Article thumbnail

Pupils' attitudes towards art teaching in primary school: an evaluation tool

By Victoria Pavlou and Maria Kambouri


Pupils’ attitudes are influencing both learning and teaching processes and are affecting the way pupils will engage with art as adults. This paper introduces an attitude scale, ASAES (Attitude Scale for Art Experienced in School), which measures factors that may influence the formation of pupils’ attitudes, from pupils’ perceived abilities in art to teachers’ art specialisation. This newly developed instrument is a Likert- scale comprising four subscales: enjoyment, confidence, usefulness, and support needed. The support needed dimension is an essential component in the learning process because it represents the pupil’s perception of teacher’s feedback on how well they are coping with the task. The ASAES was administered to 420 primary school pupils in Cyprus and its psychometric properties are evaluated by Confirmatory Factor analysis

Year: 2007
DOI identifier: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.07.005
OAI identifier:

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles


  1. (1991). A Collaborative Processing Model For Art Education. doi
  2. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2 doi
  3. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). doi
  4. (2000). A first course in structural equation modelling. doi
  5. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. doi
  6. (1988). A scale to measure the attitudes of school pupils towards their lessons doi
  7. (2004). A Theory for Living: Walking with Reggio Emilia. doi
  8. (1978). Approaches in Art Education. United States of America:
  9. (1995). Attitudes to School of top primary and first-year secondary pupils. London: The National Foundation for Educational Research.
  10. (1990). Children and Art Teaching. London and doi
  11. (1994). Children’s attitudes to school at key stage 1 and 2.
  12. (1987). Children’s Attitudes to Teaching Styles. doi
  13. (1997). Children’s Attitudes to the National Curriculum at Key Stage 1. doi
  14. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. doi
  15. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. doi
  16. (1979). Conceptions of Teaching in Art Education. doi
  17. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, doi
  18. (1987). Creative and Mental Growth. doi
  19. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. doi
  20. (2005). Developing a measure of wealth for primary student families in a developing country: comparison of two methods of psychometric calibration. doi
  21. (2000). Discipline and the future of art education.
  22. (1997). Discovering a gap: a comparison of personal and educational aesthetic preferences of students and teachers. doi
  23. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. doi
  24. (2000). Evaluation of noncognitive areas in education. Paper presented at the
  25. (1989). Lisrel 7: A guide to the program and applications.
  26. (1993). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, doi
  27. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
  28. (2006). Pre-adolescents’ perceptions of competence, motivation and engagement in art activities. doi
  29. (2004). Profiling primary school teachers in relation to art teaching. doi
  30. (1994). The reliability and validity of the ‘Smiley’ scale. doi
  31. (1992). The validity of student’s self-reports as measures of performance affecting self-appraisals.