Article Critique

Summary

The article “Arts education and its role in enhancing cognitive development: A quantitative study of critical thinking and creativity in higher education” was written through the work of Jian Li of Guangzhou University and Yufeng Qi of the Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts. Both are connected to respected institutions in China that focus on arts and design education, which adds credibility to the study. Li has a background in art and design that relates to teaching methods in creative education. Qi has expertise in painting and drawing that offers practical insights from the fine arts. Their combined perspectives link theory, practice, and policy in the field of arts education.

The article examines how arts education supports cognitive development, with attention to critical thinking, creative problem-solving, communication, focus, and overall student growth in higher education. It shows the increasing acknowledgment of arts education as a means to enhance not just academic performance but also creativity, adaptability, and other broader skills. The authors seek to provide clear evidence of the benefits of arts education, responding to claims about its impact that are often made but not always supported with data.

The study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design. Participants were purposively selected from various institutions to include students with different levels of experience in arts education. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire that combined Likert-scale items with open-ended questions to capture perceptions of the impact of arts education. Out of 456 questionnaires distributed, 410 were valid, yielding a strong response rate of 90%. The large sample size supports the reliability of the results, although the authors acknowledge the limitations of self-reported data. Responses were analyzed using SPSS, applying logistic regression, multiple regression, and exploratory factor analysis to examine the relationships between arts education and cognitive or academic outcomes.

The study is guided by five main objectives: (1) to examine the correlation between self-reported engagement in arts education and critical thinking skills among college students, (2) to analyze how students perceive arts-based activities as influencing their creative problem-solving and adaptability in academic pursuits, (3) to assess how students report the integration of arts education into their curricula as influencing their communication skills, (4) to explore students’ perceptions of art education’s influence on attention, concentration, and sustained focus, and (5) to investigate students’ self-reported views on the role of arts education in fostering holistic development.

Li and Qi grounded their study in five key frameworks that explain how arts education supports cognitive development. The first is the Neurocognitive Development Theory, which looks at the interaction between brain development and environmental influences. Arts education is seen as an important stimulus that shapes brain functions tied to emotional control, attention, and decision-making. Activities such as painting, music, and drama activate neural pathways connected to creativity and executive functioning, which strengthen self-regulation and reasoning skills.

The researchers also used Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, which looks at how people learn by interacting with their surroundings. Arts education gives students chances to explore and experiment, helping them move from concrete thinking to more abstract ideas. Activities like interpreting a painting or improvising in a play encourage higher-level thinking and help develop problem-solving skills.

The third framework was Constructivist Learning Theory, which sees learning as an active and collaborative process. In arts education, this happens through group performances, shared projects, and peer feedback. These activities let students build knowledge on their own while also working with others, strengthening both critical thinking and communication skills.

The researchers also drew on Aesthetic Education Theory, which emphasizes the arts’ role in fostering creativity, emotional expression, and cultural awareness. Arts education is not just about cognitive growth; it also helps develop imagination, empathy, and the ability to approach problems in different ways, supporting both intellectual and emotional development.

Finally, they used Sociocultural Theory, based on Vygotsky’s idea that learning is shaped by social interaction, language, and cultural tools. Arts education reflects this by encouraging collaboration, engagement with cultural symbols, and expression through verbal and non-verbal forms. Creating and interpreting art becomes a shared process that strengthens communication and social understanding.

The study showed that arts education has clear benefits for students’ cognitive development. Participation in the arts was linked to stronger skills in critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, attention, and overall growth. Students said that engaging in arts activities helped them think more deeply about problems and see things from different perspectives, which supports the first hypothesis. The second hypothesis was also supported, with arts activities helping students become more creative, adaptable, and innovative. Communication skills improved as well, with students better able to express complex ideas both verbally and non-verbally. The study also found that arts participation boosted attention and concentration, confirming the fourth hypothesis. The most notable finding came from the fifth hypothesis, showing that arts education supports holistic development by combining academic progress with creativity, emotional intelligence, and cultural awareness.

The statistical results backed this up. Logistic regression showed that problem-solving, attention, and arts integration were strong predictors of academic success. Multiple regression highlighted the importance of problem-solving and creative skills, with solid model results. Exploratory factor analysis further showed that arts education has multiple dimensions, shaping cognitive, communicative, and creative abilities at the same time.

