Robert Sternberg laid out several “facets of creativity” in a 2006 article he wrote summarizing 25 years of interest and study on the subject of creativity.
1) Intellectual Abilities are necessary, according to Sternberg (2006) with three particular skills being key to creativity. First, the ability to see problems in novel ways, or what Getzels (1964) and Csikszenthmihalyi (1994) call problem finding. This synthesis requires the ability to move beyond predictable thinking and look at numerous options simultaneously. Another key intellectual ability is key to creativity is the capacity to look analytically at various ideas and determine which are going to be valuable or useful. Finally, what Sternberg refers to as “practical-contextual ability” (2006), the capacity to be aware of the value of one’s pursuits and convince others of this value. It is crucial that an individual have all three of these skills so that one can come up with new ideas, analyze them to see which are worthwhile and then convince others of their value. Any one of the skills would be limited without the others.
2) Knowledge is another of the key facets of creativity defined by Sternberg (2006). The idea here is that one must have a sufficient amount of knowledge to come up with novel ideas and solutions. Sternberg also stresses the fact that one must not let one’s knowledge limit the ability to think freely.
3) Thinking styles are important to creativity. In particular, the legislative style (Sternberg, 2006), wherein one decides and prefers to think in new ways.
4) Personality is a factor that comes up time and time again in creativity research. There are many different ideas about what kinds of personalities tend toward creativity. Sternberg discusses a few attributes which foster creativity. Self-efficacy, risk taking, a tolerance for ambiguity, and desire to overcome challenges. It is also important that one be comfortable being unconventional as creative ideas are often not popular as they are initially being developed.
5) Motivation is another aspect of creativity that comes up as the subject of numerous empirical studies and theoretical discussions. Sternberg suggests, as others have confirmed (Csikszentmihalyi, 1994; Amabile, 1985). that intrinsic motivation, wherein creative acts are the motivation for work rather than external rewards, is fundamental to creative functioning.
6) Environment is important to creativity because an internal tendency or aptitude requires a supportive arena in which to display new ideas. Without this facet, Sternberg (2006) suggests, the individual might never display creativity.
7) The final facet of creativity that Sternberg stresses is the confluence of the elements listed above. The interplay of these various elements as well as the levels of each an individual possesses are key to creative functioning.
Amabile, T.M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48(2), 393-399.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity, in Feldman, D.H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Gardner, H. (Eds),Changing the World: A Framework of the Study of Creativity, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp.135-58.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Getzels, J.W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19(1), 47-52.
Getzels, J.W. (1964). Creative thinking, problem-solving, and instruction. In E.R. Hilgard (Ed.), Theories of learning and instruction (63rd Yearbook of the national Society for the Study of Education, pp. 240-267). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25 years. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, S (1), 2-12.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Defining Creativity
Creativity, when viewed as a psychological process, is defined as the generation of something novel that appropriately solves a problem or responds to a challenge. There are three important elements in this definition: 1) the creation, generation or production of something (idea, object, treaty, etc.) 2) novel, new, innovative, unique or original that 3) serves a purpose, solves a problem, or neutralizes dissonance. (Guilford, 1950; Sternberg, 2006; Flora, 2009; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996; Runco, 2008; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009; Runco, 2007; Ivcevic, 2009; Morris, 2006; Hegarty, 2009)
It is important to define creativity because I have found that what an artist thinks of as creativity: a spontaneous, organic, originative process, tends to focus on action, whereas many theorists view creativity in terms of the product that is created as a result of this creative action. I am not suggesting that that artists do not value the product of creativity, but, the process of being creative, for many artists, is enormously rewarding, and is a necessary component of living a fulfilling life, with the product being a part of that process, completely inseparable, but still just one aspect of the whole. The process of being creative, frequently thought of in terms of the production of art and laid out in countless models by researchers, is made up of several components, which, for artists, may occur in a very instinctual, non-linear manner. Artist do not follow conceptual models, these models have instead been developed to try to understand the artistic process, which for most artists, functions with uncanny precision, never requiring definition. The arts are not the only disciplines where creativity exists, they are just the most obvious.
So why study creativity? If is it instinctual to creative individuals, should we assume that those who are not instinctually creative are not meant to be? Or are we all instinctively creative, falling victim to life situations and educational environments that stomp this innate ability out with 12+ years of rote memorization and standardized tests? These are questions that lead to the larger question that will be addressed here: is there any point to studying creativity?
The answer is yes. I intend to demonstrate here how creativity can first be understood (definitions and conceptual models), and then follow with studies demonstrating that it can also be cultivated and trained in individuals. The consumer value is pretty easy to illustrate: look around you. All of the products you use, books you enjoy, films you view, all of the tools that help you complete tasks, each one is the product of creative innovation. These things clearly benefit society in concrete ways, but there are other deeper ways in which creativity can benefit society. Practicing creativity can be a way of building self-efficacy, it helps the individual learn to make qualitative judgments about works and gain confidence in their own ability to make appropriate choices. It teaches flexibility. The creative process also teaches individuals to observe and contemplate. This blog will discuss many of these gains as it reviews research that demonstrates them.
Flora, C. (2009). Everyday creativity. Psychology Today. Nov/Dec, 63-73.
Giulford, J.P., (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Hegarty, C.B., (2009). The value and meaning of creative leisure. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 10-13.
Ivcevic, Z., (2009). Creativity map: Toward the next generation of theories of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 17-21.
Kelly, R. & Leggo, C. (2008). Creative expression, creative education: creativity as a primary rationale for education. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Maddux, W. W., & Galinski, A. D., (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1047-1061.
Morris, W. (2006). Creativity: Its place in education.
Runco, M.A. (2007). To understand is to create: An epistemological perspective on human nature and personal creativity. In Richards, R.A. (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature : psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (91-107). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Sternberg, R.J., & Dess, N.K. (2001). Creativity for the new millennium. American Psychologist, 56(4), 332.
Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25 years. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, S (1), 2-12.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688.
Wallas, Graham. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
It is important to define creativity because I have found that what an artist thinks of as creativity: a spontaneous, organic, originative process, tends to focus on action, whereas many theorists view creativity in terms of the product that is created as a result of this creative action. I am not suggesting that that artists do not value the product of creativity, but, the process of being creative, for many artists, is enormously rewarding, and is a necessary component of living a fulfilling life, with the product being a part of that process, completely inseparable, but still just one aspect of the whole. The process of being creative, frequently thought of in terms of the production of art and laid out in countless models by researchers, is made up of several components, which, for artists, may occur in a very instinctual, non-linear manner. Artist do not follow conceptual models, these models have instead been developed to try to understand the artistic process, which for most artists, functions with uncanny precision, never requiring definition. The arts are not the only disciplines where creativity exists, they are just the most obvious.
So why study creativity? If is it instinctual to creative individuals, should we assume that those who are not instinctually creative are not meant to be? Or are we all instinctively creative, falling victim to life situations and educational environments that stomp this innate ability out with 12+ years of rote memorization and standardized tests? These are questions that lead to the larger question that will be addressed here: is there any point to studying creativity?
The answer is yes. I intend to demonstrate here how creativity can first be understood (definitions and conceptual models), and then follow with studies demonstrating that it can also be cultivated and trained in individuals. The consumer value is pretty easy to illustrate: look around you. All of the products you use, books you enjoy, films you view, all of the tools that help you complete tasks, each one is the product of creative innovation. These things clearly benefit society in concrete ways, but there are other deeper ways in which creativity can benefit society. Practicing creativity can be a way of building self-efficacy, it helps the individual learn to make qualitative judgments about works and gain confidence in their own ability to make appropriate choices. It teaches flexibility. The creative process also teaches individuals to observe and contemplate. This blog will discuss many of these gains as it reviews research that demonstrates them.
Flora, C. (2009). Everyday creativity. Psychology Today. Nov/Dec, 63-73.
Giulford, J.P., (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Hegarty, C.B., (2009). The value and meaning of creative leisure. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 10-13.
Ivcevic, Z., (2009). Creativity map: Toward the next generation of theories of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 17-21.
Kelly, R. & Leggo, C. (2008). Creative expression, creative education: creativity as a primary rationale for education. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Maddux, W. W., & Galinski, A. D., (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1047-1061.
Morris, W. (2006). Creativity: Its place in education.
Runco, M.A. (2007). To understand is to create: An epistemological perspective on human nature and personal creativity. In Richards, R.A. (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature : psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (91-107). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Sternberg, R.J., & Dess, N.K. (2001). Creativity for the new millennium. American Psychologist, 56(4), 332.
Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25 years. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, S (1), 2-12.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688.
Wallas, Graham. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Eisner’s 6 Modes of Artistic Thinking
In his an insightful essay, Elliot W. Eisner, of Stanford University discussed six “artistically rooted qualitative forms of intelligence” which could be effectively developed within educational practice in a effort to better prepare students to be effective, articulate, curious and motivated learners.
His assertion that we are now living in an educational industrial age where the focus is on ends rather than means, achievement instead of investigation and test scores above problem-solving skills, is not a new one, what is noteworthy is the way that Eisner proposes we tackle the problem. His views may seem revolutionary, as what he proposes is nothing short of a complete overhaul of the Western educational system, but, frankly, his reasoning is faultless. He suggest this dramatic shift based on the simple fact that we do not live in a world where there are “single correct answers to questions or clear-cut solutions to problems” and therefore, it makes no sense to educate our children in this manner. In fact, doing so is doing a tremendous disservice to them, as future world leaders, they ought to be prepared to deal with the demands of modern living in an applicable and authentic manner that will enable them to find accurate and creative solutions to unexpected problems, as they arise. He does not specifically mention it, but this kind of artistically rooted thinking will also enable future generations to realize where potential problems may arise and take preventative steps, thus avoiding problems. In short, Eisner suggests that education ought to prepare students for the world they will face. That world is not one populated with true or false questions, but rather, it is a world in which they will be continually required to make judgments in situations that are less than clear cut, and effectively makes sense conflicting information, It follows that we ought to be promoting the kinds of skills that will assist them in making sense of ambiguous challenges and proceeding confidently with effective, appropriate solutions. So simple and accurate it is almost silly.
The following are Eisner’s 6 modes of artistic thinking
1) The ability to create a qualitative relationship that serves a purpose
(Eisner also calls this qualitative intelligence)
What Eisner means is that an artist creates a composition from an almost limitless array of elements. What the artist does as he/she combines elements is essentially build relationships, which is important because the artist must then make judgments about those relationships. This practice of making judgments is done intuitively (or somatically), without specific rules (as in math), it therefore teaches the artist to tune into and trust his/her self. The process of creation requires continued appraisal and the practitioner gains confidence in their ability to make qualitative judgments about work in an ongoing basis. Another benefit of this kind of intelligence is that through the process of continued assessment, one learns to pay attention to details and awareness is honed. There is, as Eisner states, a refinement of perception.
2) Expression of aims
Eisner looks at the fact that the Western model is comprised of a cycle which begins with conceptualizing the goal, proceeds through formulation and implementation of the goals and ends with the evaluation of the results. This cycle leaves no room for what he calls “flexible purposing” or a process that capitalizes on the discoveries that come throughout the cycle or process of realizing a goal. Inherent in this mode of thinking is uncertainty, and possibility. It employs the awareness gained in the prior thinking mode as awareness is required to recognize emerging opportunities. This also engenders a greater sense of curiosity and flexibility though exploration.
3) The relationship between form and content
The basic idea here is that the way a thing is constructed is inseparable from what is said. How something is expressed, the medium, is so much a part of it that it is not possible to tease apart the aspects of the relationship. In fact, the content is altered by the form with which it is expressed until the two become one thing. As Eisner says, “the form we use to display data shapes its meaning.”
4) Not everything knowable can be articulated in propositional form
(Our cognition is not limited by our ability to express what is known or understood)
Science demonstrates that we can know a thing before we have the language to express it. The artist also knows that this is true. Exploration leads to new ideas which in turn, lead to new ways of expressing what is understood.
5) There is a relationship between thinking and the material in which the one works
The arts teach individuals to work within a medium considering what Eisner labels “constraints and affordances”. The idea here is that the limitations of a specific form are part of the work of creating and because of this, artists must bend thinking and shape work within the medium. This concept, like the content/form point discussed earlier demonstrates the fact that the two things are indivisible, as the opportunities and limitations of the form help to shape the content.
6) The authentic challenge of art creates intrinsic motivation
In the arts, the process and challenge of creating work provides one with a sense of satisfaction and therefore ensures the continuation of the practice of art making. Motivation is a major challenge for educators so this factor is one that is especially interesting. Creating an educational environment wherein the satisfaction of the work (in any subject) was sufficient to beget future motivation would be beneficial and welcome.
Eisner, E.W., (2002). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(1), 4-16.
His assertion that we are now living in an educational industrial age where the focus is on ends rather than means, achievement instead of investigation and test scores above problem-solving skills, is not a new one, what is noteworthy is the way that Eisner proposes we tackle the problem. His views may seem revolutionary, as what he proposes is nothing short of a complete overhaul of the Western educational system, but, frankly, his reasoning is faultless. He suggest this dramatic shift based on the simple fact that we do not live in a world where there are “single correct answers to questions or clear-cut solutions to problems” and therefore, it makes no sense to educate our children in this manner. In fact, doing so is doing a tremendous disservice to them, as future world leaders, they ought to be prepared to deal with the demands of modern living in an applicable and authentic manner that will enable them to find accurate and creative solutions to unexpected problems, as they arise. He does not specifically mention it, but this kind of artistically rooted thinking will also enable future generations to realize where potential problems may arise and take preventative steps, thus avoiding problems. In short, Eisner suggests that education ought to prepare students for the world they will face. That world is not one populated with true or false questions, but rather, it is a world in which they will be continually required to make judgments in situations that are less than clear cut, and effectively makes sense conflicting information, It follows that we ought to be promoting the kinds of skills that will assist them in making sense of ambiguous challenges and proceeding confidently with effective, appropriate solutions. So simple and accurate it is almost silly.
The following are Eisner’s 6 modes of artistic thinking
1) The ability to create a qualitative relationship that serves a purpose
(Eisner also calls this qualitative intelligence)
What Eisner means is that an artist creates a composition from an almost limitless array of elements. What the artist does as he/she combines elements is essentially build relationships, which is important because the artist must then make judgments about those relationships. This practice of making judgments is done intuitively (or somatically), without specific rules (as in math), it therefore teaches the artist to tune into and trust his/her self. The process of creation requires continued appraisal and the practitioner gains confidence in their ability to make qualitative judgments about work in an ongoing basis. Another benefit of this kind of intelligence is that through the process of continued assessment, one learns to pay attention to details and awareness is honed. There is, as Eisner states, a refinement of perception.
2) Expression of aims
Eisner looks at the fact that the Western model is comprised of a cycle which begins with conceptualizing the goal, proceeds through formulation and implementation of the goals and ends with the evaluation of the results. This cycle leaves no room for what he calls “flexible purposing” or a process that capitalizes on the discoveries that come throughout the cycle or process of realizing a goal. Inherent in this mode of thinking is uncertainty, and possibility. It employs the awareness gained in the prior thinking mode as awareness is required to recognize emerging opportunities. This also engenders a greater sense of curiosity and flexibility though exploration.
3) The relationship between form and content
The basic idea here is that the way a thing is constructed is inseparable from what is said. How something is expressed, the medium, is so much a part of it that it is not possible to tease apart the aspects of the relationship. In fact, the content is altered by the form with which it is expressed until the two become one thing. As Eisner says, “the form we use to display data shapes its meaning.”
4) Not everything knowable can be articulated in propositional form
(Our cognition is not limited by our ability to express what is known or understood)
Science demonstrates that we can know a thing before we have the language to express it. The artist also knows that this is true. Exploration leads to new ideas which in turn, lead to new ways of expressing what is understood.
5) There is a relationship between thinking and the material in which the one works
The arts teach individuals to work within a medium considering what Eisner labels “constraints and affordances”. The idea here is that the limitations of a specific form are part of the work of creating and because of this, artists must bend thinking and shape work within the medium. This concept, like the content/form point discussed earlier demonstrates the fact that the two things are indivisible, as the opportunities and limitations of the form help to shape the content.
6) The authentic challenge of art creates intrinsic motivation
In the arts, the process and challenge of creating work provides one with a sense of satisfaction and therefore ensures the continuation of the practice of art making. Motivation is a major challenge for educators so this factor is one that is especially interesting. Creating an educational environment wherein the satisfaction of the work (in any subject) was sufficient to beget future motivation would be beneficial and welcome.
Eisner, E.W., (2002). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(1), 4-16.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
How Drawing Facilitates Communication with Young Children
Researchers have long been observing children’s drawings and trying to understand how children use them to communicate as well as what they might explain about various aspects of child development. After 1907, when Schuyten first put forth the idea that children’s drawing might be a way of learning about intelligence, researchers began inventing systems to analyze and quantify information found in these pictures. In 1926 the Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test, a standardized system of scoring children’s drawings of the human body, was the first in a long line of instruments designed to measure intelligence and cognitive development through drawing. This particular assessment of pictures with the aim of gleaning information about the inner world of the child has been refined, simplified and re-imagined many times since (Harris in 1963, Machover in 1949, Koppitz in 1968, Naglieri in 1988) and is now called the Draw-A-Person test (DAP). It is just one example of the systems of evaluation for children’s drawings that are used routinely by professionals attempting to gain deeper understanding of children’s communicative capabilities, as well as a range of features of child development and intelligence. (Cox, 2005; Lambert, 2005) More recently, the focus has been taken away from the analysis of the product, and instead the process of drawing is being studied as a means of fostering active communication with children, sometimes for that end alone and other times with more complex goals such as acquiring more reliable witness testimony from children who have been involved in traumatic situations. (Butler, Gross & Hayne, 1995; Gross & Hayne, 1998; Lev-Wiesel & Liraz, 2007).
Researchers, educators and other professionals have continued to look at the ways that drawings can teach about the cognitive, social and emotional development of children, there is also increased investigation about how drawing might facilitate enhanced communication with children, herein are several relatively recent studies (completed between 1995 and 2007) that further extend the body of empirical support for this topic. Summary and analysis of following five studies will demonstrate some of the means by which drawing may help researchers and educators better understand and communicate with children. It will also discuss some of the weaknesses of the studies and make suggestions, based on the research, for further studies.
Drawing and Memory
Two experimental studies by Butler, Gross & Hayne (1995) looked at whether drawing effects the performance of memory in children ages 3-6. They discussed prior research, which demonstrated that children store information about experiences when they are direct participants, that older children recall more that younger ones do and that drawing is a useful technique for helping boost the memory performance of children. From this starting point they hypothesized that they could set up a memorable event (a hands on trip to a fire station) and then show that children remember more about an event when were are asked to draw it, and further that older children would recall more than younger ones. The first experiment consisted of dividing the 5-6 year old children into two groups: a draw group which was asked to describe the event while simultaneously drawing, and a tell group which was just asked to tell about the event. (Butler et al, 1995) each child was interviewed in three sections: free recall, direct recall and photo recall, and the number of items described was recorded. The results showed that the draw group did indeed recall about twice as much information during the direct recall section as the tell group, (the number of items recalled for the other sections was about the same for the draw and tell groups), they also spent an average of about 6 minutes in interview to the 1.5 of the tell group. Of note was the fact that the increased amount of information did not take away from the level of accuracy.
The next experiment consisted of looking at children in two age sets: 3-4 and 5-6 years, then, for each age set, dividing them into a draw group and a tell group. This time the same interview was performed a month after the actual event to determine whether drawing would have any bearing on memory after a longer period of time, and whether younger children would recall less information than older ones. The experiment confirmed that drawing does indeed, result in greater memory performance in children, even after a longer period of time. As in the previous experiment, children in the draw group for both age sets (3-4 and 5-6 years) recalled more information during the direct recall section (and about the same amount during free recall and photo recall): the 3-4 year old draw group remembered just slightly more than the tell group, while, as in the former experiment, the amount of data recalled was about twice as much in the 5-6 year old draw group than the tell group. As in the former experiment, there was no loss of accuracy and the draw groups in both age sets spent significantly more time in the interview. The research suggested that drawing helped children focus on subject longer, therefore having superior recall.
One of the biggest strengths of this study is that it consisted of two experiments that both had similar results. It leaves several questions to be answered, some of which Gross and Hayne answer in the following study and others, which will be addressed in the discussion.
Drawing and Verbal Expression
Two of the researchers from the previous study, Gross & Hayne, (1998) went on to further examine how drawing impacts the way that children give oral accounts of experiences. In this study, they noted that in their previous experiments the children did not express their feelings about the event and because drawing is often used in clinical settings where emotional content is key, they wanted to demonstrate that drawing is a valuable tool when trying to facilitate discussion about emotional situations that might ordinarily be difficult for children to describe. They surmised that drawing would facilitate the creation of a more detailed narrative. Once more the research consists of two different experiments.
In the first experiment, two sets of children 3-4 and 5-6 years old were all first asked to draw three human figures (to gauge drawing ability) and then instructed to give an account of three emotional experiences (happy, sad and scared). Once again, the students were separated into two groups, the draw group and the tell group. The draw children were asked to draw a time they experienced each experience and tell, while the tell group was just asked to verbally describe the experiences. The human figure drawings were analyzed using the Naglieri Draw-A-Person Quantitative Scoring System and the interviews were analyzed for number of items reported. The results indicated that, as in the previous research, drawing increased the amount of information children reported. The draw group for 3-4 year olds gave about twice as much information as the tell group and the 5-6 year olds in the draw group gave about 3 times as much information as the tell group, the information was also significantly (about 3 times) more descriptive for both age sets in the draw groups. Significant correlation also existed between drawing skill/composition and the verbal performance and number of details reported by the children. Gross & Hayne (1997), therefore suggest that the more drawing ability a child has, the better their narrative will be. The researchers were satisfied that the exploration had adequately illustrated the hypothesis, but also wanted to know if the creative, playful nature of drawing had an influence on the accuracy of the narratives.
In the second experiment, looked at whether the level of accuracy suffered when children were asked to draw and tell. Gross & Hayne (1998) interviewed 20 children ages 5-6. In each interview, the child was asked to draw and tell for one emotion (happy, sad, scared) and just tell for another, the draw/tell order changed from child to child. The accuracy of the children’s accounts was determined by their parents, who reviewed transcripts of the interview and indicated whether or not each detail was true, false or unknown. The results of the experiment demonstrated again, that children give more information when asked to draw about an emotional experience and also that accuracy does not suffer when children draw and tell: only one fact in 40 was inaccurate. (Gross & Hayne, 1998)
These experiments are strong because they reinforce the prior findings as well as one another. Weaknesses of this study were the small sample size and the single interview session. They do however, lead the reader to ask further questions which will be addressed in the discussion.
Drawing to Encourage Discussion
The aim of this study conducted by Lev-Wiesel & Liraz (2007) was to determine whether, when first asked to draw what life was like “in the shadow” of their father’s drug addictions, then asked to describe it, children ages 9-12 would give more detailed information than children who had not been asked to draw first. The researchers believed that because previous research had indicated that children who had been traumatized, tended to feel more comfortable drawing than speaking about their lives, and because drawing has also been shown to be valuable in getting people suffering from post-traumatic stress symptoms to communicate, that giving children the opportunity to draw before beginning to give a narrative would better enable them to verbalize their feelings. The study also looked at the symbolic significance of color choice in the children’s drawings.
Sixty children between the ages of 9-14 were selected from drug treatment units, and were then randomly split into two groups. The children were given an explanation of the experiment and were given the option of participating. After interview sessions, drawings and transcripts of the interviews were evaluated by independent assessors. The data demonstrated that the children who drew first expressed higher levels of negative emotions, life appreciation and optimism, and gave an more descriptive narrative, while the children who did not draw had a higher level splitting (or inability to make definitive statements) and a higher level of resistance to the questions (Lev-Wiesel & Liraz, 2007). The researchers asserted that this fact gave strength to the notion that drawing helps children build verbal narratives. They also asserted that the fact that the children who were only asked to give narratives were prone to resistance and splitting illustrated that they had undergone trauma as children of drug abusers and therefore had impaired verbal expression. The researchers looked at instances of color use in the drawings and evaluators guessed what they represented, therefore making some very arbitrary statements. This aspect of the study was very weak. They suggested that because 80% of the children used black in their drawings, their study is consistent with other studies that linked color and emotion, but it is impossible to suggest that black is only indicative of negative emotions because the request was for an illustration of “life in the “shadow” of drug abuse, and shadows are typically dark or black.
This study demonstrated a strong relationship between drawing and the development of more descriptive, clear narratives, there were however, several weaknesses. First, some of the conclusions drawn in the study, though not illogical, were not backed with appropriate data. For instance, it was unclear whether the fact that the students who did not draw tended to employ splitting and resistance because they were verbally impaired. This assertion was a grand leap and the results of the study would have been better used as evidence that drawing helped children discuss traumatic situations, than to demonstrate something outside of the sphere of the study. The study would have been stronger if it had better quantified the amount of information given by the two groups in terms of number of narrative facts, emotions, etc. The color aspect of the study is so unscientific, as shown above, it is not worth further discussion.
