The four studio structures and deep learning

Abstract

Purpose

This paper describes how a pre-service teacher’s knowledge and pedagogy changed as she documented her reflective practice while teaching arts-integrated lessons in a fifth-grade classroom during her pre-service teacher preparation program. The pre-service teacher spent three-months conducting an action research project in collaboration with a university mentor.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper explores what she and her mentor learned as she prepared arts-integrated lesson plans based on the four studio structures for learning and analyzed them along with identifying and documenting evidence of deep learning through field notes and video recordings.

Findings

Analysis of field notes, video recordings and lesson plans led the authors to take a deeper look at where the four studio structures for learning overlapped in the teaching event. In the data the intersections of the four studio structures shared a pattern of increased evidence of deep learning for the students. This paper describes the phenomenon in the classroom at various points of intersection.

Research limitations/implications

This action research study is preliminary, and the findings are suggestive of further research that would require indexing what deep learning looks like and gathering and analyzing student data.

Practical implications

It is recommended that teachers use the four studio structures to integrate the arts in their classrooms and to enhance and encourage creativity, communication, critical thinking, collaboration, character and culture and as teachers work toward deep learning for students.

Originality/value

This case shows how a university partnership provides fertile ground for educators of all skills and experience to participate in the expansion of the field of education as well as personal and professional development.

Citation

Barnett, S. and Francis, H.D. (2023), "The four studio structures and deep learning", PDS Partners: Bridging Research to Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/PDSP-01-2023-0007

Introduction

This paper describes how a pre-service teacher’s knowledge and pedagogy changed as she documented her reflective practice while teaching arts-integrated lessons in a fifth-grade classroom during her pre-service teacher preparation program. Over the course of three-months in 2019 she conducted an action research project in collaboration with a university mentor, to better understand her pedagogical practice and beliefs. Heather Francis, was her mentor, a teaching artist who mentors pre-service and in-service educators in arts integration as a professional development partner in the University Arts Partnership, an organization housed within the University Center for Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling (CITES) that serves as the operational arm of the University Public School Partnership. This action research project developed from the needs of Sarah Barnett to deepen her skills for self-reflection through collaboration and clinical practice. It was guided by the spirit of inquiry and the desire to lead and contribute to the field of education through the study of pedagogical theory in practice.

Sarah was given the opportunity for clinical practice through the Arts Bridge Program that is coordinated by the University Arts Partnership. This program is one of the eight professional learning programs offered by the University Arts Partnership. The comprehensive mission of the University Arts Partnership is “to ensure that all children benefit from an education that provides for academic excellence, social confidence, and personal expression through experience with the arts. We believe that the greatest impact for change will be accomplished through collaborative efforts involving teachers, schools, districts, departments, and universities. We believe such efforts will not only improve educational practice in schools, but will also increase community and legislative support, leading to educational renewal that includes arts education for every child” (BYU ARTS Partnership, 2021).

The Arts Bridge Program, like all University Arts Partnership professional learning programs, is focused on teacher development through clinical practice. Teachers participate in hands-on art-making workshops, receive on-the-job mentoring from arts instructional coaches, and collaborate with teaching artists in their classroom. Specific to the Arts Bridge Program, a pre-service teacher at the university studying dance, drama, music, or visual arts education at the university is paired with an in-service teacher to facilitate an arts integration project in their classroom. Through this opportunity the classroom teachers receive practical experience in the arts and the university students get practical classroom experience.

The University Arts Partnership dedicated resources to enhance and sustain the continuation of Sarah’s journey to teacher certification after recognizing the growth of Sarah in her initial arts-integration projects conducted through the program. In the Arts Bridge Program pre-service students usually conduct one project with one classroom teacher during their teacher preparation program but transcending this precedence Sarah and Heather expanded their roles from mentor and student teacher to critical friends and co-researchers for this experience.

As a result of their repeated experiences working together in previous Arts Bridge projects both Sarah and Heather were interested in taking a closer look at the application of a specific pedagogical theory in practice. Using a systematic inquiry process, they wanted to better understand how pedagogical structures used in arts studios, specifically the four studio structures for learning (Hetland, Winner, Veenema, & Sheridan, 2013), might support the development of deep learning (Fullan, Quinn, & McEachen, 2018) in mathematics and science in an elementary classroom.

