Michelle+Fava++Article+One

Michelle Fava is a research student with a background in drawing and education. Her research investigates drawing and cognition, and is concerned with curriculum development. 0 How can contemporary theoretical insights about the nature of drawing inform a discussion on curriculum design and assessment? A decline in the prevalence of drawing in art & design curricula has been noted 1, but the reasons for this are unclear. Certainly, drawing for ‘conventional’ purposes is no longer indispensable, but maybe this shift can allow us to examine more subtle aspects of drawing skill. Such an examination would be valuable in an educational climate that required being explicit about learning outcomes. Recent empirical findings and new theoretical insights in cognitive psychology are allowing an enhanced understanding of drawing, which might be useful in informing and making explicit the way we conceive of drawing. This paper invites opinion and discussion about the place of observational drawing skills in contemporary art & design curricula in further and higher education. In what ways is it still valuable to students, how does it fit with contemporary notions of graphicacy, and how should this be reflected in curriculum design and assessment practices? Personal communications with drawing practitioners will be used to illustrate commonly held beliefs about observational drawing and the wider abilities it enables 2. Cognitive and ‘second generation’ embodied-cognitive perspectives on learning will then be considered and I will make some tentative proposals about an expanded definition of drawing skill. One reason (among many) for the perceived decline of observational drawing might be a clash between a practice which is largely tacit, embodied, non- verbal and growing institutional imperatives to make learning explicit in the 1 Concerns about a general decline in drawing ability have been expressed; Alsop (2002); Rose, Jolley & Burkitt (2006); Jolley (2009). Observational drawing, has been reported as “not really part of many/most curricula across the UK anymore” (Leo Duff 2010, personal communication). A more general trend has also been noted “whereby practical, situated and embodied knowledge, once so central to the study of art and design in Higher Education, has since the late 1960’s become more peripheral” (McGuirck 2008). 2 The author would like to thank Leo Duff, Rachel Pearcey, Eduardo Corte Real, Lisa Moriarty, Doris Rohr and Richard Hare for their contributions and insights in response to questions sent through the DRN mailing list. 1 form of outcomes, level descriptors and assessment criteria. It is important that such requirements do not serve to marginalise tacit skills like drawing, which risks relegation to a supporting role in other learning activities, if it cannot compete with more explicitly measurable skills. Here we will consider how a contemporary understanding of cognition might help address drawing more directly in assessment practices, but the limitations of such practices will also be considered. Jane Tormey (1997) observed “in all the recent debate there seemed little articulation of how drawing methods may be relevant, or to the nature of activity and why it was important”. This paper asks what is it about //observational drawing// that can be considered of continuing value to art & design students? Debates exist around the place of manual design drawing after the advent of drawing software 3, and around the relevance of representational drawing in contemporary fine art practice. Aside from these ongoing, changeable debates lays a broader assumption that observational drawing enables a range of transferable skills. In a review conducted by Tormey, Foundation Art and Design tutors most frequently valued drawing as, “underpinning and essential”, “the means of analytical learning”, “the means to improve perceptions, visual awareness and manual skills” (1997). It was suggested that drawing is “the ultimate transferable skill” and encourages the ability to adapt. It provides the progression from 3 For a detailed analysis of the role of digital and manual drawing in design see Garner (1999), Johnson (2005), Prats et. al. (2009). 2 research, through analysis and speculation to solution. It progresses visual thinking (1997). The debate illustrated [...] the need to balance activity which is designed to provide real learning through the //process// of drawing, with the kind of drawing activity that is likely to generate more obvious and //visible skill// acquisition because the methods are recognisable (1997, emphasis in original). However, It is unclear what exactly is meant by ‘real learning through the //process’//, or what exactly is (or is assumed to be) the nature of the ‘visual thinking’ enabled by observational drawing. Drawing practitioners describe the purpose of observational drawing in many ways: “to understand the engineering structure and texture of objects, human beings, environments” (Rohr 2010, personal correspondence). “It sharpens observational skills generally” (Hare 2010, personal correspondence). “[S]tudents need procedures of inquiry that help them to understand/criticise the existent“ (Corte-Real, 2010, personal correspondence). Echoing Ruskin’s (1991[1887]) dictum that to learn to draw is to ‘learn to see’, Leo Duff describes the purpose of observational drawing as “to look, to see, to focus, to concentrate, to sustain your concentration”. In her opinion, observational skill enables “decision making, clarity of vision” (2010, personal communication). A consideration of learning and cognition can demystify these beliefs, showing that ‘real learning’ can be visible in observed drawings. Furthermore, a consideration of the relationship between perception and cognition can inform approaches to teaching and assessment. 