Draw-and-tell: Fear
In a 2006, Driessnack conducted a qualitative study looking at how children describe experiences of fear. She felt that it was important to understand the way that children describe their own drawings (as opposed to the way adults interpret them). She also indicated that children often have difficulties retrieving and relating information and hoped that the use of drawing would help them “generate retrieval cues”. (Driessnack, 2006). A draw-and-tell method in which children could express instances of fear, was developed for the study. The participants were 22 second grad students ages 7-8. Data was collected during a single one-hour session conducted in the child’s school classroom after hours. Each subject was allowed to choose their drawing supplies in an effort to give them a sense of control, and then asked to tell about the time they were most afraid. Afterward the conversations were transcribed and assed using a linguistic analysis and a thematic analysis. The linguistic analysis demonstrated that by using a series of specific and unexpected linguistic elements (orienting clauses, negation, present tense and absence of resolution) the children created narrative paths that re-created their fear situations. The thematic analysis indicated five main themes within children’s fear narratives that together illustrated that the children felt fear when unprotected, vulnerable, isolated and without community (Driessnack, 2006).
Some of the weaknesses of this study were the small sample size and the single interview session as well as the lack of a non-draw group for comparison. There is no way to know if children would have utilized the same linguistic and thematic devices had they not been asked to draw. This study explored the kind of information collected in a draw-and-tell interview but did not demonstrate that this method was more effective than any other in facilitating communication.
How Drawing Illustrates Development
The final study took a look at the relationship between cognitive development and that of drawing and painting in young children. Lambert (2005) discussed the ideas of other researchers stating that children’s drawings relate to cognitive pattern and memory development, conceptual thinking and that they are a means for them to interpret the real world. She hypothesized that development does not occur in a sequential or linear manner as children transition from pre-school to school, instead, she suggested that children “revisit” familiar forms as they make developmental progress. She also hoped to gain an understanding about the way that children process information through drawing. (Lambert, 2005)
For this study, monthly samples of pictures created by 40 pre-school students over the course of a year were collected and assessed. The children were unaware that the artwork was being collected. Evaluation was done according to “Gardner’s Multiple intelligences evaluation levels for children’s art” (Lambert, 2005), a twelve category method utilized when analyzing intelligence in the visual realm. The results of the study allowed the researcher to draw conclusions about the ways that children make meaning from the synchronicities between various types of patterns, objects, sizes and forms. The analysis showed growing sophistication in the drawings, they became increasingly representational and when non-representational, they showed progressive development of purposeful pattern making, which Lambert (2007) interpreted as manifestation of the developing ability to symbolically represent thoughts and evidence of more highly developed abstract thinking. She also asserted that this emergent comprehension of symbolic meaning was evidence of growing complexity in individual reasoning and problem solving. She found the simultaneous progressive cognitive development and the outward transition from pre-school to school to be significant and took it to be illustrative of the fact that the children were making meaning with their art.
The fact that artwork was collected over the course of an entire year was a strong point of this study, because it allowed the researcher to witness the development of the student’s work. A weakness of this study is the lack of any hard data. It is interesting and insightful, but ultimately, without any concrete data, it loses the ability to convince and is more illustrative and anecdotal than factual.
Discussion
Children’ s drawings have been studied for the last century, but more recently, researchers have been focusing not only on the product, but also more on the process of drawing and the kinds of communication it might help facilitate with children. The research in this review ranges from experiments looking at how drawing can help facilitate improved verbal communication to ways that drawings can help us gain a better understanding of children’s cognitive development. The importance of understanding how young people develop is clear, children represent the future and therefore, understanding the best ways to communicate with them is key to building the best society possible. Drawing is one important way that young children express themselves, this review illustrates some of the ways it can be utilized for better understanding and communication. The research in the first three articles indicated that drawing does facilitate accurate, descriptive verbal communication when utilized during the interview process. The implication here is that drawing can be employed as a means of extracting more complete and detailed witness testimony from children, a way of getting them to better communicate about traumatic events such as and parental drug use and could even potentially help to detect sexual abuse. (Butler, Gross & Hayne , 1995; Lev-Wiesel & Liraz, 2007; Driessnack, 2006). The fourth article discusses how the draw-and-tell interview method could be used to get children suffering with grief, pain, or chronic illness (or living with parents or siblings suffering) to communicate about their experiences, which could help them to understand the relevance and make meaning in their lives. Drawing can also be used to gauge cognitive development as is illustrated in the final article. This review is a just a survey of a few of the ways that drawing is being used to foster better communication with children.
The first two articles represent four different experiments demonstrating that children given the opportunity to draw while they build a narrative give about twice as much accurate, detailed information as those who are not asked to draw (Butler, Gross & Hayne, 1995; Gross & Hayne, 1997). This means that drawing helps children formulate clearer more detailed accounts of the events in their lives. The Lev-Wiesel & Liraz (2007) study described prior research illustrating that children whose parents are drug abusers tend to have various difficulties including high levels of psychological distress, verbal and cognitive difficulties and lower social skills. They also discussed research demonstrating that emotional healing can come from reconstruction of autobiographical memory and from being a spectator to one’s experience. It is for these reasons they believe the use of drawing is a valuable communication tool. By demonstrating that children are better able to verbalize their feelings when given the opportunity to draw (either before or during storytelling) the first three articles all support the idea that drawing helps children remember, describe and narrate events in their lives. The use of drawing as a way for children to come to terms with the unhealthy life situations by finding ways to articulate their suffering is one important means of utilizing drawing to help children develop. The fourth article in this review looks at the way drawing helps build narrative, but focuses on the kind of stories that are told by children. Driessnack (2006) suggests that children’s stories are told differently when they are asked to draw them, and that drawing helps children re-create and explore frightening situations. The final article explores the way the drawings children make over a long period of time, communicate the children's development. Taken together these articles exemplify some ways that drawing is valuable as a way of understanding children.
Several of the studies left questions that could be investigated in future studies. Some questions in the Butler, Gross & Hayne (1995) study are, first, did the children perform better specifically because they were drawing, or because they were in the interview setting for a much longer period of time? Next, is it possible that the act of drawing simply made the children feel more comfortable, and if this was the real reason for the increased amount of information given, perhaps drawing could be substituted with playing with clay or some other activity. Both of these questions could be looked at in future studies. The experiments by Gross & Hayne (1998) left a few questions, for instance, what was it about drawing that encouraged children to speak? They suggested that it could be a variety of things: drawing helps children retrieve memory by enabling their own retrieval cues or perhaps it helps them better organize thoughts and therefore tell a more coherent narrative. It would be interesting to see how these questions are answered with future studies. A huge flaw in the Lev-Wiesel & Liraz (2007) study was the fact that they used a very emotional and leading question: “what is life like it the shadow of your father’s addiction?” it would be interesting to see how different the study would be if the question was less leading and the data was evaluated in a more quantitative manner. The qualitative look at how children's construction of fear narratives was interesting, but left me wondering what the data would have looked like had there been a control group to compare the storytelling styles with (Driessnack, 2006). I would like to see if the narratives are really different when children are asked to draw compared with children who are just asked to describe a frightening experience. Finally, the longitudinal nature of Lambert’s (2007) study was strong, but the data collection seemed spotty. I think a similar length of time and collection method with more specific, quantified criteria would better enable readers to understand the specific kinds correlations that exist between drawing development and social and cognitive development. The range of research being conducted about the usefulness of drawing in communicating with and understanding the way children communicate their development is wide, this is just a look at a few of the ways researchers are using it as a tool for better understanding children.
References
Butler, S., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1995). The effect of drawing on memory performance in
young children. Developmental Psychology, 31 (4), 597-608.
Cox, M. (2005). The pictorial world of the child. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Driessnack, M. (2006) Draw-and-tell conversations with children about fear. Qualitative Health Research, 16 (10), 1414-1435.
Gross, J. & & Hayne, H. (1998). Drawing facilitates children’s verbal reports of emotionally laden events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4 (2), 163-179.
Lambert, B. (2005). Children's drawing and painting from a cognitive perspective: a longitudinal study. Early Years, 25 (3), 249-269.
Lev-Wiesel, & R., Liraz, R. (2007) Drawing vs. narratives: drawing as a tool to encourage verbalization in children whose fathers are drug abusers. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12 (1), 67-75.
