Child's Drawing Analysis
Developmental theory is studied often by pre-service teachers in educational psychology classes as a way to understand how most students develop in a similar sequence of stages with characteristic milestones. Though it is an important concept for teachers to know, it is often taught through textbooks and lectures that don’t end up “sticking” in our minds (Luehrman & Unrath, 6). Learning the stages of artistic development in children through examining a child’s drawing as a class and individual helps drive home both a child’s creative development as well as their development as a student in the areas of math, science, or literacy. The child’s drawing analysis performed asked our class to pick a child’s drawing from a given sample and place it in its category of Lowenfeld’s Stages as described in Creative and Mental Growth (1970). The specific aspects of each child’s drawing were analyzed and discussed in an attempt to place the student in the stage we believe them to be at in their artistic development, exactly as we will do as teachers for every single student in our classroom in every subject or content we teach. It was important for us to talk through this on a first-time basis because we each had different viewpoints and opinions that gave us a different perspective on the student’s stage. Even through all of this, it was near impossible to exactly nail down a student’s developmental stage.
The drawing I was given (Figure 1), appears to depict a scene on a basketball court, or another type of sport. There are three people figures, one near a ball with action signals that is facing the viewer and the other two with their backs to the viewer. A few music notes pop up in the bottom-left corner next to what seems to be a record or music player. The center court circles are included and shaded as well as a free-throw line, or some other sort of identified line on the floor.
From the knowledge I have gathered and discussed with peers, I would say that this student is in the schematic stage, usually putting the child between the ages of seven and nine. The most prevalent items of this drawing are bold lines and colored circles that make up the environment the child wants to convey. They seem to remember specific elements and show an active knowledge of the basketball or court he or she is drawing. The people, court and music all form a very direct but flat representation of what the world would actually look like. Instead of shading or detailing a lot of what would normally be three dimensional, the child has drawn them as if they are all on one plane or surface level. For the human forms, the concept of arms and legs is repeated over and over, like the child has already set that style as his or her form for human arms and legs, regardless of how they would look naturally. These are all characteristics of the schematic stage as detailed by Brittain and Lowenfeld (1970). You can also tell that this student is in the early stages of artistic development or of a young age because of their employing of the territorial imperative principle. The child wants to present each element of the picture as clearly as they can and in doing so, gives each part a completely separate space (Wilson & Wilson, 41). The two people standing next to each other are a great example of this. If they were on opposite teams, as it seems by their different color shirts, they would most likely be closer or overlapping to guard each other but they are not at all. The one on the right is very close to, but ultimately doesn’t even overlap a line on the floor that is prominent in the picture.
Though the student seems to fit well into the schematic stage, there are a few points that make me think that label could possibly not fit this child. In some ways, this particular child seems like the pre-schematic stage might fit better. The human forms the child makes, especially regarding the arms and legs are made of geometric elements that would lose meaning if they were removed from their placement or could even be transposed of each other. The drawing also has the one figure that is looking directly at the viewer and smiling with a simple face that is characteristic of pre-schematic drawings. Then there are elements that make me think he or she is more advanced, possibly to the gang age. The student varied the size of the people and elements that gives off some sense of depth and is able to overlap lines and figures, which is usually lacking in the schematic stage. One thing that caught my attention as well was the student’s attempt at depicting action, both in the lines around the ball and the person with their arms in the air. Oftentimes, students in the gang age are the first to “not [be] inhibited from attempting to draw a figure in action” (Erikson & Young, 42). Because the student has elements beyond that of the schematic stage, it is possible that he or she is in fact in a more advanced stage but has accepted their human forms as “good enough” or doing their jobs in terms of the student’s perspective. This is called the simplicity principle and can actually even show up in adult artwork (Wilson & Wilson, 41).
There are a few things that keep me from being more than certain on my analysis of a child’s drawing. The first is that because I have no way of knowing any personal information like the age of the child, I cannot anticipate the direction of this child’s next possible developmental steps which should come from analyzing their artistic stage (Wilson & Wilson, 40). I also wasn’t given the opportunity to take note on how the child began and worked on this particular piece, to listen to the comments he or she made as the piece was created, or to interview the student after they were finished like the pre-service teachers described in Making Theories of Children’s Artistic Development Meaningful to Preservice Teachers. Even further, Luehrman and Unrath specifically state that “a single drawing is not sufficient evidence for making any definitive conclusions about a child’s development” (10). Just as many different types of assessments over a period of time must be made to determine where a child stands on their math or literacy, one snapshot of a child’s art will not tell a teacher where they sit developmentally.
Assessment on a child’s artistic development directly relates to the stages of development learned through educational psychology courses for pre-service teachers. By going through a more in-depth [MJ2] investigation of development we can make this concept more meaningful and holistic for teaching in the future. Though pre-service teachers may understand the reason behind knowing the math or literacy developmental level of students in their classroom, it is just as important that they know their artistic level as well. These stages can help us realize when students are falling behind or excelling far beyond their peers in certain talents that make them unique. If our world as we know it is headed for a better recognition of right brained strengths, we need to know which of our students may have the potential to lead us in the right direction. The “knowledge workers” of today will need to learn a new set of skills to become the creators of tomorrow (Pink, 30-32). The consequences of pre-service teachers being unaware of the need to be holistically focused on our students’ development could be monumental and force our school systems to fall further and further behind. Even though I couldn’t nail down the exact placement of this child’s developmental stage, I was still able to understand their strengths and weaknesses and that will serve me well in the classroom.
Resources
Brittain, W.L. & V. Lowenfeld. (1970) Creative and Mental Growth. New York, NY. MacMillan Co. pgs 474-479.
