# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) have launched a £2.5m fund to rectify an "urgent need" to provide "better evidence" of the impact of cultural learning approaches on attainment, based on a review that failed to include evidence about the impact of the world's longest-running arts education intervention.

The decision to establish the fund was in response to a literature review EEF commissioned from the University of Durham, which found "199 relevant studies" and concluded that there was "limited high-quality research" into the impact different arts approaches have on pupil outcomes.

But Creative Partnerships, a £380m government-funded programme which ran from 2002-2011, was not included in the EEF review. It reported " modest, but statistically significant improvements " on pupil learning at all key stages, but was not included in the EEF review because the programme and associated literature "did not contain the key words" used in a search.

New programme

The new £2.5m fund is to support trials of different activities, such as performance, museum and exhibition visits, and to focus on schools in areas of deprivation. Noting that schools are increasingly accountable for the impact of their spending decisions on pupil attainment, EEF believes there is a need for more evidence on the relative benefits of different approaches and strategies.

This is in spite of earlier studies aiming to provide precisely this. Writing in AP in 2004, then ACE Communications Coordinator David Armstrong said Creative Partnerships had been "explicitly focused" on learning outcomes. "One of the greatest problems in the past has been the short-lived nature of similar initiatives, meaning that benefits have not been passed on to future generations," he added.

Similarly, a Critical Review of the entire Creative Partnerships archive, now housed at the University of Nottingham, was released in 2015 - a year before the EEF review was published. It concluded that the main gap in research was for a longitudinal study tracking students' and teachers' learning over time, and said that "this is something any future national arts-based or cultural programme needs to do". The report also referred to annual research by the National Foundation for Education Research (NFER) for Creative Partnerships, which found statistically significant improvements on pupil learning at all key stages across all schools.

One of the two researchers who worked on the EEF review, Beng Huat See, said the NFER research and the Critical Review were not excluded because they were of an insufficient quality, but because the reports did not turn up in a document search.

"One of the reasons could be that the title of the report and the abstracts did not contain the key words that we used in our search: like 'arts', 'music', 'drama' and 'dance'," she said.

'No need for more research'

The view that there is insufficient evidence to support claims for the value of cultural learning approaches in schools is not one that is endorsed in Wales. "We are surprised at the suggestion that there is a lack of research on the impact of arts education. It has been the subject of academic study for many decades around the world," said Nick Capaldi, Chief Executive of the Arts Council of Wales.

In 2015, Wales committed to an overhaul of its entire curriculum, installing expressive arts as one of six 'areas of learning and experience' to replace traditional subjects for children aged 3 to 16.

The change emerged as the result of the ' Successful Futures ' report, which Capaldi labelled the "clearest possible endorsement of the value of putting arts and creativity at the heart of the curriculum".

"Creative Learning through the Arts - a major five-year initiative between the Arts Council of Wales and the Welsh Government - is founded on extensive international research and evidence," he added.

"Not all of this research will be equally persuasive, but we are convinced that embedding creativity in the school curriculum helps learning outcomes. This is the proposition that Creative Learning through the Arts is designed to test."

The RSA and EEF are looking for applications from arts and cultural organisations, schools, universities and other non-profit organisations by 15 February.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
£2.5m cultural learning fund overlooks key research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) have launched a £2.5m fund to rectify an "urgent need" to provide "better evidence" of the impact of cultural learning approaches on attainment, based on a review that failed to include evidence about the impact of the world's longest-running arts education intervention.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the obstacles to learning science through art?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the obstacles to learning science through art?

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps there are some forms of creative arts that are not suitable for science learning? Perhaps expectations and even stereotyped beliefs about artists and scientists get in the way of effective learning?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a stereotype, but many of us have made the assumption that scientists are a bit rigid and less artistic than others. Artists, on the other hand, are often seen as being less rational than the rest of us. Sometimes described as the left side of the brain versus the right side - or simply logical thinking versus artistic creativity - the two are often seen as polar opposites.

Neuroscience has already shown that everyone uses both sides of the brain when performing any task. And while certain patterns of brain activity have sometimes been linked to artistic or logical thinking, it doesn't really explain who is good at what - and why. That's because the exact interplay of nature and nurture is notoriously difficult to tease out. But if we put the brain aside for a while and just focus on documented ability, is there any evidence to support the logic versus art stereotype?

Psychological research has approached this question by distinguishing between two styles of thinking: convergent and divergent. The emphasis in convergent thinking is on analytical and deductive reasoning, such as that measured in IQ tests. Divergent thinking, however, is more spontaneous and free-flowing. It focuses on novelty and is measured by tasks requiring us to generate multiple solutions for a problem. An example may be thinking of new, innovative uses for familiar objects.

