Drawing Conclusions
1
This thesis has been submitted for the Masters of Education (Honours)
at the University of Canberra
by
Misty Adoniou
Title:
Drawing Conclusions: an investigation into the use of drawing to support non-narrative writing
in the primary school classroom
Submitted August 2008
Drawing Conclusions
2
Copyright of Misty Adoniou 2008
Drawing Conclusions
3
Drawing Conclusions: an investigation into the use of drawing to support
non-narrative writing in the primary school classroom
Abstract
When asked the question
‘Doesn’t your painting interfere with your writing?’
author/ writer e.e.cummings replied,
‘On the contrary they love each other.
(Hubbard 1989)
This thesis seeks to discover whether this ‘mutual affection’ is a useful one in primary schools,
and uses as its general premise the notion that drawing and writing are comparable
communicative semiotic systems.
The primary investigation of this thesis is to discover whether writing outcomes are improved
when children are asked to draw before writing. This proposition will be tested beyond the early
childhood years, and with non-narrative written texts, explanations and procedures specifically.
A secondary investigation into how the drawings may be supportive to writing is also presented.
This is explored through an analysis of the children’s drawings to identify visual conventions
linked to purpose in the drawings which correlate to verbal conventions linked to purpose in the
writing.
Drawing Conclusions
4
Form B
Certificate of Authorship of Thesis
Except where indicated in footnotes, quotations and the bibliography, I certify that I am the sole
author of the thesis submitted today entitled
‘Drawing Conclusions: an investigation into the use of drawings to support non-narrative
writing in primary school classrooms’
in terms of the Statement of Requirements for a Thesis issued by the University Higher
Degrees Committee.
Signature of Candidate: ………
……………………..
Date: ……December 1st 2008………………………..
Drawing Conclusions
5
CHAPTER ONE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
‘DOESN’T YOUR PAINTING INTERFERE WITH YOUR WRITING?’: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
STUDY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
Writing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Drawing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
Symbol weaving…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
The Crowded Curriculum………………………………………………………………………………………. 30
Understanding Visual Literacy……………………………………………………………………………….. 32
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED WITHIN THE THESIS ………………………………………………………………………… 36
CHAPTER TWO……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………39
SYMBOL WEAVING – A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE …………………………………………………………………..39
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39
SYMBOL SYSTEMS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39
An overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
Symbol systems, multimodality and schooling…………………………………………………………. 43
Visual and verbal symbol systems ………………………………………………………………………….. 48
NEW LITERACIES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 54
An overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54
Symbol systems and ‘New Literacies’ …………………………………………………………………….. 55
Visual Literacy …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
Multiliteracies – the theory…………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
Multiliteracies – pedagogy …………………………………………………………………………………….. 66
WRITING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 72
An overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 72
The importance of writing success………………………………………………………………………….. 72
How language is learned ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 73
Development of writing…………………………………………………………………………………………. 77
Purposes for writing ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 80
Teaching writing…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 83
Assessment of writing …………………………………………………………………………………………… 85
DRAWING………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92
An overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92
Informing theories in Art Education – a comparison with literacy education ……………….. 92
The Development of Drawing in Children……………………………………………………………….. 94
Purpose of Children’s Drawings …………………………………………………………………………… 102
The Role of Drawing in the School Years ……………………………………………………………… 109
Summary of the benefits of drawing ……………………………………………………………………… 116
Drawing Conclusions
6
WHERE THIS STUDY SITS IN THE FIELD…………………………………………………………………………………… 125
Visual and Verbal Links Beyond the Beginning Years ……………………………………………. 131
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 139
CHAPTER THREE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..142
REINTRODUCING CHILDREN’S PICTURES TO CHILDREN’S WORDS – A DESCRIPTION OF THE
STUDY………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..142
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 142
CHOOSING THE METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………………………… 142
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 142
Rationale for the methodology……………………………………………………………………………… 143
Considerations in the methodology……………………………………………………………………….. 145
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 147
The Primary Investigation……………………………………………………………………………………. 147
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 147
Description of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………. 147
Permission to Conduct the Study ………………………………………………………………………….. 148
Selection of students……………………………………………………………………………………………. 148
Research Procedure …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 149
Data analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 152
The Secondary Investigation………………………………………………………………………………… 162
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 180
CHAPTER FOUR………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..181
GOOD INTENTIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USING DRAWING IN THE WRITING