Erikson, M. & Young, B. (1996). What every educator should (but maybe doesn’t) know. School Arts, 40-42.
Luehrman, M. & Unrath, K. (2006). Making theories of children’s artistic development meaningful for pre-service teachers. Art Education, 6-12.
Pink, D.H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY. Penguin Group, 7-47.
Wilson, M. & Wilson, B. (1982). Learning to draw: Nurturing the natural. Engle Cliffs, NY, 39-47.
Figure 1:
The drawing I was given (Figure 1), appears to depict a scene on a basketball court, or another type of sport. There are three people figures, one near a ball with action signals that is facing the viewer and the other two with their backs to the viewer. A few music notes pop up in the bottom-left corner next to what seems to be a record or music player. The center court circles are included and shaded as well as a free-throw line, or some other sort of identified line on the floor.
From the knowledge I have gathered and discussed with peers, I would say that this student is in the schematic stage, usually putting the child between the ages of seven and nine. The most prevalent items of this drawing are bold lines and colored circles that make up the environment the child wants to convey. They seem to remember specific elements and show an active knowledge of the basketball or court he or she is drawing. The people, court and music all form a very direct but flat representation of what the world would actually look like. Instead of shading or detailing a lot of what would normally be three dimensional, the child has drawn them as if they are all on one plane or surface level. For the human forms, the concept of arms and legs is repeated over and over, like the child has already set that style as his or her form for human arms and legs, regardless of how they would look naturally. These are all characteristics of the schematic stage as detailed by Brittain and Lowenfeld (1970). You can also tell that this student is in the early stages of artistic development or of a young age because of their employing of the territorial imperative principle. The child wants to present each element of the picture as clearly as they can and in doing so, gives each part a completely separate space (Wilson & Wilson, 41). The two people standing next to each other are a great example of this. If they were on opposite teams, as it seems by their different color shirts, they would most likely be closer or overlapping to guard each other but they are not at all. The one on the right is very close to, but ultimately doesn’t even overlap a line on the floor that is prominent in the picture.
Though the student seems to fit well into the schematic stage, there are a few points that make me think that label could possibly not fit this child. In some ways, this particular child seems like the pre-schematic stage might fit better. The human forms the child makes, especially regarding the arms and legs are made of geometric elements that would lose meaning if they were removed from their placement or could even be transposed of each other. The drawing also has the one figure that is looking directly at the viewer and smiling with a simple face that is characteristic of pre-schematic drawings. Then there are elements that make me think he or she is more advanced, possibly to the gang age. The student varied the size of the people and elements that gives off some sense of depth and is able to overlap lines and figures, which is usually lacking in the schematic stage. One thing that caught my attention as well was the student’s attempt at depicting action, both in the lines around the ball and the person with their arms in the air. Oftentimes, students in the gang age are the first to “not [be] inhibited from attempting to draw a figure in action” (Erikson & Young, 42). Because the student has elements beyond that of the schematic stage, it is possible that he or she is in fact in a more advanced stage but has accepted their human forms as “good enough” or doing their jobs in terms of the student’s perspective. This is called the simplicity principle and can actually even show up in adult artwork (Wilson & Wilson, 41).
There are a few things that keep me from being more than certain on my analysis of a child’s drawing. The first is that because I have no way of knowing any personal information like the age of the child, I cannot anticipate the direction of this child’s next possible developmental steps which should come from analyzing their artistic stage (Wilson & Wilson, 40). I also wasn’t given the opportunity to take note on how the child began and worked on this particular piece, to listen to the comments he or she made as the piece was created, or to interview the student after they were finished like the pre-service teachers described in Making Theories of Children’s Artistic Development Meaningful to Preservice Teachers. Even further, Luehrman and Unrath specifically state that “a single drawing is not sufficient evidence for making any definitive conclusions about a child’s development” (10). Just as many different types of assessments over a period of time must be made to determine where a child stands on their math or literacy, one snapshot of a child’s art will not tell a teacher where they sit developmentally.
Assessment on a child’s artistic development directly relates to the stages of development learned through educational psychology courses for pre-service teachers. By going through a more in-depth [MJ2] investigation of development we can make this concept more meaningful and holistic for teaching in the future. Though pre-service teachers may understand the reason behind knowing the math or literacy developmental level of students in their classroom, it is just as important that they know their artistic level as well. These stages can help us realize when students are falling behind or excelling far beyond their peers in certain talents that make them unique. If our world as we know it is headed for a better recognition of right brained strengths, we need to know which of our students may have the potential to lead us in the right direction. The “knowledge workers” of today will need to learn a new set of skills to become the creators of tomorrow (Pink, 30-32). The consequences of pre-service teachers being unaware of the need to be holistically focused on our students’ development could be monumental and force our school systems to fall further and further behind. Even though I couldn’t nail down the exact placement of this child’s developmental stage, I was still able to understand their strengths and weaknesses and that will serve me well in the classroom.
Resources
Brittain, W.L. & V. Lowenfeld. (1970) Creative and Mental Growth. New York, NY. MacMillan Co. pgs 474-479.
Erikson, M. & Young, B. (1996). What every educator should (but maybe doesn’t) know. School Arts, 40-42.
Luehrman, M. & Unrath, K. (2006). Making theories of children’s artistic development meaningful for pre-service teachers. Art Education, 6-12.
Pink, D.H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY. Penguin Group, 7-47.
Wilson, M. & Wilson, B. (1982). Learning to draw: Nurturing the natural. Engle Cliffs, NY, 39-47.
Figure 1: