The Attitudes and Practices 257

that Shape Children’s

Drawing Experience at
Home and at School
Esther Burkitt, Richard Jolley and Sarah Rose

Abstract

Concept: Few empirical studies have investi-
gated the influence of teachers, parents and chil-
dren on children’s drawing experience. The
current study aims to examine the attitudes and
practices of these three key players that shape
children’s drawing experience.
Method: A survey methodology was used, as
typically found in previous research in this area.
Participants were 270 5–14 year old children, 44
of their teachers of the National Curriculum for
Art and Design, and 146 of their parents. The
teachers and children participated in individual
interviews and the parents completed a postal
survey. Responses to most interview questions
were transcribed and content analysis used to
identify salient themes. The other questions
involved responses on five-point scales, these
were analysed by reporting percentages.
Results: The findings are discussed in five
sections. First, the positive perceptions of chil-
dren’s drawing behaviour and attitudes. Second,
the perceived importance and principal aims of
the National Curriculum for Art and Design Educa-
tion. Third, the numerous sources of encourage-
ment and support for drawing development.
Fourth, the differing perceptions of what consti-
tutes a good and bad drawing. Fifth, issues
surrounding an age-related decline in children’s
drawing activity.
Conclusions: The findings are related to theories
of drawing education, and implications for chil-
dren’s drawings and drawing pedagogy are
discussed.

JADE 29.3 (2010)

© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
258 Introduction
Esther Burkitt, It is generally recognised that drawing is not only
Richard Jolley and an activity enjoyed by most children but also a very
Sarah Rose
beneficial activity for them to participate in. In line
with a selection of Government initiatives in
England, for example, the Excellence and Enjoy-
ment initiative (Clark 2003) and the formation of
Creative Partnerships, drawing (and more gener-
ally the arts) has the potential to make children’s
education across the curriculum more enjoyable
and innovative. These Government schemes have
been augmented by privately-funded art enter-
prises, such as the the Campaign for Drawing,
which during the current decade has successfully
raised the profile of drawing by promoting it as a
tool for thought, creativity, and social and cultural
engagement. More specifically, the campaign has
argued that drawing can foster development in
observation, communication, creativity and the
expression of the child’s inner world of fascina-
tions, fantasies and fears (Power Drawing 2002). In
observational drawing, for example, drawing
develops the child’s analysis of the subject matter
(people, things and places) from the world that
they choose to draw, whereas creative drawing
enables children to develop their imaginative and
expressive thinking.
As with other subjects taught in English
schools, classroom learning of art and design is
informed by the National Curriculum. The class-
room teachers have the principal role in develop-
ing and delivering the content of the art lessons
that children receive, and in particular, shaping
their children’s drawing behaviour and experi-
ence. While it is usual for secondary schools to
have a dedicated and trained art teacher who the
children go to for their art lessons, this is relatively
uncommon in primary schools where children
are typically taught art by their ‘generalist’ class
teacher (as was indeed the case in all but 2 of the
22 primary schools involved in this study). It has
been noted that many primary school teachers
report feeling vulnerable teaching art (Clement
1994). Indeed, primary school teachers have
often received very little training in how to facili-
tate children’s drawing experience, or have little
artistic experience themselves (Cleave & Sharp
1986; Crace 2003). Consequently, teachers may
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
be unclear about what art teaching strategies to
use, and instead use their own art values in their
teaching. For instance, Anning (2002) observed
that primary school teachers encouraged even
very young children to produce more life-like
representations, which soon discourages these
children in their school-based drawing activities.
Elsewhere, she comments further that the teach-
ers were more confident managing the children
and giving positive feedback, rather than in
promoting and developing specific drawing skills
(Anning & Ring 2004). Despite these observa-
tions, little is known more generally about the
potentially broad range of attitudes and practices
of teachers that are likely to influence and shape
children’s experience of drawing and the draw-
ings they produce (for a recent review, see Rose
et al. 2006).
Rose et al. (2006) note a similar paucity in the
literature of studies investigating the role that
parents and guardians have in facilitating or
discouraging children’s drawing behaviour. In
seven detailed case studies of parents sitting
with their child while discussing their drawing,
Anning & Ring (2004) noticed that the children
had more freedom in their drawing activities and
more opportunity to experiment than they had
observed from children’s school-based drawing
activities. The positive parental support for chil-
dren’s drawing observed by Anning & Ring was
confirmed by Kantner & Hoffman’s (1992) ques-
tionnaire study on 88 American parents. As Rose
et al. (2006) note, however, both these studies
focused on children under seven years of age, so
little is known about whether the positive draw-
ing environment in the home extends to children
beyond this age.
While considering the influences of teachers
and parents on children’s drawing experience,
one must not forget the attitudes and practices of
the children themselves, and also how children
may shape other children’s drawing experience.
Brent and Marjorie Wilson have long since alerted
us to the role children have on other children’s
drawing development, and in a wider context the
influence of cultural and media images on chil-
dren’s drawings (Wilson & Wilson 1977). Again,
Rose et al. (2006) note that few studies have ques-
JADE 29.3 (2010)
tioned children about their attitudes towards their
drawing behaviour. For instance, we know little
about what help children perceive they are given
for their drawing, or indeed what help they would
like to receive. Rose et al. comment that the
sparse literature has reported somewhat mixed
findings regarding the often held assumption that
time spent in drawing activity, and children’s
enjoyment thereof, declines with age. If such a
decline does occur, it is clearly important to estab-
lish its developmental point, and the suggestions
children, their teachers and parents provide to
encourage the continuing practice of drawing
throughout childhood (see also Jolley 2010).
Mindful of the undoubted importance of the
roles teachers, parents and children have in chil-
dren’s drawing experience, and the lack of stud-
ies investigating their influences, we have
conducted a large-scale survey and interview
study in which views from children, their teachers
and their parents (or legal guardians) were
collected. The aim of the study was to investigate
a wide range of factors associated with children’s
drawing experiences at home and at school,
focusing on those with the most direct contact
with children’s drawings, that of teachers, parents
and the children themselves. This survey study
produced a huge data set tapping into a wide
range of issues, but this article will concentrate
upon, and consider more fully, the findings relat-
ing to five educational issues which influence
children’s experience of drawing both at home
and at school. The objective of this article is to
describe and discuss findings relating to these
five issues:
1. Perceptions of drawing behaviour and
attitudes.
2. Principal aims and importance of the National
Curriculum for Art and Design Education.
3. The numerous sources of encouragement
and support for drawing development.
4. Perceptions of what constitutes a good and
bad drawing.
5. An age-related decline in children’s drawing
activity and associated issues.
JADE 29.3 (2010)
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Methodology 259
Esther Burkitt,
Participants Richard Jolley and
Sarah Rose
Participants were 270 children, 44 of their teach-
ers and 146 of their parents. Thirty children partic-
ipated from each of nine year groups making up
the three key stages to which the National Curric-
ulum for Art and Design is taught in England. Key
Stage 1 (KS1) children are aged 5–7, Key Stage 2
(KS2) children are between ages 7 and 11 and Key
Stage 3 (KS3) includes children aged between 11
and 14. These age groups were selected so a
complete overview of the years receiving statu-
tory art education in England could be achieved.
All the parents of all participating children agreed
to complete the survey and all were provided
with a copy of the questionnaire, 146 were
returned representing a return rate of 54 per cent.
The participating teachers were those principally
responsible for delivering the National Curricu-
lum for Art and Design to the participating chil-
dren. These teachers ranged from those in their
first year of teaching since qualifying as teachers
to those who had been teaching for 40 years
(mean 12 years). Some 35 of the participating
teachers taught at primary schools (31 females
and 4 males), and 9 taught at secondary schools
(all female). Most of the children and teachers
were of white ethnic origin and all attended
schools in an English city. The children were
selected randomly by their teachers from classes
at 29 schools, and no attempt was made to test
those either gifted or especially motivated in the
visual arts.
Procedure
Surveys are the most commonly used methodol-
ogy for collecting information about attitudes and
practices (Oppenheim 2003), and have been
used in much of the previous work researching
attitudes and practices surrounding children’s
drawing activity (e.g. Barry & Townsend 1995;
Kanter & Hoffman 1992; Watts 2005; for a review
see Rose et al. 2006). Consequently, the method-
ology for the current study was derived from the
previous research in the area. Three surveys were
generated and piloted, one each for teachers,
parents and children. The format of the surveys
260 included both rankings on five-point Likert scales
Esther Burkitt, and open-ended questions, a combination found
Richard Jolley and in the majority of previous research in this area.
Sarah Rose
The open-ended questions allowed participants
greater freedom of expression and ensured that
no bias was present due to limited response
ranges. The responses on the five-point scales
allowed participants to either indicate their level
of agreement to a statement or their perceived
frequency of an event. Likert-type scales were
used to enable comparisons to be easily made
between the three Key Stages and respondent
groups. Both styles of question complemented
each other to gain an insight into the attitudes
and practices directly related to children’s draw-
ing experiences. Each survey covered the follow-
ing topics: frequency of drawing behaviour, chil-
dren’s perceived self-efficacy, children’s
enjoyment of and attitude towards drawing, chil-
dren’s motivation to draw, art values, principal
aims of the National Curriculum for Art and
Design, support children received for drawing,
external influences on children’s drawing,
perceived benefits of drawing and issues
surrounding any possible decline in drawing.
In the pilot study children were interviewed
individually, whereas teachers and parents self-
completed the survey. The pilot work highlighted
very few instances of question ambiguity or
participant misunderstanding. In the few ques-
tions where this had occurred questions were
reworded. Additionally it was decided that the
teachers as well as the children would be inter-
viewed in the main study to insure that the fullest
and most complete responses were received.
Accordingly, all the children and their teachers
were interviewed individually with the questions
from their respective surveys at their schools.
The children’s parents filled in the parents’ survey
in their own time.
All the interviews were transcribed and
content analysis was used to generate themes of
response for all the open-ended questions. This
is a well-recognised technique suitable for
systematically and objectively analysing the
message contained within speech or text (Krip-
pendorf 1980; Neuendorf 2002). In the present
study the themes were generated for each open-
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
ended question on each survey independently of
responses to the other two surveys. In cases
where the same or a similar question was asked
in more than one survey, there are instances
therefore where the titles of themes generated
between groups of respondent differ slightly. We
considered it important that the themes were
generated to reflect principally the responses
given by the responding group of participants
(teachers, parents or children), rather than be
influenced unduly by the responses from one or
both of the other groups of participants. Coding
was carried out by one rater who coded all of the
surveys by scoring which themes each partici-
pant mentioned in response to each open-ended
question. To ensure that this was done reliably a
second rater scored 20 per cent of the responses
to each question and inter-rater reliability was
calculated to be above 90 per cent for all themes,
for all questions, on all surveys. Responses to the
Likert scales were analysed by percentage per
point on scale, and sometimes broken down
further by Key Stage.
Results and discussion
From our wider data set we extracted the five
broad issues outlined in our objectives that have
the most educational relevance to the attitudes
and practices reported from our respondents as
they relate to drawing behaviour.
Time spent, self-efficacy and enjoyment
We asked KS2 and KS3 children to estimate how
many hours they spend drawing both at school
and at home. We considered that KS1 children
would find it too difficult to provide reliable esti-
mates, so we asked teachers and parents for time
estimates for drawing at school and at home
respectively for these younger children. In contrast
to the speculative claims made in the literature
citing a general decline in drawing behaviour
between early and middle childhood (e.g. Cox
1989, 1992; Gardner 1980; Golomb 2002; Luquet
1927/2001; Matthews 2003; Thomas & Silk 1990;
Winner 1982), our data, based on time estimates
made by our three groups of respondents most
closely in touch with children’s drawing behaviour,
do not reflect this view. Taking the children’s esti-
JADE 29.3 (2010)
mates at KS2 and KS3 and the teachers’ estimates
of children at KS1, there is little evidence of a
drawing decline at school. Indeed, children
reported that at KS3 they spend more time at
school drawing than KS2 children. The picture at
home shows a decrease in reported time spent
drawing at home between KS1 and the older chil-
dren. Nevertheless, a similar amount of time
drawing at home was estimated between the KS2
and KS3 children.
These data from the three participant groups do
present a surprisingly positive and coherent picture
of time spent drawing, and indicates the assump-
tion in the literature that drawing declines by early
adolescence may need to be reassessed.
A common reason suggested in the literature
for the supposed developmental decline in draw-
ing activity is that children begin to feel less posi-
tive about drawing. Our survey assessed this in
two ways by asking children to rate on five-point
scales how much they liked drawing and how
good they thought they were at drawing. The
data for their responses by Key Stage are shown
in Figures 2 and 3 respectively.
JADE 29.3 (2010)
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
In Figure 2 we see that the majority of children liked 261
drawing a lot, with very little evidence for a devel- Esther Burkitt,
opmental decline. Furthermore, we found addi- Richard Jolley and
Sarah Rose
tional evidence from both children and teachers
that most children of all ages that we surveyed
enjoyed drawing. First, when the children were
asked how their enjoyment of drawing has
changed over time, 59 per cent of KS3 children
reported that they enjoyed drawing more than
they used to, with 14 per cent replying it was about
the same. Second, we asked teachers how many
of their children enjoy doing drawing activities
(‘almost all’, ‘more than half’, ‘less than half’, ‘very
