{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02237851662404092, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012787723785166241, 'mean_word_length': 5.57563025210084, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Examination of Intrinsic and Instrumental Instruction in Art Education

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast intrinsic and instrumental instruction in art education. To do so, the absence (no instruction), presence (intrinsic, studio-based), and type of instruction (instrumental, integrated) were examined across three fifth-grade classes to determine their effects on student artistic production, knowledge of art, and preferences about art. Student demographic responses indicated that all three fifth-grade groups were very interested (average 85%) in making art when they were not in school. High student interest significantly affected ratings on thematic drawings. There were no significant differences on the thematic or observational drawings according to the type of instruction, raising a question as to whether the type of instruction used in art education is more of a curricular choice than a concern for student achievement. Differences in groups tended to form more clearly around the absence or presence of art instruction with limited comparisons between intrinsic and instrumental instruction. There was a significant interaction between instructional group and gender. After further analysis, it was found that females in the studio-based group scored significantly higher than males on observational drawing. Conversely, in the no instruction group, males scored significantly higher than females on both drawings. Was the absence of intrinsic art instruction detrimental to the artistic achievement of fifth-grade females?