Blending Process and Project in the Online Studio

Recent photo from my studio: free painting

Teaching art has uncovered for me a fundamental truth: creativity isn’t limited to the moment when paint touches paper and does not stay within the borders of your paper or canvas. 

It’s a process that develops through exploration, questioning, and discovery. In my classes, I blend project-based learning with a process-oriented approach, supported by frameworks like Backward Design and the Flipped Classroom, to help students not only produce beautiful artwork but also understand how and why they create. The Flipped Classroom model turns traditional teaching upside down. Instead of spending class time on lectures, I provide lesson materials, such as short videos, readings, or interactive slides for students to review before we meet. This transforms our live sessions into spaces for discussions and experimentations, where students arrive ready to engage, ask questions, and explore. It also leaves more time for live demos and feedback.

Backward Design: Starting with the End in Mind

Backward Design model begins with a simple but powerful question: “What do I want my students to truly understand through the art project?”

From that vision, I plan backward — defining learning outcomes, identifying what evidence will demonstrate them, and designing experiences that help students reach those goals.

In art, that might mean focusing on a big idea like “visual storytelling.” Each piece of art is someone’s story, and we find a language to tell it. Exploration steps include thumbnail sketches, color studies, and critiques, leading up to a final work that captures their unique interpretation. Each step is intentional — not just about what they make, but why they make it.

When Backward Design Doesn’t Work as Planned

While Backward Design provides structure and clarity, it doesn’t always fit perfectly into creative learning environments — especially process-based or exploratory art classes.

There are times when defining the “desired results” too early can unintentionally narrow what students discover. For instance:

• Open-ended studio projects often begin with experimentation rather than clear outcomes. If I specify the end product too tightly, I might limit a student’s willingness to take risks or follow unexpected creative directions.

• Collaborative or thematic art explorations (like “emotion in color” or “memory through texture”) evolve organically. Here, the most meaningful learning outcomes emerge during the process, not before it.

• In online art classes, technical limitations or varied student resources can also disrupt a neatly “backward-designed” plan. Sometimes, students find alternative tools or materials that completely reshape the learning path — and that’s a good thing.

These situations remind me that Backward Design should be a guide, not a trap. It offers a strong framework, but it must remain flexible.

Backward design  and educational goals in Art Education

It can be tempting to equate artistic success with the quality of the final product. A beautifully rendered still life or a skillful portrait often appears to be clear evidence of learning. It’s not a question of course of getting into a fundamental discussion on building an artistic skillset, or, God forbid, representational vs non-representational art. Just from a process-based perspective, the true educational value of an art lesson lies not in the artwork itself, but in the thinking, decision-making, exploration, and personal meaning-making that happen along the way.

When educators confuse the educational goal (what students are meant to learn, experience, or discover) with the art product (what they physically create), they risk limiting the learning experience to mere technical reproduction or aesthetic appeal. This misunderstanding can unintentionally prioritize perfection over curiosity — and imitation over inquiry. No references to academic traditions or examples of learning through apprentissage can be seriously considered in our contemporary context, where the imitation and multiplication functions of visual art, which were truly essential at some point in human history, are fully replaced by AI and other tech tools. Art today is much more than that.

In process-centered art classrooms, “mistakes”, experiments, and even failures are visible signs of learning. They show how students engage with materials and ideas.  When students learn that their “mistakes” are part of the process, they become more open, resilient, and confident. By focusing on the process, teachers can assess growth and intention rather than surface polish. A sketchbook filled with studies, notes, and revisions often reveals more authentic progress than a single polished canvas.

This doesn’t mean the art product is unimportant, but it’s only partial evidence of learning, not the learning itself. My true goal as an instructor is to help students discover their own vision and see the creative process as an open, transformative journey (or, using another metaphor, the “story” they are telling).

When we teach for the story, not the product, we give students something that lasts far beyond the classroom: the confidence to create, question, and keep growing as artists.

Educators like Elliot Eisner and Viktor Lowenfeld remind us that art learning is a developmental and deeply personal experience. Eisner, for example, stated that engaging with the arts helps students develop skills to navigate life's uncertainties and fosters a broader way of thinking that is often overlooked in purely technical-rational education.

Reading on the topic:

1. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. Yale University Press.

2. Lowenfeld, V., Brittain W. L., Creative and Mental Growth. MacMillan Publishing, New York. 

3. Wiggins G., McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design.