Running head: DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION

Understanding Development and Change for Children and Art Education Katharine Norman University of Florida

DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION 2 Abstract This paper covers a span from eight scholars addressing issues regarding learning development and child development, primarily in context with art education. Ones ability to interpret knowledge is studied, in broad terms and in translations relating to art. Some of the authors looked back at early studies in psychology, when a humans brain wasnt necessarily thought of us being that different from those of other animals. Adults projections on childrens art and their art education is explored, as well as ideas of visual culture on the topic. The mediums for which a child creates a work of art are discusses, and particularly that of paint is highlighted. There are case studies from a variety of students and situations. Some studies look at groups of children given very strict prompts to follow and others look at children making art using no prompts from anyone. Themes include how we as humans develop, how it pertains to and effects art education, arts role in our learning, and finally art educations constant flux with the ever changing world.

DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION Summary The authors discussed in this review have taken on the task of researching ideas from how we obtain knowledge to how art effects the ways in which children learn. Early beliefs in

psychology are discussed, visual thinking is assessed, how teaching has evolved in and out of the art world and studies of different children learning art in a variety of ways are all considered. Bruner asked do we learn for learnings sake, or must we be extrinsically motivated to do so (2004, p. 14). Ideas on how we learn are vast, and he begs us to look at differing views on how we associate knowledge. Bruner discussed stimulus-response learning, when animal experiments were being done in boxes and mazes, trying to prove that we learn knowledge as a response. He does a wonderful job of bringing it around to the more recent studies of language that leave those early studies of how we acquire knowledge with little validity, and he concludes that, you cannot strip learning of its content, nor study it in a neutral context, (Bruner, 2004, p. 20). Winner takes a look at how we learn in the context of visual thinking, and its affect on art education. Two of her case studies are wonderful opposites, one of which includes Chinese students who are taught to draw from the age of three (upon entering Kindergarden) by the means of copying, and of students in the Propel classroom based on art making, perceiving and reflecting without any instruction on drawing ever given (Winner, 1993). Louis provides more accounts of children in art education, specifically using paint and also without prompt. She considers the use to which children put their art skills and not just the means by which they were acquired. She states that graphic representation is profoundly affected by cultural, social, and

DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION

educational factors, and that the childrens use of paint, have been bracketed to allow us to consider the developmental dimensions in greater depth (2005, p. 340). Several of the scholars look at how it is that adults shape childrens art and influence their art education. Wilson states early on in his article that he would argue that it is art educators, not children, who created what we call child art (Wilson, 2005, p. 309). He notes that after studying images made by children from 100 to 700 years ago I saw in them characteristics not found in childrens images today (Wilson, 2005, p. 300). Thompson also places a great deal of emphasis on what adults bring to the table for children in their art education. Much due to Wilson, she recognizes, that child art, like childhood itself, is a cultural artifact that is understood and valued differently depending upon the interests of adult interpreters (Thompson, 2005, p. 19). She brings up that a childs development is what we, as adults, are projecting on them to make it easier for us to understand (Thompson, 2005, p. 20). These ideas effect how one thinks art education should be delivered. Wilson suggests we break a few rules and redefine creativity, that it should be defined as working without constraints (2005, p. 314). Eflands ideas on the topic encourage art educators to not only consider new insights, but that it is most important to know when to employ them (1995, p. 118). Lastly, art education is looked at in a social context. While papers such as Bruner and Eflands explored perceptions of knowledge, Hamblen and Jones played off of those ideas and focused their writing around art. Hamblen and Jones article looks at how we reflect on art theory and why (Hamblen & Jones, 1982). Winner also shone a light on learning through visual thinking and its undeniable reflection in society. Ideas of visual culture are explored, and how DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION 5

these things are changing childrens art making. Wilson brings up a study from Pirkko Pohjakallio (1998) in which she used a collection of childrens school art to answer questions about the role of art education in shaping things such as national identity and gender roles (2005, p. 319). Burton discusses cultural effects as she re-looks into ideas originally presented by Lowenfeld. Though children are going to bring their own feelings and memories to a work of art, its inevitable that those will be merged with influences from the world and their culture (Burton, 2001, p. 35). Definitions/ Key Concepts Child art is explored extensively, primarily in Wilsons article. As stated earlier, he regards child art as a phenomenon created by adults. Wilson traces the roots of child art back to early modernist artists, who he says were adamant in their beliefs about the creativity and originality of child art (2005, p. 306). Childrens imagery was praised in order for those artists to free themselves from societal norms and academic rules (Wilson, 2005, p. 308). Wilson declares that child art has changed, largely due to visual culture and that the term should probably be reserved for those images children produce under the direct control of adults who engage in the kinds of preliminary motivating activities employed by Cizek, Lowenfeld, and other proponents of creative expression(2005, p. 322). As Wilson suggests has happened with child art, perceptions change and that is a constant truth in art education. How art educators deal with that is highly discussed. Teachers must consistently dig and research what their students are getting out of a lesson (Thompson, 2005, p. 22). It is how we learn and move forward. Sometimes looking back can help with this process. DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION 6

Burton shows while ideas that were once highly perceived may no longer hold such a status, it does not mean they are no longer valid. We take the new research and ideas to evolve from what did not previously work. Application and Reflection One of the most apparent idea about a childs development with art that I took from these readings is that all of it comes down to what we, as adults, place on it. I agree that this is true to an extent. Seeing that we are the only ones discussing such a topic and making an issue of it, yes, our input is the source of it. Do I believe children are drawing the things they are creating solely because of us- not entirely. Wilson would most likely disagree with me there. I understand that we are the ones who created it, no one else said this is child art. However, why was it something so necessary to be defined by many individuals? Is it really something that is definable? The ones who did, mainly modernist of the 19th century (Wilson, 2005), had their reasons for their claim, yet, as things go, that idea should have changed with the times. Though Wilson says the term has changed and even suggests that it is no longer applicable, I found his deliberate appeal to go against it exhausting, and honestly often unnecessary. The truth is children make art, yes, a majority of the time it is because we (again, the adults, or art educators) tell them to, but that doesnt mean we cant appreciate it for what it is. I believe Louis research is a little more forgiving to the rigid term child art, and highlights ideas that Wilson brings up, yet brilliantly mixes them with her own fluid ideas on how children develop in or with art. Louis provides wonderfully vivid accounts of children ages 3-5 working with paints, creating their own works of art without any significant prompts. Most of them give forth details to their work DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION 7

without question, simply babbling as they go. Her accounts often revealed the child relating their own work to an object or event in their life. I believe this is the proof that children are behind there own child art, it is not strictly based on the prompts given to them. This may be defying the definition that Wilson concludes is child art, but it shouldnt be a term that must be thrown out, it should go with the times and situation at hand. Along with the studies from Louis, I found Winners case studies brilliant. I believe the Propel classroom is an incredible set up for art education that lends its self to creative learning and problem solving. Her study shows that a classroom such as that forces the students to think and draw conclusions, creating a more open mind for knowledge. I was also intrigued by her comparison for the Chinese childrens art to that of the Propel students. Though the work created from the Chinese students may be more classically correct for a work of art, there is more thought and genuineness to what the Propel students made. That is all that we as art educators can ask of our students. How they get there is surely more important than the final product. We should be striving to instill life lessons in our students through art education, not trying to produce perfect little robot artists.

DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE FOR CHILDREN AND ART EDUCATION 8

References Bruner, J. (2004). A short history of psychological theories of learning. Daedalus, 133(1), 1320. Burton, J. M. (2001). Lowenfeld, another look. Art Education, 54(6), 33-42. Efland, A. D. (1995). Changing conceptions of human development and its role in teaching the visual arts, Visual Arts Research, 11(1), 105-119. Hamblen, K. A., & Jones, B. J. (1982). Art theory as a sociological metaphor. Visual Arts Research, 8(2),46-53. Louis, L. L. (2005). What children have in mind: A study of early representational development in paint. Studies in Art Education, 46(4), 339-355. Thompson, C. M. (2005). Under construction: Images of the child in art teacher education. Art Education, 58(2), 18-23. Wilson, B. (2005). Child art after Modernism: Visual culture and new narratives. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp 299-328). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Winner, E. (1993). Exceptional artistic development: The role of visual thinking. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 27(4), 31-44.