making theories of children's artistic development meaningful for preservice teachers

National Art Education Association

Making Theories of Children's Artistic Development Meaningful for Preservice TeachersAuthor(s): Mick Luehrman and Kathy UnrathSource: Art Education, Vol. 59, No. 3 (May, 2006), pp. 6-12Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27696141 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 02:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:40:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27696141?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Mu~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

f R h;_a!~~S

t A 3 . ,x,;.J j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ........

m~Ta chme *>

BY MICK LU HYUNRATH

I develop artistically. This kind of knowledge is essential for choosing age-appropriate teaching strategies and content

for the units and lessons that the art teacher develops. Beginning art teachers study develop

mental theory in educational psychology classes, but it seems that this is often a

textbook, lecture, and exam approach that does not "stick" or, in any case, does

not seem practically relevant to many

pre-service teachers. Over the last few

years in the art education programs at

Central Missouri State University and the

University of Missouri-Columbia, we have

collaborated to develop an action

research activity that seems to make

developmental theory more meaningful to our students by connecting it

concretely to children's artmaking. Judith Burton (2004) says, "Very few studies

that look at practice, either explicitly or

implicitly, begin by staking out the

developmental abilities and needs of the

youngsters who are their subjects; nor do

they set their subjects in the context of

the classroom or their out-of-school lives.

Instruction, thus, emerges as a set of

activities involving the arts that are

applied to young people, rather than

engaging them at their own level and on

their own terms" (p. 572). Like Burton, we value the opportunity for our pre service students to work with children in

order to construct and validate their own

knowledge of developmental theory.

Before outlining the details of the

research assignment carried out by our

students, we offer a brief overview of

some basic issues in the field of

children's development. We begin by

looking at stage theory, the idea that

there are stages of development that all

children pass through. Then we consider

the effect of other factors such as culture

and social context on children's

development.

Children's Development: Theoretical Issues

Stage theories hold that children progress through a series of stages of

development and that there are sets of

characteristics that can be identified and

are typically found among large groups of children within broadly defined age

ranges. Stage theories of development describe characteristic milestones that

delineate passage from one stage to

another, and explain how the majority of children progress in a similar way

through a developmental sequence.

Piaget's theory of stages of cognitive

development and Erikson's theory of

stages of psychosocial development are

commonly found in texts used for educa

tional psychology courses (Borich & Tombari, 1997; LeFran?ois, 1997; Slavin,

1997). Piaget described characteristic

behaviors, including artistic ones such as

drawing, as evidence of how children

think and what children do as they progress beyond developmental

6 ART EDUCATION / MAY 2006



There is growing recognition that developing visual

literacy is an important purpose for art education,

providing multiple pathways for developing students'

critical thinking and communication skills and

providing the means to interpret and negotiate the

visual culture in which we are immersed (Barrett,

2003; Eisner, 2003;Moline, 1995).

milestones into and through stages of

development. Specific to art education, Lowenfeld (1952) proposed stages of

artistic development that generally paral leled Piaget's stages of cognitive develop

ment. Kellogg (1970) researched and

described a generalized sequence of

visual characteristics for children's devel

opment of symbols in their drawings

during the early childhood years. Gardner (1980) theorized a U-curve for

artistic development. He described an

apparent expressive peak in the aesthetic

qualities of children's symbol-making

during early childhood, followed by a

gradual deterioration of these qualities

during the middle years of schooling, and

a rebound that can come as adolescents

consciously reacquire aesthetic sensi

bility through study and working with

symbol systems in the arts.

Developmental psychologists and art

educators alike have called attention to

the need for widening the list of factors

to be considered significant to develop ment, directing attention to the different

ways individuals process information

(Case, 1992), the nature of intelligence

(Gardner, 1983), and social and cultural

influences (Kindler & Darras, 1998;

McFee, 1977;Vygotsky, 1978). In the post modern era this has led art educators to

account for contextual factors when

formulating new or reinterpreting old

models of artistic development

(Kerlavage, 1998; Kindler, 2004; Kindler,

1997). Possible bias within research

conclusions about children's artistic

development due to modernist or

formalist aesthetic stances or definitions

of art, such as the case for a U-curve for

artistic development, has also been

suggested (Kindler, 2004). A holistic view

of development is the goal for these

contemporary theorists, recognizing the

interaction of social, physical, emotional,

moral, language, and aesthetic

development, in addition to cognitive

development.

