts

programming increasing student attendance by much, however, the qualitative data

collected from teachers seems to suggest that arts education does increase engagement

and participation in art and non-art classrooms.

Art Education and Civic Engagement

In Catterall and colleagues’ 2012 study just previously presented, the data

showed that students from low socioeconomic families with high levels of arts

engagement participated in student government and school service clubs at four times

the rate of their similar peers who did not have those art experiences. In addition, the

twenty six year old adults from low socioeconomic families with high arts engagement

in high school were more likely to vote (45 percent) compared to their similar peers who

lacked those experiences (31 percent). Twelve years prior to this study, Harland and

colleagues’ (2000) completed a three year qualitative study with 79 secondary students

in the United Kingdom over the course of 219 student interviews there were 57

statements that an outcome of their participation in the arts was greater awareness of

social, moral, and real-life issues. Related, there were 80 statements that an outcome

of their participation in the arts increased their understanding of other people and their

different perspectives including 31 references to empathy, 28 to understanding others’

feelings, and 18 to the appreciation of others. Similarly, Huye did a study in 2015 with

12 undergraduate nursing students who had arts integrated into their nutrition course.

Huye found the arts helped students connect with nutrition related social issues such as

poverty and food scarcity as shown through their survey responses at the end of the
 55
course. These three studies offer some evidence that participation in the arts increases

awareness of others and civic engagement.

CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

Summary of Literature

In total, thirty three published, peer-reviewed empirical research studies on art

education and its impact on students were used in this literature review. The findings

from the studies were analyzed and synthesized into five categories that art education

impacts which are: critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, achievement in core

subjects, personal development, and civic engagement. The results of these studies are

summarized below.

Art Education and Critical Thinking

Elementary students who visited art museums showed an increase in their

critical thinking skills using the critical thinking measurement rubric developed by

Housen in 2002 (Adams, Foutz, Luke, & Stein, 2006; Bowen, 2013). Outside of art

museums, after school art programming showed an increase in elementary students’

critical thinking skills as well (Lampert, 2011). Also, elementary students who received

in-school art instruction along with teaching on metacognition showed higher levels of

critical thinking (Goldberg, 2005). For high school students who had art integrated into

their English class showed evidence of greater critical thinking than their peers who did

not (Holdren, 2012). Undergraduate students who had art instruction as part of their

coursework showed increased critical thinking skills (Huye 2015, Lampert 2006). In
 56
addition, art education with kindergarten through undergraduate students has shown to

positively impact critical thinking skills that can be transferred across context and

content (Holdren, 2012; Housen, 2002; Huye, 2015).

Art Education and Creativity

Creativity was found to be declining among Americans of all ages since 1990 and

particularly significant in kindergarten through third grade students (Kim, 2011). Four

studies using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking – figural found that students who

received art education increased their creative thinking especially in the components of

elaboration and originality (Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 2000; Catterall & Peppler, 2007;

Liu, 2007; Luftig, 2000; Schlegel et al., 2014). Students from families with higher

socioeconomic statuses had greater creative thinking than their peers from families with

lower socioeconomic statuses according to Liu’s 2007 study. Four other studies found

that while artistic creativity increased after receiving art education that creativity did

not transfer across domains (Chan & Zhao, 2010; Han & Marvin, 2002; Heath & Wolf,

2000; Rostan, 2010).

Art Education and Problem Solving

Elementary students through graduate students showed slightly increased

problem solving skills after receiving art education particularly with the component of

flexibility (Chishti & Jehangir, 2014; Holdren, 2012; Korn, et al., 2010; Lampert, 2011;

Liem, Martin, Anderson, & Gibson, 2014; Naghshineh, et al., 2008; Rostan, 2010).

However, problem solving strategies for math did not increase after art education (Korn,

et al., 2010; Rostan, 2010). A retrospective study found that adults who received art
 57
education in their elementary years had greater problem solving skills as adults than

their peers (Chishnti & Jehangir, 2014).

Art Education and Achievement in Core Subjects

Five studies found elementary through high school students who received arts

instruction scored slightly higher on literacy tests than their peers with more significant

results for students from low socioeconomic families (Catterall, Dumias, & Hampden-

Thompson, 2012; Heath & Wolf, 2005; Housen, 2002; Ingram & Seashore, 2003; Winner

2000). Four other studies with students of the same age demographic found no

significant differences in the literacy test scores of students who received arts education

when compared their peers (Kinney & Forsythe, 2005; Luftig, 2000; Sharp & Tiegs, 2018;

Wandell, 2008). Two studies with elementary English language learners found opposite

results, Craig and Paraiso (2008) found art education to increase literacy test scores

while Brouillette, Childress-Evan, and Farkas (2014) did not.