Many educators and administrators believe that integration of the arts in the elementary school classroom increases engagement, supports the development of global competencies and deepens student learning. Easy to believe, this theory is difficult to demonstrate in successful practice and to link to intended learning outcomes. Rigorous study and intentional inquiry into the relationship between arts pedagogy and student learning is needed to help teachers, both in-service and pre-service, to identify the values or components of arts-based pedagogy that serve student learning and to share it with other practitioners to replicate in their classroom.

This paper describes the reflective self-study that a pre-service teacher conducted on her application of arts-based pedagogy. It illuminates the systematic and collaborative approach utilized to support a pre-service educator and university mentor in achieving their shared goals of both improving practice and generating new knowledge to share publicly with the field. The relationships Sarah and Heather observed between the four studio structures and its impact on students’ behavior, engagement and academic knowledge could only be achieved with the support of the University Arts Partnership and its commitment to reflective practice, collaborative research and responsive innovation.

Method of inquiry

The research question that Sarah and Heather set out to answer at the beginning of this project was “what happens when an Arts Bridge Scholar (pre-service elementary teacher) organizes lesson plans using the Four Studio Structures for Learning (Hetland et al., 2013) while documenting and reflecting on what she perceives to be deep learning (Fullan et al., 2018) in her math and science content classes?” They hypothesized that there may be a studio structure or structures that connected to deeper student learning or deeper student engagement. Sarah and Heather collected video recordings & field notes as data to help them discover whether evidence of deep learning existed as the lessons were taught and to determine within which of the four structures deep learning occurred.

As Sarah prepared for her teaching experiences in the fifth-grade classroom she labeled the appearance of each of the four studio structures in her lesson plans and then shared them with Heather for feedback. During the teaching experience Heather and Sarah recorded the events on video and took descriptive field notes on what they experienced, observed, thought and felt during each lesson. Heather and Sarah would unpack each lesson afterward through critical dialogue: reflecting, questioning and responding to what they noticed and experienced. Interpretive analysis continued as they reviewed the videos on a video annotation software called GoReact. This method of analysis allowed Heather and Sarah to independently compare and analyze the appearance of the studio structures in relation to student engagement and deep learning and to then compare that data against the other researcher’s findings.

Candid and reflective conversations allowed for deep analysis to take place throughout the project. In the end, connections between the four studio structures and deep learning elucidated practical examples for generalist teachers looking to transform ideas for studio learning and arts integration from theory into practice. Before these findings are described a discussion on the framework of the four studio structures for learning and deep learning is presented.

Limitations

This study is preliminary, and the findings are suggestive of further research that would require indexing what deep learning looks like, and gathering and analyzing student data. This project solely focused on collecting data from Sarah’s teaching performance and related reflections on their performance and the student’s learning.

Frameworks for arts education and deep learning

The four studio structures for learning

The four studio structures for learning describe the pedagogical structures embedded in an arts studio learning experience. Lois Hetland, Ellen Winner, Sheri Veenema and K Sheridan named them as they studied visual arts studio classrooms in Boston. The four studio structures include demonstration/lecture, students-at-work, critique and performance. The structures cover how to foster active student engagement, when to share teacher expertise, how to facilitate public formative analysis of student work, and how to prepare a public sharing of student work to encourage commitment and celebrate learning. While drawn specifically from the visual arts environment, these structures are applicable to all studio learning settings. The studio structures support arts and general education as they serve experiential, problem-based and project-based learning.

The first structure, demonstration-lecture, describes the process of instruction when an instructor shares information about processes, products and assignments. This information is immediately useful and is conveyed quickly in order to reserve the majority of time for students to work and reflect. Students-at-work is the second structure, embodying the majority of time spent by students in the visual arts studio. In this structure students are making art work, observing and consulting with one another in small groups or individually with the teacher. Third is the structure of critique: this is a central structure for discussion and reflection, and is focused on completed or in-process student works. The summative visual arts structure is that of exhibition; for performing arts, performance. This structure facilitates evaluation of specific pieces of student work to be displayed, the manner of exhibition, what of the and in what context. Exhibition and performance often occurs outside of class space and time and can involve any or all of the other three structures (Hetland et al., 2013).