Studies conducted during the 1960s suggested that convergent thinkers were more likely to be good at science subjects at school. Divergent thinking was shown to be more common in the arts and humanities.

However, we are increasingly learning that convergent and divergent thinking styles need not be mutually exclusive. In 2011, researchers assessed 116 final-year UK arts and science undergraduates on measures of convergent and divergent thinking and creative problem solving. The study found no difference in ability between the arts and science groups on any of these measures. Another study reported no significant difference in measures of divergent thinking between arts, natural science and social science undergraduates. Both arts and natural sciences students, however, rated themselves as being more creative than social sciences students did.

Going with the flow

Studies have actually revealed considerable overlap in the cognitive processes supporting both scientific and artistic creativity. The psychological concept of "flow", pioneered by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in the 1990s, describes a state of consciousness where one is completely absorbed and energised while performing an activity. Flow experience has been strongly linked to peak performance in many artistic and creative domains.

Anton_Ivanov/shutterstock

Research in my own group has investigated flow during visual creativity, finding that the experience can be increased by a positive mood. We also found that people who experienced flow were more likely to rate their own productions as being creative. However, flow is not restricted to artistic pursuits. It can also be experienced during activities focused on science. One study asked junior scientists to collaborate on dictating a research article and half of those participating reported that they experienced flow-like states during the dictation process.

There is also substantial overlap in the use of visualisation and mental imagery during scientific and artistic thinking. Great scientists such as Albert Einstein, Michael Faraday and Nikola Tesla all reported that they used mental imagery when describing their thought processes. Studies have also found that mental imagery plays a central role during the construction and evaluation of many scientific "thought experiments", in which a scientist mentally assesses the implications of a particular hypothesis.

Perhaps more obviously, such mental imagery also features strongly in musical composition, painting and architectural design .

The power of stereotyping

Convergent and divergent thinking abilities aren't necessarily innate. A recent study on creative stereotypes asked individuals to complete a divergent thinking task while adopting the perspective of either an "eccentric poet" or a "rigid librarian".

lipik/shutterstock

Those who imagined being an "eccentric poet" performed significantly better on the creative task than those who imagined being a "rigid librarian", suggesting that the activation of stereotypical views on creative thinking can enhance or inhibit individuals' performance.

wikimedia

Despite such preconceptions of the ways in which logical and unstructured thinking styles are related to creativity, it is not difficult to find examples of individuals who do not fit the stereotype. Albert Einstein was a keen musician who enjoyed playing the piano and violin while Nobel Prize-winner Richard Fenyman worked as an artist using the pseudonym "Ofey". Musicians Brian May, Brian Cox and Greg Graffin all completed science PhDs.

Case studies of scientists engaging in art and vice versa are often presented as being unusual. However, psychologists recently conducted a comprehensive review of the extent to which Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, members of the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences, and members of the US public reported engaging in arts and crafts-based pursuits. They found that members of the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences were almost twice as likely to report engaging in arts and crafts pursuits as the general public. Eminent Nobel laureate scientists were almost three times more likely to report such activities.

These findings clearly show that the stereotypical view that scientists and other logical thinkers are less likely to be artistic or creative fall wide of the mark. As Einstein himself noted: "The greatest scientists are artists as well".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploding the myth of the scientific vs artistic mind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's a stereotype, but many of us have made the assumption that scientists are a bit rigid and less artistic than others. Artists, on the other hand, are often seen as being less rational than the rest of us.

# data[].attributes.headline
Art as inspiration in science learning and collaboration

# data[].attributes.subject
Art as inspiration in science learning and collaboration

# data[].attributes.body
A true collaboration involves a synthesis of different perspectives. Many art-science projects fit this mould. Could this be a useful approach for thinking about science learning? Is it appropriate for all levels, and all media?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When artists and scientists get together, creative sparks can fly. Collaborative sci-art projects are increasingly popular and one obvious benefit is the greater visibility of the research through the artist's work.

Our project explored scientific and artistic aspects of Antarctic ice crystals.

But what's in it for the scientists? It reinvigorates a curiosity about the system and brings an outsider perspective - but one that is expert in observing.

Taking a different perspective

We draw on a six-year collaboration to look at how science benefits from embracing a wider perspective on creativity. Our joint project started with an art-science speed-dating event, aimed at building collaborative teams.