Six studies found elementary through high school students who received art

education scored slightly higher on math tests than their peers with more significant

results for students from low socioeconomic families (Catterall et al., 2012; Ingram &

Seashore, 2003; Kinney & Forsythe, 2005; Liem et al., 2014; Vaughn & Winner, 2000;

Wandell et al., 2008). Three other studies with students of the same age demographic

found opposite results, student who received art education scored lower than their

peers on math tests (Korn, et al., 2010; Luftig, 2000; Sharp & Tiegs, 2018). Meanwhile,

Harland and colleagues’ 2000 study found no difference in math scores between high

school students who did and did not receive arts education.
 58
Three studies found elementary through high school students who received art

education scored slightly higher on science exams than their peers with more significant

results for students from low socioeconomic families (Catterall et al., 2012; Kinney &

Forsythe, 2005; Liem et al., 2014). Harland and colleagues (2005) found opposite results

with high school students who received art education scoring lower on their science

exams than their peers. Meanwhile, Sharp and Tiegs (2018) found no difference in

science test scores for elementary students who received and did not receive art

education. Eminent scientists have been found to have more arts and crafts avocations

than typical scientists or the general public (Root-Bernstein et al., 2008).

Art Education and Personal Development

Five studies found elementary through high school students who received art

education increased their self-confidence and self-esteem over their peers who did not

receive the arts instruction (Burton et al., 2000; Craig & Paraiso, 2008; Harland et al.,

2000; Korn et al., 2010; Liu, 2007). Two studies with the same age demographic found

no difference in the self-confidence and self-esteem of students who did and did not

receive art education (Catterall & Peppler, 2007; Luftig, 2000). Students from low

socioeconomic families who had high involvement in art education were shown to be

more likely to aspire to go to college, attend college, and obtain a bachelor’s degree

than their peers of similar socioeconomic status who were not involved in art education

(Catterall et al., 2012).

Qualitative data shows that students who receive art education increase their

communication skills over their peers (Catterall & Peppler, 2007; Craig & Paraiso, 2008;
 59
Harland et al., 2000; Ingram & Seashore, 2003; Korn et al., 2010; Lampert, 2011). Also,

students who received art education slightly increased their ability to sustain their

attention particularly for students interested in the arts (Catterall & Peppler, 2007;

Heath & Wolf, 2005; Posner et al., 2008). However, attendance rates for elementary

students was not shown to be significantly impacted by receiving art education

(Brouillette et al., 2014; Sharp & Tiegs, 2018). Meanwhile, teacher and student overall

school engagement was higher in schools with art education when compared schools of

similar demographics (Burton et al., 2000; Kinney & Forsythe, 2005).

Art Education and Civic Engagement

High school and undergraduate students who received art education were

shown to increase their empathy and awareness of social issues (Harland et al., 2000;

Huye, 2015). High school student from low socioeconomic families who had art

education were more likely to be involved in student government, school service clubs,

and volunteer than their peers of similar socioeconomic demographics who did not have

art education (Catterall et al., 2012). In addition, adults from low socioeconomic families

with high involvement in art education in high school were more likely to vote in

political elections (Catterall et al., 2012).

Limitations of the Research

To locate the literature for this thesis, searchers of Education Journals, ERIC,

Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and EBSCO MegaFILE were conducted for publications

from 2000-2019. An extensive investigation of relevant empirical studies’ reference lists

was also conducted to locate additional literature. This is was narrowed by only
 60
reviewing published empirical studies from peer-reviewed sources that focused on art

education and its effects and impacts that addressed the guiding questions. The key

words that were used in these searches included “art education and critical thinking”,

“art education and creativity”, “art education and academic achievement”, “art

education and skill transfer”, and “learning in the arts and divergent thinking”. An effort

was made to focus mainly on studies done in the United States, in public education

institutions, and with students in kindergarten through high school. In addition, a

balance between qualitative and quantitative and short term and longitudinal studies

was strived for. The research was also limited to visual art education or multiple

domains of art education that included visual art education.