The studio structures provide a breakdown of the elements of the instruction offered in an arts studio space that can be understood and connected to general education practices and implemented by teachers in all content areas. Trademarks of studio learning settings include hands-on and experiential learning (visualize a dance studio, art studio, rehearsal hall, design lab, or makerspace). In these settings students are collaborating, finding flow, expanding their creativity, asking questions, responding and making meaning to the work of peers and professionals. Not all classrooms were designed as a physical studio space, but teachers who are seeking a classroom with the atmosphere of a studio may be interested in how the patterns of pedagogy used in the art studio setting promote deep learning and student engagement.

Deep learning

In this project the term deep learning is conceptualized according to the definition offered by Michael Fullan. According to Michael Fullan’s definition (2018), deep learning is characterized by the six C’s: thinking critically, communicating clearly, working collaboratively, embracing culture, developing creativity and utilizing connectivity. There are other titles for similar understandings of deep learning in the national science and math standards (Mathematics Standards | Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2021; Next Generation Science Standards, 2021), in P21’s description of 21st Century Skills (Battelle for Kids, 2021), and Harvard produced Project Zero’s definition in the Teaching for Understanding Framework. In the Teaching for Understanding Framework, Blythe and her associates consider deep learning to be the capacity to use what you know flexibly in novel circumstances (Blythe, 2009). Howard Gardner, another Harvard professor with Project Zero, described deep learning as knowledge that is “not a mile wide and an inch deep”, that is, deep learning isn’t knowledge acquisition in classes that is then immediately forgotten upon leaving the learning environment, but lasting knowledge (Big Thinkers: Howard Gardner on Multiple Intelligences, 2021). This knowledge comes, he says, when students can acquire knowledge in specific areas while nurturing the habits and dispositions that are part of the discipline (Gardner, 2000).

The authors focused predominantly on the definition offered by Fullan because of the focus on Fullan’s work in the local school district where this project occurred. Aligning with the local school district's vision for learning is an important part of engaging in professional learning through a public school partnership program. Building on shared values and instructional language Sarah and Heather were able to make authentic connections and build relationships with the coordinating classroom teacher who had also received professional development experiences on Michael Fullan’s definition of deep learning. Additionally, this definition supports the author’s personal understanding of deep learning and provides a framework that can be named, identified, and observed in a teaching instance whether observed live or analyzed through video documentation which is important for data collection and analysis.

Findings and discussion

Sarah and Heather analyzed their field notes and video recordings and found that the most interesting phenomena that impact student learning occurred where the studio structures overlapped or intersected one another. A description of the identified intersections follows. As much of the data collected and analyzed was part of Sarah’s own self-study, the pronoun “I” moving forward will always reference Sarah’s ideas and work.

Sarah designed her lessons around these four studio structures. After her first lesson, Sarah discovered that they did most of the talking, explaining, doing and thinking. Sarah describes their experience this way: “Throughout the project, as we coded footage, and as I reflected, it was clear to me that the students were the most engaged when they were personally involved, moving, and doing when they were at work. I realized I lost student attention when I did a lot of talking, and that due to the lack of participation and engagement, deep learning did not occur. After realizing this, I knew something had to change. I began to focus on getting the students involved and working on content objectives as soon as possible and for as long as possible.”

As Sarah made improvements to their demonstration-lecture based on these self-reflective observations, both authors began to see deep learning and engagement increase among the students’ experiences. As students-at-work began to grow into critique and performance/exhibition they discovered that deep learning was not so much about one specific studio structure but about student engagement within each structure. Engagement and deep learning seemed especially present at the intersection or overlap of two or more of the four studio structures. “Thus, as I was intentional about implementing more time where students were actively involved, it became clear that these moments occurred not only in the structure of students-at-work, but at all of the intersections of students at work with the other structures (i.e. students working on critique, students working on performance).” When students were doing the learning and could be present throughout the majority of the lesson, engagement was maximized.

Sarah describes this realization: “I modeled movement for students while verbally describing what I was doing (demonstration/lecture). During this same time students began to mirror what I was doing, thus engaging in the structure of students-at-work. This happened many times. I side-coached while dancing and moving with the students, sometimes as a whole class, other times with small groups performing as part of a formative assessment of their developing skill. Students performing for peers became a method for practice. The students performed many times before they had a final performance in which both the structures of students-at-work and performance could be identified.”

“Additionally,” Sarah continues, “I observed children in the audience using their hands to mark the dance steps on the ground as their peers performed—thus the audience members were also students-at-work. Furthermore, in these situations I often called directions for the dance, and side-coached what was happening in varying ways, thus students using those instructions were also participating in demonstration-lecture.”

Sarah and Heather soon realized that the studio structures overlapped each other and appeared in a variety of ways. Students practicing were, in the most literal sense, students-at-work. Others in the audience were at work by critiquing their own performance or the performance of others. Students listening or viewing a performance were participating in demonstration-lecture as they engaged in observing a model of the performance. Students who had mastered the dance may have been at work performing what they learned.

Determining exactly which studio structure students are engaged with at any certain point in the lesson is difficult: while the structures may be clearly outlined in the lesson plan, direct observation of learning shows distinct overlap with each structure throughout the lesson. However, this sort of clarity is not essential for engagement or deep learning. Utilizing four structures which support student development on their individual levels and in their unique stages of understanding deepened student learning. Additionally, using the structures to shape the lesson plan allowed students to experience each one while simultaneously showing some variability in how student engagement was demonstrated within each structure.

“In observing the reality of my teaching practice, I found new knowledge that immediately influenced and improved my pedagogical skills. As I observed and analyzed the overlap of the structures in dialogue with Heather we began to draw conclusions about the relationship between deep learning and the Four Studio Structures.” The intersection of the studio structures provides insight into how those structures uniquely impact student learning and engagement. Evidence of this phenomena along with a description of a few of these intersections is outlined below.

The intersection of demonstration-lecture and students-at-work

Sarah describes her thinking about the overlapping structures and stages this way. “One of the most important intersections of the studio structures that I want to distinguish is the connection between demonstration lecture and side coaching, which is part of students at work. According to Hetland, demonstration lecture is, “a brief visually-rich lecture by the teacher which conveys information that students will use immediately” (Hetland et al., 2013, p. 21). There are four main aspects that must be included: a general, brief overview of the expectations for students (what will they be doing), visual representation (what might it look like), direct relevance to a very proximate experience, and connection (demonstration-lecture should relate skills to concepts that will further be developed in the other stages—hence the essential overlap of one structure with another) (Hetland et al., 2013). Side coaching is the intersection where students-at-work meets demonstration-lecture as teachers support student engagement and experimentation. I assert that within this overlap of definition, side coaching could be considered a form of demonstration-lecture which occurs during students-at-work: side coaching continually clarifies, extends, and deepens student understanding and creativity.”

Demonstration-lecture and students-at-work overlap as students grapple with concepts while receiving support from a teacher who is side coaching and modeling. An example of this is found when the BrainDance was taught to students. BrainDance is a structured movement sequence aimed at supporting brain development and sensory integration developed by Anne Green Gilbert at the Creative Dance Center in Seattle, Washington. “I would explain a step in the BrainDance such as body/side, encouraging the students to imagine that their bodies are divided in half and that only the right side moves, the left side must be perfectly still. While I described this verbally, I modeled with my own body what I meant, and what that might look like (demonstration-lecture). Simultaneously students were trying this step on their own (students at work). As I watched, I continued to side coach and scaffold and extend with suggestions such as, ‘Can you move your fingers? How could you demonstrate perfect stillness on the left side? Can you do this at a different level?’ and so forth. In this process, the students are grappling with the idea of the dance, they are creating, they are connecting ideas, and expressing their own ideas. I am guiding, modeling, demonstrating, and asking probing questions to further student work and provide appropriate challenges. An intentional blend of students-at-work into a demonstration-lecture, can enhance student engagement in the often static structure of demonstration-lecture.”