Difficulties arise from theorists'

attempts to account for all of these

developmental factors.The results are

increasingly more and more complex theories and models of artistic develop

ment. Though advancing the level of

thought on the topic, this complexity can be intimidating and overwhelming even for experienced teachers, let alone

for beginners. It is not surprising, then, to hear from colleagues in art teacher

preparation programs that they have de

emphasized the study of stage theories of

development in art education methods

classes, either because of this complexity or because they think of stage theories

as inherently problematic for explaining social and cultural factors of development.

In spite of these difficulties we believe

that preservice elementary art teachers

and classroom teachers need some

knowledge of stage theories of children's

development?with attention given to

social and cultural factors?in order to

have a place to begin when trying to

understand their students. With this

knowledge base they are better able to

choose age-appropriate teaching and

assessment strategies that will help them

develop the whole potential of every

child, developing artistic thinking and

visual literacy, as well as traditional verbal

literacy. There is growing recognition that

developing visual literacy is an important

purpose for art education, providing

multiple pathways for developing students' critical thinking and communi

cation skills and providing the means to

interpret and negotiate the visual culture

in which we are immersed (Barrett,

2003; Eisner, 2003; Moline, 1995). Luckily there are resources that present stage theories in a form that beginning teachers can understand. One such

resource is described here.

Stages of Artistic Development: A Brief Description of One Resource

In the classes for beginning art

teachers at the University of Missouri

Columbia and Central Missouri State

University we utilize the textbook,

Creating Meaning Through Art: The

Teacher as Choice-Maker (Simpson,

1998).The second chapter, "Under

standing the Learner," authored by Marianne Kerlavage, provides a holistic

view of the stages of children's develop ment. This foundation is echoed in

subsequent chapters of the text.Through this text and other individual materials

and visuals, students discover concrete

visual characteristics of the work of

children within the various stages of

artistic development, and begin to see

congruence among cognitive, physical,

social, language, emotional, and artistic

development.

Kerlavage's description of stages of

artistic development differs from

Lowenfeld's through her addition of a

holistic view of development, the idea

that there is an interaction among different domains of development:

cognitive, social, emotional, physical,

language, and aesthetic. Kerlavage's

MAY 2006 / ART EDUCATION 7



Stage theory co/icepts should not

be rigidly interpreted, but rather

flexibly referenced as a general

guide. It is imperative to remember

that they are not prescriptive in

terms of what to expect of an

individua\child at a specific age.

symbol-centered aruWc development

sequence?with typica^age ranges nearly identical to Lowenfeld's s^ses?begins

with the Mark-Making Stager>g?s2-4), during which we typically ire tin>rpin ,_ ration of kinesthetic scribble marking, the development of controlled marking, the building of form through shape combination and aggregation and the

initial discovery of the figure-ground relationship.This is followed by the Early Symbol Making Stage (typically ages 4-7), during which children begin to develop their own personal vocabulary of graphic

symbols as they discover the power their symbols have to represent and communi

cate. As their vocabulary of symbols

grows, so does the process of differenti

ating them into categories and subcate

gories of symbols that will best serve their communication purposes.

The Symbol Making Stage (typically ages 7-9) sees a continuing burst of

symbol development with more

developed detail and differentiation, accompanied by symbolic rather than

arbitrary color and the development of a

variety of spatial representation strate

gies, such as multiple baselines, fold-over

drawings and multiple viewpoints in a

single drawing. During what Kerlavage refers to as the Emerging Expertise Stage

(typically ages 9-11) we typically see among the population an increasing influence of social factors, a move away from viewing art as a symbol-making

activity toward seeing art as a creative

endeavor. In drawing, we see the desire

for making it look "right" increase, which

intensifies as children move into the

Artistic Challenges Stage (typically ages 11-14).This stage is characterized by an

ongoing "artistic crisis" wherein the

preadolescent's view of what is good in

" ' >^?:?;^:^^?i

N^

A

Figure 1. Artwork by Abdala, age 6( 1st grade.

art?often narrowly viewed as "realistic"

drawing?outraces the ability to achieve

this end. There is a demanding need to

develop skill that if not met or diffused by the realization that art is much

broader than realism, generates frustra

tion and can lead pr?adolescents to lose

interest and abandon art completely.