There were several limitations to the research used in this study. Many of the

studies had very small sample sizes and in some cases the researcher was also the art

instructor which presents a possible bias. There was also not much consistency in the

type assessment tools used and there was a very large range of types of art education

used in the studies, in many cases the type of art education was not specified. In

addition, many of the studies had multiple uncontrollable variables that could have

impacted the results. The large longitudinal studies were based on a very small number

of survey questions that relied on self-reporting. Due to the nature of the studies, none

were able to show causality in the impact that art education had on the variety of

variables.
 61
Implications for Future Research

While the impact of art education on students’ test scores in the subjects of

literacy, math, and science are somewhat inconclusive, there is stronger evidence of art

education impact on students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving skills.

Further exploration of specific types of art education related to these three important

thinking domains would be beneficial to the educational community as they are

increasingly important skills students need and indirectly affect performance in the core

subjects. In particular, studies with larger sample sizes and more consistent assessment

tools used would bring greater validity to the results.

A theme throughout the research was the significant impact that art education

had on students from low socioeconomic families across academic, personal, and civic

developmental areas. In America where socioeconomic status is often correlated with

race and the achievement gap between white students and students of color is large;

further research on this could possible present an avenue to positively impact student

achievement for students of color from low socioeconomic families.

Another beneficial area of further research should be the impact of art education

on empathy, awareness of social issues, and civic engagement. The few studies with

undergraduate and graduate students in the field of medicine who had arts education

incorporated into their study had increased empathy and awareness of social issues

which potentially improves their interactions with future patients. Further research

should be done with younger students to explore if there could possibly be similar

results which then could lead to decreased bullying and harassment in schools.
 62
Implications for Professional Application

There are five main ways that this current research professionally applies to my

role as a high school art educator. The first is intentionally teaching my students about

metacognition and how it relates to all areas of their learning including art. The high

school I teach at has incorporated Carol Dweck’s approach to teaching metacognition

called “Growth Mindset” as part of its strategic plan. So far the positive impact of that

in conjunction with art education has only scratched the surface. Students walking into

my classroom tend to believe strongly that they are either good at art or bad at it and

that greatly affects what they get out of the class. If they think they are good at art and

their artwork is not turning out the way they want it to they tend to shut down and give

up. If they think they are bad at art they often refuse to try from the start. However,

teaching them about the plasticity of their brains and how malleable their brains are to

grow and develop new ideas, abilities, and skills helps the students to slowly be more

accepting of the learning process whether that be in art or any other subject that they

may have preconceived fixed notions of their ability in. Our school’s growth mindset

motto is “Not there yet” to replace the students’ “I can’t” statements. I have noticed

when I use this for myself in front of students and with students there is a shift if their

openness to try, grow, and learn. I want to continue to find more ways of incorporating

metacognition into my art classroom.

A second implication of this research is intentionally incorporating the specific

components of critical thinking and creativity into the art curriculum. While I talk in

generalities about critical thinking and creativity in my classroom, there is a need for me
 63
to break those concepts down for my students. Just the other day I was talking a

student about her clay sculpture and asking her to do some critical thinking about what

else she should do to it and she asked me, “what is critical thinking?” Her response in

conjunction with the research shows me that I need to break those two concepts down

and guide my students in exploring each component for themselves. I want to assist my

students in the critical thinking components of observation, interpretation, evaluation,

associations, problem finding and flexible thinking as well as the creativity components

of fluency, originality, elaboration, and persistence. Doing so will not only strengthen my

students’ understanding of those concepts but also strengthen their skills to use them.

The third avenue for applying the research to my teaching is to strive for more

cross subject collaborations in order to allow and help students to use art as a way for

them to demonstrate their comprehension and analysis of a variety of contents such as

English, science, or foreign language. This can be particularly helpful for students who

struggle in a content area. I had an art student who had difficulties reading and writing,

her English teacher allowed her to do an artwork to illustrate a theme from the book

she had to read. She did and her English teacher shared with them that her work

demonstrated much deeper analysis of the theme than most of her students who wrote

papers. I want to intentionally encourage more cross subject collaboration with art to

help students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving across contexts and

contents.

The fourth implication that the research has for me is to advocate for my

students to not lose out on their art education due to low performance in the core
 64
subject areas. I have often observed students, particularly in elementary and middle

school, who are struggling in their core subjects taken out of their art classes in order to

have more remedial time in those core subjects. While I’m not against remedial time,

the research seems to point to the lack of art education being detrimental to students’

short and long term learning and development in a variety of ways especially if that

student is interested in art. Many times students who are struggling in multiple core

subjects have extenuating circumstances influencing them such as coming from families

of low socioeconomic status. The research repeatedly showed that students from those

type of families more greatly benefited from art education. I want to be an advocate for

all students to receive the opportunity for art education.