CLASSROOM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….181
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 181
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 182
The writing ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 182
The drawing……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 183
The relationship between the drawing and writing results………………………………………… 184
Why was the drawing supportive? ………………………………………………………………………… 187
RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 189
Teachers and schools must better understand the ways in which symbol systems work
together……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 189
Teachers and schools must better understand drawing as a socially-constructed learning
tool……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 191
Teachers, schools and systems must position the Visual Arts as a core curriculum subject
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 198
FUTURE DIRECTIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 201
ACHIEVEMENTS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY……………………………………………………………………. 204
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 206
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 209
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..219
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 220
Children’s writing and typed transcripts ………………………………………………………………… 220
Drawing Conclusions
7
APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 234
APPENDIX C…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 235
Writing analysis grid for Procedures……………………………………………………………………… 235
APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 236
Analysis of Control Group procedural writing………………………………………………………… 236
APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 245
Analysis of Treatment Group procedures ………………………………………………………………. 245
APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 255
Analysis of Control Group Explanations ………………………………………………………………. 255
Analysis of Treatment Group Explanations…………………………………………………………… 267
APPENDIX E …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 279
Procedures …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 279
APPENDIX E …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 281
Explanations………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 281
APPENDIX F …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 283
Word count analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 283
APPENDIX G…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 284
Images Procedures………………………………………………………………………………………………. 284
Images Explanations……………………………………………………………………………………………. 287
APPENDIX H…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 291
Drawing analysis grid for Procedures ……………………………………………………………………. 291
APPENDIX H…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 300
Drawing analysis grid for Explanations…………………………………………………………………. 300
Drawing Conclusions
8
Chapter One
‘Doesn’t your painting interfere with your writing?’: an
introduction to the study
When asked the question
‘Doesn’t your painting interfere with your writing?’
author/ writer e.e.Cummings replied,
‘On the contrary they love each other. (Hubbard 1989)
This thesis seeks to discover whether this ‘mutual affection’ is a useful one in primary schools,
and uses as its general premise the notion that drawing and writing are comparable
communicative semiotic systems.
Purpose of the Study
The primary investigation of this thesis is to discover whether writing outcomes are improved
when children are asked to draw before writing. This proposition will be tested beyond the early
childhood years, and with non-narrative written texts, explanations and procedures specifically.
A secondary investigation into how the drawings may be supportive to writing is also presented.
This is explored through an analysis of the children’s drawings to identify visual conventions
linked to purpose in the drawings which correlate to verbal conventions linked to purpose in the
writing.
Drawing Conclusions
9
For the past four decades there has been significant research into the relationship between
drawing and writing, beginning in the seventies with studies of the writing process in emergent
writers and the repeated observation that drawing plays a role in that process (Clay 1975; Clay
1979; Graves 1983). These observations were based in a theoretical paradigm that explained
both drawing and writing as innate, cognitive expression. They also proposed an evolutionary
relationship between the two, principally claiming writing evolves from drawing (Graves 1983)
By the 1980’s, the theories of Vygotsky (1962, 1978) had begun to influence thoughts and
directions in Western educational research, including theories around both writing and drawing
development in children. Vygotsky theorised that drawing and writing were socially constructed
forms of communication, and that both inform each other in a dialogic process, rather than
writing supplanting drawing in a subordinating process. This is the theoretical core of social
constructivist theory, that is, knowledge is a social construct and learning is a social activity.
‘When knowledge is viewed as socially constructed, we become, as educators,
engaged in a relationship with others in meaning-making rather than truth-finding’:
197 (Bryant and Gallen 2003).
And so Vygotskyian social constructivist theory introduced two new perspectives into research
into writing, both of which are key foundational understandings for this thesis:
-a) the role of others in the writing process
-b) the role of other symbol systems in the writing process
It is from this theoretical perspective that this thesis has been written.
While much has been written in recent years about social constructivist approaches to writing,
less has been written about similar approaches to drawing, and less still which seeks to explore
Drawing Conclusions
10
the relationship between drawing and writing from a sociocultural perspective. This thesis seeks
to contribute to the literature in this field.
Drawing Conclusions
11
Background to the Study
This study aims to answer a seemingly simple question – does drawing before non-narrative
writing improve the writing? However the question makes an important assumption about
drawing that remains somewhat contested in school settings – that drawing can be intentional
and social rather than solely personal and expressive. Therefore this thesis devotes significant
space to the construction of an understanding of drawing as a socially constructed practice. The
establishment of drawing and writing as both socially mediated communication forms provides
strength to the study and substance to the recommendations contained within the thesis.
Within a social constructivist paradigm learning is always context specific and purpose driven,
and learning happens in the company of others. This is in contrast to developmental approaches
to learning, where it is proposed children grow into learning rather than being apprenticed into
learning.
This thesis deals with two curriculum areas, English and the Visual Arts, which have embraced
social constructivist approaches to varying degrees. Whilst these approaches are ‘de rigeur’ in
the English classrooms of most Australian primary schools, much visual arts practice in the
classroom is more closely aligned with developmental theory, reflecting a widely held belief
amongst classroom teachers that the visual arts are about creativity, and creativity is an innate
trait (Anning 2000; Coates 2002; Wilks 2005). This thesis proposes the visual arts are about
more than creativity, they are about meaning making, and that creativity itself is also a product
of social context.
‘Creativity does not happen inside people’s heads, but in the interactions
between a person’s thoughts and a sociocultural context’: 23 (Csikszentmihalyi
1996)
Drawing Conclusions
12
Key to defining both writing and drawing as meaning-making activities is to understand them as
symbolic representations of meaning. We learn to interpret the world through the messages we
receive. These messages have symbolic representations and arrive via all the senses. In order to
make sense of the messages we receive we must necessarily interpret a variety of symbol
systems (Hubbard 1989). We build this symbolic repertoire from birth, from our earliest
encounters with others and through social and cultural interaction with other symbol users
(Vygotsky 1978). The range of symbol systems is described variously by those working in
semiotics; however each symbol system consists of signs. Signs may be things such as word,
images, gestures, numbers, sounds etc (Wright 2002) Of the symbol systems the visual and
verbal symbol systems are identified as the most significant in the development of literacy
(Vygotsky 1962; Hubbard 1989; Olson 1992). Drawing and writing can be described as the two
graphic manifestations of the visual and verbal systems respectively. Of the two, it is drawing
children gain expressive control of first. This phenomenon is replicated in the evolution of
humankind, as drawing was a human activity long before writing (Kane 1982)
Vygotsky (1978) describes drawing as a first-order symbol system, whilst writing is a second-
order one, a derivative of the first-order symbol system, talk. He claims it is the first-order
symbols that mediate thought, and with this claim Vygotsky assigns drawing an important role
in the meaning-making process. Drawings mark the first visual evidence that objects can be
represented symbolically, and can mean something to others. This is seen as a vital prerequisite
for writing. Thus writing is a way of recording and expressing meaning that has its roots in the
first-order symbol systems of drawing and talking.
Drawing Conclusions
13
Not only are drawing and writing linked in these early stages of writing development, but
researchers such as Dyson (1983, 1986) argue that the continued development of the visual
symbol system may be necessary for writing development. Drawing could be described as a
kind of mediatory system that links the first-order symbol system (talking) to its second -order
derivative (writing). It is the potential of drawings (the product) and drawing (the process) as
mediators in the writing process that is explored in this thesis.
Clay (1975), Graves (1983), and Vygotsky (1978) all note that drawing and writing are derived
from a common source – scribbling. And although Vygotsky (1978) describes writing as the
handmaiden of the first-order symbol systems that drawing belongs to, it is writing that assumes
educational priority. Teachers value written texts over other texts, including visual texts
(Gardner 1980; Smagorinsky and Coppock 1993). It is writing that imparts the privilege of
power in Australian society (Christie 1991; Luke 1993) Therefore the ultimate aim of this thesis
is to explore ways in which to improve writing outcomes in schools. However it aims to do so
by according drawing the full attention it deserves as a prime thought mediator and not simply a
possible supportive strategy.
