Access to art impacts performance indirectly, says study – 9/7/2023 – Folha Seminars

The appreciation, practice, and study of the arts have intrinsic value. However, the expenditure of resources on artistic activities in the school world may seem like an unjustified subjective preference, particularly for those who measure success in education only through standardized tests (such as Saeb, in Brazil, or the international Pisa).

Such exams usually measure performance in so-called “core” subjects (reading, writing, math, and science). Results on these tests can have effects on budgets, school management, teacher selection and, of course, curricula.

The increased importance given to standardized tests would have led to a reduction in resources allocated to teaching and appreciating arts through schools, especially in the USA. On average for OECD countries, mostly European, the evidence of this trend is inconclusive or the reduction has been small since the year 2000.

In the US, some arts, such as dance, and non-white, poorer students or students in inclusive education would have been most affected. This is what Daniel H. Bowen (Texas A&M University) and Brian Kisida (University of Missouri) report in a review of studies on the subject.

Various empirical studies seem to indicate that yes, greater “exposure” to the arts (not just in conventional curriculum “classes”) increases cognitive, emotional and social skills, although not always or directly performance in so-called “basic” subjects, as suggested. Bowen and Kisida’s own study (2019) in the Houston (Texas) school district.

Researchers Ellen Winner, Thalia Goldstein and Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin believe, however, that the mere question of the “transfer” of competence or skills from the arts to other disciplines is empirically or theoretically poorly formulated. In a 2013 work for the OECD, they carried out a broad review of studies published at least since 1980 on the subject, called “Art for Art’s Sake?” (“Art for Art’s sake?”, which resulted in a book).

The trio argues that teaching arts is worth improving skills related to them and the fact that they are part of a relevant set for education focused on innovation, but not only. They also say that the evidence about the “transfer” of skills (from music to mathematics, say) may not have a scientific basis (in order to learn more geometry, it would be better to study more geometry).

They examined research that dealt with the impact of arts classes, at school or outside, on students. Experimental studies do not show a significant causal effect overall on grades.

Bowen and Kisida, the Americans, analyzed the effect of Haai (Houston Arts Access Initiative) on school indicators. This is one of the many interaction programs between schools and artistic institutions and artists. From 2013, demand was greater than supply.

They measured the relationship between the indicators of 42 schools drawn to participate in the program and others that were not able to do so, also drawn. More than 10 thousand elementary and high school students were evaluated. It is one of the largest and most statistically rigorous studies available.

Participation in Haai activities reduced the proportion of those receiving warnings, improved writing performance and improved compassion, commitment to school, or desire to attend college. But they did not see significant improvements in attendance or performance on standardized tests.

Other studies seek to measure the effect of using arts in a more instrumental way — the use of artistic concepts and skills on the efficiency of teaching and learning subjects (called “arts integration” in the USA).

Meredith Ludwig and colleagues reviewed 135 studies published since 2000 that met US government rigor criteria (“Review of Evidence: Arts Integration Research Through the Lens of the Every Student Succeeds Act”). The 27 empirically rigorous studies showed statistically significant effects of “arts integration”, but at a modest level (less than 29 other “interventions” to improve grades in reading, mathematics and science).

James Catterall, Richard Chapleau and John Iwanaga, from the Imagination Project, at the University of California (Los Angeles), used data from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (a national survey sponsored by the US government) in order to follow 25 thousand students during part of high school (in the American case, from the eighth to the 12th grade) and the effect of teaching music and theater.

Engagement in the arts would have improved overall academic performance in math, reading, motivation, and empathy.

A 2003 Australian government study found no relationship between academic performance and school arts programs, but noted improvements in motivation, commitment, cooperation and greater attendance among indigenous people.

Methods, type of artistic activity and measured results vary so much that comparing research and its results is difficult, as is generalizing data, findings and conclusions.

The trio that carried out the broad study of OECD research reviews (Winner, Goldstein and Vincent-Lancrin) were particularly concerned with what can increase “skills for innovation”, which are theoretically fundamental in advanced economies.

There would be three overlapping skills: technical (content and procedures), thinking and creativity, and behavioral/social (persistence, self-confidence, collaboration, communication, empathy).

The arts can have an indirect effect on all of this. “(…) The value of the arts for the development of human experience is a sufficient reason to justify their presence in school curricula, regardless of whether arts education results in transfers [aumento direto de competências em outras disciplinas]”, they conclude.