The study also explained how different art forms help students in different ways: dance improves memory and coordination, music builds literacy and verbal skills, visual arts encourage creativity and communication, and drama develops expression and verbal ability. Because of this, arts education should not be limited to just one discipline but should be seen as a set of connected practices that bring wide-ranging benefits. Another important contribution of the study is its focus on how arts education can be integrated with modern educational technology. The authors also point out that their research fills a gap by focusing on higher education, where arts education is often given less attention than in primary or secondary schools.

The article provides strong evidence that arts education is not just an extra activity but an important part of learning in higher education. It confirms long-standing claims about the value of the arts and shows in detail how they help students grow in critical thinking, creativity, communication, focus, and overall development. The findings suggest that arts education should play a central role in shaping educational policies and curricula in colleges and universities.

Critique

The article by Li and Qi offers an important look at how arts education supports cognitive development in higher education. The main argument - that arts education improves critical thinking, creative problem-solving, communication, attention, and overall growth - is convincing and backed by solid evidence. At the same time, the study, like most research, has both strengths and limitations that deserve careful consideration.

Strengths of the Study

One strength of the article is the use of different theories to explain the value of arts education. The study draws from five frameworks: Neurocognitive Development Theory, Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, Constructivist Learning Theory, Aesthetic Education Theory, and Sociocultural Theory. This mix of psychology, teaching, and aesthetics shows that arts education is not just an extra subject but part of larger discussions about thinking, creativity, and social learning. It also addresses a common issue in arts education research, which often relies on personal stories or narrow arguments.

Another strength is the study's method. Out of 456 surveys, 410 were valid, giving a 90% response rate. This high level of participation adds weight to the results. The use of logistic regression, multiple regression, and factor analysis makes the findings more reliable. Multiple regression results were significant, showing that problem-solving and academic-creative skills had the most substantial impact on academic performance. This demonstrates that arts education not only develops creativity but also builds skills that transfer to other academic areas.

The article also shows practical value. The authors connect their results to current discussions in education, arguing that arts education should have a stronger role in higher education programs. Linking the findings to policies makes the study relevant for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers. It also reflects global trends that see arts education as central to developing adaptability, innovation, and cultural understanding.

Weaknesses and Limitations

The study does have some limitations that affect how broadly its findings can be applied. The most important issue is that arts education was not measured very precisely. The survey only asked students about their general participation, without specifying the type of activities, how often they took part, how deeply they were involved, or the quality of their experiences. As a result, the study treats students who casually joined a one-time drama activity the same as those who received years of formal training. Arts education is not uniform - playing in an orchestra, painting, or engaging in theater develop different skills and may influence cognitive growth in distinct ways. Without capturing these differences, the study risks oversimplifying and overstating the relationship between arts education and cognitive development.

Another significant limitation is the inconsistency between the declared quantitative design and the actual data collection process. It is perfectly acceptable—even valuable—for quantitative surveys to include a few open-ended questions, as these can capture richer perspectives and provide context to numerical findings. However, when such qualitative items are used, researchers must clearly explain how the responses were processed, whether through coding, categorization, or integration into the analysis. In this study, no such explanation was provided. The open-ended responses were collected but never systematically analyzed or reported, leaving their role in the study unclear. This lack of transparency not only makes the methodology unclear and reduces rigor, but it also makes it difficult for other researchers to replicate or reproduce the study, since they cannot follow the process to verify the findings.

Another issue with the research is its reliance on self-reported tests of skills like critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving. Although self-reports help determine how students perceive their own growth, they are biased and unable to show that arts education really improves cognitive capacities. For instance, a student may think that painting helped them concentrate better. However, in order to go beyond subjective opinion, this belief would need to be verified by behavioral tests, standardized evaluations, or brain-based measurements.

The sample itself further limits the study's scope. More than 65% of the responses were from Chinese individuals, even though the students' ages, genders, academic backgrounds, and institutions differed. This restricts the generalizability of the data, but it offers important information on China's cultural legacy. People's perceptions of arts education are greatly influenced by culture. For example, group-based arts may encourage cooperation differently in collectivist civilizations like China than in individualist ones. According to Filipinos, arts education is also strongly linked to community customs and cultural identity, which raises the possibility that results might vary greatly amongst civilizations.

Finally, the study does not sufficiently address issues about uneven access to the arts. Opportunities for long-term arts education are often associated with resources, and students from wealthier families are more exposed than those from less fortunate backgrounds. The authors suggest incorporating the arts more widely into the curriculum; however, they do not go far enough in discussing how a lack of resources or uneven access can hamper implementation. The results' practical usefulness is diminished by this omission, especially in contexts where arts programs continue to be underfunded or ignored.

Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions

Although it is commendable that five theoretical frameworks were integrated, there are several issues with how they were used in the research. For example, the primary purpose of Piaget's phases of cognitive development is to explain learning in children and adolescents. Since subsequent academics like Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) and Illeris (2009) underline that adult learning includes new dynamics, such as self-direction and transformational learning, it is questionable if they can be directly applied to students in higher education. Piaget's stage theory falls short of capturing the complexity of adult learners, even if the broad constructivist ideas are still applicable.

The use of a neurocognitive framework also feels underdeveloped. While the authors cite the role of arts education in stimulating neural pathways, they do not employ neuroscientific tools or methods to substantiate these claims. Strong statements about brain-based development need empirical confirmation via neuroscience, which this research does not give, as noted by Winner, Goldstein, and Vincent-Lancrin (2013). Thus, rather than serving as fully operationalized entities, the theoretical allusions can serve more as rhetorical anchors.

The idea that arts education has a complex impact on the social, emotional, and cognitive domains is still commonly held in spite of this. Scholars such as Eisner (2002) and Catterall (2009) have long argued that the arts foster intellectual growth, emotional expression, and social engagement. My own teaching experience has shown me how theater-related activities may enhance leadership, civic participation, and professional settings in addition to the arts by fostering empathy, communication, and cooperation in problem-solving. Thus, while the study stretches some of its theoretical applications, its overall conceptualization resonates with both established educational research and practical classroom observations.

Personal Position

From my perspective as a graduate student and educator, the article presents an interesting case for the value of arts education. Although there are some methodological concerns, the findings show patterns I have observed in both classroom and cultural settings. For example, Filipino students who engage in cultural performances often show enhanced self-confidence, adaptability, and critical thinking - results that reflect the study’s conclusions. I also appreciate the emphasis on holistic development, as arts education supports not only academic growth but also emotional intelligence, cultural identity, and a sense of civic responsibility. Looking ahead, I believe further research should aim to establish causal relationships and examine long-term outcomes, ideally through longitudinal studies or experimental approaches.

Overall Assessment

All things considered, the paper by Li and Qi is a useful addition as it demonstrates how arts education aids in the growth of college students. According to the research, engagement in the arts is associated with gains in critical thinking, creativity, communication, focus, and general development. Using many theories, having sound quantitative methodologies, and having defined policy and practice points are its key advantages. However, there are drawbacks, including the use of self-reports, the inability to differentiate between different forms of arts education, and the primary emphasis on a single cultural environment. Despite these shortcomings, the paper is a good place to start for future studies that might compare civilizations, examine access to arts education more thoroughly, and take a broader perspective.

Comparison and Contrast

The study by Li and Qi (2024) contributes to the expanding body of studies showing the advantages of arts education in higher education for cognitive and developmental growth. Understanding the importance and limits of their findings is made easier by contrasting their study with other studies that look at the relationships between critical thinking, creativity, arts education, and holistic development. The quasi-experimental study on arts integration in American schools by Bowen and Kisida (2023), the mixed-methods study on arts education and creative problem-solving in Africa by Ankyiah and Bamfo (2023), and the studies by Ülger (2016, 2019) on the role of visual arts in fostering critical thinking will all be compared.

Methodological Approaches

Li and Qi (2024) examined self-reported data from a quantitative survey using regression and factor analysis. Their reliance on student opinions limits their capacity to demonstrate causality, even if the conclusions are more believable because of their high sample size (n = 410). Bowen and Kisida (2023), on the other hand, compared children who took part in arts-integrated programs with those who did not in a quasi-experimental research carried out in American schools. Stronger causal claims were made possible by this methodology, which demonstrated that consistent exposure to the arts improved writing skills, critical thinking abilities, and empathy-related behaviors in quantifiable ways. The disparity in design draws attention to a significant flaw in Li and Qi's research: while their findings indicate favorable correlations, they are unable to identify a clear causal relationship between the gains they documented and arts education.

A quasi-experimental methodology was also used by Ülger (2016, 2019), who concentrated on visual arts education in Turkey. Utilizing recognized tools like the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, Ülger showed that students taking visual arts classes outperformed control groups in domains including creativity, analysis, and inference. This reliance on objective measurement contrasts with Li and Qi’s dependence on self-perceptions. At the same time, Li and Qi covered multiple art forms—music, drama, dance, and visual arts—whereas Ülger concentrated on depth within a single discipline. This suggests that Li and Qi’s study trades depth for breadth.

Ankyiah and Bamfo (2023) used a mixed-methods methodology in Ghana, integrating classroom observations, interviews, and questionnaires. This offered deeper qualitative insights as well as statistical connections about the ways in which arts education influenced collaborative problem-solving and creativity. Ankyiah and Bamfo expanded the developmental scope by including secondary school pupils, in contrast to Li and Qi, who restricted their concentration to higher education. Cultural perceptions of arts engagement were also given room by the inclusion of interviews, which Li and Qi's otherwise comprehensive study did not address.

Conceptual Frameworks

Piaget's cognitive development, constructivism, sociocultural theory, aesthetic education, and neurocognitive development were the five theoretical frameworks that Li and Qi used. This allowed them to examine the results of their investigation through a wide lens. Bowen and Kisida (2023), on the other hand, concentrated on social-emotional learning and arts integration theory. It was simpler to demonstrate the apparent benefits of arts programs on test scores and empathy since their framework was more constrained but more closely linked to their measurements.

Ülger (2016, 2019) based his work on critical thinking frameworks that centered on cognitive skills and dispositions. Although his methodology was more focused than that of Li and Qi, it aligned well with his use of standardized tools such as critical thinking inventories. His conclusions were strongly supported by this theory-method coherence.

Ankyiah and Bamfo (2023) drew on creativity theory and African educational philosophies, highlighting the role of arts education in problem-solving within cultural contexts. Their research demonstrates how local frameworks might uncover discoveries that larger, universal theories may miss. Compared to this, Li and Qi's universalist framework enabled them to make bigger statements while downplaying the significance of cultural variations.

Findings and Interpretations

Across the studies reviewed, there is consistent agreement that arts education supports both cognitive and socio-emotional growth. Li and Qi (2024) found significant links between arts participation and skills such as critical thinking, creativity, communication, attention, and overall development. Bowen and Kisida (2023) supported these findings with stronger causal evidence, showing that students in arts-integrated schools not only performed better academically but also displayed higher levels of empathy and engagement. They also observed that the benefits were most significant for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, pointing to the potential of arts education as an equalizing force—an equity dimension that Li and Qi did not explore.

Ülger (2016, 2019) offered more focused evidence, showing that visual arts programs directly improved critical thinking skills. While narrower in scope than Li and Qi's broader approach, his work provided more evident proof of how arts education develops specific cognitive dispositions, strengthening causal arguments that Li and Qi could only suggest.

Adding another perspective, Ankyiah and Bamfo (2023) showed that arts education contributes not just to individual creativity but also to collective problem-solving and cultural identity. They emphasized how the arts foster resilience and adaptability, qualities essential for innovation in developing economies. Li and Qi touched on similar outcomes like adaptability and resilience, but without the cultural depth and nuance captured in Ankyiah and Bamfo’s qualitative work.

Cultural and Contextual Dimensions

One of the most important differences across these studies is the cultural context. Li and Qi (2024) examined Chinese higher education, where collectivist values and state-led reforms shape the way arts participation is experienced and promoted. Bowen and Kisida (2023), on the other hand, focused on the U.S., where arts programs are often at risk due to funding cuts, and their research provided evidence to support the case for keeping arts integration in schools. Ülger’s work reflected the Turkish setting, where visual arts education has long been undervalued, making his findings about its cognitive benefits a strong argument for reforming the curriculum. Meanwhile, Ankyiah and Bamfo (2023) studied arts education in Ghana, linking it to cultural preservation, creativity, and socio-economic development.

Taken together, these contexts show that while the benefits of arts education are broadly recognized, how they appear and what they mean for policy depend heavily on culture and educational systems. Li and Qi’s universal approach is useful for drawing general conclusions, but future research could be enriched by the kind of cultural specificity demonstrated by scholars like Ankyiah and Bamfo.

Synthesis

Looking at these studies together shows both similarities and differences. Li and Qi’s work supports the general agreement that arts education helps develop critical thinking, creativity, communication, attention, and overall growth. Still, when compared with other research, some gaps appear. Bowen and Kisida (2023) provided more substantial evidence of causality through a quasi-experimental design, Ülger (2016, 2019) offered more focus by examining the effects of visual arts specifically, and Ankyiah and Bamfo (2023) brought in cultural depth with their mixed-methods approach. Taken this way, Li and Qi’s study can be seen as offering breadth - a broad, cross-institutional view backed by multiple theories - while the other studies provide depth through more targeted, experimental, or culturally specific analyses.