Within the field of writing research, Vygotsky’s notion of literacy as a socially constructed
meaning system is well-established, and has been further investigated to define the kinds of
meaning that texts create and how those texts are organised (Rothery 1984; Macken, Martin et
al. 1989; Derewianka 1990; Christie 1991). Researchers in this area make the point that literacy
is changing to reflect the needs of an increasingly complex world (Cope and Kalantzis 2000;
Unsworth 2002). They also recognise that written language is not simply spoken language
Drawing Conclusions
14
written down. Writing is precise and permanent, and must make sense even when devoid of the
original time and context within which it was written. Writing fulfils different purposes from
spoken language, and as such has evolved its own rules as it has developed as a symbol system.
From this perspective, the following observation from Vygotsky (1978) becomes simplistic.
‘the entire secret of teaching written language is to prepare and organise this natural
transition appropriately. As soon as it is achieved, the child has mastered the
principle of written language and then it remains only to perfect this method.’: 116.
Many children master the notion that writing symbolises words but this does not automatically
lead to literacy skills that allow them to achieve well in schools, and hence the community they
operate in. Children must learn to master the valued ‘genres’ of the community they live within,
or the communities they aspire to belong to. Researchers (Christie 1991; Macken and Slade
1993; Unsworth 1993) emphasise the importance of non-narrative texts in the acquisition of
literacy describing them as the ‘currency’ for success in schools and the wider society – in this
culture at least.
‘The more students can be encouraged to enter with real understanding into the
ways the written language works in creating the many written genres, the more
enriched and independent they will actually become.’: 3 (Christie 1991).
The following is a list of ‘school’ genres most used, if not explicitly taught, in schools as
described by Derewianka (1990): recounts, procedures, narratives, information reports,
explanations and arguments. The list has continued to grow over the years with literary recount,
observation, literary description, personal response, review, factual description, procedural
Drawing Conclusions
15
recount, and discussion some common additions to the list (Wing Jan 2001). This thesis
investigates the two non-narrative genres of procedures and sequential explanations. Procedures
are texts that instruct someone to make or do things; sequential explanations are texts that
explain how processes occur in our social and physical worlds, sequencing the process
chronologically (DECS 2006). These chosen genres are very challenging for primary school
learners, as they require the production of technical texts for a general but unknown reader. The
time, social and physical distance between the reader and the writer makes the linguistic
challenge of writing these genres more difficult (Derewianka 1990). If control of these texts is
an integral part of being literate in our society, helping children ‘into’ these texts is a significant
challenge for educators. This thesis seeks to explore drawing as a ‘way in’ to these non-
narrative genres.
A part of this exploration involves the analysis of the children’s drawings, recording the visual
conventions that were used in an effort to identify commonalties within the drawings according
to their purpose. There has been limited work describing drawings in this way, i.e. assigning
genre (social purpose) to drawings. Much of the literature (Caldwell and Moore 1991; Duncum
1992; Cameron 1997; Coufal and Coufal 2002)describes children’s drawings as expressions of
self or reproduction of the immediate environment or imaginings, with limited recognition of
other purposes of children’s drawings – particularly non-fiction. Analysis of some of the
research indicates that occasionally researchers miss the complexity of audience and purpose in
children’s drawings in their studies. This may be a result of a restricted view of purpose that
prevails in some parts of the artistic community who remain protective of the notion of self-
expression in art over social purpose. Lowenfeld’s (1975) description of a young boy’s ‘self-
expressive’ drawing certainly in his seminal work ‘Creative and Mental Growth’ implies far
Drawing Conclusions
16
more is happening than simple self-expression, although this is never explicated.
‘A ten-year old who is concerned with the mechanical operation of parts, gears,
levers and pulleys will work through these relationships in his drawings.’: 10
(Lowenfeld and Brittain 1975).
Whilst there is considerable research observing the process and product of children’s drawings
there is far less investigation of why children draw (Brooks 2004; Wright 2007). Although
purpose and intention is occasionally mentioned in the literature, most descriptions of purpose
in children’s drawings in the literature have limited descriptions of the context within which the
drawings were created and therefore are limited in the extent to which they can successfully
and extensively describe purpose. Duncum’s work (1992) categorises narrative drawings into
types including one which is actually quite clearly a non-narrative category, but not to the
extent that some research has categorised non-narrative writing into genres. Looking at the
purpose and form of drawings, as in this study, provides further non-narrative drawing
categories and this allows a more open dialogic pathway between drawing and writing. This
thesis seeks to provide a detailed analysis of the drawings children create for non-narrative
purposes in an effort to inform this area of research in children’s drawings.