The fifth and final application of the research is to try and take my students on

field trips to art museums. The art department I am a part of discontinued such field

trips several years ago stating they are not worth the work and students aren’t

interested. However, I know other schools in my district still do take students to local art

museums and the research shows that students’ critical thinking is positively impacted

but such experiences. On top of that, most students have little to no experiences going

to art museums and exposure to them could possibly lead to more social engagement in

the arts beyond high school.

Conclusion

The current research shows compelling evidence that art education does

positively impact critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving skills. There is

inconclusive evidence whether art education positively impacts student performance in

 65
math, science, or English however there doesn’t seem to be strong evidence that it

negatively impacts it. In addition there is some research that shows art education

positively impacts students’ self-confidence, empathy, and civic engagement. There is

also evidence that shows students from low socioeconomic families are more positively

impacted by art education than students from high socioeconomic families. All of the

research points to art education enhancing the academic and personal development of

students of all ages.

 66
References

Adams, M., Foutz, S., Luke, J., & Stein, J. (2006). Thinking through art: Isabella Stewart

Gardner Museum school partnership program year 3 preliminary research results.

Institute for Learning Innovation, 1-41. Url: https://vtshome.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/08/3Gardner-Museum-Thinking-Through-Art.pdf.

Americans for the Arts, (2018). Americans speak out about the arts in 2018: An in depth

look at perceptions and attitudes about the arts in America. Americans for the Arts,

1-49. Url: https://www.americansforthearts.org/node/101584.

The Art of Education, (2015). Historical perspectives in art education. The Art of

education: Designing your art curriculum. Url:

https://theartofeducation.edu/content/uploads/2015/06/Historical-Perspectives-

in-Art-Education.pdf.

Battelle for Kids, (2018). Framework for 21st century learning. Battelle for Kids Network:

Partnership for 21st century learning. Url:

http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_Brief.pdf.

Bowen, D.H.,Greene, J.P., & Kisida, B. (2013). Learning to think critically: A visual art

experiment. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 37-44. Doi:

10.3102/0013189X13512675.

Brouillette, L., Childress-Evan, K., Hinga, B., & Farkas, G. (2014). Increasing engagement

and oral language skills of ELLs through the arts in the primary grades. Journal for
 67
Learning through the Arts, 10(1), 1-26.

Url:http://escholorship.org/us/item/8573z1fm.

Burton, J., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (2000). Learning in and through the arts: The

question of transfer. Studies in Art Education, 41(3). 228-257. Doi:

10.2307/1320379.

Catterall, J.S., & Peppler, K.A. (2007). Learning in the visual arts and the worldviews of

young children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(4), 543-560. Doi:

10.1080/0305764071705898.

Catterall, J.S., Dumais, S.A., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2012). The arts and

achievement in art-risk youth: Findings from four longitudinal studies. National

Endowments for the Arts, (55), 1-27, Washington, DC. Url:

https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Arts-At-Risk-Youth.pdf

Chan, D.W., & Zhao, Y. (2010). The relationship between drawing skill and artistic

creativity: Do age and artistic involvement make a difference? Creativity Research

Journal, 22(1), 27-36. Doi: 10.1080/10400410903579528.

Chishti, R., & Jehangir, F. (2014). Positive effect of elementary art on problem solving

ability in later years of life. FWU Journal of Social Science, 8(1), 83-88. Url:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6165/07534845b63f9ac336e72a39a66ad4c2317d

.pdf.
 68
Craig, D.V., & Paraiso, J. (2008). Dual diaspora and barrio art: Art as an avenue for

learning English. Journal of Learning through the Arts, 4(1), 1-28. Doi:

10.21977/D94110046.

Creative MN, (2019). 2019 Creative MN Report, Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, 1-34.

Url: https://www.creativemn.org/wp-

content/uploads/2019/03/MCA_2019Report_pages.pdf.

Goldberg, P.D. (2005). Metacognition and art production as problem solving: A study of

third grade students. Visual Arts Research, 31(2), 67-75. Url:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20715385.

Han, K., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain-specificity of

creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98-109. Doi:

10.1177/0016988620204600203.

Harland, J. et al. (2000). Arts education in secondary schools: Effects and effectiveness.

The National Foundation for Educational Research, 1-614, Berkshire, United

Kingdom. Url: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/1681/eaj01.pdf.