few’). Of the teachers who taught KS1 and KS2
children, 83 per cent (KS1) and 70 per cent (KS2)
stated that almost of all their children enjoyed
drawing, with the remaining teachers all reporting
that over half of their children did. Although the
distribution of responses among the KS3 teachers
were less favourable, no teacher stated that either
‘less than half’ or ‘very few’ of their children
enjoyed drawing. The Goodlad Study (Goodlad
1984) found that most children, from elementary
through to senior high, rated the arts as the school
subject that they most liked. These feelings of
positivity towards drawing are echoed in our own
findings, although we do not know how children in
this study would have compared art to the other
school subjects. Similar to the findings of the
current study, percentages in the Goodlad study
indicated only a small age-related decline in prefer-
ence, art being ranked as the most liked school
subject by 93 per cent of elementary pupils and 84
per cent of senior high pupils.
In terms of perceived drawing self-efficacy,
our survey shows that all age groups presented a
positive attitude towards their own drawing abil-
ity. As indicated in Figure 3, the KS1 children were
particularly positive. Research has shown that
younger children have a general tendency to
overestimate their ability across many domains Figure 1
Estimates of time
of expertise, and that a cognitive immaturity and
children spend
an engagement in ‘wishful thinking’ has been drawing at home and
suggested to account for these overestimations in school per week
(Schuster et al. 1998; Stipek 1984; Stipek & Figure 2
MacIver 1989), whereas older children have an KS1, KS2 and KS3
children’s ratings of
increasing competence in perceiving their own their enjoyment for
abilities correctly (e.g. Harter 1982; Newman drawing
262 1984; Spinath & Spinath 2005). In respect of draw-
Esther Burkitt, ing, for example, young children choose human
Richard Jolley and figure drawings depicting higher levels of repre-
Sarah Rose
sentational realism over more age-appropriate
drawings when asked to indicate which figure
looks most like how they draw a person (Jolley
2010). Research on children’s self-presentation
strategies showing that children learn to present
themselves as less boastful with age may also be
relevant here (Watling & Banerjee 2005).
In summary, our survey data on time spent draw-
ing, enjoyment and self-efficacy of drawing, show
little evidence for an age-related decline in chil-
dren’s drawing behaviour and experience. Overall,
most children presented a very positive picture,
seemingly spending a significant amount of time
drawing, enjoying their drawing and holding posi-
tive perceptions of their drawing ability. These
positive outcomes, reported by children who have
received the National Curriculum for Art and
Design throughout all their school years, are reas-
suring. Children are engaging in drawing and
enjoying it, despite this experience occurring in the
context of criticisms of the Curriculum and fears of
art being marginalised by education policy makers.
Nevertheless, the time children choose to draw at
home does decrease somewhat for older children,
by which point drawing might be becoming a
casualty of the increasing demands upon older
children’s time and their fast-paced lifestyle (see
later discussion in ‘drawing decline’ section).
Perceptions of the principal aims and
importance of the National Curriculum
for Art and Design
We asked teachers what they considered to be
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
the principal aims of the National Curriculum for
Art and Design for the age group(s) they teach.
The most common answer was skill develop-
ment (48 per cent), with gaining experience with
materials (36 per cent), developing creativity (36
per cent) and art appreciation (34 per cent) also
frequently cited. The frequency with which teach-
ers mentioned art appreciation is notable, since
this may represent a relatively recent change in
the content of children’s drawing education, as
until recently art education curricula have focused
almost exclusively on production (Gardner 1990).
Drawing curricula such as Discipline Based Arts
Education, have advocated the importance of
teaching children about art history, criticism and
aesthetics alongside production skills (J. Paul
Getty Trust, 1992), and this integrated approach is
also echoed in the National Curriculum for Art and
Design (Department for Education and Employ-
ment 1999). Parents were asked a similar ques-
tion to the teachers, namely, what they thought
school art education was for. Expression and
communication was easily the most popular
answer (37 per cent), with the related theme of
creativity and imagination (21 per cent) being the
second most common response. Also, around
one-fifth of parents cited that art education devel-
oped children’s thinking and learning. In contrast
to teachers, skill development was commented
upon much less by parents (17 per cent) with
gaining experience with materials barely featur-
ing at all in the parental responses. Skill develop-
ment and experience with art materials is more
intrinsic to the skills-based and assessment
driven environment teachers work in, whereas
parents are free from such concerns, which in
turn may allow them to express their personal
views on the role of art in facilitating expression
and creativity. Interestingly, when we asked
teachers what benefits children get from making
drawings, a question that more directly addresses
their own opinions rather than curriculum consid-
erations, their most common response was also
expression and communication (see below).
Accordingly, both teachers and parents may hold
similar views to the purpose of art education,
valuing expression and communication. In terms
of the National Curriculum we note that expres-
JADE 29.3 (2010)
sion appears to be given equal weight to observa-
tion, although is underrepresented in the associ-
ated Schemes of Work published by the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)
that support the curriculum by providing teachers
with suggested art-based activities.
We also asked teachers and parents to respond
to a 10-point scale indicating to what extent they
regarded the importance of children’s art educa-
tion within the context of children’s whole educa-
tion (10 being ‘extremely important’). Teachers
thought it to be very important (mean 8.28), with
similar ratings given by both primary and second-
ary teachers, while parents reported that it was
fairly important (mean 6.84). The slightly higher
ratings among the teachers may be due the teach-
ers’ professional understanding of child develop-
ment and the importance that practice-based
learning and activity for children, in addition to
their professional position in supporting the role
of art in the child’s education.
Sources of encouragement and support for
drawing development
A number of questions were addressed to chil-
dren, their teachers and parents about the educa-
tional support for children drawing at school and
in the home. We sought to ascertain the nature
and type of help children received, what addi-
tional help children requested, and the difficulties
teachers and parents encounter in helping their
children to draw. The most common theme in
children’s responses to the help they receive
from teachers was ‘graphical and spatial demon-
strations’ (37 per cent), referring to guidance from
a drawing made on the board or on paper, or
where the teacher drew an outline or shape with
