Special Online Issue
 |
Edited by Diane McGrath |
formerly Journal of Research on Computing in Education
Volume 28 Number 5 Summer 1996
What Do Freehand and Computer-Facilitated Drawings Tell Teachers
About the Children Who Drew Them?
Judith B. Harris
University of Texas at Austin
Abstract
A qualitative analysis of data was used to determine the
scope and
interjudge agreement of personality information communicated to
computer-using
classroom teachers through three types of children's drawings
(freehand, graphics
tablet, and Logo). Each of 10 Logo-literate 9- or 10-year-old students
was asked
to draw pictures in the three different media. Each student, a parent,
and the
student's current classroom teacher were interviewed to develop 10
vignette-style
personality profiles. The information contained therein was then
compared to
what 13 Logo-using classroom teachers intuited about the children's
genders,
ages, learning styles, and behavior patterns by looking at the
drawings with
no prior knowledge of the artists. Viewing teachers were not able to
consistently
detect artist gender or age by looking at pictures drawn with any of
the three
media, but 69% of the other statements made by the teachers agreed
with information
contained in the personality profiles.
A commonly-held belief among educators is that children
symbolically
express essential aspects of their personalities in their artistic
work. This
article describes a qualitative research study that explored the
question, "What
cross-referenceable personality information can teachers accurately
infer for
young artists by examining the children's creations?"
Children's Drawings as Psychological Assessment Tools
Children's drawings were first presented as potential psychodiagnostic
tools when
Corrado Ricci, an art critic with interests in psychology, published the
first
known work that contained reproductions of children's art in 1887. A
number of
other scholarly studies of children's sketches followed, (Klepsch &
Logie, 1982).
These lead to Goodenough's (1926) seminal work, which presented the
first systematized
method for estimating artists' intelligence from drawings of people.
This technique
was standardized and embellished upon by Harris (1963) and Harris and
Roberts
(1972). The resulting Goodenough-Harris instrument is called the
Draw-A-Man Test,
because the task presented to the child is simply to "draw a man." It is
the earliest
example of a class of open-ended drawing investigations called human
figure drawings
(HFDs) and has since been incorporated into several IQ tests, such as
the Stanford-Binet.
By far the most research with children's drawings completed to date has
made use
of the HFD or one of its variants. Klepsch and Logie (1982) suggest a
helpful
structure for reviewing clinical HFD applications. They assert that
children's
drawings have either "projective" or "nonprojective" uses in
psychological assessment.
"Projection" is a clinical term used in this context to suggest that an
artist
unconsciously imbues the picture drawn with self-perceptions, regardless
of the
intended picture's subject. There are four types of projective
measurements: personality,
perceptions of self in relation to others, collectively held values, and
specific
attitudes. Nonprojective uses include those that "measure a child's
developmental
or intellectual maturity" (Klepsch & Logie, 1982, p. 13).
Sixty years of research into projective and nonprojective
psychoassessment uses for children's drawings suggest that it is
indeed possible
for artist characteristics such as intellectual acuity, developmental
maturity,
personality, group values, and attitudes to be reflected through HFDs
(cf.,
Anastasi and Foley, 1936; Bromberg & Hutchison, 1974; Buck, 1948;
Burton, 1972;
Daoud, 1976; Dennis, 1966; DiLeo, 1970; Drake, 1985; Frankenburg &
Dodds, 1975;
Gardiner, 1969, 1974; Hulse, 1951; Ilg & Ames, 1978; Jolles, 1971;
Klepsch,
1979, 1980; Koppitz, 1968, 1984; Kuhlman, 1979; Laosa, Swartz &
Diaz-Guerrero,
1974; Machover, 1949; Phillips, 1980; Prout & Phillips, 1974; Rabin &
Limuaco,
1959; Shearn & Russell, 1970; Smart & Smart, 1975; Urban, 1963; Welch,
Flannigan
& Rave, 1971). For the purposes of this study, a complementary
set of questions
is posed. Who can recognize and correctly identify individual artists'
traits
from their artwork? Must a judge be trained to collect and interpret
HFDs in
order to make accurate projective and nonprojective assessments? Do
such judgements
vary according to the different media, whether computer mediated or
not, used
to create the pictures?
Human Figure Drawings and Picture Judges' Training
A large body of literature is directed toward establishing the
validity of
HFD variants, some of which makes use of untrained, or "naive" judges
(Arkell,
1976; Burton & Sjoberg, 1964; Cressen, 1975; Fisher & Fisher, 1950;
Goodnow,
Wilkins & Dawes, 1986; Hiler & Nesvig, 1965; Howitt, 1984; Levinson,
1983; Lott,
1979; McIntosh, 1981; Plaut & Crandell, 1955; Renchner, 1985; Schmidt
& McGowan,
1950; Wanderer, 1969; Ziv & Shechori, 1970). Several studies include
teachers
in this category. In summarizing the research on trained and untrained
judges'
interpretive abilities, Swensen (1968) concluded that "formal training
is not
particularly related to success in interpreting the Draw-A-Person
Test" ( p.
39). Hiler and Nesvig (1965) suggest that "well-developed intuitive
ability
rather than formal clinical training is of primary importance in the
interpretation
of figure drawings" (p. 526).
For the purposes of this study, it was important to extend
Hiler and Nesvig's (1965) hypothesis by proposing another
interpretation of
these findings. Perhaps human beings possess intuitive abilities that
can be
used to detect correctly and declare valid information about artists
solely
by looking at their work. Moreover, perhaps K-12 teachers
subconsciously use
information gathered in this manner as one of many ways to get to know
their
students. To consider this possibility, "intuition" should be defined.
This
is easier said than done. Noddings and Shore (1984), after carefully
examining
the history of the notion in relation to education from ancient times
to the
present, chose to characterize intuitive modes
by involvement of external and internal senses, by a
relaxation
of subjectness into receptivity, by a quest for understanding or
insight,
and by a continuing tension between subjective certainty and
objective uncertainty
(p. 89).
Noddings and Shore go on to say that an individual's will must direct
intuitive
activity, straining against reason, and the senses must assist the
effort by consciously
turning inward. This exertion of will, according to these authors, must
be motivated
by a desire for experiential understanding and enjoyment through
embracing the
apparently irrational. To whatever extent so-called "untrained" (or
intuitive)
judges are able to reach, maintain, and deepen these states as they view
children's
drawings may also be the extent to which they can gather verifiable
information
about the artists.
Study Type
How, then, might we verify information intuitively received about
artists by observers
of their works? To determine appropriate methods to use to form answers
to this
query, the following research questions were formed to organize this
study.
- What is the scope of verifiable information communicated through
children's
computer-facilitated and freehand drawings?
-
-
How, if at all, does the scope of content-valid information
communicated through children's drawings differ when different
tools are
used by the artists?
Research results that address these questions will be presented in this
article.
More detailed findings are available in Harris (1990).
Yin (1984) suggested that all research which attempts to
answer questions can be classified as "who," "what," "where," "why,"
or "how"
queries. "Who," "what," and "where" questions are often refined to
"how many"
and "how much" questions, which are best approached with quantitative
survey
methods, especially when predictive results are desired. "What"
questions can
be approached with any research strategy. "How" and "why" questions,
asked about
contemporary situations over which the researcher has little or no
control,
are best explored with case studies. Yin is careful to note that the
most frequently
cited drawback of case studies, that they are not generalizable to
larger populations,
reflects a misunderstanding of the intent of case study research.
According
to Yin (1984), case study results, "like experiments, are
generalizable to theoretical
propositions and not to populations or universes. In this sense, the
case study,
like the experiment, does not represent a "sample," and the
investigator's goal
is to expand and generalize theories (analytic generalization) and not
to enumerate
frequencies (statistical generalization)" (p. 21).
Additionally, Stake (1978) recommends case studies as the preferred
method
for social inquiry because "they may be epistemologically in harmony
with the
reader's experience and thus to that person a natural basis for
generalization"
(p. 5). Stake posits that case study results are therefore more
directly relevant
to the practitioner in fields such as education and social work. Yin
(1984)
defines the case study as an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon
and context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of
evidence
are used (p. 23).
Yin (1984) also suggests that multiple case study designs be
"consider[ed] as
one would consider multiple experiments--that is, to follow a
replication logic,"
rather than for the purpose of obtaining larger respondent samples (p.
48). Accordingly,
multiple sources of information should be collected for each case, then
interpreted
and summarized as if each were a separate study before any cross-case
analysis
is begun. These ideas helped to form the sequence of specific methods
used to
explore answers to the two research questions addressed in this study.
Method
Because the research questions I decided to explore in this study imply
the need
for an open-ended exploration of all possible types of information that
could
be detected about a child artist from his or her work, it is logical to
suggest
multi-source, open-ended techniques to gather data about the artist.
And, because
teachers' impressions of young artists' personality characteristics were
solicited
as the teachers viewed children's works, other human perceptions of each
child
artist were requested for cross-referencing the intuitively received
ideas stated
by the teachers. These were available from the children in the form of
self-report
interviews, and from significant others in the children's lives--
namely, their
parents and teachers-- who were interviewed in open-ended formats about
the child
artist's personality characteristics. Coded interviews from all
informants (children,
parents, and teachers), and intuitive impressions from teachers about
each artist's
works, therefore, comprised the data for each case in this research
study.
At first, the two types of data about the artists (interviews and
intuitive
impressions) were compared within each case. Then, cross-case analysis
was used
to provide a comparison among picture observers and intuited artist
traits to
see if any additional patterns could be detected (e.g., whether gender
was easier
to discern than age, and whether certain observers intuited
information more
accurately than others).
Participant Selection
This study employed a purposive informant sample of gifted fifth-grade
boys who
were U.S. citizens with at least one parent who had a postbaccalaureate
degree.
Miles and Huberman (1984) support the use of a purposive sample in
qualitative
studies such as this one becausequalitative researchers usually work
with smaller
samples of people in fewer global settings than do survey researchers.
Also, qualitative
samples tend to be more purposive than random, partly because the
initial definition
of the universe is more limited...and partly because social processes
have a logic
and coherence that random sampling of events or treatments usually
reduces to
uninterpretable sawdust (p. 36).Patton (1980) suggests that researchers
select
cases to study that promise the most cogent information about the topic
of investigation.
He recommends that these be "critical cases....[those that] make a point
quite
dramatically or are, for some reason, particularly important" (p.102).
Patton
goes on to say that although studying one or a few critical cases does
not technically
permit broad generalizations to all possible cases, logical
generalizations can
often be made from the weight of the evidence produced in studying a
single, critical
case (p. 103). Ten children agreed to be informants for this study. All
were 9-
or 10-year-old males in fifth grade at a public elementary school in a
southeastern
state when they were interviewed. All had been identified for their
school districts'
gifted and talented programs and had qualified for a local university's
summer
enrichment program for gifted and talented students. This high degree of
demographic
similarity was sought so that perceived differences among students might
be maximally
personality specific. Each student was asked to choose one parent and
one teacher
to be interviewed about their perceptions of the student. All names were
changed
to pseudonyms to protect informants' rights to confidentiality.
Data Generation and Analysis
The loosely-structured interviews, each of which was approximately
one hour
in length, were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The content of
these transcripts
was then analyzed by theme. Ethnograph software was used to
organize
coded data. All informants were asked to describe the students' most
and least
favorite school subject areas, problem-solving methods, social
interaction patterns,
personal "life philosophies," and activity preferences. Study
participants provided
information in response to all questions, with the exception of
several children
who were not able to describe their metacognitive problem-solving
processes.
Member checking was done by surface mail asking informants to correct
any interpretive
discrepancies made by the researcher on lists of statements written
about the
students. Of the 1,397 statements that were written and sent to
informants,
all were read and returned, and 51 were corrected with respect to
content (6
statements) and wording (47 statements). Overall, a small fraction of
the statements
were corrected by informants, approximately 4%.
Constant comparative coding revealed15 mutually exclusive
theme categories across interview transcriptions. Coding reliability
and validity
were ensured by frequent meetings with two peer debriefers (Lincoln &
Guba,
1985) and the maintenance and review of the researcher's
methodological log.
One peer debriefer also reviewed all information generated for a
randomly selected
case to make sure that summary statements were firmly grounded in
generated
data. Immediately prior to being interviewed, each student
informant
drew three pictures, one in each of three different media. The content
and style
of the pictures were completely determined by the student; the only
instructions
that they were given by the researcher regarded the media to use for
each drawing.
Students had crayons, magic markers, and colored pencils to use for
the freehand
picture; a touch-sensitive graphics tablet (Touch Window, 1985) and
computer
painting software (Animation Station, 1984) for the graphics tablet
picture,
and their choice of IBM Logo (Logo Computer Systems, Inc., 1983),
Apple Logo
II (LCSI, 1984) or LogoWriter (LCSI, 1986) software for the Logo
picture. All
computer-assisted pictures were drawn on Apple IIe computers, with the
exception
of one Logo picture created on an IBM PC. Students gave the
researcher permission to keep the pictures
they created and show them to teachers who had not met the children.
Two groups
of teachers viewed the pictures and responded to them. One group (5
teachers)
were graduate students taking a summer Logo course in New York, and
the others
(9 teachers) were graduate Logo students completing coursework during
the same
summer session in Oregon. All had previously worked with Logo with
elementary-aged
children in instructional settings. The two graduate course
instructors received
35mm slide reproductions of the children's pictures, arranged in a
standard
order in a slide carousel, and sufficient copies of the study-specific
paper-based
viewer response form to provide one form for each of the students in
their classes.
The instructors were then asked to follow the viewing instructions
printed on
the first page of the response form. Pictures formed with similar
media were
grouped together in the slide carousel, but the artist order in each
group was
different. Viewers were told only that children drew the 30 pictures;
they did
not know that 10 artists produced all of the pictures, nor did they
know anything
about the each child's age, gender, computer experience, or learning
style.
Two types of intuited information were requested of the viewing
teachers. The
first was specific answers to specific questions about the children
(such as
age and gender); the second was viewer-supplied comments about the
students'
learning styles, school subject preferences, behavior patterns, and
any other
information that occurred to the viewing teacher. All viewing teachers
but one
completed the response forms in full. The content of all responses to
open-ended
questions supplied by viewers was analyzed, revealing eight mutually
exclusive
coding categories. Answers to both specific and open-ended questions
on the
viewer response form were cross-referenced with interview data to
determine
agreement or lack thereof. Levels of agreement between viewing
teacher comments and
interview respondent data were classified as "agree," "disagree,"
"agree by
implication," "disagree by implication," or "not mentioned." If the
content
of a particular viewer statement about an artist was mentioned in two
or more
interviews with people who knew the artist, the statement was assumed
to agree
with interview data. If the obverse content of a particular viewer
conjecture
was mentioned in two or more interviews, it was assumed to disagree
with interview
data. If the content was implied, but not stated in interview data
from two
or more people who knew the artist, it was assumed to agree by
implication.
Similarly, if the content of a viewer comment was countered indirectly
in two
or more interviews, then it was assumed to disagree by implication.
Finally,
if the content of a viewer conjecture about an artist was not
mentioned directly
or indirectly in any interview with informants who knew the artist, it
was listed
as "not mentioned." This process was checked for accuracy by one of
the study's
peer debriefers, who selected a case at random, and traced the claims
made in
the results summary back to the data generated for the study.
Results and Discussion
In this section, three types of information about the artists that were
collected
with the viewer response form are considered across informants and media
types:
perceived age, perceived gender, and nonprompted perceptions of the
artists.
Viewer Assessment of Artist Age and Sex
The 13 viewing teachers (referred to by sequentially assigned letter)
perceived
artist age and gender largely incorrectly in all drawing media. As can
be seen
in Table 1, they were able to correctly perceive artist age (+/- 1 year)
from
Logo drawings slightly better (50% correctly perceived) than they were
able to
determine age from graphics-tablet drawings (42% correct), and freehand
drawings
(38% correct). The differences among media for correct gender perception
were
even smaller: 52% correctly perceived gender after viewing freehand
pictures,
45% for Logo pictures, and 37% for graphics tablet pictures. On the
average, age
was perceived correctly 43% of the time and gender was perceived
correctly 45%
of the time. Seven teachers assessed age correctly more often than
gender, and
six teachers assessed gender correctly more often than age.
Viewing teachers displayed a fair amount of individual difference
in correct perception of artist age and gender (see Table 2).
Percentages of
correct age estimation (+/- 1 year) ranged from 23% to 63%, with an
average
of 44%. Percentages of correct gender perception ranged from 20% to
63%, with
an average of 45%.
Table 1 Numbers of Correct Viewing Teachers' Perceptions of
Artist Age
and Gender,
Differentiated by Media and Summed Across Viewers
Note. Number of viewing teachers = 13; teacher K did not
complete response
forms.
a Each teacher viewed 10 of each type of picture;
therefore, 130
responses each for age and gender were collected.
Table 2 Numbers of Correct Viewing Teachers'
Perceptions
of Artist Age and Gender, Differentiated by Informant
a Total number of responses = 30. b Total number
of responses
= 30.
There seemed to be no direct relationship between viewing
teachers' instructional or computer experience and their abilities to
correctly
assess artist age and gender. Teacher N identified the fewest artist
ages and
genders correctly. Teacher G perceived artist age most accurately in
the group,
and Teacher I identified artist gender correctly most often. Teachers
G, I,
and L had the most years experience combined in all categories: (a) in
teaching,
(b) using computers, (c) using computers with children, (d) using
Logo, and
(e) using Logo with children. Yet Teacher L's accuracy rate was much
lower than
that of the other two most experienced viewing teachers. Teacher N,
who identified
the fewest artist ages and genders correctly, did not have the least
number
of combined years of experience in these same areas (see Table 3).
Teachers
with near-average age perception percentages (Teachers E and F) and
near-average
gender discrimination percentages (Teachers A, C, E, F, G, H, and M)
had varied
amounts of experience in the five areas cited.
Table 3 Viewing Teacher Professional Experience
aNumber of years of experience.
bNumber of years using computers.
cNumber of years using computers with children.
dNumber of years using Logo.
eNumber of years using Logo with children.
fThis number is provided only for among-teacher comparative
purposes;
it has no true mathematical value.
Nonprompted Artist Assessment by Reviewing Teachers
A total of 595 viewer-supplied comments were written about the artists
of the
30 pictures. Viewers were given virtually unlimited space in which to
write their
open-ended perceptions. There was little difference in the percentages
of open-ended
comments supplied for the works of different individual artists (see
Table 4).
Jon Marshall's work received 8% of viewer comments on the lower end of
the continuum,
and Drew Campbell's pictures received 13% of the viewers' voluntary
comments on
the opposite end. Although the numbers of comments supplied for
different artists
were not that different from each other, percentages of viewer-supplied
comments
that could be substantiated with interview data were quite different for
different
artists (see Table 5). The range of percentages for comments that agreed
with
interview data was 50% - 76%; 16% - 30% for comments that disagreed with
interview
data ; and 2% - 16% of the comments that were offered by viewers that
did not
appear in interview data.
Table 4 Numbers of Viewer-Supplied Statements Recorded for
Individual
Artists
a Total number of viewer-supplied comments = 595.
Table 5 Numbers of Comments Supplied About Artists Separated
by Accordance With Interview Data
aTotal numbers of comments offered about each artist.
James Myerson's and Sid Richards' pictures inspired the highest
percentages of comments that agreed with interview data (75% and 76%,
respectively).
Sid's pictures also suggested the lowest percentage of comments that
disagreed
with interview data (16%). Bruce Waterman's drawings inspired the
lowest percentage
of interview-substantiated viewer-supplied comments (59%), and Harvey
Wilson's
pictures suggested the highest percentage of comments that disagreed
with interview
data (30%). Overall, James' and Sid's pictures were the most
reflective of interview
data to the viewing teachers who participated in this study, and
Bruce's drawings
were the least reflective. Individual teachers' percentages of
interview-substantiated
open-ended comments ranged from 52% (Teacher C) to 87% (Teacher F), as
shown
in Table 6. These perceptual performance figures are not paralleled by
years
of experience (see Table 3) or correct perceptions of age and gender
(see Table
2). Teacher E is the only teacher to perceive age, gender, and
viewer-supplied
artist attributes similarly; her scores were close to the group's
average in
each instance.
Table 6 Numbers of Comments Supplied by Viewers Separated by
Accordance
With Interview Data
aTotal numbers of comments offered by each viewing
teacher.
Perceptions According to Drawing Media
Of the 595 total nonprompted comments about the artists that were
offered by the
viewing teachers, 235 (39%) were inspired by viewing freehand drawings,
207 (35%)
were offered in response to viewing pictures created with a
touch-sensitive graphics
tablet, and 153 (26%) were supplied when looking at pictures created
with Logo.
Although freehand media seemed to catalyze more nonprompted comments
than graphics-tablet
creations, and these pictures, in turn, inspired more viewer comments
than Logo
pictures, percentages of interview-substantiated artist perceptions were
roughly
equivalent (freehand: 68%; graphics tablet: 70%; Logo: 69%; see Table
7). This
is particularly interesting, considering that the viewers informally
commented
that they felt that they "knew" the artists better when looking at their
freehand
drawings, as compared with the drawings that were created with the
assistance
of either handheld (graphics tablet) or keyboard-accessible (Logo)
tools.
Overall, 69% of viewers' comments about artists agreed with
interview data, 21% disagreed with interview data, and 10% were
comments that
were not mentioned in interviews by any of the three participants
giving information
about a particular artist. When compared with the percentages for
correct perception
of artist age (43%) and gender (45%), an interesting difference can be
observed.
It appears that more individualized (and probably less likely to be
guessed)
intuited information about the artists was verifiable to a greater
extent than
less individualized artist information (such as age and gender) among
the 13
viewing teachers who participated in the study.
Table 7 Numbers of Statements by Viewing Teachers Compared by
Content
With Interview Data
aTotal numbers of statements supplied by viewers for all
pictures
drawn with these media.
This research was a study of individuals; 10 individual artists
and the perceptions of 13 individual teachers. It explored whether
certain aspects
of the 10 fifth-graders' individualities were communicated to
Logo-using teachers
through free-form artistic works created in three different media.
Although
no statistical generalizations about teacher or student populations
can be made
from a multicase exploratory study such as this one, patterns across
informant
groups and between individual informants can be noted. These should be
considered
trustworthy for this particular group of individuals because of the
methodological
rigor demonstrated in data collection and analysis, as described in
the previous
sections.
Results Among Students
In naturalistic terms, this group of 10 boys and their parents and
teachers was
formed by the imposition of external selection processes; they cannot be
described
as a group in any ethnographic sense, and, therefore, any observations
of similarities
or differences among group members are probably not the results of
group-specific
enculturation processes. Still, the issue of whether and to what extent
individually
distinctive character traits that emerged from interview data were
communicated
to viewing teachers should be addressed in an effort to determine the
relative
specificity of the intuitively received information.
Certainly no teacher or group of teachers in this study described
any of the artists with the rich detail achieved by combining the
students'
self-reports with parental and classroom teacher interview data. Yet,
the freehand
and computer-facilitated artwork of 7 of the 10 child informants
generated unique
viewer comments or patterns of viewer comments. For example, Drew was
described
as "impatient with mistakes" and "happy and serious." Mark, it was
suspected,
"combines and builds on knowledge," and was described as "talkative"
and "security-oriented."
Lance's Language Arts proficiency, emphasizing fine arts applications,
was intuited
by several viewing teachers; he was also one of only two children in
this group
who was described as "generally a compliant kid." James had 19
comments made
in response to his drawings that mentioned neatness, concern with
detail, precision,
and related-work-habit attributes. Sid was collectively portrayed as
"bold,"
"adventuresome," "restless," "creative," and a "divergent thinker."
Herb was
suspected to have a "strong personality," and to be a "quiet,"
"intense individual
with definite goals." Harvey's interests in science and animal study
were mentioned
by several viewers; he was also described as "impulsive," "in a
hurry," and
"want[ing] to 'get it right.'" Although "getting it right" was
mentioned for
several of the child informants during interviews (e.g., Drew and
James), Harvey
was the only artist whose artwork communicated attention to appearing
"right."
This paralleled the frequency with which this concern was voiced by
his father
and teacher. Although these attributes do not fully portray
each individual
artist's uniqueness, they are characteristics that begin to
differentiate the
artists from each other. More importantly, these distinguishing
personality
features were indeed communicated through drawings to viewing teachers
who had
no other personal information available about the artists, along with
other
attributes (such as mathematics or science interest) that were more
commonly
perceived in this particular group of individuals. Also, there were
clearly
observable individual differences between children such as Sid and
James, who
had the highest percentages of interview-substantiated viewer
comments, and
a child such as Bruce, who had the lowest percentage of such comments.
It is
apparent that some of the children in this study were more or less
"intuitively
readable" through their artwork than others were. It is difficult to
suggest
why that may be so, because the topics of and techniques used for
creation of
their pictures do not appear to differ by personally expressive
potential.
Results Across Students
It is interesting to note that 8 of the 10 students listed science as
one of their
preferred subjects in school, and 7 of the 10 mentioned mathematics as a
favorite.
These preferences were noted by many of the viewing teachers when they
were considering
pictures that the boys created in all three media. It would seem,
therefore, that
mathematics or science interest was not intuited primarily as a function
of use
of a mathematically oriented expressive medium such as Logo. Because
child informants
were chosen partially on the basis of their competency and comfort in
Logo use,
it may be true that mathematics and science interest is correlated with
interest
and competence in Logo programming. In view of the purposes of this
research,
the existence of this apparent relationship does not impact the pattern
of correctly
intuited subject preferences on the part of the viewing teachers,
because mathematics
and science interest was also detected through freehand and
graphics-tablet drawings.
It is also interesting to note that most viewer comments
were made with regard to student work habits, and the least were made
concerning
students' physical features or capabilities. Any comments that were
offered
about emotional attributes or interpersonal behavior patterns were
"positively"
stated, or worded as apparent evidence of well-adjusted psychological
orientations,
even when several of the students had had some emotional and
interpersonal concerns
voiced about them by the adults interviewed (e.g., Harvey, Herb and
Lance).
This absence is especially interesting when viewed in light of the
voluminous
psychological literature briefly reviewed earlier in this document
that primarily
addressed the emotional content of children's pictures. It is
conceivable either
that emotional and physical characteristics were more difficult to
discern from
these children's drawings than intellectual and work habit attributes
or that
the teachers in this study chose or were taught to pay closer
attention to students'
intellectual characteristics and work habits than to other attributes.
Results Among Viewing Teachers
As noted previously, there were large individual performance differences
among
viewing teachers in this study that could not be related to years of
teaching
experience, years of computer use, years of computer use with children,
or type
of picture media viewed. Perhaps the best way to attempt to ascertain
correlated
differences in experience, philosophy, or personality among more or less
intuitive
teachers is to locate and interview the educators who performed on the
ends of
the perceptual continuum, requesting their reflections on their own
intuitive
processes.
It should also be mentioned that, although there were individual
differences among viewing teachers concerning the total number of
comments offered
in response to the artwork, the teachers with the highest percentage
of interview-substantiated
comments were not those who also made the most conjectures. It might
be suggested,
therefore, that more intuitively received information in this
scenario
is not necessarily more perceptive; that is, quantity does not
necessarily
imply accuracy.
Results Across Viewing Teachers
It seems that this group of viewing teachers was not able to determine
artist
gender by looking at the content or style of the drawings in any of the
three
media. Indeed, the average percentage of correct artist gender
perception (45%)
was even lower than a theoretically random choice between the two
options (50%)
without viewing the pictures at all. As was reported earlier, there was
also no
apparent difference among media in gender discrimination. This is in
direct contrast
to Lott's (1979) finding that adults could correctly determine the
gender of male
kindergarten students with 60% accuracy by looking at their freehand
pictures
of jack-o-lanterns. Several lines of reasoning can be posed as possible
explanations
for the discrepancy, all of which could be explored as null hypotheses
for postpositivistic
studies with larger artist samples. Perhaps the genders of younger child
artists
are easier to determine than the genders of older child artists. Or it
might be
easier to determine the gender of the child artist when the subject of
the drawing
is held constant across artists. It is possible that geographic
differences exist
in gender identification and expression in children's artwork. It might
also be
possible that in the 10 years that elapsed in between Lott's study and
this research,
gender-stereotyped socialization processes have become less common.
Overall, it may have been easier for viewing teachers in
this study to perceive age correctly than it was to assess gender
accurately.
Although the average percentage (43%) of correct age perception within
one year
of artist age is slightly lower than the average correct gender
perception (45%),
gender determination was a decision between two options, while age
could be
conceived of as a choice among 8 options, assuming that viewers
defined "child"
as a school-aged person 5 - 12 years old. Not only was age more easily
intuited
than gender, it also was the only artist attribute that showed any
notable difference
among media types. Teachers were slightly better able to perceive
artist age
from looking at Logo pictures (50%) than they were from graphics
tablet (42%)
or freehand (38%) drawings. It is possible that using Logo graphics
commands
may impose a more limited, developmentally tied range of expressions
than using
freehand or graphics-tablet tools. It is important, finally, to
compare the general types of
interview-substantiated information. On the average, viewing teachers
in this
study perceived artist age to within one year 43% of the time and
artist gender
45% of the time. An observable difference can be observed when
comparing that
to an average percentage of interview-substantiated open-ended
comments of 69%.
This may, in part, be because of the specificity of the information
requested
in the two different question formats, but it may also indicate that
personality
attributes (specifically, school subject interests and work habits)
were more
easily discerned from viewing the children's artwork than quantifiable
descriptors
such as age and gender.
Conclusion
It is obvious from the comparison of interview-fueled cases written
about the
artists and picture viewer response data that the triple interview
process (child,
parent, and teacher) is an effective way to get to know an individual
student.
But there is no point in recommending this information-gathering and
data-reduction
process to classroom teachers who wish to know their students in these
ways, since
it is obviously neither time efficient nor cost effective for them to
individually
interview all of the students they teach, their parents, and their
previous teachers.
Although the range of verifiable artist-specific, data that was
collected from
teachers viewing students' artwork was much narrower than the rich
compilation
of perspectives garnered from focused conversations with the artists
themselves
and two of the important adults in their lives, a good percentage of the
open-ended
information offered by viewing teachers was accurate according to
comparisons
with interview data. This may imply that encouraging teachers to collect
and triangulate
data from many sources, including those that yield such so-called "soft
data"
about their students by observing graphic artwork (or, for that matter,
creative
writing and mathematical problem-solving processes) is a worthwhile
endeavor.
It may help teachers to make such perceptions more conscious, and,
perhaps, enable
them to get to know their students in a more holistic way.
Do teachers fail to access potentially helpful intuitive
sources of information about the children in their classes? More
research is
needed to determine whether the types of cross-referenceable data that
teachers
intuit from looking at children's drawings are indeed of prescriptive
assistance,
and if so, whether teachers can be helped to improve upon the accuracy
of their
already-astute intuitive perceptions.
References
Anastasi, A., & Foley, J. P. (1936). An analysis of spontaneous
drawings by children in different cultures. Journal of Applied
Psychology,
20, 680-726.
Animation Station [Computer Software]. (1984). Wheeling, IL:
SunCom.
Arkell, R. N. (1976). Naive prediction of pathology from human figure
drawings.
Journal of School Psychology, 14 (2), 114-117.
Bromberg, W., & Hutchison, S. H. (1974). Self-image of the American
Indian.
International Journal of School Psychiatry, 20, 39-44.
Buck, J. N. (1948). The H-T-P technique: A qualitative and
quantitative scoring
manual. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 317-396.
Burton, A., & Sjoberg, B. (1964). The diagnostic validity of human
figure drawings
in schizophrenia. Journal of Psychology, 57, 3-18.
Burton, R. V. (1972). Cross-sex identity in Barbados. Developmental
Psychology,
6, 365-374.
Cressen, R. (1975). Artistic quality of drawings and judges'
evaluations of
the DAP. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 132-137.
Daoud, F. S. (1976). First-drawn pictures: A crosscultural
investigation. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 40, 376-377.
Dennis, W. (1966). Group values through children's drawings.
New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
DiLeo, J. H. (1970). Young children and their drawings. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Drake, L. M. (1985). Black and white children's art: A cultural
comparison.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 4612A. (University
Microfilms
No. AAC8603240)
Fisher, S., & Fisher, R. (1950). Test of certain assumptions regarding
figure
drawing analysis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
45, 727732.
Frankenburg, W. K., & Dodds, J. B. (1975). The Denver Developmental
Screening
Test-Revised. Denver: LADOCA.
Gardiner, H. W. (1969). A cross-cultural comparison of hostility in
children's
drawings. Journal of Social Psychology, 79, 261-263.
Gardiner, H. W. (1974). Human figure drawings as indicators of value
development
among Thai children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5,
124-130.
Goodenough, F. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings.
Chicago:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
Goodnow, J. J., Wilkins, P., & Dawes, L. (1986). Acquiring cultural
forms: Cognitive
aspects of socialization illustrated by children's drawings and
judgements of
drawings. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
9(4), 485-505.
Harris, D. B. (1963). Children's drawings as measures of
intellectual maturity.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Harris, D. B., & Roberts, J. (1972). Intellectual maturity of
children: Demographic
and sociometric factors (Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Vital
and Health Statistics Series 11, No. 116). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing
Office.
Harris, J. B. (1990). The scope and interjudge agreement of
information communicated
through children's computer-facilitated and freehand drawings.
Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. (Dissertation Abstracts
International
Order Number 9024678)
Hiler, E., & Nesvig, D. (1965). An evaluation of criteria used by
clinicians
to infer pathology from figure drawings. Journal of Consulting
Psychology,
29, 520529.
Howitt, P. S. (1984). Kinetic family drawings and clinical judgement:
An evaluation
of judges' ability to differentiate between the KFD's of abusing,
control, and
concerned mothers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45,
4504B. (University
Microfilms No. ADG0554194)
Hulse, W. C. (1951). The emotionally disturbed child draws his family.
Quarterly
Journal of Child Behavior, 3, 152-174.
Ilg, F. L., & Ames, L. B. (1978). School readiness: Behavior tests
used at
the Gesell Institute. New York: Harper & Row.
Jolles, I. (1971). A catalog for the qualitative interpretation of
the House-Tree-Person
(H-T-P). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Klepsch, M. E. (1979). A validation study of the Draw-A- Teacher
technique
on third grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of
Northern Colorado.
Klepsch, M. E. (1980). Drawings as a measure of children's
attitudes to doctors,
dentists, and nurses. Unpublished manuscript.
Klepsch, M., & Logie, L. (1982). Children draw and tell: An
introduction
to the projective uses of children's human figure drawings. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Koppitz, E. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's human
figure
drawings. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Koppitz, E. M. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure
drawings
by middle school pupils. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Kuhlman, T. L. (1979). A validation study of the Draw-A-Person as a
measure
of racial identity acceptance. Journal of Personality Assessment,
43,
5.
Laosa, L. M., Swartz, J. D., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1974).
Perceptual-cognitive
and personality development of Mexican and Anglo-American children as
measured
by human figure drawings. Developmental Psychology, 10,
131-139.
Levinson, R. (1983). Children's kinetic family drawings and clinical
judgement
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1983). Dissertation
Abstracts
International, 44, 4401B.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Logo Computer Systems, Inc. (LCSI) (1983). IBM Logo [Computer
software]. New
York: Author.
Logo Computer Systems, Inc. (1984). Apple Logo II [Computer software].
New York:
Author.
Logo Computer Systems, Inc. (1986). LogoWriter for the Apple II
[Computer software].
New York: Author.
Lott, B. (1979). Sex-role ideology and children's drawings: Does the
jack-o-lantern
smile or scare?. Sex Roles, 5(1), 93-98.
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the
human figure.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
McIntosh, E. M. (1981). Sources of diagnostic error in detection of
maladjusted
children using human figure drawings (Doctoral dissertation, Florida
Institute
of Technology, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42,
4203B.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis:
A sourcebook
of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Noddings, N., & Shore, P. J. (1984). Awakening the inner eye:
Intuition in
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly
Hills,
CA: Sage.
Phillips, S. (1980). Children's perceptions of health and disease.
Canadian
Family Physician, 26, 1171-1174.
Plaut, E., & Crannell, C. W. (1955). The ability of clinical
psychologists to
discriminate between drawings by deteriorated schizophrenics and
drawings by
normal subjects. Psychological Reports, 1, 153158.
Prout, H. T., & Phillips, P. D. (1974). A clinical note: The Kinetic
School
Drawing. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 303-306.
Rabin, A. I., & Limuaco, J. A. (1959). Sexual differentiation of
American and
Filipino children as reflected in the Draw-A-Person Test. Journal
of Social
Psychology, 50, 207-211.
Renchner, M. R. (1985). Children's human figure drawings: A validity
study of
Koppitz's criteria for the assessment of psychological traits by
judges at different
levels of clinical experience and training (Doctoral dissertation,
California
School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, 1985). Dissertation
Abstracts
International, 46, 4604B.
Schmidt, L. D., & McGowan, J. F. (1959). The differentiation of Human
Figure
Drawings. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 129-133.
Shearn, C. R., & Russell, K. R. (1970). Use of the family drawing
technique
for studying parent-child interaction. Journal of Projective
Techniques and
Personality Assessment, 34, 35-44.
Smart, R. C., & Smart, M. S. (1975). Group values shown in
pre-adolescents'
drawings in five Englishspeaking countries. Journal of Social
Psychology,
97, 23-27.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry.
Educational
Researcher, 7(1), 5-8.
Swensen, C. H. (1968). Empirical evaluations of Human Figure Drawings:
1957-1966.
Psychological Bulletin, 70, 20-44.
Touch Window [Computer input device]. (1985). Lilburn, GA: Touch
Screens, Inc.
Urban, W. H. (1963). The Draw-A-Person catalogue for interpretation
and analysis.
Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Wanderer, Z. (1969). Validity of clinical judgments based on Human
Figure Drawings.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 143-150.
Welch, I. D., Flannigan, M. W., & Rave, E. J. (1971). Children's
drawings: What
they tell us about the way kids see schools. The Innovator, 2,
28-29.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods.
Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Ziv, A., & Shechori, H. (1970). Human figure drawing as a measure of
social
adjustment in school. Journal of School Psychology, 8, 152-153.
Contributor
Judith Harris
Judith Harris is an assistant professor of instructional technology
in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of
Texas at
Austin. Her current teaching and research interests include:
instructional applications
of and professional development with Internet-based telecomputing for
educators,
the analysis of on-line conversations among adults and children,
relationships
among educators' beliefs, practices, and use of technological tools,
and emerging
trends in the design of contexts and roles for computer-mediated
teaching and
learning. Dr. Harris writes a column for educators in
Learning and
Leading with Technology entitled "Mining the Internet," the first
few years
of which were expanded, updated, and published by ISTE as a book for
educators
called Way of the Ferret: Finding and Using Educational Resources
on the
Internet, now in its second edition. Her ideas on teaching
teachers to design
curriculum-based educational telecomputing activities have been
published as
a video set and Facilitator's Guide by ASCD in Teaching and
Learning on the
Internet, and will soon appear as a book, also published by ASCD.
Dr. Harris coordinates a number of educational telecomputing
projects on the Internet, including "The Electronic Emissary," a
service which
matches volunteer subject matter experts with teachers and their
classes studying
topics in the experts' fields of expertise, so that teaching and
learning can
occur asynchronously via electronic mail. She also teaches workshops
and speaks
to educators about Internet-based telecomputing at local, regional,
national,
and international gatherings. [Note: Since this article was published
Dr. Harris
has been promoted to associate professor.] Address: Department of
Curriculum
& Instruction, 406 Sanchez Building, College of Education, University
of Texas
at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-1294. E-mail: jbharris@tenet.edu.
Copyright © 1996, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education).
All rights reserved.
|