Whilst studies in the field of drawing and writing have been numerous, there have been few
which link drawing with the development of non-narrative writing. Similarly there have been
few studies of non-narrative writing which include a discussion of children’s drawing.
However there has certainly has been increased awareness of the power of the visual in schools
in the past two decades (Callow 1999; Anstey and Bull 2000; Booth 2002; Burns and Martinez
Drawing Conclusions
17
2002). Donna Rawlins (1992) observed that the power of the visual text is great and perhaps
more insidious (than verbal texts) because few of us are literate enough to read them. The truth
of this observation has been explored by many current researchers, and a detailed review of the
visual literacy movement is contained in the literature review of this thesis. Visual literacy,
founded within the Arts, has more recently found a curriculum home in English. Whilst this has
given status to the visual within the curriculum, the focus has been on the receptive skills
required to ‘read’ the visual. This thesis argues that the production of the visual is as important
as a learning tool, and makes a strong case for the reintroduction to the field of visual literacy of
the production of the visual in general, and drawing specifically.
While writing is taught in schools, it is a commonly held belief that drawing skills are innate
and natural and are therefore not taught, or at least only at the risk of taking creativity away
(Neu and Berglund 1991; Baghban 1992; Anning 1997). This is contrary to evidence that
suggests that drawing instruction improves children’s ability to represent their environment and
to convert that into informative, revealing and/or expressive representations (Anning 1997;
Duncum 1998/99; O’Shea 1999). There is also a perception that drawing is a talent, and that
many people just can’t draw and so to use drawing as a learning tool may not be a useful
strategy for everyone. However, studies of adults (Butler 1990) using drawing prior to writing
observe that, after an initial awkward period, students overcome feelings of inadequacy and
successfully use drawing as an easily manipulated symbol system rather than attempt to draw
perfect pictures, i.e. they realise that drawing can play different roles.
Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner 1983) proposes humans possess a multitude
Drawing Conclusions
18
of ‘ways of knowing’ or making sense of the world, all of which are both innate and impacted
upon by the environment. From this perspective Gardner claims that learners show distinct
preferences for either the visual or verbal systems. The implication of this is that by ignoring the
visual not only do schools fail to adequately ‘educate’ children in the visual symbol system but
they also disadvantage the children who can be described as visual learners (Gardner 1983;
Hubbard 1989; Olson 1992; Gardner 1993; Edwards and Willis 2000)
This thesis is not the first to explore links between drawing and writing in the classroom.
Researchers (Clay 1975; Graves 1983; Temple, Nathan et al. 1993) have noted the connections
for decades with a number documenting drawings as an important part of early writing
development. However they fail to discuss in any detail the role of drawing in the process.
In fact researchers (Cambourne and Turbill 1987) and many practising teachers (Anning 1997;
Millard and Marsh 2001) note the gradual disappearance of drawing as a positive development
in the writing process. It is celebrated as an indication that the writer is ready to ‘move on’ to
serious writing and no longer requiring the crutch of the visual. This position is in conflict with
understandings of how symbol systems operate symbiotically rather than independently from
each other or in a hierarchical fashion (Vygotsky 1978; Wertsch 1991). It fails to recognise the
dialogic nature of drawing and writing (Vygotsky 1978; Brooks 2004). This thesis challenges
the notion that drawing is a subordinate of writing and instead provides evidence of the
symbiotic relationship between drawing and writing.
Numerous researchers have focussed their attention on this symbiotic relationship between the
symbol systems (Dyson 1990; Dyson 1991; Dyson 1992; Kress 1997). Dyson’s studies (1983,
1986) of the learning behaviour of young children provide ample evidence for Vygotsky’s
Drawing Conclusions
19
theories. She found that not only do children use a variety of symbol systems to make meaning
and interpret their world, but they make conscious decisions about which system will best serve
their purposes in particular contexts. She describes children as natural “symbol weavers”(Dyson
1992). These findings have clear implications for the teaching of writing. If there is no
hierarchy of symbol systems there is no linear progression through them.