their hand. Many children also commented that
they received ‘verbal suggestions’ (24 per cent) in
the form of advice and tips, in contrast to ‘direc-
tions’ (20 per cent) where the children referred to
the teacher giving more specific and precise
instructions (which may include demonstrations)
on what to draw and how. Only 17 per cent of
children reported receiving help with techniques
and skills.
When we asked teachers what help they gave
children with their drawing, 41 per cent reported
JADE 29.3 (2010)
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
that they ‘set clear expectations through demon- 263
stration and instruction’, echoing the children’s Esther Burkitt,
own theme of ‘directions’. Around 18 per cent of Richard Jolley and
Sarah Rose
teachers provided the generic ‘techniques and
skills’, but where reference was made to particu-
lar skills, 30 per cent of teachers reported that
they encouraged observational skills, and 9 per
cent to encouraging realism. These practices are
reflective of teachers’ views about the primary
aim of the National Curriculum for Art and Design
being to develop graphic skills. Teachers’ reports
generally indicated that children’s classroom
drawing experiences are frequently aligned with
the historical educational pedagogies of Ruskin
(1857), who advocated a problem solving
approach to representational drawing. Very few
teachers alluded to fostering creativity and
expression in children’s drawings as has been
encouraged by educationalists such as Lowen-
feld (1954) and Richardson (1948). Nevertheless,
as reported in the previous section, expression
was recognised by teachers as one of the princi-
pal aims of the National Curriculum for Art and
Design. Maybe this disparity between attitudes
and practices is reflective of a lack of drawing
confidence in teaching expressive drawing
among some primary school teachers, and possi-
bly an underrepresentation of expression in the
Schemes of Work published by the QCA.
Although the evidence from children’s and
teachers’ responses that children at times are
directed what to do in their art lessons, many of
the primary school teachers did acknowledge that
children have more freedom in drawings made in
non-art lessons. Nevertheless, children’s drawing
freedom was most evident in the home, where
there appears to be greater opportunity and
support for free and imaginative drawing. Further-
more, our data showed little evidence from either
the children’s perceptions of the help they receive
from parents, or in the parents reporting of the
help they give children, of parents giving firm direc-
tions in their child’s drawing activities. In other
respects, however, the educational support given
by parents reflected that given at school. For Figure 3
instance, the most frequently cited assistance chil- Self-ratings of
drawing self-efficacy
dren reported receiving from parents was of for KS1, KS2 and
‘graphical/spatial demonstrations’ (28 per cent) KS3 children
264 and ‘verbal suggestions’ (23 per cent). Verbal
Esther Burkitt, support was confirmed by the parents in the two
Richard Jolley and most commonly cited themes from their survey,
Sarah Rose
‘verbal suggestions’ (38 per cent) and ‘encourage-
ment’ (36 per cent). Interestingly, graphical demon-
stration was not a prominent theme in the parental
responses (18 per cent). The difference in weight-
ing of graphic and verbal support in the home
between the children and parents may be due
simply to a possible distinction in the way the two
kinds of support are each conceptualised between
children and their parents, but it could also reflect
that children find graphical demonstrations the
most useful type of help and therefore are more
likely to report this (see below).
In our examination of the children’s and
parents’ responses we noticed that some of the
parental help appeared to occur during a shared
drawing experience, where the parent sat with
the child. This is something which Matthews
(2003) identifies as being of particular importance
to young children. Matthews has collected
evidence which demonstrates that drawing
episodes are composed of rapidly alternating
bursts of action, and that like speech, are related
to the breathing patterns of young children.
Initially it is necessary for an adult to interact with
the child to facilitate this conversation, the child
will then develop and be able to maintain the
‘conversation’ on their own. Further evidence for
the importance of adult involvement in the draw-
ing experiences of young children comes from
Kindler (1995) who observed, in a day-care centre
for the under threes, that although art materials
were plentiful children rarely experimented with
them unless an adult was present and became
involved in what they were doing. To reflect this
importance of adult involvement we asked in the
parents’ survey how often the parent sat and/or
talked with their child as their child drew. Shared
drawing experiences were reported to be more
frequent than we had expected, with as many as
49 per cent of parents of KS1 children stated they
did so most days. Although shared drawing time
decreased for parents of older children, 72 per
cent of parents of KS3 children spent time with
their children drawing at least once a week.
Furthermore, children whose parents spent
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
longer in shared drawing time with them enjoyed
drawing more and had a higher perception of
their drawing ability. This suggests that any possi-
bilities in the school environment for teachers,
other adults or even older children, to share in an
individual child’s drawing experience should be
promoted and developed.
When we asked children about the help they
received from other children in their drawing, the
most common response was they did not get
any help (31 per cent)! Nevertheless, others
responded with ‘verbal suggestions’ (23 per
cent), and ‘graphical and spatial demonstrations’
(17 per cent), again reflecting common themes of
help received from teachers and parents. Some
of the children’s responses indicated that some
of the support children gained through other chil-
dren occurs through collaborative drawing activi-
ties. We also asked children whether anyone else
helped them with their drawing, apart from their
teachers, parents and other children. Siblings or
cousins (24 per cent), grandparents (21 per cent),
uncles, aunts and family friends (9 per cent) were
mentioned. Only five children said that an artist
helped them with their drawing. Graphical/spatial
demonstrations were the most frequently cited
help from these varied sources.
In addition to support directly and personally
given by people, there are other external and
more generic influences on children drawing,
particularly those that are media driven. We asked
teachers and parents what other influences, apart
from themselves, there were on children’s draw-
ings. Television was the most cited response,
including art programmes for children as well as
characters from cartoons. Similarly, the computer
(including play stations) and the internet were
reported by teachers and parents as providing
drawing inspiration for children. Books, maga-
zines and popular culture images were also cited.
Experts in child art are divided about the effect of
such images on children’s drawings. Arnheim
(1974) believed them to stifle the natural creativity
of children, while others pointed out that children
can learn graphic principles such as foreshorten-
ing from these images and then apply them in