Ter Laak, J., De Goede, M., Aleva, A., & Van Rijswijk, P. (2005) The Draw-A-Person Test: An Indicator of Children’s Socioemotional Adaptation? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166 (1), 77-92.
Researchers, educators and other professionals have continued to look at the ways that drawings can teach about the cognitive, social and emotional development of children, there is also increased investigation about how drawing might facilitate enhanced communication with children, herein are several relatively recent studies (completed between 1995 and 2007) that further extend the body of empirical support for this topic. Summary and analysis of following five studies will demonstrate some of the means by which drawing may help researchers and educators better understand and communicate with children. It will also discuss some of the weaknesses of the studies and make suggestions, based on the research, for further studies.
Drawing and Memory
Two experimental studies by Butler, Gross & Hayne (1995) looked at whether drawing effects the performance of memory in children ages 3-6. They discussed prior research, which demonstrated that children store information about experiences when they are direct participants, that older children recall more that younger ones do and that drawing is a useful technique for helping boost the memory performance of children. From this starting point they hypothesized that they could set up a memorable event (a hands on trip to a fire station) and then show that children remember more about an event when were are asked to draw it, and further that older children would recall more than younger ones. The first experiment consisted of dividing the 5-6 year old children into two groups: a draw group which was asked to describe the event while simultaneously drawing, and a tell group which was just asked to tell about the event. (Butler et al, 1995) each child was interviewed in three sections: free recall, direct recall and photo recall, and the number of items described was recorded. The results showed that the draw group did indeed recall about twice as much information during the direct recall section as the tell group, (the number of items recalled for the other sections was about the same for the draw and tell groups), they also spent an average of about 6 minutes in interview to the 1.5 of the tell group. Of note was the fact that the increased amount of information did not take away from the level of accuracy.
The next experiment consisted of looking at children in two age sets: 3-4 and 5-6 years, then, for each age set, dividing them into a draw group and a tell group. This time the same interview was performed a month after the actual event to determine whether drawing would have any bearing on memory after a longer period of time, and whether younger children would recall less information than older ones. The experiment confirmed that drawing does indeed, result in greater memory performance in children, even after a longer period of time. As in the previous experiment, children in the draw group for both age sets (3-4 and 5-6 years) recalled more information during the direct recall section (and about the same amount during free recall and photo recall): the 3-4 year old draw group remembered just slightly more than the tell group, while, as in the former experiment, the amount of data recalled was about twice as much in the 5-6 year old draw group than the tell group. As in the former experiment, there was no loss of accuracy and the draw groups in both age sets spent significantly more time in the interview. The research suggested that drawing helped children focus on subject longer, therefore having superior recall.
One of the biggest strengths of this study is that it consisted of two experiments that both had similar results. It leaves several questions to be answered, some of which Gross and Hayne answer in the following study and others, which will be addressed in the discussion.
Drawing and Verbal Expression
Two of the researchers from the previous study, Gross & Hayne, (1998) went on to further examine how drawing impacts the way that children give oral accounts of experiences. In this study, they noted that in their previous experiments the children did not express their feelings about the event and because drawing is often used in clinical settings where emotional content is key, they wanted to demonstrate that drawing is a valuable tool when trying to facilitate discussion about emotional situations that might ordinarily be difficult for children to describe. They surmised that drawing would facilitate the creation of a more detailed narrative. Once more the research consists of two different experiments.
In the first experiment, two sets of children 3-4 and 5-6 years old were all first asked to draw three human figures (to gauge drawing ability) and then instructed to give an account of three emotional experiences (happy, sad and scared). Once again, the students were separated into two groups, the draw group and the tell group. The draw children were asked to draw a time they experienced each experience and tell, while the tell group was just asked to verbally describe the experiences. The human figure drawings were analyzed using the Naglieri Draw-A-Person Quantitative Scoring System and the interviews were analyzed for number of items reported. The results indicated that, as in the previous research, drawing increased the amount of information children reported. The draw group for 3-4 year olds gave about twice as much information as the tell group and the 5-6 year olds in the draw group gave about 3 times as much information as the tell group, the information was also significantly (about 3 times) more descriptive for both age sets in the draw groups. Significant correlation also existed between drawing skill/composition and the verbal performance and number of details reported by the children. Gross & Hayne (1997), therefore suggest that the more drawing ability a child has, the better their narrative will be. The researchers were satisfied that the exploration had adequately illustrated the hypothesis, but also wanted to know if the creative, playful nature of drawing had an influence on the accuracy of the narratives.
In the second experiment, looked at whether the level of accuracy suffered when children were asked to draw and tell. Gross & Hayne (1998) interviewed 20 children ages 5-6. In each interview, the child was asked to draw and tell for one emotion (happy, sad, scared) and just tell for another, the draw/tell order changed from child to child. The accuracy of the children’s accounts was determined by their parents, who reviewed transcripts of the interview and indicated whether or not each detail was true, false or unknown. The results of the experiment demonstrated again, that children give more information when asked to draw about an emotional experience and also that accuracy does not suffer when children draw and tell: only one fact in 40 was inaccurate. (Gross & Hayne, 1998)
These experiments are strong because they reinforce the prior findings as well as one another. Weaknesses of this study were the small sample size and the single interview session. They do however, lead the reader to ask further questions which will be addressed in the discussion.
Drawing to Encourage Discussion
The aim of this study conducted by Lev-Wiesel & Liraz (2007) was to determine whether, when first asked to draw what life was like “in the shadow” of their father’s drug addictions, then asked to describe it, children ages 9-12 would give more detailed information than children who had not been asked to draw first. The researchers believed that because previous research had indicated that children who had been traumatized, tended to feel more comfortable drawing than speaking about their lives, and because drawing has also been shown to be valuable in getting people suffering from post-traumatic stress symptoms to communicate, that giving children the opportunity to draw before beginning to give a narrative would better enable them to verbalize their feelings. The study also looked at the symbolic significance of color choice in the children’s drawings.
Sixty children between the ages of 9-14 were selected from drug treatment units, and were then randomly split into two groups. The children were given an explanation of the experiment and were given the option of participating. After interview sessions, drawings and transcripts of the interviews were evaluated by independent assessors. The data demonstrated that the children who drew first expressed higher levels of negative emotions, life appreciation and optimism, and gave an more descriptive narrative, while the children who did not draw had a higher level splitting (or inability to make definitive statements) and a higher level of resistance to the questions (Lev-Wiesel & Liraz, 2007). The researchers asserted that this fact gave strength to the notion that drawing helps children build verbal narratives. They also asserted that the fact that the children who were only asked to give narratives were prone to resistance and splitting illustrated that they had undergone trauma as children of drug abusers and therefore had impaired verbal expression. The researchers looked at instances of color use in the drawings and evaluators guessed what they represented, therefore making some very arbitrary statements. This aspect of the study was very weak. They suggested that because 80% of the children used black in their drawings, their study is consistent with other studies that linked color and emotion, but it is impossible to suggest that black is only indicative of negative emotions because the request was for an illustration of “life in the “shadow” of drug abuse, and shadows are typically dark or black.
This study demonstrated a strong relationship between drawing and the development of more descriptive, clear narratives, there were however, several weaknesses. First, some of the conclusions drawn in the study, though not illogical, were not backed with appropriate data. For instance, it was unclear whether the fact that the students who did not draw tended to employ splitting and resistance because they were verbally impaired. This assertion was a grand leap and the results of the study would have been better used as evidence that drawing helped children discuss traumatic situations, than to demonstrate something outside of the sphere of the study. The study would have been stronger if it had better quantified the amount of information given by the two groups in terms of number of narrative facts, emotions, etc. The color aspect of the study is so unscientific, as shown above, it is not worth further discussion.
Draw-and-tell: Fear
In a 2006, Driessnack conducted a qualitative study looking at how children describe experiences of fear. She felt that it was important to understand the way that children describe their own drawings (as opposed to the way adults interpret them). She also indicated that children often have difficulties retrieving and relating information and hoped that the use of drawing would help them “generate retrieval cues”. (Driessnack, 2006). A draw-and-tell method in which children could express instances of fear, was developed for the study. The participants were 22 second grad students ages 7-8. Data was collected during a single one-hour session conducted in the child’s school classroom after hours. Each subject was allowed to choose their drawing supplies in an effort to give them a sense of control, and then asked to tell about the time they were most afraid. Afterward the conversations were transcribed and assed using a linguistic analysis and a thematic analysis. The linguistic analysis demonstrated that by using a series of specific and unexpected linguistic elements (orienting clauses, negation, present tense and absence of resolution) the children created narrative paths that re-created their fear situations. The thematic analysis indicated five main themes within children’s fear narratives that together illustrated that the children felt fear when unprotected, vulnerable, isolated and without community (Driessnack, 2006).
