Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Representation in Children's Drawing (Transition from Scribbling…
Representation in Children's Drawing
Transition from Scribbling
Unrecognisable things
Scribbling from 1.5 - 3/4 yrs
Initially motor activity, no intent to represent anything (not always even looking)
Transition to representation around 2/3
Understand dual representation of pictures - can represent something in real world
No interest in picture after been drawn
3 Stages
Action representations
Gestural drawings
Accompany scribbling with motions/sounds
Romancing
Understanding how drawing to depict but no control
Scribble intended referent, but unrecognisable
Can name object being drawn
Guided elicitation
Show representational intention only when assisted
Draw dictated parts - when scaffolded throughout
Drawing-completion - somethings chimps don't do
Signifier-signified relation - size/shape of drawing = similar to intended object even if not 100% right
Non-representational verbal
Marks - Smooth/broken curves
Hypotheses
More representational explanations for broken curves
More geometric explanations for smooth curves - less likely representational
Results confirmed these hypotheses
Represenation
Representational attributions increased from 2-3, but child rarely stated intent before drawing (referent is not in mind when sit down)
No representational attributions for
Peers's scribbles
Own scribbles from 1 mnth ago
Experimenter imitating own current scribbles
Child must recall experience of drawing curves on own - tight link between drawing + representation
Shape of curve associated w/ type of attribute - large/bulky = house, car + long/narrow = banana, ant
Not arbitrary
Adi-Japha et al (1998)
Adults seem to understand that children are more likely to say broken curves are representational
Qualitatively different from first human figures
First Human Figures
Circle - earliest shape
'Tadpole' figures follow (3-4 yrs)
Add more features
Presence & number of features correlate with later IQ
Less disproportional
But schematic, stereotyped
Small number of schemas at this age so if asked to draw animals then often very similar
Know that they are not realistic
Blind children (9-11yrs)
Similar to tadpole drawings
Some more detail (body)
Older children in cultures without formal schooling
No pictorial representations in enviro
Similarity in first drawings of people
Person-Animal Differentiation
Silk & Thomas (1986)
Research on human figures, little on other topics like animals
3.5 - 6.5 yrs drawing person & dog
Drawings coded for common features & unique features
Results
As predicted more differentiation with age
Proportionately fewer common features & more unique features
5.5 - 6 yrs = much more differentiation
No humans included dog features but dogs had human features - applying human schemas
Girls = more features - pay more attention, higher fine motor skills
Height differences = dog short than person + this difference increased with age
Orientation differences = dog changed with age, person always facing forward
Similar pattern with less familiar animal
Conc = 1st drawing of animal is adopted from schemas of humans
Representational Redescription
Karmiloff-Smith (1990)
Ability to modify drawing schemas
Age 4-11
6 drawings
House, person, animal
Adapt schemas: house, person, animal that does not exist
Types of changes made
Differed with age
Shape + size of elements changed
Shape of whole changed
Deletion of elements
Insertion of new elements
Position/orientation changed
Insertion of elements form other conceptual categories
Age differences
4-6 yrs: more changes in size, shape, deletions
8-10 yrs: more changes in position/orientation & insertions (including across categories)
Interpretation
Endogenous/internal changes in representations
Early knowledge embedded in procedure
Representational Redescription permits abstraction; more explicit/accessible
Allows greater flexibility
Alternative: younger children merely less inventive - would't think to use difficult categories
Explicitly ask to draw
Failure: person with 2 heards
Success: house with wings
Challenges
Studies showing greater flexibility
Spensley & Taylor (1999)
: 4-6 yrs modified drawings in middle of procedure modified drawings in middle of procedure made all types of changes when explicitly asked
Zhi et al (1997)
: More flexibility of person with 2 heads task - explicitly asked
Picard & vinter (2007)
: Cross-category insertions when instructed - manage interruptions in schemas
Berti & Freeman's (1997)
criticisms
Sample size only 8 in person with 2 heads task
No direct evidence of greater awareness in older children
No direct evidence for not altering middle of routine
Berti & Freeman (1997)
Method
Age 5 & 9
Open-ended tasks
Person who doesn't exist
Person with something missing
Specific tasks
Two-headed person = insertion
Headless person = deletion
Person without trunk = interruption in middle
Animal-Person = cross categories
House-person = cross categories
Results supporting RR
Innovations correlated with verbal reports
Less reliance on external models at 9 than 5
More cross-category insertions at 9 than 5
Results not supporting RR
5 yrs not procedurally rigid
Majority succeed on specific tasks
Headless person: 88%
Person w/o trunk: 85%
2 headed person: 84%
Animal person & house person: 76%
Appeal to EF abilities: planning, monitoring, awareness
Older children = more spontaneous innovations, self reliant, advance planning, awareness
External models = early inspirational role but mask extent of internal resources
Alternatives
Spensley & Taylor (1999)
: Recursive Re-Representation
RR model doesn't define 'behavioural success' in drawing
Drawings = not procedures
Quantitive not qualiative
Processes that created first representations also create subsequent re-representations
Gradual change from opaque representation to flexible ones
Amount of info that can be held in awareness increases with deve
Spontaneous modifications change with age
Morra (2005)
: Neo-Piagetian Account
Flexibility depends on combining schemes, which depends on WM capacity
Tested effects of WM
Children given models (photos)
Predictions
Controlling for WM should decrease effect of age
IDs in WM should correlate with flexibility
Greater flexibility with model than without
Study 1
Person picking up ball
Higher score with model than without
When control for WM, correlation of age & flexibility disappears
Study 2
Higher score with model, esp. young children
When control for WM correlation of age & flexibility decreased
Walking vs. running person
Cog Flexibility in Bilingual Children's Drawings
Cog flexibility: argued to emerge earlier in bilingual children
Study 1
Bilingual Hebrew-English kids make more cross-category insertions than monolingual Hebrew kids when drawing flower that doesn't exist
Study 2
Bilingual Hebrew-Arabic kids make more cross category insertions than monolingual Hebrew kids when drawing flower that does't exist
Hebrew & Arabic written in same direction
Drawing Flexibility
Most recent accounts appeal to EF like processes
Awareness
WM
Inhibitory control/response inhibition
Planning
Goal monitoring
Task switching