flexible and inventive ways in their own work
(Wilson & Wilson 1987). However, not all the influ-
JADE 29.3 (2010)
ences in our survey findings were pictorial.
Parents, in particular, commented on the chil-
dren’s personal experiences (e.g. holidays, school
visits) and general observations of their surround-
ings, and even internal psychological states (e.g.
the child’s mood, their interests).
The children were asked what extra help they
would like for their drawing, either now or in the
past. Some 27 per cent reported that they did not
need any further help. These children may have
interpreted an affirmative answer as indicating an
admission of being weak at drawing, or in need of
special instruction. Alternatively, it may be an
encouraging sign that many children are quite
content with their drawings and the level of
support they are given. Interestingly, the most
common additional help cited was the child
requesting more pictures to copy (14 per cent),
which provides some tension with one opinion
within art education that copying negates both
the problem solving and expressive purposes of
art (e.g. Arnheim 1989).
In terms of the difficulties teachers and parents
reported when helping children to draw, the most
frequently cited inhibitor in both the teachers’ and
parents’ surveys was a limitation with their own
drawing skill (teachers: 30 per cent; parents: 19
per cent). However, 57 per cent of the parents
said that they did not have any difficulties when
supporting their children’s drawing development,
whereas only 18 per cent of teachers said so. This
different pattern of responses between teachers
and parents is surprising considering that teach-
ers more than parents will have received training
to teach drawing. However, the limited time
devoted to art in primary teacher training
programmes is likely to be insufficient for some
teachers to enable them to fulfil their role as
sensitive facilitators to children’s drawing experi-
ences. Furthermore, the higher expectations on
teachers to provide professional educational
support may highlight to some teachers, particu-
larly at the non-specialist primary level, a
perceived weakness of their own artistic abilities.
Teachers may have become increasingly aware
of their own limitations since 2001 when the QCA
published schemes of work for the study of art:
the activities suggested assume a certain level of
JADE 29.3 (2010)
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
skill from the teacher (Barnes 2002). Furthermore, 265
this art curriculum tends to deal in generalist Esther Burkitt,
statements whereas some teachers may need Richard Jolley and
Sarah Rose
more specific direction. Overall, this seems to
suggest that further professional training should
be made available for those teaching in art and
design, especially as such little time is devoted to
it in the training of primary school teachers.
Perceptions of what constitutes a good
and bad drawing
When the children were asked about what they
thought made a good drawing, 30 per cent of chil-
dren referred to the use of colours (e.g. many of
them, bright), 24 per cent to the subject matter
(most children mentioned ‘pleasant’ topics/
scenes reflecting their own preferences), 21 per
cent to detail (lots of it), and 20 per cent to care/
effort. These children’s opinions are consistent
with the interview data collected by Parsons
(1987) who found that younger school-aged chil-
dren tended to conceive a good painting as one
that was beautiful and realistic. For teachers,
however, care and effort was most important in a
child’s drawing (45 per cent), followed by detail
and realistic representations (both 20 per cent).
References to evidence of formal properties (18
per cent) and in particular to colour and shading
(14 per cent) also featured, as did comments on
the creativity/individuality of the drawing (18 per
cent). Parents, on the other hand, thought that
the main reasons why a drawing can be appraised
as good depended on its level of creativity,
expressive communication and imagination (31
per cent), the child’s enjoyment (27 per cent) and
the level of care and concentration that had been
applied to the drawing (27 per cent). Colour (14
per cent) and detail (12 per cent) were also
mentioned. When children were asked about
what they thought adults believed made a good
drawing, the most commonly cited theme, in line
with the teachers’ reports, was that a good draw-
ing was one in which care and attention were
evident (27 per cent). However, almost a quarter
of the children (24 per cent) referred to subject
matter, which on the face of the teachers’ and
parents’ responses appears to be a misconcep-
tion possibly based on children’s own values.
266 In response to what makes a bad drawing, many
Esther Burkitt, children (18 per cent), teachers (20 per cent) and
Richard Jolley and parents (30 per cent) agreed that there was no
Sarah Rose
such thing. Where reasons for a poor drawing
were given, a lack of care and effort featured
prominently among the explanations (children:
22 per cent; teachers: 61 per cent; parents: 27
per cent). Some children also cited the related
theme of a lack of neatness (17 per cent), while
some parents mentioned a child’s poor attitude
(19 per cent). Of all three groups of participants,
children were most preoccupied with issues
relating to scribbling (14 per cent), realism (13 per
cent), detail (9 per cent) and dull/unpleasant
subject matter (9 per cent) as contributory factors
in a poor drawing, echoing Parsons’ (1987) find-
ing of children’s negativity towards unrealistic
and unpleasant subject matter in paintings. Chil-
dren’s views on what adults considered a bad
drawing was consistent with their responses to
previous answers, namely lack of care/attention
(26 per cent), unpleasant subject matter (14 per
cent) and all drawings are good (13 per cent).
Although the National Curriculum for Art and
Design covers evaluation, a lot of the comments
made by teachers suggest that many are reluc-
tant to evaluate and when they do it is generally
not based on the graphic skills shown.
Perceptions about influences on
drawing decline
We asked teachers and parents on a five-point
scale how much they agreed with the statement
that the amount of time children choose to spend
drawing declines with age (apart from the draw-
ing they are required to do in school). Most teach-
ers (86 per cent) and parents (57 per cent) either
agreed or strongly agreed, with both groups esti-
mating that the decline occurs around 11 years of
age (although there was a considerable range in
estimates). This finding is consistent with
comments in the broader literature on children’s
drawings (e.g. Cox 1989; Gardner 1980; Golomb
2002; Jolley 2010; Luquet 2001; Matthews 2003;
Thomas & Silk 1990). The stronger belief held by
teachers in an age-related decline in drawing may
be because they would be expected to be less
aware of the child-initiated drawing activity that
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
continues for some adolescents outside school.
Those teachers and parents who agreed that
there was a developmental decline in children’s
drawing activity were asked to state whether they
considered that this decline mattered. Although
75 per cent of teachers said that it did matter, only
40 per cent of parents thought that it did. Just as
with the perceived importance of drawing, this
difference in the views of teachers and parents
might be explained by teacher’s professional role
in supporting drawing in the child’s education.