3 The Quality Assurance Agency benchmark statement for Art & Design (2008) does not mention specific outcomes. These date quickly and are left to the discretion of the institution. However, a wide range of generic and transferable skills are cited, including a requirement for ‘particular cognitive attributes’ (2008: 3). Drawing skill is regarded as comprising the full spectrum of cognitive activity: “ a prerequisite skill for observation, recording, analysis, speculation, development, visualisation, evaluation and communication” (2008:5). There is no indication of where observational drawing is assumed to fit with this description, but these guidelines indicate general descriptors that might be used to assess drawing. QAA (2006) codes of practice require explicit verbalisation of learning outcomes 4. This is regarded as restrictive by some as there are limits to verbalising creative learning (Dentith 2002, Orr 2010, Gordon 2004), but guidelines are open ended enough that institutions can devise learning outcomes as they see fit. The situation in FE is somewhat different as unit outlines are written by external awarding bodies 5, Edexcel being one of the largest for vocational courses 6. It can be said that their unit specifications do not reflect the wide range of purposes drawing is ascribed by the practitioners above. Of the 137 BTEC National Diploma units Edexcel currently accredit, none mention drawing in their assessment criteria. Until 2006 there was a unit named ‘Drawing Development’, since renamed ‘Visual Recording’. Standard drawing 4 These stipulate that “Institutions have transparent and fair mechanisms for marking and for moderating marks” (QAA 2006: 31) and that these be written and made available to the student. Modules are expected to have clear learning outcomes, assessment criteria based on these outcomes, and descriptors which “ indicate how well the assessment criteria have been met” (QAA 2006: 39). Furthermore, institutions must evaluate “the extent to which assessment tasks and associated criteria are effective in measuring student achievement of the intended learning outcomes of modules and programmes” (QAA 2006: 8). 5 Another factor here is that FE funding imperatives push achievement, and therefore assessment criteria, to the forefront of institutional strategies and teaching methods, perhaps sometimes unhealthily so. 6 A Levels are awarded by AQA, WJEC (in Wales), CCEA, OCR (run by University of Cambridge), or ISESB (for Independent Schools). Edexcel are the only awarding body to be run by a profit making company, after having been taken over in 2003 by Pearson PLC. 4 texts are suggested in this unit’s reading list, but drawing is not necessary to pass it. To gain a distinction in this unit a student must be able to: demonstrate independence, innovation and individuality in evaluating and using sources, integrating visual recording skills and in-depth understanding in communicating information 7 (Edexcel 2009:4). While this criterion refers to valuable skills, it does not refer directly to drawing. The situation in First, Foundation and Higher National Diplomas is similar. The act of ‘recording visually’ (be it drawing, photography or otherwise) is relegated to only one of four pass criteria, implying that Implicit in this wording is the assumption that to draw is simply to describe and that as such, it accounts for only lower order skills of recognising and describing. It is clear there is more scope to consider the way that learning outcomes and level descriptors are expressed for drawing. There is also room to review the role and nature of observational drawing, both within art and design practice and more generally as part of a set of transferable skills. Many point to purposes of drawing beyond making a representation, but what wider abilities can we reliably attach to observational skill, and how should this affect the way we conceive of and assess student’s drawings? Which of the cognitive skills described by QAA can be developed through observational practice? In personal communications practitioners responded to the questions: ‘What end does this practice serve?’ ‘What abilities does it enable?’ //observational// drawing practice was said to enable: “decision making, clarity of vision”(Duff, 2010). “[Ability] to analyse visual information through visual rather than textual 7 It is unclear what exactly is meant by descriptors like ‘independence’, ‘innovation’, ‘individuality’ or ‘in-depth’, at this level of learning. 