Entry into the Artistic Triinking Stage (ages 14-17) signifies adult understand ings of art. Seen as more than merely

representation, art is recognized as a

creative process.The individual who

progresses this far has the potential of making art from the viewpoint of the mature artist (Kerlavage, 1998). Not all

make it to this level of artistic develop ment due to difficulty negotiating the artistic crisis, an outcome that could be

rooted in lack of opportunity, lack of enlightened art education or other social

factors. For each of the above-mentioned

stages of artistic development, Kerlavage describes aspects of cognitive, social,

emotional, physical, language, and

aesthetic development in order to

provide the needed grounding and

context for considering development in

a holistic way.

Limitations and Misconceptions About Stage Theories of Development

To keep the proper perspective when applying stage theories it is important to remember that stages of development are only generalizations meant to be

descriptive of tendencies among large

groups of children. Stage theory concepts should not be rigidly inter

preted, but rather flexibly referenced as a general guide. It is imperative to

remember that they are not prescriptive in terms of what to expect of an

individual child at a specific age.They may, however, be helpful?in conjunction with other diagnostic tools?for

providing a frame of reference to identify particularly gifted or challenged students, or to make some judgment about how to

encourage individuals in their artistic

development. With the above mentioned

caveats in place, we believe that stage theories of artistic development are valid

concepts for the preservice art teacher

to internalize, as long as it is clearly established that individual children are

unique, and that they often vary from

generalized expectations because of




social and cultural contextual issues,

and/or other particular special needs and

challenges. Beyond generalized planning for large group instruction and within

the context of the classroom, it is the

teacher's responsibility to identify individual needs and the unique qualities of each student that differentiate the

individual from any set of norms and

generalizations suggested by a stage

theory of development.

The Preservice Teacher Learning Activity Action Research into Children's

Development The early childhood education,

elementary education, and art education

majors in our programs are assigned similar tasks: a qualitative research assign

ment that asks them to observe children

drawing; an interview of these children

about their drawings; a large group

presentation and discussion of the

drawings in class; and finally, a written

paper to describe and reflect on the

experience and their understanding of

children's development. Unlike typical field experience microteaching events

for preservice teachers, this research

assignment is structured to allow them

the luxury of sitting back and observing children closely, rather than being so self

absorbed in monitoring their own

teaching behaviors. It provides an intro

duction to the idea of how they might conduct action research as practicing

teachers, asking and answering research

questions that have the potential to

inform the instructional and curricular

choices they will make (Carr & Kernmis,

1986). In this particular case, the action

research task resembles a pretest, for

instance what an art teacher might do at

the beginning of a school year or prior to

a unit on drawing in order to have an

overall view of the beginning level of

artistic development of her/his students.

The specific goal is for the preservice teachers to apply their understanding of

developmental concepts to an authentic

learning experience. Will they find

characteristics associated with the

various stages of development in the

behaviors of the children and within

their drawings?

Instructions for the Children's

Drawing Activity The preservice teachers are asked to

find at least three children who they can

ask to draw for them while they observe.

A uniform task is given: Ask each child

to, "draw a picture of yourself."This

uniformity allows the class as a group at

a later date to make large group compar isons of the drawings they have all

collected. Students are also instructed to

do the following in regard to the activity:

Provide a variety of drawing media for

the children so that the preferences of

the children might be noted.

Refrain from "coaching" and, if need be, to reassure the children to draw the

way they like to draw1.

Take notes on children's ways of

working: how they construct the

drawing, comments they may make

during the process, whether or not

they paused or appeared to struggle with any particular aspect, and any other observations.

If the children worked together in a

group note any interactions or social

effects.

Interview each child after the drawing

experience, being careful not to

project the teacher's own beliefs into

the situation. Begin with the prompt, "Tell me about your drawing."

Put the child's name and age in years

(and months if possible) on the back of the drawing.

Take time immediately after the activity to process and reflect on what

happened, and then add these reflec

tions to their observation notes.

Write a formal paper that analyzes what they observed during the

children's drawing experience and

compare this to what was learned

about children's development, noting

aspects that were either typical or

atypical, according to the theories they had studied.

The Group Processing Task On a designated day, students bring the

drawings that they have collected to

class.The drawings are then spread out

on tables around the classroom and a

sorting process begins. Based only on the

graphic evidence seen within the

drawings, and without "peeking" at the

age level on the back, students are asked

to place the drawings collected by their

peers in a developmental sequence and

sort them according to the visual charac

teristics associated with the stage theories they have studied (Kerlavage,

1998). Students are allowed to discuss

their ideas about a specific drawing with

their peers. We find that this process stimulates spontaneous analytical discus

sions that show an active use of their

knowledge of child development.

When this task is completed, we facili

tate group discussion, asking students to

examine and explain the characteristics

they find among the drawings that have

been placed within a particular stage of

development. Students are free at any time during the discussion to take a

stand and move a drawing to another

category, provided that it is not one that

they collected themselves.They are

required, however, to justify why they moved the drawing by citing evidence

they find within the drawing. When this

initial discussion is complete for a stage

Ie : '' Spnr J ^^ H ^^^^^^^^^HIP^ ^ ^BHB^^^B

r^B||K?*: "2 '.-JhiI^^B University students engage in the group

?lll^^^B characteristics of children's drawings in




of artistic development, the preservice teachers come forward to identify

drawings created by "their" children,

particularly when the age of the child does not "fit" the typical age range for a

stage.There are usually many surprises. For nearly every grouping there are

several drawings by children who turn out to be either younger or older than

the class had anticipated based on their

analysis of the drawing. This exercise

helps illustrate the idea that stage theories are descriptive of the general population, but not prescriptive in regard to expectations for individuals.

During the group activity, the preser vice teachers are usually eager to tell

stories about "their* children and the

experience of working with them. They share information they sometimes learn

about physical, emotional, social and

cultural factors that could have affected

the drawings and artistic or general

development of the child. As instructors, we also use this opportunity to reinforce

the idea that a single drawing is not suffi cient evidence for making any definitive conclusions about a child's development.

After progressing through the discus sion of the drawings grouped for each of the stages of development, students

rearrange the drawings chronologically

according to the actual ages of the

children so that they can get a clearer

picture of the diversity within the various grades that they will be certified to teach. Students then reflect upon the

group processing activity and what they learned about children's development.

Instructions for the Writing Assignment

For the formal writing assignment,

preservice teachers receive the following

general instructions:

1. Describe the setting, the children and their actions during the activity.

Identify the children (first name only) and include both their age and grade level.

Attach the drawings to the paper in the same order they are discussed.

2. Go beyond description to include

analysis of the drawings as they relate to the stages of children's develop

ment in art and other appropriate

developmental factors. The paper should clearly show an understanding of developmental concepts found in class readings, lecture and discussion.

Use appropriate terms and concepts when the drawings either illustrate or

differ from what research has shown

to be typical for particular develop mental stages and age groups.

If you worked with a larger number of children, you may not need to discuss

every drawing in detail to make your points. You may be able to note that

one drawing serves to illustrate a

characteristic found in several of the

drawings.

As a part of the strategy for writing this paper, consider comparing the

characteristics of one child's drawing with others in order to illustrate a

point.

3. State conclusions, synthesizing what

was observed and learned, and then

applying this understanding to its effect on the choices that the teacher

must make.There is an expectation for

higher level thinking to be present in

this response. Among the questions to

consider are:

What might be the consequences of

the teacher being uninformed or

ignoring these ideas about develop ment?

Specifically, what are the educational

benefits (for both the elementary student and art teacher) that spring from the teacher's understanding of

children's development in art?

What Do Preservice Teachers Discover?

Four categories or dimensions describe

the types of realizations typically found among the reflections: (1) the power of the experience of witnessing children drawing, speaking and behaving in a

manner that is consistent with the

theoretical constructs from the preser vice teacher's readings on development;

(2) contrastingly, the differences among children due to variation in develop mental progress and social or cultural

influences; (3) the value of newfound

understanding of development as it relates to the "big picture," planning curriculum according to developmental trends across the population; (4) realiza

tions about the act of teaching art that

come from watching children work on

their own.

Exemplifying the first category, one

preservice teacher found a 13-year-old

participant true to general expectations for her age group:

Kylie is firmly in the "artistic

challenges" stage ... She was

cautious and deliberate as she took

her time to draw. She seemed

concerned about doing things "correctly'' even though I assured

her not to worry. Often she showed

dissatisfaction with her attempts.

(Personal communication)

Whereas, the following preservice teacher noticed how her participant

(see Figure 1) differed from general characteristics for his age:

10 ART EDUCATION /MAY 2006 ̂ Bffjjlr



?????W ?- "' .?????m^- M WEB ^j? ff?^? Jt M?J?????L:ai

?? fmmi'*mm wmm?? Wl'i^M if^Hi ???^^MI^Mjmm?^^mW?^^??^^?k

Figure 2. Artwork by Tommy, 4th grade.

Abdala, the six-year-old, seemed to

be more advanced than Amy who is

seven. I believe that Abdala is in the

symbol making stage (typically age

7-9). I believe this because of a few

reasons. First, he had drawn a

distinct head and torso. Abdala has

also given the clothes and shoes a

more realistic color?he took a long time selecting his colors. Abdala also

drew his shadow and connected it

to his body, I found this to be very interesting ... very advanced for

being only six years old. (Personal

communication)

The following description illustrates

differences among children due to social

influences that can affect a child's perse verance and enthusiasm for drawing. This

child's interaction with others and his

unique solution to the drawing problem

(see Figure 2) both seem to indicate a

critical attitude toward drawing that

often begins in the upper grades of

elementary school, as well as the effect

that the appeal of competing activities

can have on perseverance:

Tommy was the fourth grader in the

group. He was the one that made

The confidence that comes from the

understanding they have gained through this initial experience with children

translates into less anxiety and more

confidence when the time comes to teach.

most of the

comments about the

others' drawings, which I thought were sometimes

rude. He would ask

the other children, "What is that, your nose?"... and then

they would get offended and erase

and draw their nose

again. But in his own

drawing he decided to put a newspaper

in front of his face, so he would not

have to draw the nose and other

features. I do think that Tommy's

drawing would have been better, but

he was hurrying as fast as he could, so that he could go play dodge ball

with all the other children. (Personal

communication)

The following statement shows how

the preservice teacher witnessed the

influence children can have on each

other's symbol choices:

Special notice was taken of how

much the children borrowed from

each other. After Conner (age 7) had pointed out Tony's (age 8) sky, Andrea (age 7) immediately drew

her sky in the same way. Conner was

the first to draw sunglasses and a

smile on her sun. This is probably an

example of a personalized symbol, characteristic of the Symbol Making

Stage since she put the face on

immediately after she drew it. Two

other girls noticed her sun and put

sunglasses on their previously drawn

suns. (Personal communication)

The nuance of difference among children is illustrated by comments such

as this one from a preservice art teacher

who had little difficulty motivating two of her subjects, but had some difficulty

with the third.

I have noticed that not all children

want to express themselves using

art, while others will want to create

and create and create some more.

As a teacher, I will have to come up with as many innovative ways as

possible to make sure that those

children who feel art is not for them

will feel encouraged to try and to

discover what they can do. (Personal

communication)

Another comment echoes the

important realization that we must look

at each child individually. I learned not just to expect the

norm. Expect that a child will teach

you new things and show signs in

their development level that will

amaze and astonish you. Just because

a child is of a particular age, does

not mean that they will automati

cally operate at a given level of

development. Children do, however,

progress in a similar method.


The most commonly acknowledged benefit of learning about children's

development has been the realization

that this newfound knowledge will help them as teachers to create age-appro

priate art curriculum materials and select

age-appropriate teaching strategies for

large group instruction without losing

sight of individual needs.The following statement illustrates this aspect.

Overall, the more a teacher knows

about their students, developmen

tally and personally, the better able

they are to provide a proper and

appropriate education for them,

making sure they are not left

behind. (Personal communication)




Another common realization by the

preservice art teachers has to do with

the subtle but critical decisions that an

art teacher has to make when interacting with individual students on the spot.

It was difficult to hold back and not

help her when she got frustrated.

I just encouraged her and told her

that I was interested in seeing her

way of drawing.

This assignment with children taught me to not just get in there and tell them

what to do, but rather to be supportive and allow them to resolve problems in

art themselves. I think I might have

always wanted to jump right in there and

say, "Why don't you do this, or why don't

you do that," without letting the child

figure it out on his or her own.

Some children needed a lot of my

attention, while others did not need

much attention at all.

As educators, we need to always

encourage growth at the student's

own pace but by always pushing

past the student's boundaries a little.

So the student continues to grow, but still feels comfortable and happy about their achievement level.


Some students reach deeper levels of

understanding about what artmaking means to children in comparison to what

it means to most adults, as exemplified

by this student's reflection, comparing a

precocious 4-year-old to a pair of 12-year olds with whom he worked.

It seems that in the early stages, art

is much more about imagination and

exploration than a finished product. Art has a very different function

when viewed in this light; in many

ways it is much more pure and

instinctive when it is free from the

expectations that come about in the

later stages of artistic development.


Conclusions

Employing the power of direct experi ence with children is essential to help

preservice teachers internalize and

recognize both the value and limitations

of developmental theories.Through the

learning activity described in this article, a concrete picture of diversity emerges for our preservice teachers.They find

that sometimes the children they work

with fit the generalized expectations for

an age range; sometimes they do not.

Experiencing both of these scenarios

appears to be valuable for our students

as they recognize that stage theories are

not prescriptive for individuals and that

physical, emotional, social and cultural

factors can profoundly affect a child's

development. In this way they discover

for themselves the general trends found

within the population they will be

teaching, while still maintaining objec

tivity about the differences in develop ment they will find among their students.

The benefits of beginning with this

foundation of understanding about

children's artistic and holistic develop ment are diffused throughout the teacher

preparation sequence, and manifest

themselves in improved curriculum

planning by these future teachers. We see

more age-appropriate selections in the

areas of teaching strategies, conceptual

content, and media processes for art

production activities. For the preservice teachers themselves, the confidence that

comes from the understanding they have

gained through this initial experience with children translates into less anxiety and more confidence when the time

comes to teach. If not coupled with

direct experience, the study of develop mental concepts and ideas is hollow

and incomplete.

Mick Luehrman is Associate Professor

of Art at Central Missouri State

University, Warrensburg. E-mail:

luehrman@cmsul. cmsu. edu

Katby Unrath is Assistant Professor of Art Education at the University of

Missouri, Columbia. E-mail:

UnratbK@mizzou. edu

REFERENCES

Barrett,T. (2003). Interpreting visual culture, Art Education, 56(2), 6-12.

Borich, G., & Tombari, M. (1997). Educational

psychology:A contemporary approach, New York: Longman Publishing.

Burton, J. (2004).The Practice of teaching in

K-12 schools: Devises and desires, In E.

Eisner and M. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education

(pp. 553-575). Reston,VA: National Art

Education Association.

Carr,W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action

research. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Case, R. (1992). The mind's staircase. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisner, E. (2003). New needs, new curriculum:

Preparing for today and tomorrow.

Educational Leadership, 61(4), 6-10.

Gardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles: The signifi cance of children's drawings. New York:

Basic Books, Inc.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The

theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books, Inc.

Kellogg, R. (1970). Analyzing children's art.

Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.

Kerlavage, M. (1998). Understanding the

learner. In J. Simpson (Ed.), Creating

meaning through art: Teacher as choice

maker (pp. 23-72). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kindler,A. M. (2004). Researching impossible? Models of artistic development reconsid

ered. In E. Eisner and M. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art

education (pp. 233-252). Reston,VA: National Art Education Association.

Kindler, A. M., & Darras, B. (1998). Culture and

development of pictorial repertoires, Studies in Art Education, 39 (2), 47-167.

Kindler,A. M. (1997). Map of artistic develop ment, in A. Kindler (Ed.). Child development in art (pp. 17-44). Reston,VA: National Art

Education Association.

LeFran?ois, G. A. (1997). Psychology for

teaching. Belmont, CAWadsworth.

Lowenfeld,V. (1952). Creative and mental

growth (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

McFee,J. K. (1977). Art, culture and environ

ment. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Moline, S. (1995). / see what you mean:

Children at work with visual information. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology

of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology:

Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Simpson, J.W. (1998). Creating meaning

through art: The teacher as choice maker.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The

development of higher order psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

ENDN?TE 1 After the research drawing task was

completed, students were encouraged to work

with any child who showed particular frustration and requested help.

PHOTOGRAPHS Artwork photographed by Mick Luehrman and

university students photographed by Kathy Unrath.




making theories of children's artistic development meaningful for preservice teachers

Documents