‘It is not sensible to look for the roots of literacy simply in children’s early
scribbles or invented spellings.’: 104 (Dyson 1991).
Understanding of the complex fusion of symbol systems and how young learners manipulate
them is critical to the process of helping gain higher-order control over them for both expressive
and communicative purposes. Although Vygotsky (1978) makes the point that this may be
easier said than done as there is a dearth of research in the area and he notes that ‘generally
accepted methods of teaching writing do not permit observation of it’: 115.
This study, in one small way, informs this dearth of research by setting up a social context
atypical of traditional methods of teaching writing by asking the children to draw before
writing. The study acknowledges both the drawing and the writing as equally important and
both worthy of investigation in order to better understand their relationship.
There have been a number of studies in recent years (Colbert 1984; Caldwell and Moore 1991;
Coufal and Coufal 2002) that have attempted to fill this gap and understand more about the
ways in which symbol systems operate together in the acquisition of literacy. As Vygotsky
(1978) says,
‘Only by understanding the entire history of sign development in the child and
Drawing Conclusions
20
the place of writing in it can we approach a correct solution of the psychology of
writing.’: 106.
These studies have found numerous positive links between drawing and writing and provide the
starting points for this thesis. Significant findings are summarised here; fuller descriptions
appear in Chapter 2.
Both writing and drawing are systems for making meaning and are perceived as such by young
children (Dyson 1983; Dyson 1986; Hubbard 1989). Access to both systems not only supports
development in both but also opens options for expression (Dyson 1986; Hubbard 1989; Dyson
1991). Young children combine drawing and writing to communicate graphically (Buxton
1982; Bartelo 1983; Dyson 1983; Dyson 1986). Writing development is strengthened when
supported by drawing (Zepeda-de-Kane 1978; Caldwell and Moore 1991; McConnell 1993)
There are parallels between key steps in the development of writing and drawing (White 1994;
Willats 2005). Drawing is an effective preplanning strategy for writing, allowing for easier
revision and expansion of ideas (Hubbard 1989; Caldwell and Moore 1991; Butler, Gross et al.
1995; Brooks 2005) Drawing is an important aid to the retention of visual information and the
formation of mental representations (Lansing 1981; Colbert 1984; Brooks 2005). Drawing aids
vocabulary learning and comprehension of written texts (Carroll 1991; Neu and Berglund
1991; McConnell 1993; Smagorinsky and Coppock 1993). If allowed to, drawing and writing
continue to work in support of each other throughout literacy development through to
adulthood – both with competent language users and beginning English learners (Buxton 1982;
Hubbard 1989; Butler 1990; McConnell 1993; Smagorinsky and Coppock 1993).
Drawing Conclusions
21
More recent studies, in the field of multiliteracies have looked less specifically at children’s
drawings but at imagery in general and found positive links between the visual and verbal
(Jewitt, Kress et al. 2001)
The studies referred to above that have been carried out with limitations in three major areas
which this thesis seeks to address,
1) a narrow definition of drawing
Drawing is defined as self-expressive or imaginative. Children’s drawings are seen as
expressive mark-making experiences, their communicative nature is often overlooked, their
purposes rarely defined.
2) a broad, non-specific definition of written texts
In many studies there has been no discussion of the kind of writing (with the exception of
Caldwell and Moore who identify narrative writing but make no mention of the kind of
narrative writing they were eliciting). Although a particular kind of writing is implicit in a
number of the studies this has not been recognised as significant for mention by the
researchers. There have been studies on personal retells, personal self-expression, and
descriptions although this has not been articulated in the studies. Indeed there are limited
discussions of the purpose of the writing in each study.
3) their limited age focus
The majority of the early research has focussed on early childhood, specifically preschool and
Kindergarten. Only in more recent years has there been an exploration of the interrelationship
between the two symbol systems beyond these very early years of schooling and these have not
often focused specifically on children’s own drawings.
