Abstract
The research grew out of my desire, as an art teacher, to investigate the use of art across the secondary curriculum and the concept of graphicacy. Drawing was identified as central to both topics. Whereas, observations made in local secondary schools had revealed large numbers of drawings on display in all subject areas, reasons why teachers required pupils to draw and why they displayed their work were not clear. Comments made by non-art teachers suggested that drawing was considered either of little importance as regards aiding the learning process, or that it was useful but the practice itself merited little attention. Drawing, ironically, appeared to have an image problem. A decision was taken to research its use across the curriculum when a review of literature revealed little had been conducted on the topic. A case-study of drawing in my own school was undertaken together with a survey of teachers' attitudes towards it in my LEA. Two small-scale projects were also undertaken to develop a visual aid to assist teachers with the assessment of drawing. The research as a whole was teacher-based. It confirmed: (i) that Key Stage 3 pupils do a great deal of drawing across the National Curriculum and in the majority of subjects, facts not highlighted by National Curriculum documentation; (ii) that fifteen distinct drawing types, operating within different symbolic codes, are identifiable within the curriculum; (iii) that art and non-art teachers appear to be able to rate the quality of student drawings within all these types but it is not clear what criteria they are applying; and (iv) that teachers of non-art subjects have little or no formal training concerning the educational value of drawing, drawing types, or assessment. The research report concludes with implications for further research and policy-makers.