Some of the weaknesses of this study were the small sample size and the single interview session as well as the lack of a non-draw group for comparison. There is no way to know if children would have utilized the same linguistic and thematic devices had they not been asked to draw. This study explored the kind of information collected in a draw-and-tell interview but did not demonstrate that this method was more effective than any other in facilitating communication.
How Drawing Illustrates Development
The final study took a look at the relationship between cognitive development and that of drawing and painting in young children. Lambert (2005) discussed the ideas of other researchers stating that children’s drawings relate to cognitive pattern and memory development, conceptual thinking and that they are a means for them to interpret the real world. She hypothesized that development does not occur in a sequential or linear manner as children transition from pre-school to school, instead, she suggested that children “revisit” familiar forms as they make developmental progress. She also hoped to gain an understanding about the way that children process information through drawing. (Lambert, 2005)
For this study, monthly samples of pictures created by 40 pre-school students over the course of a year were collected and assessed. The children were unaware that the artwork was being collected. Evaluation was done according to “Gardner’s Multiple intelligences evaluation levels for children’s art” (Lambert, 2005), a twelve category method utilized when analyzing intelligence in the visual realm. The results of the study allowed the researcher to draw conclusions about the ways that children make meaning from the synchronicities between various types of patterns, objects, sizes and forms. The analysis showed growing sophistication in the drawings, they became increasingly representational and when non-representational, they showed progressive development of purposeful pattern making, which Lambert (2007) interpreted as manifestation of the developing ability to symbolically represent thoughts and evidence of more highly developed abstract thinking. She also asserted that this emergent comprehension of symbolic meaning was evidence of growing complexity in individual reasoning and problem solving. She found the simultaneous progressive cognitive development and the outward transition from pre-school to school to be significant and took it to be illustrative of the fact that the children were making meaning with their art.
The fact that artwork was collected over the course of an entire year was a strong point of this study, because it allowed the researcher to witness the development of the student’s work. A weakness of this study is the lack of any hard data. It is interesting and insightful, but ultimately, without any concrete data, it loses the ability to convince and is more illustrative and anecdotal than factual.
Discussion
Children’ s drawings have been studied for the last century, but more recently, researchers have been focusing not only on the product, but also more on the process of drawing and the kinds of communication it might help facilitate with children. The research in this review ranges from experiments looking at how drawing can help facilitate improved verbal communication to ways that drawings can help us gain a better understanding of children’s cognitive development. The importance of understanding how young people develop is clear, children represent the future and therefore, understanding the best ways to communicate with them is key to building the best society possible. Drawing is one important way that young children express themselves, this review illustrates some of the ways it can be utilized for better understanding and communication. The research in the first three articles indicated that drawing does facilitate accurate, descriptive verbal communication when utilized during the interview process. The implication here is that drawing can be employed as a means of extracting more complete and detailed witness testimony from children, a way of getting them to better communicate about traumatic events such as and parental drug use and could even potentially help to detect sexual abuse. (Butler, Gross & Hayne , 1995; Lev-Wiesel & Liraz, 2007; Driessnack, 2006). The fourth article discusses how the draw-and-tell interview method could be used to get children suffering with grief, pain, or chronic illness (or living with parents or siblings suffering) to communicate about their experiences, which could help them to understand the relevance and make meaning in their lives. Drawing can also be used to gauge cognitive development as is illustrated in the final article. This review is a just a survey of a few of the ways that drawing is being used to foster better communication with children.
The first two articles represent four different experiments demonstrating that children given the opportunity to draw while they build a narrative give about twice as much accurate, detailed information as those who are not asked to draw (Butler, Gross & Hayne, 1995; Gross & Hayne, 1997). This means that drawing helps children formulate clearer more detailed accounts of the events in their lives. The Lev-Wiesel & Liraz (2007) study described prior research illustrating that children whose parents are drug abusers tend to have various difficulties including high levels of psychological distress, verbal and cognitive difficulties and lower social skills. They also discussed research demonstrating that emotional healing can come from reconstruction of autobiographical memory and from being a spectator to one’s experience. It is for these reasons they believe the use of drawing is a valuable communication tool. By demonstrating that children are better able to verbalize their feelings when given the opportunity to draw (either before or during storytelling) the first three articles all support the idea that drawing helps children remember, describe and narrate events in their lives. The use of drawing as a way for children to come to terms with the unhealthy life situations by finding ways to articulate their suffering is one important means of utilizing drawing to help children develop. The fourth article in this review looks at the way drawing helps build narrative, but focuses on the kind of stories that are told by children. Driessnack (2006) suggests that children’s stories are told differently when they are asked to draw them, and that drawing helps children re-create and explore frightening situations. The final article explores the way the drawings children make over a long period of time, communicate the children's development. Taken together these articles exemplify some ways that drawing is valuable as a way of understanding children.
Several of the studies left questions that could be investigated in future studies. Some questions in the Butler, Gross & Hayne (1995) study are, first, did the children perform better specifically because they were drawing, or because they were in the interview setting for a much longer period of time? Next, is it possible that the act of drawing simply made the children feel more comfortable, and if this was the real reason for the increased amount of information given, perhaps drawing could be substituted with playing with clay or some other activity. Both of these questions could be looked at in future studies. The experiments by Gross & Hayne (1998) left a few questions, for instance, what was it about drawing that encouraged children to speak? They suggested that it could be a variety of things: drawing helps children retrieve memory by enabling their own retrieval cues or perhaps it helps them better organize thoughts and therefore tell a more coherent narrative. It would be interesting to see how these questions are answered with future studies. A huge flaw in the Lev-Wiesel & Liraz (2007) study was the fact that they used a very emotional and leading question: “what is life like it the shadow of your father’s addiction?” it would be interesting to see how different the study would be if the question was less leading and the data was evaluated in a more quantitative manner. The qualitative look at how children's construction of fear narratives was interesting, but left me wondering what the data would have looked like had there been a control group to compare the storytelling styles with (Driessnack, 2006). I would like to see if the narratives are really different when children are asked to draw compared with children who are just asked to describe a frightening experience. Finally, the longitudinal nature of Lambert’s (2007) study was strong, but the data collection seemed spotty. I think a similar length of time and collection method with more specific, quantified criteria would better enable readers to understand the specific kinds correlations that exist between drawing development and social and cognitive development. The range of research being conducted about the usefulness of drawing in communicating with and understanding the way children communicate their development is wide, this is just a look at a few of the ways researchers are using it as a tool for better understanding children.
References
Butler, S., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1995). The effect of drawing on memory performance in
young children. Developmental Psychology, 31 (4), 597-608.
Cox, M. (2005). The pictorial world of the child. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Driessnack, M. (2006) Draw-and-tell conversations with children about fear. Qualitative Health Research, 16 (10), 1414-1435.
Gross, J. & & Hayne, H. (1998). Drawing facilitates children’s verbal reports of emotionally laden events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4 (2), 163-179.
Lambert, B. (2005). Children's drawing and painting from a cognitive perspective: a longitudinal study. Early Years, 25 (3), 249-269.
Lev-Wiesel, & R., Liraz, R. (2007) Drawing vs. narratives: drawing as a tool to encourage verbalization in children whose fathers are drug abusers. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12 (1), 67-75.
Ter Laak, J., De Goede, M., Aleva, A., & Van Rijswijk, P. (2005) The Draw-A-Person Test: An Indicator of Children’s Socioemotional Adaptation? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166 (1), 77-92.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Benefits of Federally Funded Arts and Music Programs
This paper looks at existing research exploring some of the advantages of an education in the arts, especially, visual art and music education, in an effort to answer the question of whether or not this type of federally funded program is actually beneficial to children. This aim will be accomplished, not simply by looking at the value of the arts or way they are already working within the educational system, but also by exploring some ways the arts can be employed in a manner more beneficial to children. All of the following articles present concrete evidence of ways that children can profit directly from federally funded arts and music training.
The first two articles showing how integrating the arts directly into traditional educational curriculum by using a multi-arts teaching approach can help students achieve better test scores, gain more meaningful and critical understanding of a subject, as well as, help under-achieving students generate language and become more social. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008; Grant, Hutchison, Hornsby, & Brooke, 2008) The third article looks at how being taught the visual arts in an ongoing manner helps students build self-efficacy and develop originality, both important for success in life. The studies conducted by Schellenberg (2006) illustrated not only a positive correlation between long-term music training and intelligence as determined by IQ tests, but also the enduring increase in academic performance and of IQ scores for those who had studied music, even years after the lessons had ended. Finally, Hembold, Rammsayer, and Altenmuller (2005) explored the difference in mental ability between musicians and non-musicians and found that the former had greater ability with finding hidden visual patterns and perceptual speed.
Art to promote comprehension of subject matter
Souto-Manning and James (2008) observed 40 first-grade lower SES students (from two classes) and surveyed 25 teachers in the United States. They also evaluated teacher field notes and video data from the classrooms over a 5 month period. The paper began by discussing existing research indicating that a multi-arts education allows for experimentation and critical thinking that makes learning more meaningful to students by encouraging them to use multiple ways of seeing and doing and encouraging their natural curiosity. Souto-Manning and James (2008) sought to answer the questions: how does cognition develop through multi-arts education and can the arts can support literacy. To do so they had one teacher instruct two classes (20 students each) on the same subject (five unit lesson on an artist) for the same duration, one using multi-arts techniques and the other teaching without these. Assessment of learning was done, first, with a criterion-referenced test administered in the same manner for both classes. A majority of the students in the Non-arts Class answered less than 70% of the questions right, whereas 90% of the students in the Arts Class answered over 70% of the questions right. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008) This indicates that the children in the Arts class learned and retained more of the content of the lesson than those in the Non-Arts Class. Next, creation of student paintings that were intended to imitate the painting style and incorporate stylistic elements of the artist studied were created, the paintings, designed to assess how the students would include techniques and details they had discussed critically and observed, were graded according to a 5 point rubric. These scores also indicated that the Arts Class was better able to produce work reflective of the concepts learned in the lesson that the Non-Arts class, a majority of the Non-arts class scored below 60% on the assignment. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008) The results of this small study demonstrated that multi-arts, meaningful learning does raise the scores of formal criterion-referenced tests as well as overall critical comprehension of subject matter.
Using the arts to teach reading and writing
This study conducted by Grant, Hutchison, Hornsby, and Brooke (2008) looked at the use of visual arts, literature, music and crafts in the classroom to help teach standard curriculum. 400 students and 5 teachers in a Melbourne primary school participated. Video, students’ writing samples and teacher observations were collected for a year while the participating teachers employed multi-arts lessons to teach traditional subject matter and then assessed by the researchers. From that longitudinal position several findings were demonstrated, first, the teachers found that with artful exploration the students had a higher level of collaboration and co-operation in the classrooms. Second, students reported having more time and space to complete tasks, feeling more comfortable and interested. And third, teachers found that through story and play, language was generated and students became more socially confident and articulate, this was especially true for under-achieving students. These results, taken with those of the prior study, illustrate some of the benefits of incorporating the arts into traditional education.
Effect of arts on children’s beliefs about themselves
Catterall and Peppler (2007) conducted a study to uncover whether or not ongoing visual arts instruction would change various aspects of motivation, including self-concept and creativity in 103, 9-year-olds from inner-city neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO and Los Angeles, CA. The paper discussed theoretical principles that lead them to believe that sustained visual arts instruction would nurture self-confidence and self-belief in students (Catterall & Peppler, 2007). To assess changes in what they called the students’ worldview, they surveyed the students before and after the period of art instruction and also made observations in the arts classroom as well as the traditional learning classrooms of the students. In St. Louis the instruction took place twice a week for 90 minutes a session, for 20 weeks and in Los Angeles, instruction was one hour a week for 30 weeks. Changes in the students were measured against a control groups of students not participating in the arts program.
After assessing student surveys from both groups, Catterall and Peppler (2007) demonstrated that a large percentage of the art program students in both cities made gains in both the motivation and creativity sections. In general, students described an increase in self-concept, specifically, over half of arts students participating, had significant increase in their self-efficacy, (the belief that one can achieve what one attempts to accomplish) whereas, only one thirds of the non-arts students made gains. The researchers also reported that the students made improvements in creativity, specifically in the field of originality, they made 55% increase over the non-arts students 33% increase. The study’s concept of originality was not based upon on artistic creativity, but rather on larger applications of originality such as whether or not the students felt that they could come up with innovative ideas and solutions to problems which the authors suggest might enable the students to have more unrestrained ideas about their futures. Self–efficacy and originality can help students achieve in all aspects of education and life and these increases are valuable and illustrate some benefit of arts education.
Study of Music and IQ
Schellenberg’s (2006) research in this study sought to determine, with the use of Wechsler’s IQ test (WAIS-III) as a measure, whether or not there was a relationship between formal study of music and intelligence. Existing research was described that indicated positive relationships between music lessons and math skills, spatial-temporal skills, vocabulary and memory and the hypothesis that followed was that formal training in music would enhance ability on a variety of cognitive tasks. Two studies were conducted, the first to determine whether duration of musical training has a positive correlation with IQ and the second sought to determine the existence of a more stable relationship between music and intellect.
In the initial study, 147 Canadian children ages 6-11 who had a history of musical training were each given an IQ test and Adaptive Skills test. The results demonstrated that though no relationship could be shown between music training and social adjustment, a positive relationship existed between music and general measures of intelligence (Shcellenberg, 2006). Furthermore, music lessons had a positive association with academic performance.
The second study involved 112 Canadian university freshman ages 16-25, who had had musical training for a block of time in the past, which had ceased several years prior. It sought to determine whether the positive effects of music training on IQ, demonstrated in the initial study, would persist long after the training had stopped. Students were given IQ tests and after analysis, the researcher determined that music lessons in childhood did have effect on adult IQ scores. The results demonstrated that students with a history of music training had higher than average scores (Schellenberg, 2006). Further, by asking the participants about the duration of their music lessons, Schellenberg (2006) was able to determine that longer periods of musical training also predicted higher levels of intellect. These findings illustrate that musical training is beneficial to students in terms of intellectual and academic performance.
Study of Music and Mental Abilities
Hembold, Rammsayer, and Altenmuller, (2005) wanted to investigate the mental abilities of individuals who played music and those who did not, and how they differed. The researchers made note of prior research indicating relationships between musical training and things like verbal, math, information processing and visual-spatial skills and wanted to further investigate these claims. To do this, they enlisted 70 musicians (music students) and 70 non-musicians (students studying other subjects) who were at a German university, participants were between the ages of 18 and 32. These participants were given a battery of intelligence tests designed to assess a range of mental and cognitive abilities. The results indicated that musicians did perform better on basic perceptual skills such as Flexibility of Closure (ability to detect known visual patterns that are hidden) and Perceptual Speed (ability to quickly and accurately compare objects: numbers, letter, symbols) both helpful for quickly recognizing musical symbols (Hembold, et al., 2005).
Discussion
The articles discussed in this paper represent several of the ways that arts and music education can be beneficial to children. The advantages of federally funded arts programs can come in may different forms, from inclusion of the arts into traditional curricula to promote literacy, deeper comprehension of material and more meaningful learning, to using arts to promote original problem solving and increase self-efficacy in students who have academic challenges. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008; Grant, et al., 2008; Catterall & Peppler. 2007) The sustained study of music can increase scores on IQ tests and help children improve perceptual skills. (Schellenberg, 2006; Hembold, et al., 2005). Although the research presented herein illustrates a very small sample and variety of different advantages that arts and music education can provide children, all of these examples nonetheless, represent valuable reasons why the arts should be federally funded.
References
Catterall, J.S. & Peppler, K.A., (2007). Learning the visual arts and the worldviews of young children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37 (4), 543-560.
Grant, A., Hutchison, K., Hornsby, D., & Brooke, S. (2008) Creative pedagogies: “Art-full” reading and writing. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 7 (1), 57-72.
Hembold, N., Rammsayer, T., & Altenmuller, R. (2005) Differences in primary mental abilities between musicians and nonmusicians. Journal of Individual Differences, 26 (2), 74-85.
Schellenberg, E.G. (2006). Long-term positive associations between music lessons and IQ. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 457-468.
Souto-Manning, M. & James, N. (2008). A multi-arts approach to early literacy and learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23 (1), 82-95.
The first two articles showing how integrating the arts directly into traditional educational curriculum by using a multi-arts teaching approach can help students achieve better test scores, gain more meaningful and critical understanding of a subject, as well as, help under-achieving students generate language and become more social. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008; Grant, Hutchison, Hornsby, & Brooke, 2008) The third article looks at how being taught the visual arts in an ongoing manner helps students build self-efficacy and develop originality, both important for success in life. The studies conducted by Schellenberg (2006) illustrated not only a positive correlation between long-term music training and intelligence as determined by IQ tests, but also the enduring increase in academic performance and of IQ scores for those who had studied music, even years after the lessons had ended. Finally, Hembold, Rammsayer, and Altenmuller (2005) explored the difference in mental ability between musicians and non-musicians and found that the former had greater ability with finding hidden visual patterns and perceptual speed.
Art to promote comprehension of subject matter
Souto-Manning and James (2008) observed 40 first-grade lower SES students (from two classes) and surveyed 25 teachers in the United States. They also evaluated teacher field notes and video data from the classrooms over a 5 month period. The paper began by discussing existing research indicating that a multi-arts education allows for experimentation and critical thinking that makes learning more meaningful to students by encouraging them to use multiple ways of seeing and doing and encouraging their natural curiosity. Souto-Manning and James (2008) sought to answer the questions: how does cognition develop through multi-arts education and can the arts can support literacy. To do so they had one teacher instruct two classes (20 students each) on the same subject (five unit lesson on an artist) for the same duration, one using multi-arts techniques and the other teaching without these. Assessment of learning was done, first, with a criterion-referenced test administered in the same manner for both classes. A majority of the students in the Non-arts Class answered less than 70% of the questions right, whereas 90% of the students in the Arts Class answered over 70% of the questions right. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008) This indicates that the children in the Arts class learned and retained more of the content of the lesson than those in the Non-Arts Class. Next, creation of student paintings that were intended to imitate the painting style and incorporate stylistic elements of the artist studied were created, the paintings, designed to assess how the students would include techniques and details they had discussed critically and observed, were graded according to a 5 point rubric. These scores also indicated that the Arts Class was better able to produce work reflective of the concepts learned in the lesson that the Non-Arts class, a majority of the Non-arts class scored below 60% on the assignment. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008) The results of this small study demonstrated that multi-arts, meaningful learning does raise the scores of formal criterion-referenced tests as well as overall critical comprehension of subject matter.
Using the arts to teach reading and writing
This study conducted by Grant, Hutchison, Hornsby, and Brooke (2008) looked at the use of visual arts, literature, music and crafts in the classroom to help teach standard curriculum. 400 students and 5 teachers in a Melbourne primary school participated. Video, students’ writing samples and teacher observations were collected for a year while the participating teachers employed multi-arts lessons to teach traditional subject matter and then assessed by the researchers. From that longitudinal position several findings were demonstrated, first, the teachers found that with artful exploration the students had a higher level of collaboration and co-operation in the classrooms. Second, students reported having more time and space to complete tasks, feeling more comfortable and interested. And third, teachers found that through story and play, language was generated and students became more socially confident and articulate, this was especially true for under-achieving students. These results, taken with those of the prior study, illustrate some of the benefits of incorporating the arts into traditional education.
Effect of arts on children’s beliefs about themselves
Catterall and Peppler (2007) conducted a study to uncover whether or not ongoing visual arts instruction would change various aspects of motivation, including self-concept and creativity in 103, 9-year-olds from inner-city neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO and Los Angeles, CA. The paper discussed theoretical principles that lead them to believe that sustained visual arts instruction would nurture self-confidence and self-belief in students (Catterall & Peppler, 2007). To assess changes in what they called the students’ worldview, they surveyed the students before and after the period of art instruction and also made observations in the arts classroom as well as the traditional learning classrooms of the students. In St. Louis the instruction took place twice a week for 90 minutes a session, for 20 weeks and in Los Angeles, instruction was one hour a week for 30 weeks. Changes in the students were measured against a control groups of students not participating in the arts program.
After assessing student surveys from both groups, Catterall and Peppler (2007) demonstrated that a large percentage of the art program students in both cities made gains in both the motivation and creativity sections. In general, students described an increase in self-concept, specifically, over half of arts students participating, had significant increase in their self-efficacy, (the belief that one can achieve what one attempts to accomplish) whereas, only one thirds of the non-arts students made gains. The researchers also reported that the students made improvements in creativity, specifically in the field of originality, they made 55% increase over the non-arts students 33% increase. The study’s concept of originality was not based upon on artistic creativity, but rather on larger applications of originality such as whether or not the students felt that they could come up with innovative ideas and solutions to problems which the authors suggest might enable the students to have more unrestrained ideas about their futures. Self–efficacy and originality can help students achieve in all aspects of education and life and these increases are valuable and illustrate some benefit of arts education.
Study of Music and IQ
Schellenberg’s (2006) research in this study sought to determine, with the use of Wechsler’s IQ test (WAIS-III) as a measure, whether or not there was a relationship between formal study of music and intelligence. Existing research was described that indicated positive relationships between music lessons and math skills, spatial-temporal skills, vocabulary and memory and the hypothesis that followed was that formal training in music would enhance ability on a variety of cognitive tasks. Two studies were conducted, the first to determine whether duration of musical training has a positive correlation with IQ and the second sought to determine the existence of a more stable relationship between music and intellect.
In the initial study, 147 Canadian children ages 6-11 who had a history of musical training were each given an IQ test and Adaptive Skills test. The results demonstrated that though no relationship could be shown between music training and social adjustment, a positive relationship existed between music and general measures of intelligence (Shcellenberg, 2006). Furthermore, music lessons had a positive association with academic performance.
The second study involved 112 Canadian university freshman ages 16-25, who had had musical training for a block of time in the past, which had ceased several years prior. It sought to determine whether the positive effects of music training on IQ, demonstrated in the initial study, would persist long after the training had stopped. Students were given IQ tests and after analysis, the researcher determined that music lessons in childhood did have effect on adult IQ scores. The results demonstrated that students with a history of music training had higher than average scores (Schellenberg, 2006). Further, by asking the participants about the duration of their music lessons, Schellenberg (2006) was able to determine that longer periods of musical training also predicted higher levels of intellect. These findings illustrate that musical training is beneficial to students in terms of intellectual and academic performance.
Study of Music and Mental Abilities
Hembold, Rammsayer, and Altenmuller, (2005) wanted to investigate the mental abilities of individuals who played music and those who did not, and how they differed. The researchers made note of prior research indicating relationships between musical training and things like verbal, math, information processing and visual-spatial skills and wanted to further investigate these claims. To do this, they enlisted 70 musicians (music students) and 70 non-musicians (students studying other subjects) who were at a German university, participants were between the ages of 18 and 32. These participants were given a battery of intelligence tests designed to assess a range of mental and cognitive abilities. The results indicated that musicians did perform better on basic perceptual skills such as Flexibility of Closure (ability to detect known visual patterns that are hidden) and Perceptual Speed (ability to quickly and accurately compare objects: numbers, letter, symbols) both helpful for quickly recognizing musical symbols (Hembold, et al., 2005).
Discussion
The articles discussed in this paper represent several of the ways that arts and music education can be beneficial to children. The advantages of federally funded arts programs can come in may different forms, from inclusion of the arts into traditional curricula to promote literacy, deeper comprehension of material and more meaningful learning, to using arts to promote original problem solving and increase self-efficacy in students who have academic challenges. (Souto-Manning & James, 2008; Grant, et al., 2008; Catterall & Peppler. 2007) The sustained study of music can increase scores on IQ tests and help children improve perceptual skills. (Schellenberg, 2006; Hembold, et al., 2005). Although the research presented herein illustrates a very small sample and variety of different advantages that arts and music education can provide children, all of these examples nonetheless, represent valuable reasons why the arts should be federally funded.
References
Catterall, J.S. & Peppler, K.A., (2007). Learning the visual arts and the worldviews of young children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37 (4), 543-560.
Grant, A., Hutchison, K., Hornsby, D., & Brooke, S. (2008) Creative pedagogies: “Art-full” reading and writing. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 7 (1), 57-72.
Hembold, N., Rammsayer, T., & Altenmuller, R. (2005) Differences in primary mental abilities between musicians and nonmusicians. Journal of Individual Differences, 26 (2), 74-85.
Schellenberg, E.G. (2006). Long-term positive associations between music lessons and IQ. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 457-468.
Souto-Manning, M. & James, N. (2008). A multi-arts approach to early literacy and learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23 (1), 82-95.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
