Response to Papandreou (2014) - Drawing

When I think of drawing, the main word I associate with the activity is expression. I seem to always view drawing as a means of expression in terms of experiences and emotions. This is probably influenced by my own experience of drawing growing up where I would’ve portrayed the feelings of a character that I would draw in my pictures using various colours, or facial expressions for example. However, Papandreou (2014) has shown me how drawing affords children with much more than just a way to express. Taking my example from above, this could also be described as a means of communicating in which Papandreou (2014) emphasises in her writing. Papandreou (2014) includes the perspectives of drawing from other researchers like Brooks (2009) Edwards, Gandini & Forman (1993) Hope (2008) and Kress (1997, 2003) who recognise “drawing as a visual language that helps children communicate with others” (Papandreou, 2014, p. 88). Such language is emphasised by Reggio Emilia and other researchers in terms of how drawing is a means for children to perceive the world around them (Papandreou, 2014, p. 87). My take on such perspective is that drawing is one that allows children to communicate in a way that is accessible to them, eliminating any barriers or restrictions to their communication. As children draw, they can add verbal and written explanations to their drawing to scaffold others in creating meaning of their own creations and to convey the correct message (Papandreou, 2014, p. 88). This affords children with such development in terms of not just their Literacy skills but their co-construction of knowledge with one another, combining their own symbols with each other and their corresponding meanings. It almost feels, in my eyes, that by doing so, drawing can be a process of problem-solving in which affords children with such Mathematical skill development. When reading about such communication, I begin to think that not only does it require such problem-solving, but a lot of thinking in which Papandreou (2014) confirms that “drawing functions as a tool supporting and developing the thinking process” (p. 92). In mentioning symbols, drawing can be described as a symbolic activity that emerges and develops in a social environment through a communicative process among individuals (Papandreou, 2014, p. 87). With the inclusion of symbols, Vygotsky (1962) suggests that children can use such symbols to produce and communicate complex thoughts in which Case Three that Papandreou (2014) shares proves this when the girl portrayed lines to dynamically represent experiences derived from her environment and outside stimuli (p. 96, 97) in which I found really interesting to read about. I also found Case Two intriguing as the little girl graphically portrayed features of animals as she couldn’t draw them, which showed development in her thinking and drew on her previous knowledge on the animals (Papandreou, 2014, p.93-95). Moreover, with such communication, comes understanding and drawing can be viewed as a language that helps children to develop an understanding of the world around them. As drawing can be viewed as a step towards the development of writing and a great prewriting activity that aids fine motor skills (Papandreou, 2014, p. 86), it’s important to note that as children begin to make marks, this progresses to marks that make meaning. In other terms, early artistic development is “a matter of natural growth unfolding” (Thompson, 2002, p. 137; Papandreou, 2014, p. 86), where marks produced, begin to replicate those of real-life known objects which progresses to labelling and naming of marks. This can encourage children to be more observant in their immediate environment when drawing which in turn would help them to explore and understand it. It is interesting to now view drawing as a semiotic activity that relates a sign/symbol to a meaning. In viewing the children who engage with the activity, I now see them as moving from mark makers to meaning makers. I have also developed a new outlook of drawing in which I now view the activity as one that is continuously developing, and is supported by other parallel actions such as narration, singing, movements, gestures and so on in which make it multimodal and affords children with so much diversity in their learning.

References

Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing to learn. In M. Narey (Ed.), Making meaning: Constructing multimodal perspectives of language, literacy, and learning through arts-based early childhood education (Vol. 2, pp. 9–30). New York, NY: Springer.

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1993). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hope, G. 2008. Thinking and learning through drawing in primary classrooms. London, UK: Sage.

Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London, UK: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, UK: Routledge

Papandreou M. (2014). Communicating and Thinking Through Drawing Activity in Early Childhood. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28:1, 85-100, https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2013.851131

Thompson, C. (2002). Drawing together: Peer influence in preschool-kindergarten art classes. In L. Bresler & C. M. Thompson (Eds.), The arts in children’s lives: Context, culture, and curriculum (pp. 129–138). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

EC322 - Multimodality in Early Childhood Education v.2

EC322 - Multimodality in Early Childhood Education v.2

Multimodality and Picture Books

Confirm copying

Restore backup