THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ART & DESIGN EDUCATION, 2017

DOI: 10.1111/jade.12153

Thinking Drawing
Eileen Adams

ABSTRACT
This article draws heavily on the author’s critical autobiography: Eileen Adams: Agent of Change. It pre-
sents evidence of the value of drawing as a medium for learning, particularly in art and design, and
argues that drawing is a useful educational tool. The premise is that drawing makes you think. This arti-
cle explains various functions that drawing serves to prompt different kinds of thinking, and shares a
framework that describes the purposes of drawing in supporting learning. It explains how action
research was used to initiate change in the way teachers in schools and educators in other settings
think about drawing, and how they might utilise it to support learning. It offers a glimpse of how evi-
dence was generated, interpreted, validated and disseminated to illuminate practice and prompt devel-
opment. It challenges teachers and researchers to create a fresh impetus for drawing as a medium for
learning.
KEYWORDS
drawing, thinking, learning, education, research, development

Introduction
My work has explored relationships between practice and theory: a key focus has been the synthesis and
application of new knowledge about drawing [1]. My particular interest has been the ability of drawing prac-
tice in educational settings to generate drawing knowledge (Garner 2008). I have worked as an independent
researcher most often outwith the university setting, and I draw on the experience of a number of projects
and programmes that I have directed or evaluated to share the results of the research and show the process
of development. Evidence is drawn mainly from work in schools, but has also been gleaned from other set-
tings. Drawing has been a subject for study and drawings a means of collecting evidence and disseminating
results. The emphasis has been on drawing to learn rather than on learning to draw. The main concern has
been the process of drawing within learning activities, rather than drawing as a product of the learning
process.

Drawing and research

In some ways, my approach to research has been similar to the way I draw. Both have involved experience,
exploration, investigation, observation, recording, analysis, experiment, imagination, invention, synthesis,
interpretation, articulation and communication. In both drawing and research, following the initial impetus, I
have been involved in a continual dialogue, responding to the emerging form while attempting to influence
and shape it. I tend to work across the whole thing, rather than work up parts in detail, one at a time. I work
quickly, with concentration, engaging in the process intellectually and emotionally. I make use of experience,
habit, conventional techniques and established practices as well as trying to be innovative – and I must
admit that happy accidents play a part in shaping my approach. The main differences between how I draw
and how I operate as a researcher is that for me, drawing tends to be a personal, private, solitary activity,
whereas my research has had a public focus and has depended on interaction and collaboration with others.

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 ADAMS 245

I am aware that talking and writing about drawing and about learning through drawing does not always
get close to the original experience. Translating experience, in particular using conventions employed in
research activity, can mask our underlying assumptions. I identify with the recent reflection by John Berger
(Berger 2016, 4) that ‘true translation is not a binary affair between two languages but a triangular affair. The
third point of the triangle being what lay behind the words of the original text before it was written. True
translation demands a return to the pre-verbal.’

