Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review

What I read

In this article, the author performs a literature review focused on art and design studio teaching. The result is a set of themes related to how art and design studio is taught, challenges in teaching in this manner, and opportunities for further study.

The author begins by describing a backdrop of pedagogical change, urging instructors to move from instructionist approaches to constructivist approaches. This is true in both higher education and in K12 education. But typically, little guidance is provided on how to actually go about implementing this form of change. The author then conducts a literature review to identify more details about what this change might entail, with a goal of highlighting themes of contemporary art and design education.

The author describes his selection method in great detail, which I will largely skip here, except to note that he read approximately 2000 abstracts in full, and then was able to reduce the total number of papers to analyze to 65. Analysis produced themes through comparative analysis.

Before speaking of the themes, the author notes that the various papers had different levels of rigor; he maps these to four levels. Level 1 is descriptive, without mention of methodology. Level 2 includes a named methodology, and may provide short utterances. Level 3 describes a full transcription of content, and “almost always used a grounded theory methodology.” Level 4, the most rigorous, includes a detailed description of coding, a goal of saturation, the use of multiple members checking the output, and a description of validity measures. The vast majority of the papers were Level 1.

The author then provides his core findings, spread across three clusters: pedagogical practices, learning outcomes, and assessment. These are broken into themes.

The first theme, discussed extensively, is that the teaching pedagogy is flexible, open-ended, and improvised. Course content is not predefined, and students play a role in developing what is taught and learned (often provoked by what they make.) Pedagogy may shift to be student-focused and adaptive. Learning is described as having “flow,” being “negotiated,” and taking an “open-ended” form.

The next theme described students as active and independent parts of the educational process. Students are encouraged to take risks, make mistakes, and play.

Theme three describes the classroom as a community of practice, where the role of the instructor is established as equal to the students. This might take the form of a master/apprentice. It always attempts to minimize the view of an instructor as authority figure. In higher education, instructors often focus on how creativity may show up in a professional context. This is related to theme four, as art and design instructors in higher education are often practitioners; they view themselves as educators second.

The next theme discusses, in depth, the relationship between open-ended learning and students’ desire for structure. These are in tension, where instructors want students to be curious and learn on their own, often through experimentation, while some students are looking for detailed indications of what to do. This is referred to as a “teaching paradox—the difficulty fostering creative learning through open-ended constructivist methods, while at the same time providing the appropriate level of structure and scaffolding.” This is often addressed by instructors who avoid an authoritarian style, even when being more prescriptive. Instructors may struggle with this. Most students appreciate the open-endedness of the teaching approach.

Focused then on learning outcomes, the author describes the theme of making things. Instructors focus both on the process of making things as well as on the thing that is made, and students appreciate more emphasis on process than on the work; this is true when students are experimenting, as they may not even have a finished piece of work. Students should be able to describe their process and tell a story of its development, and their learning approach.

Theme seven very briefly describes the relationship between technical skills and creativity, and only in the context of K12 education. Theme eight, also mentioned only briefly, indicates that art and design studio education is often focused on developing personality styles of abilities, and helping students develop their identities.

Theme nine describes that students are often confused about the goal of their assignments and what they are “supposed to learn.” The learning outcomes aren’t always actually described, and may emerge through critique. There is sometimes a conflict between what an instructor feels is the goal of a project and what students thought they were learning.

The last two themes are related to how work is assessed. Theme ten describes how students receive feedback and criticism. Critique is not viewed positively by students, as it is considered to be high-stress and high-stakes. While some feel that it is exciting, others indicate that they don’t learn from it at all. The last theme, described only briefly, focuses on the use of formal rubrics; instructors have “complex feelings” about them, as they feel they may be useful, but don’t capture the “richness” of the student’s work and growth.

The author then discusses his findings. He summarizes his primary finding, that the “studio pedagogy is constructivist, active, hands-on, and participatory.” A challenge in using this approach, both in art and design and in a broader context, is the teaching paradox; some instructors were able to resolve this though a balance of improvisation an structure, but some landed too hard on one side or another of this balance.

A second challenge in this pedagogical approach is that students often are confused by it. The author notes that “some degree of student confusion may be a necessary part of the studio experience,” but it needs to be presented in a safe context. Part of that safety is related to the third challenge, which is ensuring that students understand the intended outcome of the learning experience, and what they will be graded on.

