84 TEACHERs COLLEGE COLUmbIA UNIvERsITy
Developing a Cognitive model of Observational Drawing
drawing process, making it more difficult to pin-
point exactly when evaluation was taking place.
For example, AC paused frequently (roughly
every two seconds) usually holding the pencil
close to the surface of the paper, as if rehearsing
the marks while observing features in the mirror.
He would then watch himself draw a few marks
and review them for a fraction of a second before
returning his gaze to the mirror. This pattern of
behaviour was very consistent and can be observed
in the behavioural analysis (see figure 6). It is clearly
distinct from AR, who tends to draw continually for
several minutes, before pausing to evaluate (see fig-
ure 7)
It is unclear whether the relationship between
evaluation and verbalisation in Figure 5 is present
for AC, but there is clearly a strategy which segre-
gates periods with and without evaluation. He is
first apprehending features, then monitoring the
progress of a single mark before reviewing it in the
context of the surrounding drawing. Periodically he
might also step back from the drawing for a more
comprehensive assessment.
Distinct attentional strategies can also be identi-
fied. Each artist showed deliberate control over their
attentional modulation; this might be referred to as
top-down attentional control or selective attentional
tuning. This can be seen in the progression of the
types of features apprehended during subroutines
(including drawing subroutines and evaluative sub-
routines), as well as over the course of the drawing
as a whole. Concurrent reports of attentional strate-
gies were supplemented by retrospective reports, in
which the artists were able to give more detail about
what they were attending to during the process.
Evaluative subroutines usually progress from
high level to low level visual features, For example
the artist might initially look at the whole draw-
ing and ask “does it look weird? Or, Is it a good
likeness?” If somehow it feels wrong, they will
drill down to look for the cause by comparing the
drawing with the original to identify the part that
contains the error, before re-measuring or recon-
structing that part from low level features.
Drawing subroutines usually included longer
periods in which one or more types of features were
sought exclusively, and this would differ at varying
stages of the drawings. For example, AR roughly
phases her drawing activity in this way, attending
first to spatial relationships and sizes, followed by
planes, structure and tonal relationships, only later
looking for fine detail and texture.
The significant thing in both evaluative and
attentional activity was the level of control the art-
ists demonstrated. These skills are likely responsible
for the kinds of “perceptual advantages” Kozbelt
measured in artists (2001, 2010), and can be consid-
ered transferable in this sense.Significance of preliminary
findings and observations
I would like to propose that the distinction
between evaluative and attentional strategies can
be useful when considering how to facilitate learn-
ing. Drawing facilitates the development of meta-
cognitive control in these domains. We can think
of drawing instruction “as a training in thinking”
(Archer 2011), and can be mindful of a space in
which many approaches and conventions for draw-
ing exist. Students can be encouraged to navigate
their own strategies for “thinking through draw-
ing” that are appropriate for their own aims, rather
than merely learning conventions such as the Cold-
stream method. In doing so, they can gain aware-
ness and control of cognitive strategies which are
widely transferable.
It is also possible to use the model as a way of
considering other theories and accounts of artists’
thought processes (during drawing), although this
is outside the scope of the current paper. I would
like instead to address an issue that was raised sev-
eral times during the symposium; a perceived wide-
spread decline in drawing skill among UK school
leavers, and the phenomena of not feeling able to
draw, or an anxiety about drawing ability. I believe
these problems relate not only to the amount of
drawing in the curriculum, but might also be symp-
tomatic of the atmosphere in which attitudes to
learning are nurtured, in which assessment is (in
my view) overemphasised. This view is speculative,
but I will try to articulate it below, in order to invite
responses.
Arts education is often celebrated for develop-
ing critical judgement and problem solving abili-
ties. But the ability not to judge—to deliberately
postpone critical thought—is overlooked. I would
like to propose that this ability is an important skill
in the drawing process, as well as more broadly in
creative and learning processes. To run with an idea
before judging it can foster divergent thinking and
reveal unexpected outcomes, while drawing a line
non-judgementally can enable spontaneity and