Conclusion and Research Questions

The article by Li and Qi (2024) makes a meaningful contribution to the growing scholarship on arts education, particularly in the context of higher education. Drawing on multiple theoretical frameworks and supported by quantitative analysis, the authors present convincing evidence that engagement in the arts is positively linked to critical thinking, creativity, communication, attention, and overall student development. Their use of Neurocognitive Development Theory, Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, Constructivist Learning Theory, Aesthetic Education Theory, and Sociocultural Theory highlights the multidimensional nature of arts education, framing it as a catalyst for both cognitive and socio-emotional growth.

One of the study’s most notable strengths is its interdisciplinary scope and its clear relevance for curriculum design and policy. At a time when higher education often leans toward technical and market-driven priorities, the article underscores the importance of the arts in preparing graduates who are not only skilled but also innovative, adaptable, and resilient. This aligns with global discussions on twenty-first-century competencies, where creativity, critical thinking, and adaptability are increasingly valued across professional and civic spheres.

Nonetheless, the study faces limitations. Its reliance on self-reported data, the absence of distinctions across specific art forms, and its cultural focus on China restrict the broader applicability of its findings. These gaps point to the need for future research that adopts longitudinal or experimental designs, incorporates objective measures of performance, and considers a broader range of cultural and socioeconomic settings. Comparisons with the work of Bowen and Kisida (2023), Ülger (2016, 2019), and Ankyiah and Bamfo (2023) make this clear. Where Li and Qi provide breadth through a broad, cross-institutional perspective, these other studies offer depth through causal analysis, discipline-specific inquiry, and culturally embedded insights. Taken together, they suggest that a synthesis of breadth and depth would give a fuller picture of how arts education shapes development across contexts.

For educators and policymakers, the implications are substantial. The study reinforces the idea that arts education should not be treated as an optional enrichment but as a central element of holistic education. Embedding the arts into higher education programs can enrich not only academic achievement but also the cultivation of empathy, collaboration, and creative problem-solving. In societies experiencing rapid technological and cultural change, this makes arts education an essential investment in both human potential and cultural vitality.

Looking ahead, several research questions emerge from Li and Qi’s work and its comparison with global literature:

1. How do self-reported perceptions of the benefits of arts education compare with objectively measured outcomes across diverse cultural and institutional contexts? This question points to a key limitation in Li and Qi’s study and suggests the need for future research that compares students’ self-reported perceptions with standardized tests, behavioral data, or neuroscientific evidence.

2. What are the long-term effects of sustained engagement in arts education on employability, innovation, and civic engagement among higher education graduates? While Li and Qi focused on immediate outcomes, future studies could trace how arts involvement shapes professional adaptability and social responsibility over time.

3. How can digital and hybrid models of arts education enhance critical thinking, creativity, and communication skills in post-pandemic higher education? The COVID-19 pandemic changed how education is delivered worldwide, opening up questions about how arts education can adapt through technology while still keeping its hands-on and collaborative nature.

4. In what ways do socioeconomic inequalities shape access to and outcomes of arts education, and how can policy interventions mitigate these disparities? Following Bowen and Kisida’s (2023) insight on equity, future research should look at how arts education can help level opportunities in higher education and reduce gaps in access and outcomes.

5. How do specific art forms—music, dance, visual arts, and theater—differentially contribute to the development of cognitive and socio-emotional skills? This question highlights the need for a closer look at the unique benefits of different art forms, which Li and Qi’s study tended to treat too generally.

References

Ankyiah, R., & Bamfo, J. (2023). Arts education and creative problem-solving: A mixed-methods study in Ghana. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 24(7), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ijea247

Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2023). The educational value of field trips: Arts, critical thinking, and social-emotional learning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 42(2), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22456

Li, J., & Qi, Y. (2024). Arts education and its role in enhancing cognitive development: A quantitative study of critical thinking and creativity in higher education. Journal of Arts and Education Research, 15(3), 45–62.

Ülger, K. (2016). The relationship between creative thinking and critical thinking skills of students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(3), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i3.1393

Ülger, K. (2019). The effect of visual arts education on critical thinking dispositions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.005