5 means. Visual analytical thinking in short. Being able to synthesise data visually” (Rohr, 2010). “The ability to communicate ideas visually, directly through drawing and indirectly through transference of skills learned through drawing to other forms of visual expression” (Hare, 2010). Many have likewise described observational drawing as a means of visual thinking and analytical learning. David Haley maintains “that drawing is integral to perception and cognitive understanding” (2010). Hudson renamed the activity of observation ‘Construction’, describing: a piece by piece assembling of awareness, [which] was precisely the way in which children learned by trial, error, and the storing of resulting experience. He saw it therefore as the catalyst of creative education – pre-existing, assisting other matters (Thistlewood 1981: 24) What is common from these opinions is that the range of cognitive skills associated with observational drawing include not only lower order cognitive skills, but the full range of educational objectives in the cognitive domain (Bloom 1956): ‘observation’, ‘communication’, ‘transference of skills’, ‘speculation’ and ‘visual analysis’, ‘decision making’, ‘editorial skills’, ‘synthesis’ and ‘solution’. A drawing might be assessed, therefore, in terms of the cognitive sophistication with which it was made, rather than its representational accuracy, conformity to ‘convention’ or even its contribution to a further purpose, such as gathering visual information for a design project (this could be a learning outcome better suited to a design brief). Furthermore, I propose that traces of this activity can be visible in the drawing itself and assessment need not rely on extensive annotation to as evidence 8. Figure 1 suggests ways in which cognitive skills might be recognised in an observed drawing. 8 Annotation can be useful for reflection when appropriate, but it evidences a student’s ability to verbalise and post-rationalise their learning, rather than the learning itself, and therefore is not a reliable form of evidence for assessment. 6 Conceiving of novel ways of approaching the task, subverting existing drawing conventions, exploiting drawing as a means to addressing an identified issue. Reviewing the success of marks made, the extent to which a drawing conveys a sense of its subject in the desired manner. Making compositional or other decisions, conceiving of the drawing as a whole, considering denoted or connoted meaning in relation to surface features, compositional planning, constructive and mark making strategies towards a particular aim. Seeking a particular type of feature, examining relationships (e.g. between tonal, textural or linear differences) and determining arrangement, identifying components in relation to the whole, comparing what is seen to what is known, comparing what is seen with what has been drawn, questioning assumptions about the way things look. Compositional choices, employing strategies of constructing images, finding appropriate mark making to describe something in a particular way, using analytical visual knowledge. Discerning, translating/interpreting percepts into drawn marks, distinguishing relationships. Looking, observing, noticing features & picture primitives, describing/communicating visually. Figure 1. Drawing activities corresponding to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives. We might find evidence of close observation and understanding in a drawing’s “correctness, alongside empathy with the subject, and depiction of it in a 7 personally engaged manner 9 ” (Duff 2010, personal correspondence). Evidence of ‘application’ might be seen in the employment of analytical visual knowledge, for example, the use of symmetrical trace lines to balance a figure drawing, or the use of anatomical or structural knowledge to proportion or construct a figure, building or machine. ‘Analysis’ can be seen by the activity of questioning what is seen – marks which refer to not only the visible but to structural or relational properties can provide evidence of analytical thinking. Likewise, there might be evidence that a student has considered the distinction between what they know and what they see in their correction of ‘mistakes’ or acknowledgement of subjective distortions. ‘Evaluation’ will be evident in traces of re-working, changes in composition or measurement. The synthesis of visual knowledge would allow sophisticated decision making, which might be evidenced by a novel choice of line to describe a form or texture, or by an informed, perhaps unconventional, compositional decision 10. It is perhaps the ‘creativity’ invested in the drawing which gives rise to the ‘wow factor’ 11. In this way, the range of cognitive objectives can be evident in a single observed drawing 12. A student’s engagement with this drawing process can be made more explicit, and sufficiently sophisticated objectives and descriptors can be devised without the necessity for additional tasks to satisfy a full range of level descriptors 13. 9 Leo Duff describes this as the main criteria with which she assesses the quality of students’ observed drawings, communicating this both in writing and in one-to-one and group discussions (personal communication). 