Our connection centres around an Antarctic research project investigating the formation of platelet ice, which plays an important role in the annual growth cycle of sea ice around the Antarctic continent. In particular, the science looks at how tiny ice crystals influence much larger climate processes.

We were able to build on the intrinsic fascination people have with Antarctica and the interest in climate science. The scientists acted as a conduit of research to the artist. This added another layer of meaning to the artwork and an entry point to conversations around Antarctic ocean processes and climate change. This loop of enquiry seems to happen differently in art-science collaborations.

Broadening creativity

Our collaboration has evolved from arm-chair slide shows, through cross-disciplinary participation and Antarctic expeditions, to a final stage that includes a proliferation of ideas around art, education and science.

The benefits to science can be difficult to articulate but chief among them is a reminder of the importance of open-ended exploration. Another is to be asked questions by someone who spent even more time simply looking at the object of scientific inquiry than the scientists themselves.

The first phase of our project was to find a catalyst to connect enthusiastic creative people. A second phase followed with the science team taking basic components of an art work (a large paper sculpture) with them to Antarctica and assembling them as they saw fit, much like a piece of science equipment. This had impact, but was probably detrimental to the power balance in the collaboration because it left the scientists in control of both the art and the science. It turned out that the scientists didn't follow instructions, and instead responded to the constraints of the working environment - much like the art practice.

The next step involved getting the artist to Antarctica, embedded with the science. This had to be navigated carefully to ensure that the art retained its own priority as well as collaborating with the science, rather than being simply co-located.

A cornerstone to this was a request that the artist should make scientific measurements and, by doing so, added a whole new dimension where by there was an art perspective on the actual scientific process.

History of sci-art collaboration

In the past, artists were often involved in research purely to document the science. Captain James Cook took the painter William Hodges to polar extremes where he captured Antarctic seascapes. When the paintings were prepared for an exhibition in 2004, X-radiography revealed a different and unfinished view of icebergs in a rough sea.

Edward Wilson, a doctor and artist, accompanied Robert Falcon Scott to the pole and beyond. In some ways, these people acted as impartial sounding boards for the explorers and scientists at the time. The ease with which photography is achieved today has reduced the need for this role, but has something been lost along the way?

Much has been written about how facts alone do not convince people. A sideways approach that comes from an entirely different artistic perspective might therefore have a chance of penetrating established boundaries.

The art of science communication

Where once science was its own domain, this is no longer the case. Implications of research findings need to connect with broader audiences. But how can you explain something you barely understand yourself to multiple publics?

Analogues with popular culture can bridge this gap. With around 90% of New Zealanders and even more Australians engaging with art, it provides a useful conduit to science.

Our collaboration was initially largely unfunded and viewed as an irrelevant curiosity. However, support built quickly, to the point that the project was used to open a recent national Antarctic Science Conference.

Through all the phases of our work, we made connections with young people. We had sufficient support from teachers to develop workshops and extra-curricular activities for schools, and the climate topic made this part of our engagement more effective.

What is in it for science?

Lots, it turns out. The scientist is reminded of the power of curiosity, something that can get lost in times of targeted research. The artist also asks questions based on hours and hours of observing the system at hand. Somewhat unexpectedly in our case, the artist became a documentor of the work in a way that we hadn't previously achieved.

Added benefits are embedded with the next generation of scientists who will more readily span the divide, to the extent that they may not know a gap once existed. Also, part of the future science cohort may exist simply because of the inspiration found in art that connects with science.

We are at a time where the entire collective knowledge of our species is available with a stab of a fingertip. It becomes possible, necessary even, to leap across disciplines to generate new ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When artists get involved in research, science benefits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When artists and scientists get together, creative sparks can fly. Collaborative sci-art projects are increasingly popular and one obvious benefit is the greater visibility of the research through the artist's work. Our project explored scientific and artistic aspects of Antarctic ice crystals. But what's in it for the scientists?

# data[].attributes.headline
Art as a battery re-charge for learning in science

# data[].attributes.subject
Art as a battery re-charge for learning in science

# data[].attributes.body
There's a bit of psychological research suggesting that "set breaking" (taking time out from learning to do a completely different activity) allows the brain to consider alternative explanations and learn, particularly if you are stuck in a "set" and unable to progress. Could some art-science collaborations work in this way?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a scientist, I consider myself artistic in neither my abilities nor my observations of the world around me - I am a physicist who has dedicated his career to controlled experiments, mathematical descriptions and quantifying all I observe. I've always seen art as the converse - as something unquantifiable and fundamentally opposite to science.

But a recent collaboration with Hannah Imlach, an artist-in-residence here at Heriot-Watt University, has caused a dramatic change in my opinion, making it clear to me that science and art are inherently interconnected and that science can learn much from the world of art.