Last, the author notes room for further study. The articles he reviewed were often of poor quality in rigor. Only a small portion focused on the actual interactions that occur in studio. And while many articles emphasized constraints, none described the actual class assignments and how they were selected and built, or how they relate to the learning outcomes.

What I learned and what I think

The theme that stood out to me the most was The tension between open-ended assignments and the need for structure. When I see students struggle, this plays a big part in it. There’s all sorts of reasons why. One is that, in most educational contexts (and probably most contexts overall), they’ve been told what to do. Expectations have been set, there’s a right way to do things and a correct outcome, and they are judged based on that performance. In a studio context, there’s no right way to do things, and there’s no correct outcome, and both taken together can be really confounding and uncomfortable.

Confidence plays a big role here, because it takes a commitment to then take a course of action without any feeling that it may be right or wrong. And the communal aspect of studio then plays a role too, because students look to each other to see what they are doing, and judge or emulate it. This is also where resentment towards the professor seems to pop up, as too little guidance is sometimes (often?) seen as lazy or disorganized teaching. It probably is, too. Students are pretty sensitive to that, particularly when they have high-dollar expectations.

Critique then slams this back in their face. No one told me what to do, I tried things, and they were wrong, and now I’m embarrassed that they were wrong. Critique may be a ridiculous match in this context; it’s literally unfair. On the other hand, life is unfair…

There really has to be a staged approach to understanding how to behave in a studio context. Assignments need to start really constrained, and expectations need to be really clear, and “grading” either needs to be non-existent or highly structured and rubric-tized. Maybe these things happen in foundations; at least constraints are often obvious, because the additive, subtractive, color assignments are so narrow. But educators hate the rest of that stuff. Often, actually, the curriculum is inverted, where students see almost no structure in their first few years and then assignments get tighter and tighter as they learn more technical skills. Later studios in industrial design have sponsors, and the sponsored projects are highly managed.

There’s a weird and probably obvious miss there; the sequencing is backwards. And if I don’t trust you because we started off vague, then I’m going to carry that lack of trust with me for a while.

I appreciate this article for its summary, too; it’s the first “literature review” style paper I’ve read that I have gained real understanding from (as compared to just a surface-level perspective.) I will duplicate the themes here, so I have them all in one place:

1. The pedagogy is flexible, open-ended, and improvisational
2. Students are active and independent
3. The classroom is a community of practice
4. The pedagogies of professional creatives
5. The tension between open-ended assignments and the need for structure
6. The creative process of making
7. The tension between technical skills and creativity
8. Non-academic personality outcomes
9. Student confusion about the learning outcomes
10. Assessment through feedback and critique
11. Use of rubrics

And, I think I may just use the source material he provides from his review as my checklist for reading for the next few weeks, so I’ll repeat that here too (presuming chatGPT didn't screw up the names in my formatting here):