10 These are intended only as examples. There are surely as many ways of identifying cognitive skills in a drawing as there are in a piece of writing. 11 See Gordon (2004) for a discussion of the ‘wow factor’ in art & design assessment. 12 Affective and psychomotor domains of skill can also be regarded as important for observational drawing. Space does not permit a full discussion of this here, but comments about how these considerations might be included in curriculum design and assessment are also welcome. 13 Howard Riley’s ‘matrix of systems of choices’ (2008) is also useful in defining and communicating learning objectives, it plots levels of engagement against functions of drawing. 8 If cognitive skills are employed in observational drawing, can we assume that observational skill acquisition leads to any collateral, transferable benefits? Any causal relation would be hard to measure as any enhancement of overall graphicacy or visual cognitive ability will most likely be the result of combined activities. Seely & Kozbelt use psychometric testing 14 to demonstrate a relationship between perception and cognition in their recent research into ‘artists’ 15 perceptual advantages’. They provide evidence that perceptual skills confer “an advantage in visual analysis” enabling ‘attentional strategies’ that “enhance the perceptual encoding of stimulus features diagnostic for the identity of objects and inhibit the perception of potential distractors” (2008: 153). This is, perhaps, another way observational skills can be considered in relation to graphicacy. QAA (2008) list transferable skills associated with art and design, but what is implied above is that the abilities enabled by drawing are even more fundamental and have to do with one’s ability to concentrate, to attend, to consider, to observe, to comprehend. If practiced regularly, visual cognition can become embedded in ones thinking, in much the same way that a habitual practice of writing would establish the propensity to analyse the world linguistically 16. Two further senses in which observational drawing skills might be considered broadly transferable are suggested below. The first considers embodied cognitive perspectives on the relationship between perception and cognition. 14 although their most recent work (Kozbelt et. al. 2010) relies on artists to assess the success of image making tasks, and shows that artists are not only better at constructing an image, they are also better judges, more sensitive to the skill employed in the construction of an image, suggesting necessarily tacit elements to assessing visual skills. 15 They refer specifically to artists who have representational drawing or painting skill. 16 Other examples of this view include Petherbridge (2008), Riley (2008), Corte-Real (2009), IDEAL Project (2009), Haley (2010), Kantrowitz (in press). 9 The second considers notions of analogical transfer and suggests ways of considering transferable skill in teaching practice. Drawing is widely thought to sharpen sensori-motor awareness and expand visual memory by virtue of time spent paying close attention to the visual world. A more intimate knowledge of the way the world looks, and is physically structured, is valuable in itself, particularly to artists and designers. However, it can be considered more widely valuable when contemporary embodied-cognitive perspectives are taken into account, as these perspectives illustrate the relationship between perception and cognition. Developmental cognitive neuropsychologists now widely acknowledge that sensory understanding and cognitive thought are inseparable, in that they develop in tandem and make use of the same neural pathways. For example, Usha Goswami describes how our “knowledge representation is rooted in attention to the perceptual structure of objects and events” (2008: 51). He also describes how the foundation of our cognitive framework for exploring and representing the behaviour of objects is shared with that of the behaviour of people: the attribution of belief and desires seems to develop from the same sources as the attribution of causal mechanisms such as collision and support – namely from the perceptual (mental) representations of the dynamic spatial and temporal behaviour of objects and agents (Goswami 2008: 46). He goes on to relate sensitivity to space, objects and causal relations to more abstract cognition such as conceptual representation, memory, logic, and a sense of agency. Empirical evidence supporting these claims lies in the shared neural loci of experience for concepts and percepts. 10 Cognitive linguist Mark Johnson builds on this paradigm, explaining that embodied understanding is the foundation for thought: “meaning and thought emerge from our capacities for perception, object manipulation, and bodily movement” (2007: 113 see also Johnson 1990). This is the basis of metaphor. The neural ‘body in the mind’ reconstructs tactile, spatial and visual experiences to make sense of more abstract ideas. Hence it makes perfect sense for an idea to be thought of as having tactile or spatial qualities; being slippery, fragile, liquid, heavy, difficult to grasp, thrown or bounced around. They can be held lightly, built up and then shattered, attacked and defended 17. The proposition this logic allows is that time taken to conduct observed drawing has the ability to enrich cognition in a holistic way. This is, perhaps, another way observational drawing might be included in contemporary notions of graphicacy. The implication here is that time spent drawing is valuable by virtue of the intensity of experience the drawer has, which will contribute to their cognitive capacities and to any design or visual artistic practices. This is by no means a new idea. Nicolaides insisted that “the effort you make is not for one particular drawing, but for the experience you are having” (1990 [1941]: 2). This holistic aspect of learning is primarily concerned not with the ‘quality’ of the drawing, but of the drawers’ experience. This is, again, something hard or even impossible to measure. Yet the quality of the experience of drawing process is something most drawing tutors trust in, despite the fact that it cannot be expressed in writing as a measurable outcome. 17 Despite the ubiquity of metaphor, it is not so acceptable for it to be used in learning outcomes and assessment criteria. Richard Hamilton believed the learning process to be analogous to that of organic growth (Thistlewood 1981), but this metaphor would seem out of place in a module specification, and might only be used after the fact to explain the meaning of more obtusely worded descriptors or objectives to puzzled students. 11 Tormey suggests a need to move away from teaching drawing simply as a means to creating ‘conventional’ images, towards a teaching that ‘facilitates cognitive understanding’. She notes that “in the past, technical skill for representational purposes may have been separated from cognitive understanding, but less so now” (1997). Similarly, Bruce Archer identifies a need for drawing ‘as a training in thinking’ to be taught in addition to drawing for the purposes of representation (1997). What might drawing ‘as a training in thinking’ involve? Here I will suggest that drawing can be also used as a basis for analogical reasoning and learning. Laura Novick (1988) describes surface and deep levels of analogical reasoning. She explains how a novice is able to apply surface features of an experience in analogical reasoning, while an expert can relate superficially unrelated tasks by structural comparison. In this way learned problem solving strategies can be transferred across disciplinary and thematic boundaries. Daugherty & Mentzer (2008) review research into analogical reasoning and its significance for engineering design students. Emphasising its importance for creativity, they describe the way that analogies aid in the development of knowledge. They state that this takes place by the application of structural logic from a ‘base domain’ to a ‘target domain’. This can be enhanced by “[r]epresenting either or both the base or target domain to improve the analogy [to] further establish conceptual change”. Gentner & Jeziorski (1993) note that while tutors often use analogy to explain concepts to students, “analogical reasoning is rarely formally taught”. Drawing can be thought of as useful in this way. It can serve as a base domain from which to source creative and learning experiences. As established above, observational drawing activity encompasses cognitive activity in a relatively straightforward and visible way. Drawing process can also be considered analogous to //creative process// in a number of ways: 12 -Both begin from a single point, be it given or chosen. -Both involve cycles of construction and destruction. -Focus must shift between smaller elements and the whole to maintain coherence (stepping back and leaning in during making). -Both involve aesthetic decisions and compositional planning. -A range of strategies can be chosen, e.g. beginning from a specific point and working outwards, or working from the general into the specific. -It might be necessary at some point to erase large portions and re- draft. For example, if an error is found, if a preferable compositional choice is found (highlighting the need for ongoing evaluation), or if the purpose (or subject) of the drawing changes. Strategies for constructing a coherent whole can be tried and tested, and progress over time is clearly visible, both within and between drawings. These qualities render drawing a valuable resource for refection on learning and for approaching analogous processes. It can be seen as a broad base for analogical reasoning. Acknowledgement of, and reflection on, this structural similarity can serve as a valuable opportunity to consider analogical reasoning. Relatively simple drawing experiences can be used as opportunities for considering more complex creative or cognitive problems in other domains. A tutor might refer to strategies for constructing a drawing, for example, when discussing approaches to constructing a written argument, to the design process, or to perseverance in learning more generally. Students might also be encouraged to use drawing as a base domain in analogical problem solving for design. Again, this is a form of learning that cannot easily be measured. Transferable skills are, by nature, flexible, rhizomatic, unpredictable. To apply the logic of one discipline to an analogous novel situation requires both flexibility of thinking and a repertoire of problem solving experiences. What analogous experience a student may have used in solving a design problem, or approaching an essay, might never be known. It could be that by encouraging a student to consider analogical reasoning based on an understanding of 13 drawing, they are inclined to a better understanding of analogical reasoning itself, and as a result solve a novel problem by applying existing knowledge. This would be highly individual for each student, relating to their own unique experiences and challenges. Impact of this kind would be neither entirely predictable nor measurable. It might even go wholly unnoticed, but it would be of lasting importance to the student. Both of these examples relate to holistic approaches to teaching and assessment that account for non-verbal learning and individual differences. I suggest that it is possible to consider observational drawing as part of an expanded definition of graphicacy, which accounts for the capacity drawing experiences have to enable visual cognitive abilities and creative problem solving, and to facilitate abstract conceptual thought through an enriched visual knowledge of the world. Tacit, non-verbal and difficult to measure knowledge is recognised as important but often cannot be made explicit. To acknowledge this is not fall short of our obligation to the QAA, but to hold the same rigour of accountability to the mechanisms which audit our degrees. To accept tacit and holistic learning outcomes, we would need to expand the rationalist box of practices that are legitimated by the QAA, Edexcel and other professional bodies, to be more flexible and to include subtler, more holistic and tacit aspects of observational drawing and similar skills. At the same time I propose that it is possible to work within these frameworks to consider how learning outcomes for drawing might be better expressed to include notions of transferable skill. I propose that the range of cognitive learning represented by Bloom’s taxonomy can be found within the act of observational drawing. Likewise, the creative process is also analogous to the practice. These facets render it a potentially broadly valuable source for analogical transfer and reasoning. Furthermore, embodied cognitive 14 perspectives have the ability to shift concepts of the value and purpose of observational drawing towards a more holistic view of transferable skills. I am not suggesting that we privilege transferable skills over more immediate applications of drawing, or that ‘tacit’ skill be valued over propositional knowledge. Only that it is conceivable that we can openly acknowledge this type of learning within rational educational frameworks, both in teaching and assessment practices. In doing so we can enable an expanded definition of drawing with potentially extensive benefits. It is possible to consider more explicitly the way learning outcomes for drawing are worded, but it is also necessary to acknowledge that sometimes this is not possible and that should not marginalise less measurable learning or holistic approaches to curriculum development. 15 Alsop, W. (2002) Society's Inability to Draw is Destroying the Art of Looking. //The Architect’s Journal//. v. 216 no. 13 (October 10 2002) :24. Available online: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/societys-inability-to-draw-is- destroying-the-art-of-looking/177281.article [accessed 24/10/09]. Archer, L. B. (1997) ‘Drawing as a Tool for Designers’, (Conference paper), in T. Moscovitch (ed), //The Future of Drawing in Design.// UK: University of Huddersfield, 39-42. Bloom, B. S. Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) //Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain//. New York: Longmans. Bowden, J. (2000) Art & Design: The Rhetoric and the Practice. //Journal of Art & Design Education//, vol 19 - 20-36. Corte-Real, E. (2009) ‘Thinking Through Drawing conference. A Smooth Guide to Travel Drawing’. Presentation, //Drawing Research Network conference//. 8 th Oct 2009. Cochrane Theatre London. Daugherty, J.& Mentzer, N. (2008) ‘Analogical reasoning in the Engineering Design Process and Technology Education Applications’. //Journal of Technology Education,// Spring 2008, vol19, No2. Available online: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v19m2/daugherty.html [accessed 30/04/2010]. Dentith, S. (2002) ‘English and the Audit Culture: An Introduction’. //Higher Education Academy, English Subject Centre Online Newsletter//. Issue 3, Jan 2002. Available online: http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/publications/newsletters/newsiss ue3/dentith.htm [accessed 27/10/2010] Edexcel (2009) ‘Unit 1: Visual Recording in Art and Design’. In Edexcel //BTEC Level 3 Nationals Specification in Art and Design// – Issue 1 – January 2010, Edexcel Limited. Garner, S. W. (1999) Digital Product Design. //Tracey, ‘Drawing and Technology’// Issue. Available online: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/tracey/dat/garner.html [accessed 12/03/2010]. Gentner, D. & Jeziorski, M. (1993) ‘The shift from metaphor to analogy in western science’. In Ortony (Ed) //Metaphor and Thought// (2nd ed. 447-480) Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, J. (2004) ‘The 'wow' factors: the assessment of practical media and creative arts subjects’. //Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, vo.l 3//(1), 61-72. 