Microscopy is one of the highest-impact innovations in the history of science. With origins in the 1600s and the earliest parts of the scientific age of enlightenment, microscopy has evolved to underpin almost all aspects of modern science. The largest impact is arguably in the life sciences, where the ability to observe the complex, transient and dynamic world of the single cell has revolutionised healthcare, quality of life and fundamental understanding.

Hannah Imlach/Heriot-Watt, CC BY-SA

Today's microscopes include Nobel Prize-winning fluorescence and super-resolution techniques which together have pushed microscopy into a new era, allowing us to see more detail than ever before. We can study highly specific parts of the living cell in real time and create computer models of this activity. We have reached the stage of being able to offer a direct and measurable description of the cellular world.

Within the complex world of the cellular microscopist, the essence of the microscope is often lost, the amazing beauty and elegance of the technology overlooked. Sometimes it is important to step back and take stock of what the imaging delivers. As scientists we focus on the all-important push to quantify data, often forgetting to ask ourselves what it is, in fact, we see when we look through the eyepiece.

Common ground

The Institute of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Bio-engineering at Heriot-Watt University was awarded a Leverhulme Artist in Residence grant that allowed Hannah Imlach, a visual artist working primarily in sculpture, to work and study within our institute for a year. By fully immersing herself in our research environment, Hannah could shadow researchers and seek inspiration for new works that reflected the modern research and applications of microscopy.

A scientist collaborating with an artist seems a challenging idea. Interdisciplinary science and communication are central to modern science - and deservedly so - but the boundary between art and science is somewhat unbridged. Where do you begin - and where is the common ground?

To start, both scientist and artist shared a passion for observing the visual beauty of cells that are seen down a microscope. As the art was to be functional and sculptural, there was shared excitement in building prototype optical systems. These included various projection systems and large microscopes, all designed to merge the microscopy instrumentation with an artistic vision of the data being studied.

However, true overlap between the scientific and artistic process came in an entirely unexpected way, when the artist showed her sketchbooks to the scientists.

These were lovingly referred to as "lab books" by the scientists, and visually documented every thought and process being explored as the concepts and ideas formulated themselves into understanding and eventually structure. This was a developmental and thought process with direct parallels to the scientific method - and it led to a profound realisation on my part.

Hannah Imlach/Heriot-Watt, CC BY-SA

Head and heart

Whereas scientists may document their results and meticulously record and detail the analysis and discussions, they rarely do the same for setting out their ideas. It's "all up here in my head" and rough paper and temporary whiteboard sketches often suffice. In this project, the artistic idea was laid bare and what was clear that within it was the very essence of how a scientific idea is born and brought to fruition.

In the same way, both scientist and artist follow a shared methodology: the first hypothesis, the uses of the base knowledge, abandoned ideas, initial results, interpreting them and developing them - all before evolving into the final experiment and results.

The so-called artistic process, seemingly uncoordinated and disorganised, mirrors the scientific process, only in this case it was more elegantly drawn and documented. It became clear that science and art can be the same - and that ultimately they are based on thoughts, ideas and passion. It's only how we end up formulating those ideas and presenting our conclusions that actually differs.

Hannah Imlach/Heriot-Watt, CC BY-SA

Hannah's piece, Fluorescence Projector, allows the viewer to fully immerse themselves in the world of super-resolution fluorescence microscopy. It projects real data through a water-filled ball lens, inspired by the early 1600s microscopes, and reformulates the image into a floor projection screen. By intentionally allowing optical aberration and vibration to impart themselves on the sculpture, the viewer can interact and seek depth within the projected data.

This has left me asking the question: how do we process scientific observations? How do we develop our ideas, and transfer these to experiment, to understanding and then disseminate? These are simple questions, but ones that need to be considered.

The truth is it's a messy process, fluid and interpretive. It requires intuition and hunches, but most importantly, inspiration and a connection to the work that runs deeper than textbook understanding. Put simply, it's artistic, and for me, the scientist, it took working directly with an artist to see just that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beauty and the microscope: what science can learn from art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a scientist, I consider myself artistic in neither my abilities nor my observations of the world around me - I am a physicist who has dedicated his career to controlled experiments, mathematical descriptions and quantifying all I observe. I've always seen art as the converse - as something unquantifiable and fundamentally opposite to science.