Purposes of drawing
I can see a parallel in my involvement in research. Perhaps a return to the pre-verbal will illuminate my
understanding of the use of drawing. This was established in childhood. In my hometown of Greenock in
the 1950s, clever boys were good at drawing, as they were going to be draughtsmen in the shipyards on
Clydeside – good money, high status. I was a clever girl, destined to be a teacher, but decided that I would
be good at drawing too, assuming that drawing was a useful and valuable capability. This was true for me
as an only child: I drew a lot, creating scenarios derived from my everyday experience and from my rich
imaginative life. The influences were not from fine art, but from drawings I encountered as illustrations in
books and comics, such as Our Wullie and The Broons created by Dudley Watkins in the Sunday Post, as well
as ways in which I saw drawing in action.
For example, if I asked any of my uncles, all of whom worked in the shipyards, to explain something to
me, they would take a joiner’s pencil and draw a diagram on the back of an old envelope, saying ‘Let me
get my head around this!’ They would then show me their drawing, and go through it, explaining what the
marks meant, asking if I understood. I would get bored and walk away. If I looked back, they would still be
working on the drawing, modifying it, adding to it, revising it to think more fully about the problem I had
posed. I now realise that I understood that drawing was marks that have meaning. I am now aware that my
uncles were using drawing for different purposes: to clarify and understand something for themselves; to
communicate that understanding to me; to think about ideas and to be inventive. These insights were to
stay with me as an adult and to underpin my professional practice.
Since 1970, I have made use of drawing in all my work as a teacher and researcher, but through involvement
with The Campaign for Drawing (now known as The Big Draw), I was able to explore drawing more fully. The
Campaign was set up in 2000 to celebrate the centenary of John Ruskin. His view was that drawing prompted
a particular mindset, involving observing, analysing, reflecting, understanding and thinking – learning ‘to see’
(Ruskin 1858). The Campaign set out to influence people’s attitudes to drawing. It developed a groundswell of
interest in the use of drawing as a medium for engagement, participation and learning in a variety of settings,
including schools, museums, galleries, heritage sites, libraries and community organisations. It drew attention
to the importance of drawing, not just as a practical or technical skill in art and design, but also as an intellec-
tual activity with a much broader compass, able to foster learning in a variety of cultural settings. The Cam-
paign aimed to raise the profile of drawing and to promote its use as a tool for thought, creativity and cultural
engagement. Through my work on Power Drawing, the Campaign’s education programme, I was able to articu-
late my understanding of the purposes of drawing and its educational benefits.

Taxonomies
Deanna Petherbridge, for a time a patron of the Campaign, is aware of the difficulty of defining drawing,
observing that it

seldom attracts consensus views. Instead it invites frustration or obsession in attempting to clarify something
which is slippery and irresolute in its fluid status as performative act and idea; as sign, and symbol and signifier;

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
246 ADAMS

as conceptual diagram as well as medium and process and technique, with many uses, manifestations and appli-
cations. (Petherbridge 2008, 27)

Stephen Farthing prompts us to understand drawing ‘as an intellectually and emotionally driven com-
pendium of possibilities, not simply a craft subject attached to the past by the life room and to the future
by digital modelling’ (Farthing 2011, 25). Taxonomies produced by Farthing and others such as Xenia Danos
(Danos 2014) have concentrated on classifying types of drawing. An analysis by John Berger draws verbal
parallels: drawings ‘which study and question the visible, those which put down and communicate ideas,
and those done from memory’, which he relates to the present indicative, the conditional and the past tense
(Berger 2005, 46).
As a young teacher, I was used to classifying drawings based on subject matter (e.g. portrait, landscape),
medium (e.g. water colour, charcoal, print) or purpose (e.g. observational drawings, imaginative drawings
and designs). I began to realise that to understand drawing as a medium for learning in schools, it was more
helpful to ask what is the drawing for, rather than what is the drawing of or how is the drawing made? It
was more important to consider what the pupils learned through drawing than it was to focus on what the
drawing looked like.
I asked what functions should drawing serve as part of the learning process, and developed a framework
through discussion with members of an advisory group for the Campaign for Drawing: Ken Baynes, Norman
Binch and Steve Garner. The framework identifies four broad purposes for drawing as a medium for learning:
perception, communication, invention and action. There are of course numerous sub-categories.

Perception
Drawing as perception is that which assists the ordering of sensations, feelings, ideas and thoughts. The
drawing is done primarily for the need, pleasure, interest or benefit of the person doing the drawing. It
might enable them to explore and to develop observation and interpretative skills to investigate and under-
stand the world. Other people might not understand these drawings, but that does not matter, they are pri-
marily for the benefit of the drawer to understand something (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Drawing as perception: sketchbook drawings of landscape (14 year old)

Communication
Drawing as communication is that which assists the process of making ideas, thoughts and feelings available
to others. Here, the intention is to communicate sensations, feelings or ideas to someone else. It is likely that
certain codes or conventions will be used so that the viewer will be helped to understand what is being
communicated. It might be for an unknown audience. It might be to support group interaction, discussion

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 ADAMS 247

Figure 2. Drawing as communication: a drawing / collage as part of a video animation ‘The Naughty Dogs’ (6 year old)

or other learning activity. The key thing is that the viewer needs to understand the codes or conventions
that are being used (Figure 2).