Furthermore, the teachers’ awareness of the
learning and problem-solving potential of draw-
ing, as well as its potential to facilitate learning in
other domains and in meeting the needs of chil-
dren with different learning styles, may have
caused more teachers to say that it does matter.
The most commonly cited reasons given by these
teachers and parents were that drawing develops
creativity, imagination and is a means of self-
expression and communication. Some teachers
and parents also commented that the decline
results in losing a skill and having less confidence
in drawing, and that children then will lose one
means by which they can gain a sense of personal
achievement. When we asked children whether
they thought it was a good or bad thing that chil-
dren tend to draw less as they get older, 43 per
cent said it was bad, mainly due to the loss of
drawing skills. Of those children, teachers and
parents who believed that a decline in drawing did
not matter, it was frequently explained by all three
groups as being down to the personal choice of
the child, and also that it was natural for children
to draw less as they got older.
All parties were asked about what they thought
might help to arrest a decline in drawing behav-
iour or encourage children to draw more as they
got older. The children said that they would like to
be given more time and opportunity for art (26 per
cent), both at school and at home, and this was
echoed by teachers (34 per cent) and parents (23
per cent). Specific suggestions included more
opportunities to draw in after-school clubs, in
community workshops and projects, with more
art homework and less homework from other
subjects. Teachers (32 per cent) and parents (21
per cent) also specifically referred to raising the
JADE 29.3 (2010)
profile of drawing in school. As well as the general
comment that there should be a stronger empha-
sis on art in school (including funding), these
teachers and parents also commented that art
activities should be integrated more into other
subjects, particular at secondary school (11–16
years of age), have day trips to art galleries and
have visiting artists. Some teachers (27 per cent)
also felt that children could receive more support
for their drawing at home (more encouragement
and interest from parents, restricted use of
computers and TV, more art materials), which
some parents agreed with (12 per cent). Some
teachers and parents made more general
comments that children should be encouraged
and confidence built in their drawing, a theme
that was particularly strong in the children’s
responses. A further theme consistently raised
by all three groups was that children should be
inspired to draw more. Children themselves
exemplified the tone in these comments by
remarking that their school art lessons should
include more varied drawing activities that are
exciting and fun to participate in.
Implications
1. Our survey painted a very positive picture of
children’s enjoyment and self-efficacy in their
drawing experience, and the time they continue
to spend on drawing, throughout their statutory
art education (ages 5–14). It gives some reassur-
ance if not indeed relief to those of us concerned
with the perceived undermining of arts education
in schools that children continue to feel positively
about drawing. Ironically, it may be because of
the increased focus on numeracy and literacy
during their education that children’s enjoyment
remains buoyant in subjects and activities that
allow them more freedom and creativity.
2. Some teachers may need more training to
develop effectiveness and confidence in facilitat-
ing children’s learning experiences in art and
design. Relatively little time is allocated to the
teaching of art in teacher training programmes.
Such allocation will be insufficient for some
generalist primary school teachers who, like
JADE 29.3 (2010)
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
many in the wider adult population, have long 267
since stopped engaging in art for their own inter- Esther Burkitt,
ests. For their continuing professional develop- Richard Jolley and
Sarah Rose
ment, government and privately run workshops
need to be made available to help them feel
empowered to facilitate children’s drawing/art
development.
3. Opportunities for creative and expressive
drawing may be under represented and under
facilitated in schools. It might be that some teach-
ers feel particularly unclear how to facilitate chil-
dren’s development of creative and expressive
drawing. More examples, for example in the
schemes of work published by the QCA, of tasks
involving expression might be of benefit to teach-
ers. In addition, the training teachers receive in art
education, whether as part of their pre- or post-
qualification training, should give weight to
expressive, imaginative and creative drawing
equal to that given to representational activities.
4. As teachers commented that care and atten-
tion of the child were the most important consid-
erations for what makes a good drawing, a view
acknowledged by children in what they thought
teachers valued the most, it raises the question
whether this should be the primary feedback chil-
dren receive at school for their drawing. While
children no doubt benefit from encouraging a
conscientious approach to drawing and art
making, some children do ask for more specific
help with their graphic skills. Where there is a
reluctance among teachers to comment on these
skills, it may reflect a misunderstanding that such
feedback would represent interference to the
development of the children’s own natural crea-
tivity. In contrast, appropriately channelled
constructive comments by art-informed teachers
can empower children to build upon and develop
the techniques they have already acquired.
5. Giving children pictures to copy may have a
role in some children’s drawing development, as
indicated by a minority of children asking for this
type of help. Although considered a somewhat
unpopular teaching aid in Western education (for
instance, see Lowenfeld 1954), the practice is
268 found in Chinese and Steiner Education, while
Esther Burkitt, the copying of the manga style is common
Richard Jolley and among Japanese children. We agree with Brent
Sarah Rose
Wilson’s (2000) position that showing graphic
models does not produce stereotyped drawing
but enhances children’s drawing skills. Teachers
should feel free to show a wide variety of graphic
models to children, particularly those that inspire
children in their drawing activities.
6. To keep children engaged in art as they get
older, more time and opportunity for art was
recommended by children, teachers and parents.
In line with current government incentives to
dedicate additional extra curriculum sessions for
promoting artistic appreciation, the current study
suggests that children would appreciate further
educational opportunities in school and at home
for the encouragement of their artistic skills devel-
opment. Children wished that school art activities
were more fun and inspiring, calling for more art
clubs and communal art projects to get involved
in. As well documented in the literature (e.g. see
Pariser et al. 2008) the critical period appears to
be period before and during adolescence, and
we feel that presenting social art activities to this
age group may have a key role in preventing many
children from giving up on art and drawing.
7. Parents should be encouraged to spend time
with children as they draw, as this was associated
with children’s positive attitude to their drawing.