Another example of this comes from a lesson I taught on exponents. “As I prepared to teach this lesson, it was clear that I needed to introduce vocabulary and ideas, and ensure math concepts were solid before I could integrate dance and music. I asked students ‘What do you know about exponents? What does that mean?’ I then related ideas about notation (outlined as the standard) to levels in dance (high, middle, or low levels) by defining and demonstrating these levels for the students (i.e. the base number is at a lower level than the exponent written on the higher level). I then defined pitch, introduced several instruments and students showed me using the physical response: thumbs up, thumbs to the side, and thumbs down to convey how high or low the pitch was. The demonstration-lecture described allowed students to later in the lesson use dance and music to notate exponents. Students moved at low levels and played low sounds for base numbers and moved at high levels and played high pitches to represent the level of the exponent when written in proper notation. During this time, students were given equations to explore through music and movement: first as a whole class, then in small groups, then they created their own equation and matched visual and sound representation in those groups.

“Throughout the process, I explored with the students (whole class), monitored and participated with groups, and watched as students created and taught their own equations. I engaged in visual modeling and representations, asked guiding and extending questions, gave brief cues, connected dance and music concepts to exponents, and gave immediate informative and applicable suggestions and feedback. At times, I clarified questions as students worked, and at times I called out a cue to students. During this portion of students-at-work, demonstration-lecture was present, though at times in the form of side coaching.”

The intersection of students-at-work and exhibition/performance

As Sarah’s project developed, she used performances to strengthen understanding and to further student development and growth. “Part of my pedagogical belief is that students learn when they are able to form their own ideas and explore concepts. I used performance as a method to accomplish this and to assess student learning and understanding. For example, when teaching math concepts such as exponents in relation to levels in dance and pitches in music, I expected students to perform high and low pitches to show their understanding of equations and notating numbers, and to represent math equations by dancing at different levels. Students performed for peers and then evaluated their own understanding to strengthen concepts. During this performance, students were still grappling with the concepts that were being taught. Performances occurred both halfway through the lesson, focusing on music and dance concepts independently, and then again comprehensively at the end of the lesson in small groups.”

At this point, an important distinguishing remark must be made in regard to the spectrum of possibilities regarding performance. Performance can be summative: such as an art exhibition, for example—something which has taken a large amount of time to plan, prepare for, and that is meant to be the final product of learning and achievement of skills. In contrast, performance may reference the time when an artist is demonstrating a skill informally such as painting in a studio or performing movement sequences in the rehearsal hall. In both examples, the artist is performing and has practiced, but the informal performance is used as a tool to strengthen the summative performance or exhibition such as a gallery opening or dance concert. This means during a classroom performance a student still learning, mastering the movement, and capturing a vision, is working within an informal performance structure to enhance their skills and presence for a summative or final performance.

A relationship with engagement

Engagement was difficult to distinguish. “In one video a group of students are dancing, and one student stops. Rather than continuing, she observes her neighbors’ performance. She stands out as disengaged. Is she giving up?? Is she off task? Or is she intently watching her neighbor’s feet to visually see the steps and will join in again in a moment when she is able? Knowing the student, I predicted the latter and determined she was engaged.

In a different clip, one boy who is doing the motions of the dance seems unengaged. His steps look lackadaisical and his face bored. In this situation, we again cannot determine whether he is engaged with the dance and the class because his face tells us one thing and his body another. Again drawing on my knowledge of the student, I predicted that he truly was not engaged in the dance. He puts on a façade of dancing but is not engaged in the artistic process, contemplating what he is doing, or connecting to what it means.” Thus, like the four structures, visible and observable evidence of engagement amongst individuals varies. Blanket statements concerning the four structures and engagement, like all students are learning in one stage or all students are engaged/disengaged, cannot be clearly made in any case, because, these practical interactions are complex! Our observation of students “only tells us what they do, not how they learn to think” (Hetland et al., 2013). We cannot assume anything about deep learning that is not supported by authentic assessment or action, whether that be a visual representation of a skill or written or verbal evidence of knowledge gained.