Heath, S.B., & Wolf, S. (2005). Focus in creative learning: Drawing on art for language

development. Literacy, 39(1), 38-45. Doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4350.2005.00396.x

Holdren, T.S., (2012). Using art to assess reading comprehension and critical thinking in

adolescents. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(8), 692-703. Doi:

10.1002/JAAL.00084.
 69
Housen, A.C. (2002) Aesthetic thought, critical thinking, and transfer. Arts and Learning

Research Journal, 18(1), 99-131. Doi: 10.1.1.467.3752.

Hutter, V. (2019) Latest data shows Increase to U.S. economy from arts and cultural

Sector. National Endowment for the Arts. Url:

https://www.arts.gov/news/2019/latest-data-shows-increase-us-economy-arts-

and-cultural-sector.

Huye, H. (2015). Using poetry and art analysis to evoke crucial thinking and challenging

reflection in senior-level nutrition students. Journal of Nutrition Education and

Behavior, 47(3), 283-285. Doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.01.007.

Ingram, D., & Seashore, K.R. (2003). Arts for academic achievement: Summative

evaluation report. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, 1-12.

Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. Url:

http://hdl.handle.net/11299/143655.

Kim, K.H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the

Torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285-295. Doi:

10.1080/10400419.2011.627805.

Kinney, D.W., & Forsythe, J.L. (2005). The effects of the arts IMPACT curriculum upon

student performance on the Ohio fourth grade proficiency test. Bulletin of the

Council for Research in Music Education, (164), 35-48. Url:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319258.
 70
Korn, R., et al. (2010). Educational research: The art of problem solving. New York:

Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum Visitor Studies, Evaluation & Audience Research,

1-85. Url: https://www.guggenheim.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/11/guggenheim-research-aps-executivesummary.pdf

Lampert, N. (2006). Critical thinking dispositions as an outcome of art education. Studies

in Art Education, 47(3), 215-228. Doi: 10.1080/00393541.2006.11650083

Lampert. N. (2011). A study of an after-school art programme and critical thinking.

International Journal of Education through Art, 7(1), 55-67. Doi:

10.1386/eta.7.1.55_1

Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A., Anderson, M., & Gibson, R. (2014). The role of art-related

information and communication technology use in problem solving and

achievement: Findings from the programme for international student assessment.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 348-363. Doi: 10.1037/a0034398.

Liu, L.M. (2007). The relationships between creativity, drawing ability, and visual special

intelligence: A study of Taiwan’s third grade children. Asia Pacific Education Review,

8(3), 343-352. Doi: 10.1007/BF03026464.

Luke, J.J., Stein J., Foutz, S., & Adams, M. (2007). Research to practice: Testing a tool for

assessing critical thinking in art museum programs. Journal of Museum Education,

32(2), 123-136. Url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40479583.

 71
Luftig, R.L. (2000) An investigation of an arts infusion program on creative thinking,

academic achievement, affective functioning, and arts appreciation of children at

third grade levels. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 208-227. Url:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1320378.

Naghshineh, S. et al. (2008). Formal art observation training improves medical students’

visual diagnostic skills. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(7). 991-997. Doi:

10.1007/s11606-008-0667-0.

National Association of College and Employers (2019). Job Outlook 2019, 1-45. Url:

http://www.naceweb.org.

Posner, M., Rothbart, M.K., Sheese, B.E., & Keiras, J. (2008). How arts training influences

cognition. Learning, Arts, and the Brain, 1-10. Dana Press. New York/ Washington

D.C.

Raber, J., (2017). The arts in public schools: An intellectual history. Process: A blog for

American history. URL: https://www.processhistory.org/raber-arts-public-schools.

Root-Bernstein, R. et al. (2008). Art fosters scientific success: Avocations of Nobel,

National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma XI members. Journal of Psychology of

Science and Technology, 1(2), 51-63. Doi: 10.1891/1939-7054.1.2.51.

Schlegel, A., et. al. (2014). The artist emerges: Visual art learning alters neural structure

and function. NeuroImage, 105, 440-451. Doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.014.

 72
Sharp, L.A, & Tiegs, A. (2018). Impact of WOWW’s fine arts enriched education

programming. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 25-40. Doi:

10.12973/iji.2018.1123a.

Vaughn, K., & Winner, E., (2000) SAT scores of student who study the arts: What we can

and cannot conclude about the association. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3-4),

77-89. Url: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3333638.

Wandell, B., Dougherty, R.F., Ben-Shachar, M., Deutsch, G.K., & Tsang, J. (2008). Arts

and cognition monograph: Training in the arts, reading, and brain imaging. The

Dana Foundation, 1-50. Url:

https://www.dana.org/Publications/ReportDeatails.aspx?id=44246.