Invention
Drawing as invention is that which assists the creative manipulation and development of thought. This is
where you cannot think the thought until it is made visible and accessible, capable of change and manipula-
tion. Ideas are at an embryonic stage, unformed or only partly formed at the beginning of the process of
drawing. Ideas take shape when the drawer experiences ‘reflexive oscillation’ between impulse, ideas and
mark, receiving feedback from the marks appearing on the page, which prompt further thought and mark-
making. Usually the drawing is one of a series, where ideas are explored, repeated, refined, practised, worked
over, discarded, combined, where alternatives are sought and alternative possibilities explored. Key activities
here are translation, formation, transformation and invention (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Drawing as invention: conceptual sketch for a new bridge across the River Thames (9 year old)

Action
Drawing as action is that which helps to put ideas into action. These drawings form a bridge between the
realm of the imagination and implementation. The intention is not just to focus on the content of ideas and
proposals, but also to put them to the test and see how to put them into effect. Plans, patterns and tem-
plates, for example (Figure 4).
These explanations are in all the Power Drawing books published by The Campaign for Drawing, in which
examples of drawing by children, students and professionals reveal that the same types of drawing can

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
248 ADAMS

feature in more than one category. Just as different kinds of speaking and writing serve different purposes,
drawings need to be understood not only as ends in themselves, but as perceptual, conceptual and expres-
sive tools. We adopted a working definition of drawing as ‘marks that have meaning’, recognising that they
are made using a range of codes and conventions.

Figure 4. Drawing as action: drawing / 3D paper and card collage, design for a stage set (16 year old)

Drawing makes you think

Words and numbers represent ideas and enable us to shape and communicate thoughts through codifying
information: so does drawing. Stephen Farthing reminds us that ‘drawing throughout history has been driven
by our need to measure, estimate, imagine, record and invent’. He explains:

the two most significant discoveries within drawing have been: first the realization that three-dimensional things
can be represented in two dimensions by an outline; then that places, things, time, directions and quantities can
be represented by marks that have only a passing relationship with what they represent. (Farthing 2011, 25)

Seen in isolation, marks that make up a drawing have no obvious meaning. Taken together, and through
the use of certain codes and conventions in making the marks and relating them to each other, we can cre-
ate meaning. Dots, lines, curves, blots, shapes, splodges of colour, areas of shading and hatching and the
positioning of the marks can imply distance, direction, division, enclosure, edge, form, location, movement,
size, scale, space and time. They can represent people, structures and natural form. They can suggest physi-
cal or emotional qualities such as light, weight, movement, balance and rhythm. They can suggest not only
material phenomena, but also abstractions such as beauty, peace, struggle or violence. Drawing allows us to
respond to spaces and places that have a physical presence, to visualise distant environments, and to imag-
ine those that exist only in the mind’s eye. Drawing makes it possible for us to understand the mathematics
of space or appreciate the poetry of place.
Different kinds of drawing develop our capacity for different kinds of thinking. It offers ways of knowing,
thinking and doing that link cognitive, affective and practical modes of study: not only does it nurture intel-
lectual curiosity and visual intelligence, but it also contributes to emotional and social intelligence. It is per-
haps easier to think about this if we shift our idea of drawing as picture-making to drawing as modelling,

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 ADAMS 249

engaging in an activity that acts as an equivalent of some thing or some process by means of something
suitably analogous:

The term ‘model’ is commonly used by scientists, mathematicians, technologists and designers to mean some-
thing that stands for something else. In general, models are powerful because they isolate aspects of reality and
allow us to represent, interpret, manipulate or control it. Models have predictive power because, to use comput-
ing language, they can be ‘run’ (played with) to simulate what will happen if proposed changes are carried out.
They are indispensable for design activity because they allow designers to develop their designs and understand
their likely effect before they are put into practice. (Baynes 2013, 42)

