1 / 27

Children’s Drawings

Children’s Drawings. Early Years Lecture 5. Coursework. Word limit = 2000 (± 10%) i.e., will ‘accommodate’ < 2200 >1800 ...but not more/less word process only (include word length at end). Why study drawing?. drawing ability as marker of: motor skills. planning.

elmo
Download Presentation

Children’s Drawings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Children’s Drawings Early Years Lecture 5

  2. Coursework • Word limit = 2000 (± 10%) • i.e., will ‘accommodate’ < 2200 >1800 • ...but not more/less • word process only (include word length at end)

  3. Why study drawing? • drawing ability as marker of: motor skills. planning. knowledge of spatio-geometrical relationships. • window on children’s representations of the world. incl. self-concept; family. ‘copy’of children’s minds?

  4. Question of interpretation e.g., Drawings of people • Tadpole-like > arms emerge from head > legs = 2 vertical lines > eventually second circle = body > arms = horizontal lines ....more later from Cole & Cole

  5. Chronology of drawing skills • 3-part sequence: 1. Scribbling (1-2 years). 2. First representational forms (3+ years). Origin in shape-naming? lines as boundaries (3-4 years) 3. Greater realism (5-6+ years). Emergence of 3D (6-7 years) .....but still numerous spatial distortions.

  6. Interpretation of drawing skills • Luquet (1913). • children’s drawings represent their internal working model (IWM) of the world • children intend their drawings to be realistic (w.r.t. IWM), but realism constrained by [1] motor skills [2] interpretation.

  7. Interpretation of drawing skills • 1940s (age of psychoanalysis) • drawings = expression of emotion/motives/personality/psychological adjustment. • drawings can be interpreted in the same way that inkblots are interpreted > reveal the subconscious

  8. Development of drawing skills • Luquet (1913); Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). 1. Scribbling (2-4) - ‘fortuitous realism’ - draw first > interpret/label 2. Pre-schematic (4-7) - declare what is to be drawn ‘failed realism’ - uncoordinated elements. ‘intellectual realism’ - marker of knowledge. 3. Schematic (8-9): ‘visual realism’ ..begin to draw what they see rather than know

  9. Failed vs Visual Realism How do children draw cup from perspective ‘A’ A

  10. Failed vs Visual Realism • But... ...add second cup alongside with handle showing; request drawing of [b] > 5-6-yr-olds likely to draw [b] (Davis, 1983). ...children allowed to walk round object > draw canonical view (Bremner & Moore, 1984). i.e., children sensitive to context of question

  11. Failed vs Visual Realism ...more explicit instructions? Standard Instructions: “Draw exactly what you can see from where you are sitting.” Explicit Instructions: “Draw exactly what you can see from where you are sitting - look very carefully at it so that you can draw it just as you see it”. • Standard = 11% correct • Explicit = 65% correct (Barret, Beaumont & Jennett, 1985)

  12. Visual Occlusion < 8 years - draw hidden object (Cox, 1978; Freeman et al., 1977). Incorrect Correct

  13. Drawings: Does size matter? • Drawings of people often show the head as being far too big. Why? > the head is more important? No! - body first = head in proportion > failure to plan (Thomas & Tsalimi, 1988).

  14. Drawings: Does size matter? • What about the sizes of different people? • ‘Draw a person’ test (Machover, 1949). - “draw somebody/draw a person” - “now draw a man/woman” First figure = child’s projection of their self image = child’s personality/gender identity ... size = self-esteem

  15. Drawings: Does size matter? • Size = emotional salience • Santa Claus drawings (Solley & Haigh, 1959; Craddick, 1961; Sechrest & Wallace, 1964). Santa increases in size running up to Xmas ...and gets smaller AFTER Xmas. ...due to increased exposure? More detail requires bigger drawing (to get detail in)

  16. Alternatives to Piaget • Information processing theory (e.g. Willats, 1995) • Development due to: • increase in fine motor skills • increase in knowledge of rules & conventions of drawing • increase in ability to keep in mind several aspects of drawing (e.g. 3D)

  17. Back to tadpole man... Q. Conceptual representation?? or problems with realistic drawing technique?? How might you answer this question?

  18. Back to tadpole man... Norman Freeman (1975) ‘Why do children draw arms emerging from the head?’ 3 explanations [1] rule: attach arms to head [2] no trunk > no choice [3] head=trunk > no problem

  19. Methods/Results • 140 children (age range 2-4; M = 3.8, SD = .7) Task 1 - draw a man 54/140 = conventional man (M) 33/140 = tadpole man (T) 35/140 = scribbles (S) (remainder = disjointed part-figure)

  20. Methods/Results • Task 3 - complete partial figure (i.e., where does child put arms/legs?) 122/122 = legs on trunk Arms? M = nearly all on trunk T = depends on size of head

  21. Conclusion Children who draw ‘tadpole’ figures: • do not use ‘attach arms to head’ rule • do not produce conceptual representation • result of production error • draw head first - no room for trunk!

  22. Alternatives to Piaget/Info Processing • Modularity theory (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). Representational Rediscription (R-R model). “children’s representations become progressively more manipulable and flexible...implicit information in the mind subsequently becomes available to the mind” (p. 17-18).

  23. Alternatives to Piaget • Modularity theory (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). evidence for: • stereotypical drawing in young children: 5-yr-olds unable to draw 2-headed man (K-S, 1990). • human figure typically drawn in a fixed sequence (Zhi et al., 1997) evidence against: • drawing flexibility in even young children (Zhi et al, 1997). • autistic savants

  24. Autistic Savants • Typical development; gifted > normal = speed • Why are drawings often more accurate/realistic by A-S? - ‘Islands of skill’ (Gardner, 1980). • Nadia - social isolation/language impaired > drawings of animals > no ‘tadpole’ stage etc. > high degree of realism > 4 yrs + = perspective/3D/ viewer centred ...but no colour - emphasis on structure

  25. Autistic Savants • Language + conceptual knowledge interfere with realism (e.g., Selfe, 1983). • Reliance on perceptual structure impacts on semantic knowledge? No - picture sorting task Aut = Control group (Pring & Hermelin, 1993). • A-S see all features as equally important (less sensitive to cultural emphases) (Snyder & Thomas, 1997). • A-S = support for drawings = culture?

  26. Culture & Drawing • Do drawings simply reflect cultural emphasis? (Martlew& Connolly, 1996) Jimi Valley - Papua New Guinea Little or no schooling 10-15-year-olds - draw human figures > abstract or stick-like figures (= 3-5 yr old) > unlike ‘tadpole’ figure = universal PNG > emphasise hands and feet West > conflate body & head + legs (no arms)

  27. Reading Berk, L. (1997) - pp. 228 - 229 Eysenck, M. W. (2004). pp. 517. Essential: Freeman, N. H. (1975). Do children draw men with arms coming out of their head? Nature, 254, 416-417.

More Related