• Adams, R. S., & Forin, T. (2016). Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. Design Studies, 45, 30–67.
• Andjomshoaa, A., Islami, S. G., & Mokhtabad-Amrei, S. M. (2011). Application of constructivist educational theory in providing tacit knowledge and pedagogical efficacy in architectural design education: A case study of an architecture school in Iran. Life Science Journal, 8(1), 213–233.
• Bachar, P., & Glaubman, R. (2006). Policy and practice of art teaching in schools as perceived by educators and artists. Art Education Policy Review, 108(1), 3–13.
• Billings, K., & Akkach, S. (1992). A study of ideologies and methods in contemporary architectural design teaching: Part 1: Ideology. Design Studies, 13(4), 431–450.
• Blaikie, F., Schönau, D., & Steers, J. (2004). Preparing for portfolio assessment in art and design: A study of the opinions and experiences of exiting secondary school students in Canada, England and The Netherlands. Journal of Art & Design Education, 23(3), 302–315.
• Boucharenc, C. G. (2006). Research on basic design education: An international survey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(1), 1–30.
• Budge, K. (2016). Learning to be: The modelling of art and design practice in university art and design teaching. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(2), 243–258.
• Burton, J. M., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (2000). Learning in and through the arts: The question of transfer. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 228–257.
• Chen, W. (2016). Exploring the learning problems and resource usage of undergraduate industrial design students in design studio courses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 461–487.
• Cornock, S. (1984). Learning strategies in fine art. Journal of Art & Design Education, 3(2), 141–159.
• Cox, M., Cooke, G., & Griffin, D. (1995). Teaching children to draw in the infants school. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 14(2), 153–163.
• Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. Communication Education, 54(2), 136–160.
• Dannels, D. P. (2011). Students’ talk about the climate of feedback interventions in the critique. Communication Education, 60(1), 95–114.
• Dannels, D. P., Gaffney, A. H., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Beyond content, deeper than delivery: What critique feedback reveals about communication expectations in design education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–16.
• Edström, A.-M. (2008). To rest assured: A study of artistic development. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 9(3), 1–25.
• El-Amri, M. (2011). Assessment techniques practiced in teaching art at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. International Journal of Education Through Art, 7(3), 267–282.
• Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, 24, 285–302.
• Graham, M. A., & Zwirn, S. G. (2010). How being a teaching artist can influence K–12 art education. Studies in Art Education, 51(3), 219–232.
• Gray, J. U., & MacGregor, R. N. (1991). Art teaching: Simple facts about complex activities. Journal of Art & Design Education, 10(3), 281–291.
• Hafeli, M., Stokrocki, M., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). A cross-site analysis of strategies used by three middle school art teachers to foster student learning. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 242–254.
• Hall, C., & Thomson, P. (2016). Creativity in teaching: What can teachers learn from artists? Research Papers in Education, 1–15.
• James, P. (1996). The construction of learning and teaching in a sculpture studio class. Studies in Art Education, 37(3), 145–159.
• Lam, B. H., & Kember, D. (2004). Conceptions of teaching art held by secondary school art teachers. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 23(3), 290–301.
• Lee, N. (2009). Project methods as the vehicle for learning in undergraduate design education: A typology. Design Studies, 30, 541–560.
• Lee, B., & Lee, W. (2015). Feature creep in design students’ works: Why and how it happens in student design processes. The Design Journal, 18(3), 345–365.
• Logan, C. (2007). Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 1–17.
• Logan, C. (2013). Living artists: Identity, independence and engagement in fine art learning. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 12(1), 33–48.
• McDonnell, J. (2016). Scaffolding practices: A study of design practitioner engagement in design education. Design Studies, 45, 9–29.
• Morton, J. (2012). Communities of practice in higher education: A challenge from the discipline of architecture. Linguistics and Education, 23, 100–111.
• Murphy, K. M. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33, 530–556.
• Oak, A. (2012). “You can argue it two ways”: The collaborative management of a design dilemma. Design Studies, 33, 630–648.
• Orr, S. (2010). “We kind of try to merge our own experience with the objectivity of the criteria”: The role of connoisseurship and tacit practice in undergraduate fine art assessment. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 9(1), 5–19.
• Orr, S., & Bloxham, S. (2012). Making judgements about students making work: Lecturers’ assessment practices in art and design. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2–3), 234–253.
• Orr, S., Yorke, M., & Blair, B. (2014). “The answer is brought about from within you”: A student-centred perspective on pedagogy in art and design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(1), 32–45.
• Osmond, J., & Tovey, M. (2015). The threshold of uncertainty in teaching design. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20(2), 50–57.
• Patton, R. M. (2013). Games as an artistic medium: Investigating complexity thinking in game-based art pedagogy. Studies in Art Education, 55(1), 35–50.
• Reid, A., & Solomonides, I. (2007). Design students’ experience of engagement and creativity. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6(1), 27–39.
• Ronkko, M.-L., Mommo, S., & Aerila, J.-A. (2016). The teachers’ views on the significance of the design and craft teaching in Finland. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 21(2), 49–58.
• Salama, A. M., & El-Attar, M. S. (2010). Student perceptions of the architectural design jury. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2–3), 174–200.
• Salazar, S. M. (2013). Laying a foundation for artmaking in the 21st century: A description and some dilemmas. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 246–259.
• Salazar, S. M. (2014). Educating artists: Theory and practice in college studio art. Art Education, 32–39.
• Shreeve, A., Sims, E., & Trowler, P. (2010). “A kind of exchange”: Learning from art and design teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 125–138.
• Soini-Salomaa, K. (2012). The images of the future of craft and design students: Professional narratives of working practices in 2020. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 11(1), 17–32.
• Svensson, L., & Edström, A.-M. (2011). The function of art students’ use of studio conversations in relation to their artwork. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 12(5), 1–29.
• Webster, H. (2004). Facilitating critically reflective learning: Excavating the role of the design tutor in architectural education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), 101–111.
• Webster, H. (2006). A Foucauldian look at the design jury. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5(1), 5–19.