Drawing Conclusions
22
Theoretical framework
The study in this thesis is situated within a social constructivist paradigm. It is concerned with
describing learning in classroom contexts, and is based on the premise that learning outcomes
are directly impacted by experiences and teaching. This is in contrast to developmental theories
that prioritise development and describe learning as utilising ‘the achievements of development
rather than providing the impetus for modifying its course.’ (Vygotsky, 1978:79) Instead the
study in this thesis is part of a growing research tradition where
‘There is a focus on integrating perspectives from the cognitive and social
sciences to develop situated theories of learning where active participation in a
social context or in authentic practice has redefined the nature of expertise and
learning.’: 13-14 (McLoughlin and Krakowski 2001)
Within this theoretical paradigm and crucial to this thesis is Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal
development’(Vygotsky 1978). This is the distance between actual developmental level and
potential developmental level given guidance.
‘The actual developmental level characterises mental development retrospectively,
while the zone of proximal development characterises mental development
prospectively’: 87.
The guidance, within this ‘zone’ may involve scaffolding, modelling or direct instruction.
This thesis suggests that key to the success of any of these interpretations is the provision of
opportunities and skills to explore all means available to reach a solution to a problem. It
proposes drawing may reduce the gap and be an important scaffold into writing. This positions
Drawing Conclusions
23
drawing as part of an important symbol system, which children need opportunities to access and
develop skills within. From this perspective drawings are not merely a representation of
knowledge currently existing but also constitute a working through of knowledge soon to be
acquired – a scaffold in the zone of proximal development. Although drawing has its own
intrinsic value as an expressive and communicative symbol system, the primary aim of this
study is to describe its value as a scaffold into non-narrative writing.
Drawing Conclusions
24
Description of the Study
In order to test the thesis’ hypothesis the children in the study were split into two groups, one of
which was asked to draw, before both groups wrote two texts.The writing was assessed against
a series of criteria to determine its quality. The drawings were also analysed to provide
evidence to support or refute the proposition that drawing before writing improved the quality
of the writing. The drawings were analysed against a variety of criteria to establish whether the
drawings themselves contain identifiable structural elements that support the notion of intention
and social purpose in children’s drawings. For the analysis of both the drawing and writing, an
analysis tool was developed which was informed by sociocultural theories and applied across
both drawing and writing samples. This use of a common analysis tool helps legitimise drawing
as a learning tool, and refocus attention on drawing as a first-order symbol system for making
meaning, generating knowledge and mediating thought (Vygotsky 1978).
The study looks specifically at the non-narrative genre of procedural and explanatory writing-
with a class of ten 8 and 9 year-old children in an Introductory English Centre (IEC). IECs are
English language schools for newly arrived migrants to Australia. Hence the children in the
study are second language learners, and the findings of this study may be of particular interest
to second language educators. However the results of the study can be generalised to first
language learners and evidence for this assertion is provided in the literature review and further
justified in the Methodology chapter.
The class received preliminary oral instructions, discussing the features and purposes of the
procedural and explanatory genres. They took part in a shared experience that acted as a
Drawing Conclusions
25
stimulus to the writing. They were then divided randomly into two groups. One group was
asked to draw as a result of the shared experience, before both groups were asked to write.
The writing from both groups was analysed against a grid developed specifically for the study
and based on a functional approach to literacy (Halliday and Hasan 1985; Collerson 1994) that
is aligned to the social constructivist theoretical paradigm of this thesis. The analysis grid was
also informed by marking scales for both first and second language writing in common usage in
Australian schools. The comparison of the writing results between the control and treatment
groups provides the data to answer the primary thesis question – does drawing before writing
improve the writing outcomes.
The drawings were analysed to hypothesise how, if at all, the drawings were supportive of the
writing. The analysis documents elements of the drawing to establish commonalties that could
be linked to the social purpose and intent of the drawing – in much the same way as the genre
theorists of the 80’s were able to establish elemental components of writing according to social
purpose and thus establish the categories of writing referred to as genres. This analysis helps to
answer the secondary question of this thesis– is there ‘genre’ in children’s drawings?
The children in this study were asked to draw for a purpose, to tell someone how to do
something or to explain something and the study seeks to identify whether the drawings they
produced contained common schematic characteristics linked these purposes. Did the children
use the tools of visual language to achieve that purpose and if so, what were they?
Identification of these may then help explain any improvements in the writing of those children
who drew prior to writing.