Sarah reflected further on her observations regarding engagement. “As I provided more time for students to interact both with one another and the content, I witnessed deep learning and greater engagement. Our concluding conversations at the closure of lessons were deeper, and student understanding was evident from the products students created, the way students moved and the thoughtful ways students expressed what they learned during each class.” My field notes record the changes I witnessed: “students were more creative, more willing to make mistakes to deepen learning; I observed more personality from the students which allowed me to better scaffold and teach to individuals; engaged students needed less management; students experienced more ownership of learning, deeper investment in lesson material and a greater sense of accomplishment in learning and creativity.”

“In reviewing and coding the videos, I relived the experience of students asking questions and working through ideas as they extended the lessons and ideas in ways that were powerful and individual to them. In relation to Michael Fullan’s six C’s of deep learning–thinking critically, communicating clearly, working collaboratively, embracing culture, developing creativity, and utilizing connectivity–each of these components was most present during the structure and overlap of students-at-work with other structures.”

“During students-at-work, students thought critically about concepts and explored multiple ways to express concepts and their understanding. Students shared their thought process about what they would create or how they would express ideas, and it was clear students had thought deeply about their plan as they extended their own learning and projects. Students communicated through their work on paper, through verbal answers and through dance and music as they worked in groups and individually. When working in groups, each group collaborated to share their ideas and perform—demonstrating understanding of the core standard taught and the unique aspects of each individual group member.”

“Towards the end of the project I had the opportunity to teach a cultural dance from Romania. As the fifth graders learned and practiced the dance, I could tell that they took the meaning seriously and had become a community of learners. The students helped teach one another the difficult steps and worked as a class to master the dance—practicing continually until they had the steps perfected. Finally, they were able to join hands and as a class perform the dance. As I danced with the class, I saw evidence that the students not only learned the dance, appreciated the meaning of the dance and the culture being represented, but also learned important lifeskills in the process. In addition, I confirmed through observation and further coding of videos that the structure of students-at-work overlaps with all three of the other structures and that students are more frequently engaged in the structure of students-at-work.”

Conclusions

At the completion of this study, it is recommended that teachers use the four studio structures to integrate the arts in their classrooms and to enhance and encourage creativity, communication, critical thinking, collaboration, character and culture and as teachers work toward deep learning for students. As the four studio structures were used in this study, the outlined six c’s were more prevalent in the classroom. Focusing on the structures allowed for deeper learning and reflection to take place both on behalf of the teacher and the students.

Partnership models provide fertile ground for educators of all skills and experience to participate in the expansion of the field of education as well as personal and professional development. With broad, comprehensive goals, a commitment to clinical practice, professional learning, leadership, reflection and innovation, the University Arts Partnership was the perfect place for both Sarah and Heather to grow in their practice and understanding of the four studio structures for learning, deep learning in the classroom and self-study as a method for action research. With a partnership in place to support this type of activity Sarah and Heather were able to transcend the traditional role of student teacher and university mentor and collaborate on their project as critical friends and co-researchers.

Sarah reflects on her experience with the Arts Bridge Program, “I am grateful for the experience, pedagogical knowledge, and management practices that have shaped my current teaching. I use skills that I learned during my time working with the partnership every day in my teaching now. The opportunity to work in the classroom while being supported with a research opportunity changed my ideas about teaching and has helped me engage students and create hands-on lesson plans and individualized learning for the students I now teach. This experience has made me a better teacher as I am more reflective of my teaching, willing to make changes, and am more intentional with my practices to make sure they are relevant and meaningful to student learning.”

Sarah Barnett (SarahBBBarnett@gmail.com) is an elementary educator currently teaching second-grade.

Heather Francis (heather_francis@byu.edu) is a secondary math and dance educator currently working as an instructional designer for the BYU Arts Partnership at Brigham Young University.