This echoes the view of physicist Erich Harth, who believes that speech and visualisation both evolved not
as communication skills, but as thinking skills. He posits the idea that formulating mental images is a means
of extending short-term memory to enable people to store information and simulate reality. This helps
develop the ability to compare and contrast, to understand causes and consequences and to solve problems
(Steinhart, 2004).
Drawing can be used to generate ideas; it can help us externalise and manipulate ideas to clarify, order,
develop and refine thinking; it can enable us to communicate with others; it can make it possible for us to
put ideas into effect. Although it has particular significance in art, craft and design education, drawing has
wider relevance:

Learning to draw, while no longer a privileged activity in either school or specialist art teaching, remains an
activity of enormous importance and potency for education as a whole. Learning to observe, to investigate, to
analyse, the compare, to critique, to select, to imagine, to play and to invent constitutes the veritable paradigm
of functioning effectively in the world. (Petherbridge 2010, 233)

Drawing in schools needs to be seen less as a practical skill and more as a learning strategy that can be
used across the curriculum. Like words and numbers, drawing makes thought visible, accessible and capable
of manipulation. In essence, drawing makes you think!

Attitudes
How we have regarded and valued drawing has changed over the years. Drawing in illuminated mediaeval
manuscripts celebrated the glory of God. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, drawing techniques
that have persisted to this day were developed and refined not only to document people, places and things,
but also to see the world afresh and to invent it anew. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, drawing
was viewed as a means of exploring and documenting the natural world, evident in activities such as cartog-
raphy, botanical and medical illustration. In the nineteenth century, it was seen as an important tool in man-
ufacturing trades and in the professions, from decorating ceramics and illustration to engineering and
architecture. Our consumer societies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries rely on drawing to design
the products, systems and environments that shape our material culture and everyday life. Until the 1960s, it
featured as a significant element in the training of artists and designers and art/design teachers. After that,
there was a decline in the teaching of drawing, as art took other directions and drawing became a hidden
reality in shaping and framing our existence.
However, in the twenty-first century, there has been a resurgence of interest in drawing, not only because
of the possibilities of digital technology and the popularity of animation, but also because there is growing
recognition of the importance of drawing as a tool that enables us to think, not only about our experience,
but also about the forms of things unknown (Read 1960). We can see how this might play out in invention

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
250 ADAMS

in design, but also it is apparent in scientific research and in ways in which we construct reality. David
Glowacki talks about ‘the aesthetics of scientific imagination’ – the ‘“design” decisions entailed in scientific
visualization’:

This is particularly important in domains which cannot be seen with the naked eye, because our scientific intu-
ition is guided by the aesthetic representations we use to imagine phenomena which are otherwise invisible. In
fact I would almost go so far to claim that imagery is the reality in these domains, profoundly impacting how
we communicate these ‘realities’, in both research and educational contexts. This is a radical transformation in
how we think about scientific reality, which empowers our aesthetic imagination to help us construct the ways
that we imagine the world around us.
. . . I like this research paradigm, with aesthetic enquiry and scientific enquiry locked in mutual dialogue, each
pushing one another into new territories. (Glowacki 2016)

Drawing can be a means to an end, as well as an end in itself, both a process and a product. In schools, art/
design and drawing are often viewed in terms of making and representing, and students’ abilities are
gauged in terms of performance, based on the evidence of finished products. However, White (2011)
reminds us that they should also be seen as searching, knowing and doubting. This is important in students’
work, where drawing provides both a tool for and evidence of enquiry, where drawing is as much about
how they learn as what they know.
Drawing is about shaping and sharing thought. In this sense, it is not a performance or merely the exer-
cise of a discrete set of techniques to communicate, ‘it is a long and complex haul that will be more con-
cerned with the development of intellectual curiosity, confidence, wit and imagination than the acquisition
of technical skills’ (Farthing 2005). It is a way of knowing, or more accurately, ‘a coming to know – the
gesture of my thinking’ (Mey 2005, quoted in Cain 2010, 20). Its prime value in schools is as a medium for
learning.

Action research
In much of my work, I have adopted the model of action research. The starting points have been teach-
ers’ experience, and the need or opportunity to extend their professional practice. Action research is
essentially a practical, problem-solving approach, which seeks to empower practitioners to research and
reflect on their own practice. In this form of research, the study of change is preferred to the study of
texts, the study of cases of practice is preferred to the study of experimental samples, and the focus of
enquiry is on practical issues as distinct from theoretical issues. The conduct of the investigation is con-
trolled by participants themselves in a collaborative framework of dialogue validated by colleagues and
co-professionals (Bell 1987).
I was initially encouraged by the views of two psychologists, Toby Wall at the University of Sheffield and
David Uzzell at the University of Surrey, and then found support in the work of theorists such as Scho €n,
Stenhouse, Kemmis and Lomax. Opportunities to compare and contrast our work in the UK with that in
other countries and to test out ideas and study methods in international settings helped crystallise my think-
ing. I acknowledge the influence of those colleagues in teacher education in other countries who have con-
tributed to development: primarily Ron Corso and Margaret White in Australia, Angelika Plank in Austria,
Gabi Nieto in Portugal and Paul Sproll in the USA.
Educators in a range of settings were helped to revisit their use of drawing, a familiar activity they per-
haps took for granted, and to invest it with new meaning. They reported that they found the experience of
reviewing, reflecting on their work and presenting it for scrutiny both enjoyable and valuable. It enabled
them to understand their practice more fully and to revisit their use of drawing. Visual evidence was

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 ADAMS 251

important, including photographs of students engaged in study activities as well as the drawings they pro-
duced. Teachers were asked to provide written commentaries to explain and interpret the work of their stu-
dents. Without the context, commentary, explanation and insights that the written material provided, images
were not able to carry sufficient meaning about the nature, purposes and processes involved in study.
Teachers were able to contribute to the body of knowledge about learning and teaching through docu-
menting, evaluating and sharing their work. Significant change may be created by a critical mass of people
who share similar ideas and ways of working, and are able to bring their collective energies to bear upon
particular problems. This is also the way a body of knowledge can be built up about situations that are
dynamic and about which there is little existing theory.
Qualitative research techniques throw light on individuals’ experiences and perceptions. Such an approach
seeks insights rather than verification.
Evaluation took the form of peer review, supported by critical friends. It required validation by educated
witnesses who were able to compare work with similar elsewhere or with precedents, and to offer a critique.
The thinking that underpinned the programmes was developed through consultation and critical review to
turn research findings into practical advice and guidance, widely disseminated through publications, work-
shops, courses and conferences. These experiences created a model of research and development to lever
changes in attitudes and practices, which has particular value for both curriculum development and profes-
sional development.
Courses provided face-to face contact with participants, shared good practice, introduced new ideas and
working methods and provided opportunities to test out drawing strategies. Conferences and seminars were
opportunities for critical reflection and helped place ideas about drawing in the wider contexts of pedagogy
and research. Various kinds of publications permitted wide dissemination of the ideas and methods. Cam-
paigning reflected the constant need for advocacy. Engagement in committees and working parties facili-
tated networking, and in some cases created opportunities to influence policy in organisations and
institutions. International work extended the sphere of influence.

Challenge
Our challenge as educators and researchers must be to extend and enrich the discourse about drawing as a
medium for learning, to establish modes of thought and action through drawing that will enable us to
engage with experiences and ideas of the twenty-first century. This requires us to consider the nature of
new knowledge and who benefits from it:
• Is it really ‘new’ knowledge, or is it knowledge that has been lost, forgotten or sidelined, and needs to be
reaffirmed, reworked, represented and recontextualised?
• Is the knowledge we generate through our research valuable or useful?
• If so, who values it? Who uses it? How do they access it?

Much of my effort has been directed at teachers, but in my book I address researchers and policy mak-
ers. One of the ten recommendations I make is that visual education should be experienced in a range
of curriculum areas and institutional settings. It should be framed not only in terms of art and design. It
should be based on learning through making: making sense, making meaning, making things and mak-
ing things happen. Visual literacy, as much as verbal literacy, should permeate the curriculum. As
researchers, we need to support art and design teachers to make use of a much wider range of draw-
ing strategies, articulate the use of drawing more accurately and promote its value more convincingly.
Just as English teachers take the lead in developing verbal literacy across the curriculum, we need to
extend the role of the art and design teacher to take responsibility for drawing across the curriculum to
support visual education.

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
252 ADAMS

Note
1. This article draws heavily on my critical autobiography: (Adams 2016). Figures 1–4 are reproduced by kind
permission of the publisher, Loughborough Design Press.

Eileen Adams is an independent consultant with broad experience as a teacher, teacher educator,
researcher, examiner and writer. Making connections between art, design and environmental education, she
has sought to improve practice and to develop the field in schools, museums and galleries, as well as cen-
tres for urban studies and architecture. She has served as external examiner in higher education and as Dep-
uty Chief Examiner in Art/Design for the International Baccalaureate. Her research interests have included
themes such as inter-professional collaboration in education, young people’s participation in environmental
change, the school as a learning environment, public art and drawing as a medium for learning. She shares
her experience through publications, conferences, exhibitions, films and courses in the UK and internation-
ally. Email: eileenadams75@gmail.com

References
Adams, E. (2016) Eileen Adams: Agent of Change: In Art, Design and Environmental Education. Shepshed: Loughborough Design Press.
Baynes, K. (2013) Design: Models of Change: The Impact of Designerly Thinking on People’s Lives and the Environment. Shepshed: Lough-
borough Design Press.
Bell, J. (1987) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education and Social Science. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Berger, J. (2005) Berger on Drawing. Aghabullogue, Co. Cork: Occasional Press.
Berger, J. (2016) Confabulations. London: Penguin Random House.
Cain, P. (2010) Drawing: The Enactive Evolution of the Practitioner. Bristol: Intellect.
Danos, X. (2014) Graphicacy and Culture: Refocusing on Visual Learning. Shepshed: Loughborough Design Press.
Farthing, S. (2005) Dirtying the Paper Delicately. London: University of the Arts.
Farthing, S. (2011) The bigger picture of drawing, in A. Kantrowitz, A. Brew & M. Fava [Eds] Thinking through Drawing: Practice into
Knowledge, Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Symposium on Drawing, Cognition and Education, Teachers College, Columbia Univer-
sity, New York, Symposium: 28–29 October, New York Teachers College, pp. 21–5.
Garner, S. (2008) Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing Practice and Research. Bristol: Intellect.
Glaser, M. (2008) Drawing Is Thinking. London: Overlook Duckworth, Peter Mayer Publishers.
Glowacki, D. (2016) Big Draw Blog: Introducing. . . Dr David Glowacki – Scientist, Artist and Cultural Theorist! (online). Available at:
http://www.thebigdraw.org/introducing-dr-david-glowacki—scientist-artist-and-cultural-theorist (accessed 31 October 2016).
Petherbridge, D. (2008) Nailing the liminal: the difficulties of defining drawing, in S. Garner [Ed.] Writing on Drawing: Essays on Draw-
ing Practice and Research. Bristol: Intellect, pp. 27–42.
Petherbridge, D. (2010) The Primacy of Drawing: Histories and Theories of Practice. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Read, H. (1960) The Forms of Things Unknown. New York: Horizon Press.
Ruskin, J. (1858) Inaugural Address Cambridge School of Art (online). Available at: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/news/cambridge-school-of-
art-archive-exhibition (accessed 9 November 2016).
Steinhart, P. (2004) The Undressed Art: Why We Draw. New York: Random House.
White, K. (2011) 101 Things to Learn in Art School. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

iJADE 36.3 (2017)

ª 2017 The Author. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd