Mixed Messages: The Role & Value of Drawing in Early Education
Emese Hall
University of Exeter
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role and value of drawing in early education with particular reference to the ‘‘mixed messages’’ present in the current statutory curriculum documents, namely the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA/DfEE, 2000) and the Key Stage 1 Primary National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999). In these documents two contradictory views are presented about the role and value of drawing in early education: it is stated that children should be encouraged to explore their ideas, feeling and experiences through a range of means, including drawing; but drawing as a form of communication is predominantly seen as a pre-writing skill. The first view could be interpreted positively, as drawing is often considered to be an important element of multi-modal meaning making (Anning and Ring, 2004; Kress, 2000; Pahl, 2001, 2002); however, this is not a concept that appears in either curriculum document. In the Primary National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999)drawing exists as an element of the programme of study for art and design, but although drawing is an important artistic skill this is not its sole function: young children have many motivations for drawing for different purposes and in different contexts (Matthews, 1997, 1999, 2003). Drawing is a form of visual language (Gentle, 1981; Hawkins, 2002; Read, 1943) and as such should be respected in the same way as any other ‘‘conventional’’ language, spoken or written. Viewing drawing as a pre-writing skill undermines the complexity and richness of young children’s drawings that often belies their apparent simplicity (Coates & Coates, 2006; Eng, 1999; Goodnow, 1977; Paine, 1981). However, young children’s drawings cannot be easily understood out of context or judged using the same criteria that may be applied to adults’ drawings. My own study, entitled The Communicative Potential of Young Children’s Drawings, builds on recent research on young children’s drawings at home and in school which utilises socio-cultural theory to explore the influence of context on drawing, meaning making and representation (Anning & Ring, 2004; Brooks, 2005; Dockett & Perry, 2005; Ring, 2006). Contemporary socio-cultural theories reconcile individual and social accounts of learning in which co-operation and communication are essential conditions for learning (Engeström, Miettinen & Punamäki, 1999). This theoretical stance encompasses three dimensions regarding the nature of communication: the subjective, the intersubjective, and the meta-communicative/meta-cognitive. My study aims to explore the communicative potential of drawing across these dimensions, in relation to the influences on communication through the activity of drawing and communication about drawings as artefacts, and with specific reference to children’s personal and shared interpretations, meanings and intentions. An intensive case study will involve 14 children in a mixed reception and year one class (eight girls and six boys),their parents and class teacher. The children’s parents and teacher will be asked to collect drawings, including those produced on computer, from home and school over three periods of six weeks. Through developing a progressive collection of young children’s drawings and discussing these with the children, their parents and teacher, the study will seek co-constructed meanings in relation to the drawings’ content, form, and communicative potential. Once systematically analysed and theorised, these data will have implications for understanding children’s learning, and for developing pedagogy and curriculum.
Introduction
This paper begins with a policy critique, followed by an overview of my own research that stems, in part, from my understanding of policy. The policy critique will focus on the role and value of drawing in early education, making particular reference to the ‘‘mixed messages’’ present in the current statutory curriculum documents, namely the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2000) and the Key Stage 1 Primary National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999). In these documents two contradictory views are presented about the role and value of drawing in early education: it is stated that children should be encouraged to explore their ideas, feeling and experiences through a range of means, including drawing; but drawing as a form of communication is predominantly seen as a pre-writing skill. In the Primary National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) drawing exists as an element of the programme of study for art and design, but although drawing is an important artistic skill this is not its sole function: young children have many motivations for drawing for different purposes and in different contexts (Matthews, 1997, 1999, 2003). Edwards (1993, p. xii) describes drawing as a ‘‘global skill’’ - by this she means that drawing has many applications, much in the same way as writing. However, it should be noted that young children’s drawings cannot be read or ‘‘translated’’ in the same way as a piece of writing, nor can they be easily understood out of context or judged using the same criteria that may be applied to adults’ drawings. Adults bring theirown, often misleading, expectationsto the interpretation of children’s drawings (Brittain, 1979); therefore it is important to talk to children about their creations in order to fully understand their interests and intentions, and to also show that their drawings are valued (Davis, 2005).
My own study, entitled The Communicative Potential of Young Children’s Drawings, builds on recent research on young children’s drawings at home and in school which utilises socio-cultural theory to explore the influence of context on drawing, meaning making and representation (Anning & Ring, 2004; Brooks, 2005; Dockett & Perry, 2005; Matthews, 2003; Ring, 2006). My study aims to explore the communicative potential of drawing in relation to the influences on communication through the activity of drawing and communication about drawings as artefacts, and with specific reference to children’s personal and shared interpretations, meanings and intentions. An intensive case study will involve 14 children in a mixed reception and year one class (eight girls and six boys),their parents and class teacher. The children’s parents and teacher will be asked to collect drawings from home and school over three periods of six weeks. Through developing a progressive collection of young children’s drawings and discussing these with the children, their parents and teacher, the study will seek co-constructed meanings in relation to the drawings’ content (subject matter/theme), form (technical aspects/composition) and communicative potential. Once systematically analysed and theorised, these data will have implications for understanding children’s learning, and for developing pedagogy and curriculum.
Drawing in the Foundation Stage
The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2000) is applicable to all children in state education aged from three to five years old, and is divided into six learning areas. Drawing exists as an element in two of these areas: ‘‘Communication, Language and Literacy’’ and ‘‘Creative Development’’. In the first of these learning areas, Communication, Language and Literacy, drawing is mentioned in the following context of practitioner guidance: ‘‘Encourage children to draw and paint and talk to them about what they have done.’’(QCA, 2000, p. 65), and it is also stated that children should learn how to ‘‘Draw lines and circles using gross motor movement’’ (p. 66). Although in this context it seems that drawing is being recognised as having a communicative role – which would be a positive point, both of the above statements refer to drawing as a pre-writing skill. Here, drawing is seen as a means of developing fine motor control so children can go on to ‘‘use a pencil and hold it effectively to form recognisable letters, most of which are correctly formed’’ (QCA, 2000, p. 66) - the Early Learning Goal for handwriting.
It is important to stress that viewing drawing as a pre-writing skill undermines the complexity and richness of young children’s drawings that often belies their apparent simplicity (Coates & Coates, 2006; Eng, 1999; Goodnow, 1977; Paine, 1981). As Anning and Ring put it: ‘‘drawing is not a ‘temporary’ holding form of symbolic representation leading to ‘higher level’ ability to form letters and numbers’’(2004, p. 118). From a very young age, even before the development of speech, drawing offers children a means of self-expression and also allows them to explore ideas and feelings in two dimensions. This is explained by Matthews (1997; 1999) in his theory of the ‘‘4 dimensional language of infancy’’: influenced by their physical and social environment, children use early drawing as a form of exploration into shape; movement and emotion - they may also be investigating visual and dynamic structure in itself. As children grow older their representations bear more resemblance to ‘‘the outside world’’ (Wilson, 1976, p. 17), but this does not mean that early drawings are less valuable – or that visual realism is the hallmark of a ‘‘good’’ drawing. Arnheim says that: ‘‘A few simple lines and dots are readily accepted as ‘a face’, not only by civilised Westerners, who may be suspected of having agreed among one another on such ‘sign language’, but also by babies, savages and animals’’ (1974, p. 43). Although it may be argued that the wording of this statement is not politically correct in this day and age, it nonetheless highlights the universal nature of drawing as a visual language.
In a presidential address to the National Society of Art Education, Gallon remarked that: ‘‘Too often the glib and trite definition of ‘drawing’ is given as ‘The making of marks’. An incontinent intoxicated hound makes marks but I would dispute the fact that it is drawing’’ (1981, p. 3). Drawing is more complex than mere ‘‘mark making’’, and although this is a popular term in early years circles it actually undermines the importance of drawing in early years education (Ring, 2001). It is a significant discovery for the young child to find that a circle can stand for a button, a sun, a face (Golomb, 1992) as this opens up a world of possibilities for their future representational explorations. Edwards (1993, p. 65) refers to this discovery as a ‘‘leap of insight’’; Anning (1999, p. 164) calls it a ‘‘crucial shift’’. The development of a new graphic vocabulary results in the production of what Goodnow (1977, p. 27) terms ‘‘equivalents’’ or what Gardner (1980, p. 65) calls ‘‘prototypes’’: a young child will draw ‘‘a house’’ rather than ‘‘my house’’, ‘‘a dog’’ rather than ‘‘Lassie’’. However, simple equivalents or prototypes do not mean that the thinking behind them is also simple; for example, Paine states that: ‘‘In early drawing just as much as in that which is the product of greater maturity, images can be complex in technique, in intention and in meaning’’ (1981, p. 3). The understanding of these intentions and meanings is essential if drawing is to be recognised as a valid form of communication for young children.
The following excerpt is taken from the Foundation Stage Profile Handbook (QCA, 2003) under the learning area of Communication, Language and Literacy:
Priya draws a detailed picture of a house. She then makes careful marks under the picture and tells the practitioner that she has written ‘This is my house’. Her colleague, who supports children learning English as an additional language, confirms that the caption contains elements of Punjabi script, some of which are correctly written.(p.29).
The correct use of ‘‘some sounds’’ constitutes a level 3 (out of a possible 9) – but what about the detailed picture? Is this not a valid form of communication? The profile is supposed to be a record of a child’s achievements in the foundation stage that will help their year one teacher plan suitable learning activities, matched to ability. It is a significant omission that Priya’s ability to express herself through drawing is given little credence. Raney (2004, p. 200) talks of the ‘‘pictorial turn’’; this refers to the way in which images are becoming more commonly used as a form of communication rather than words. However, this idea does not seem to be acknowledged in the current early years curriculum guidance - at least not in the learning area of Communication, Language and Literacy.
Art, music, dance, role-play and imaginative play are all encompassed under the learning area of Creative Development within The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2000). In the introduction to this learning area it is stated that: ‘‘creativity is fundamental to successful learning. Being creative enables children to make connections between one area of learning and another and so extend their understanding.’’ (p. 116). This is a positive argument that few - if any - would dispute; however, it is intriguing to note that there is only one specific reference to drawing within this part of the curriculum document: ‘‘Make constructions, collages, paintings, drawings and dances’’ [italics added] (p.120). Other statements such as: ‘‘Differentiate marks and movement on paper.’’ (p. 120) and the Early Learning Goal to ‘‘express and communicate their ideas, thoughts and feelings by using a widening range of materials, suitable tools…’’(p. 126) could be seen to include drawing but only in an implicit, vague sort of way. There are also a few references to ‘‘pictures’’ and ‘‘media’’, but these do not serve to recognise the particular role or value of drawing in early education.
Drawing is often considered to be an important element of multi-modal meaning making (Anning & Ring, 2004; Kress, 2000; Pahl, 2001, 2002); however, this is not a concept that appears in The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2000) nor, as evidenced above, in the Foundation Stage Profile (QCA, 2003). Kress argues that children make sense of the world in a variety of ways and are multiliterate in their use of ‘‘signs’’ (2000, p. 17). These signs exist in: drawing, cutting out, model making, bodily gesture etc. Meaning and form are interlinked in the sign making of young children (Kress, 2000), but adults find it difficult to see any meaning in unconventional, and sometimes messy, representations. Kress explains this thus: ‘‘We know that children are clever, even wise, at an early age, yet we may shrink from attributing full intentionality to the things they do and make, so effortlessly, and which look so unlike our adult conceptions of what things are and should be’’ (2000, p. 35). Matthews (1997, 1999, 2003) - for one - attributes full intentionality to the mark making in young children’s early drawings. Mark making is a fun activity and, although children may initially gain sensory pleasure from the process of ‘‘gambolling on paper’’ (Arnheim, 1974, p. 171), we should reflect on the suggestion that children use drawing to create a meaningful whole which combines ‘‘diverse elements of their experience… In the process of selecting, interpreting and reforming these elements, children have given us more than a picture or sculpture; they have given us a part of themselves; how they think, feel and see’’ (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987, p. 2).
Drawing is a form of visual language (Gentle, 1981; Hawkins, 2002; Read, 1943) and as such should be respected in the same way as any other ‘‘conventional’’ language, spoken or written. This is exemplified in the Reggio Emilia approach to early years education where drawing is considered to be one of ‘‘the hundred languages of children’’ (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993). The practices of Reggio Emilia are widely regarded around the world and Anning (1999, p. 169) discusses how drawing is used as an integral part of learning within this approach, noting the ‘‘remarkable’’ confidence that children develop through experience and experimentation with visual media. However, an important point to stress here is that the emergent curriculum in Reggio Emilia settings is not subject to the usual constraints of time or adult-imposed expectations – as we are in England. There are no curriculum documents that appear to value drawing, but place writing at the top of the communicational hierarchy. Marsh (2003) recognises that although the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2000) offers a wider definition of literacy and communication than previous policy documents, there is little reference to visual literacy. In actual fact, there is no mention of that precise term in the foundation stage curriculum guidance. Might the situation be any better at Key Stage 1?
Drawing in Key Stage 1
The Primary National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) is applicable to all children in state education aged from five to eleven years old, and consists of ten compulsory subjects. At Key Stage 1 (and Key Stage 2) drawing exists as part of the art and design programme of study and is referred to specificallyunder the heading of ‘‘Investigating and making art, craft and design ’’, point 2b. For example, at Key Stage 1, pupils should be taught to ‘‘ try out tools and techniques and apply these to materials and processes, including drawing’’ (p. 118). However, this is the sole reference to drawing at Key Stage 1, even though there are many drawings included as illustrations throughout the curriculum handbook. Point 4a of the art and design programme of study, under the heading ‘‘Knowledge and understanding’’, states that pupils should be taught about ‘‘visual and tactile elements, including colour, pattern and texture, line and tone, shape, form and space’’ (p. 118). Again, it must be assumed that these points implicitly include drawing, perhaps in the same way as painting, collage or sculpture.
It is an interesting observation that whilst the subject specific nature of painting is noted in the Primary National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) the versatile nature of drawing is not. Painting, with all its often inevitable messiness offers little flexibility in the classroom, whereas drawing as a tool for learning can more easily translate to different curriculum areas. At least this is recognised by Ofsted; in one of their subject report on art and design in Primary schools, good practice was described as: ‘‘a clarity about the purposes of drawing – including drawing in the context of other subjects such as science, geography and history; opportunities to draw in a range of media, including ICT; and well-founded teaching methods.’’ (2002, p. 4). This appears to be common-sense, but in reference to drawing in other subjects, Anning and Ring (2004) say that many teachers do not understand that different drawing genres exist. Although it seems logical to say that drawing a map requires a different set of skills to drawing a self-portrait, in general children tend to develop their drawing skills through trial and error due to a lack of adequate teacher guidance (Anning, 1999). It is essentialto stress that drawing ‘‘happening’’ in the classroom does not count as drawing education. One would expect policy to provide some advice in this respect, but there are conflicting theoretical principles about teaching art and design in the current curriculum document, varying between a laissez faire approach and a focus on specific technical skills (Hallam, Lee & Das Gupta, 2007). It is therefore hardly surprising that without clear guidance on how best to teach drawing within the context of art and design the use of drawing in other subjects can be superficial.