16 Goswami, U. (2008) //Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain//. New York: Psychology Press. Haley, D. (2010) ‘How do artists teach drawing?’ Thread, UK Drawing Research Network mailing list. 27 March 2010. Available e-mail: drawing- research@jiscmail.ac.uk. IDEAL project (2009) //Intercultural Drawing for European Adult Learning.// Life Long Learning Programme, (on //Drawing Spaces// gallery website) GRUNTVIG Available online: http://drawingspacesen.weebly.com/ideal-partnership--- grundtvig.html [accessed 24/10/09]. Johnson, B. (2005) ‘Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age’. //Design Studies//, vol. 26 (6) 613- 624. Johnson, M. (1990) //The Body in the Mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason//. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnson M. (2007) //The Meaning of the Body: aesthetics of human understanding//. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kozbelt, A., Seidel, A. ElBassiouny, A., Mark, Y. & Owen, D. R. (2010) ‘Visual Selection Contributes to Artists’ Advantages in Realistic Drawing’. //Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts//, vol. 4 (2) 93-102. Kantrowitz, A. (in press) ‘The Man behind the Curtain: What Cognitive Science Reveals about Drawing’. //Journal of Aesthetic Education.// McGuirk T. (2008) ‘Knowing by Hand: Embodied Knowledge in Higher Education in Art and Design’. In Bottâ G. & Härmänmaa M. (Eds) (2009) //Language and the Scientific Imagination// – Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Society for the Study of European Ideas – ISSEI, 28 July–2 Aug. 2008, University of Helsinki. McKillop, C. (2007) ‘Drawing on assessment: using visual representations to understand students' experiences of assessment in art and design’. //Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education//, vol 5, 2. 131-144. Nicolaides (2008) [1941] //The Natural Way to Draw.// London: Souvenir Press. Novick, L. R. (1988) ‘Analogical Transfer: processes and individual differences’. In //Analogical Reasoning: Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science and Philosophy.// Helman, D. H. (ed)(1988) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Orr, S. (2010) ‘Making Marks: Assessment practices in art & design’. //Networks//, Issue 10, Summer 2010, HEA Art, Design & Media Subject Centre, 9-13. 17 Petherbridge, D. (2008) ‘Nailing the Liminal: The Difficulties of Defining Drawing’. In Steve Garner (ed.) //Writing on Drawing, Essays on Drawing Practice and Research//. Bristol and Chicago: Intellect, 27-42. Prats, M., Lim, S., Jowers, I., Garner, S. W. & Chase, S. (2009) ‘Transforming shape in design: observations from studies of sketching’. //Design Studies//, vol 30 (5) 503 – 520. Quality Assurance Agency (2006) //Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education//: Section 6: Assessment of students. Mansfield: Linney Direct / QAA. Quality Assurance Agency (2008) Subject Benchmark Standards: Art & Design. Mansfield: Linney Direct / QAA. Riley, H. (2008) ‘Drawing: Towards an Intelligence of Seeing’. In, S. (ed.) //Writing on Drawing.// Bristol: Intellect/University of Chicago Press, 153-167. Rose, S. E., Jolley, R. P. & Burkitt, E. (2006) ‘A Review of Children’s, Teachers’ and Parents’ Influences on Children’s Drawing Experience’. //JADE// vol.25 no.3 341-349. London: NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing. Ruskin, J. (1991) [1857] //The Elements of Drawing//. (illus. ed.) London: The Herbert Press. Seeley, W. P. & Kozbelt, A. (2008) Art, artists, and perception: A model for premotor contributions to perceptual analysis and form recognition. //Philosophical Psychology,// vol. 21//,// 149–171. Thistlewood, D. (1981) //A Continuing Process//. London: ICA. Tormey, J. (1997) Foundation course drawing //TRACEY// (Education issue, Sept 1997) Available: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/tracey/edu/tormey.html [accessed 03/10/09]. 18
 * IDATER research paper**
 * What is the role of observational drawing in contemporary art & design curricula?**
 * Michelle Fava School of Art & Design Loughborough University m.l.fava@lboro.ac.uk**
 * Practitioners’ views on the purpose of observational drawing**
 * Existing assessment practices**
 * Observational drawing and assessing cognitive skills**
 * Cognitive skill**
 * Corresponding drawing activity**
 * Creation**
 * Evaluation**
 * Synthesis**
 * Analysis**
 * Application**
 * Comprehension**
 * Knowledge**
 * Higher order cognitive skills**
 * Transferable skills**
 * Embodied cognition and drawing**
 * Observational drawing & analogical transfer**
 * Conclusion**
 * References**