# data[].attributes.body
Can art-science collaborations serve as useful ways to get science ideas to a wider audience? Does this help learning and if so at what level and how effective is it? Can it be a hook to garner interest? What are the possible pitfalls? How can science help with creative arts?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How can cells that contain the same DNA end up so different from each other? That is not only a difficult question for science to answer, but also a challenging one to represent visually.

It is also the question I posed at the start of my latest biomedical animation, called Tagging DNA, which visualises the molecular mechanisms behind epigenetics.

It specifically looks at a process called methylation, where methyl groups are added to DNA, thus changing which genes are switched on and which are switched off. This is one of the processes that enables the same static DNA to produce different types of cells throughout our bodies.

The animation also seeks to engage the viewer on a visual and emotional level, yet also balance what we know based on the latest science. You can view the animation below:

It is one of six animations created so far as part of the VIZBIplus project, established as part of the Inspiring Australia Unlocking Australia's Potential Initiative.

With slight nervous excitement - since this was the first time anyone except for myself had actually seen the whole thing - I narrated my animation live in June at the Science Reimagined event as a part of the VIVID festival in Sydney. Narrating in this style seemed to bring life to the animation and engage the audience in a way that I couldn't achieve with a pre-recorded version.

Science and art

It's no trivial task making such complex science accessible and engaging. When creating a biomedical animation, I use the tools of Hollywood, such as colour, movement and narrative, to capture the interest and attention of an audience not necessarily interested or engaged in science. Yet, while the overall aesthetic needs to be appealing and awe-inspiring, this should not be at the expense of scientific accuracy.

There is always a balance between accuracy and artistry, and this remains a challenge for every biomedical animation. I encountered another aspect of this challenge when creating Tagging DNA when I needed to explain and show concepts that are not yet fully understood, even among scientists.

Together with Professor Susan Clark from the Garvan Institute of Medical Research - who is a co-author on this article - we were careful in explaining the role of the enzymes methyltransferase DNMT and TET in regulating how genes are switched on and off.

We had to do this in a way that accurately showed their properties and functions, yet still fit within the storyline. We also had to carefully orchestrate the enzyme TET's appearance and the associated narration to ensure that its potential role in methylation and cancer was not overstated, given what we know about it.

The evidence today suggests that TET enzymes play a role in facilitating demethylation during development. However, their specific role in cancer remains elusive, except to say that the genes encoding TET enzymes are commonly mutated in cancer.

It is also well accepted that DNMT enzymes are not the only players that contribute to the methylation landscape. And we still need to understand more about the complexity of the methylation and demethylation machinery, and that is what we wanted to make clear by including TET in the animation.

Kate Patterson

The challenge was introducing this in the animation, knowing that the majority of the audience would not have deep scientific understanding of the topic, but appreciating that some viewers would.

This is a classic example that illustrates how narrative can be a powerful tool to guide a viewer through a complex topic. However, when not used carefully, it can inadvertently cause unintended implications or link ideas that are not fully scientifically resolved.

Animating science

By comparison, we have a much better understanding of the method by which the enzyme DNMT operates. In the animation, I drew from what we know about the structure of DNMT, and show how the enzyme directly binds to unmethylated DNA, flipping out a section and enabling the transfer of a methyl group.

This process has been captured by x-ray crystallography and recorded in the Protein Databank ( PDB).

To create the animations, I have the luxury of using the 3D animation software Autodesk Maya, which is industry standard for Hollywood companies such as Pixar. I also use Molecular Maya and Cell Pack, which are plugins that have been specifically designed to allow proteins in the PDB to be imported directly into the 3D animation software.

These tools are essential when telling molecular stories accurately. In my animation, the DNA itself is also an accurate model, complete with structural details such as the major and minor groove, thermal or Brownian motion of atoms and 10.5 base pairs per 360 degree turn of the DNA. The base pairs are even colour-coded to represent the genetic code.

Molecular animations can be brightly coloured and breathtakingly beautiful. One could easily believe that they are portraying fictional worlds of fantastical creatures and wonderful environments.

It is the underlying scientific rigour and attention to detail that helps the audience build trust. As a creator of such animations, the greatest satisfaction comes in watching a viewer realise that they are watching something that is real, and something that is actually occurring inside their bodies at that very point in time.

I invite you to watch the animation again and imagine just that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Art and science combine to reveal the inner workings of our DNA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How can cells that contain the same DNA end up so different from each other? That is not only a difficult question for science to answer, but also a challenging one to represent visually. It is also the question I posed at the start of my latest biomedical animation, called Tagging DNA, which visualises the molecular mechanisms behind epigenetics.

# data[].attributes.body
We'd like you to share your ideas, comments and questions about understanding the link between art and learning in science and health...