But some parents may need to be made more
aware of the benefits of drawing to the child’s
wider education.
8. The association we found between parents’
shared drawing activities with their children and
the children’s positive attitude to drawing indicates
that this should be applied to school settings,
wherever possible. For instance, more one-to-one
time spent with individual children by teachers or
other adults is likely to further bolster children’s
confidence in their drawing. Even older children
spending time in younger children’s classes to this
effect may be similarly beneficial, as long as such
mentoring experience was mutually beneficial for
the older child. Teachers are well aware of the
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
value of one-to-one time across all subject areas
and classroom assistants often make one-to-one
learning experiences possible in literacy and
numeracy classes, but this is a regrettably an infre-
quent occurrence in art classes, and indeed many
other subject lessons too.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to The Leverhulme
Trust for funding this research (grant number
F/00 799/B).
References
Anning, A. (2002) A conversation around young
children’s drawing: the impact of the beliefs of
significant others at home and at school,
International Journal of Art & Design Education,
Vol. 21, pp. 197–208
Anning, A, & Ring, K. (2004) Making Sense of
Children’s Drawings. Maidenhead: Open
University Press
Arnheim, R. (1974) Art and Visual Perception:
A Psychology of the Creative Eye: The new
version. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press
Arnheim, R. (1989) Thoughts on Art Education.
Los Angeles, CA: Getty Centre for Education in
the Arts
Barnes, R. (2002) Teaching Art to Young Children
4–9, 2nd edn. London: RoutledgeFalmer
Barry, C. & Townsend, M. A. R. (1995) Teachers’
judgements about the teaching of art in primary
schools, New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 51–63
Clark, C. (2003) Excellence and Enjoyment:
A Strategy for Primary Schools. Nottingham:
DCSF Publications Centre
Cleave, S. & Sharp, S. (1986) The Arts, A
Preparation to Teach – Initial Training for Primary
Teachers. London: National Foundation for
Educational Research
Clement, R. (1994) The readiness of primary
schools to teach the National Curriculum in
Art and Design, Journal of Art and Design
Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 9–19
JADE 29.3 (2010)
Cox, M. V. (1989) Children’s drawings, in D. J.
Hargreaves [Ed.] Children and the Arts. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press, pp. 43–58
Cox, M. V. (1992) Children’s Drawings.
Harmondsworth: Penguin
Crace, J. (2003) Smart squiggles, Guardian
Education, 15 July, pp. 4–5
Department for Education and Employment
(1999) Art and Design: the National Curriculum
for England. London: Stationery Office
Gardner, H. (1980) Artful Scribbles: The
Significance of Children’s Drawings. London:
Jill Norman
Gardner, H. (1990) Art Education and Human
Development. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty
Trust
Golomb, C. (2002) Child Art in Context: A Cultural
and Comparative Perspective. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association
Goodlad, J. I. (1984) A Place Called School:
Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill
Harter, S. (1982) The perceived competence
scale for children, Child Development, Vol. 53,
pp. 87–97
Jolley, R. P. (2010) Children and Pictures:
Drawing and Understanding. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell
J. Paul Getty Trust (1992) The DBAE Handbook:
An Overview of Discipline Based Art Education.
Santa Monica, CA: J. Paul Getty Trust
Kantner, L. & Hoffman, S. (1992) Parents’
perception of their children’s early art experience,
Visual Art Research, Vol. 18, pp. 50–6
Kindler, A.M. (1995) Significance of adult input in
early childhood artistic development, in C. M.
Thompson [Ed.] The Visual Arts and Early
Childhood Learning. Reston, VA: National Art
Education Association, pp. 10–14
Krippendorf, K. (1980) Content Analysis: An
Introduction to its Methodology. London: Sage
JADE 29.3 (2010)
© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Lowenfeld, V. (1954) Your Child and His Art. 269
New York: Macmillan Esther Burkitt,
Richard Jolley and
Luquet, G. H. (2001) Children’s Drawings [1927], Sarah Rose
trans. A. Costall. London and New York: Free
Association Books
Matthews, J. (2003) Drawing and Painting:
Children and Visual Representation. London:
Sage
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002) The Content Analysis
Guidebook. London: Sage
Newman, R. S. (1984) Children’s achievement
and self-evaluations in mathematics: A
longitudinal study, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp. 857–73
Oppenheim, A. N. (2003) Questionnaire Design,
Interviewing and Attitude Measurement.
London: Continuum
Pariser, D.A., Kindler, A.M. & van den Berg, A.
(2008) Drawing and aesthetic judgments across
cultures: diverse pathways to graphic
development, in C. Milbrath & H. M. Trautner
[Eds] Children’s Understanding and Production
of Pictures, Drawings and Art: Theoretical and
Empirical Approaches. Cambridge, MA:
Hogrefe & Huber, pp. 293–317
Parsons, M. J. (1987) How We Understand Art:
A Cognitive Developmental Account of
Aesthetic Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Power Drawing (2002) Start Drawing! Hove:
Laceys Printers
Richardson, M. (1948) Art and the Child.
London: University of London Press
Rose, S. E., Jolley, R. P. & Burkitt, E. (2006) A
review of children’s, teachers’ and parents’
influences on children’s drawing experience,
International Journal of Art & Design Education,
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341–9
Ruskin, J. (1857) The Elements of Drawing.
London: Smith, Elder
270 Schuster, B., Ruble, D., & Weinert, F. (1998)
Esther Burkitt, Cultural influences and the positivity bias in
Richard Jolley and children: the role of the covariation principle,
Sarah Rose
Child Development, Vol. 69, No. 6, pp. 1577–96
Spinath, B. & Spinath, F. (2005) Longitudinal
analyses of the link between learning motivation
and competence beliefs among elementary
school children, Learning and Instruction,
Vol. 15, pp. 87–102
Wilson, B. & Wilson, M. (1987) Pictorial
composition and narrative structure: themes
and the creation of meaning in the drawings of
Egyptian and Japanese children, Visual Arts
Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 10–21
Winner, E. (1982) Invented Worlds: The
Psychology of the Arts. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press

Stipek, D. J. (1984) Young children’s

performance expectations: logical analysis or
wishful thinking? in J. G. Nicholls [Ed.] Advances
in Motivation and Achievement. Vol. 3: The
Development of Achievement Motivation.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 33–56

Stipek, D. & MacIver, D. (1989) Developmental

change in children’s assessment of intellectual
competence, Child Development, Vol. 60, No. 3,
pp. 521–38

Thomas, G. V. & Silk, A. M. J. (1990) An

Introduction to the Psychology of Children’s
Drawings. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Wheatsheaf

Watling, D. & Banerjee, R. (2007) Children’s

understanding of modesty in front of peer and
adult audiences, Infant and Child Development,
Vol. 16, pp. 227–36

Watts, R. (2005) Making art in primary school,

International Journal of Art & Design Education,
Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 243–53

Wilson, B. (2000) Empire of signs revisited:

children’s manga and the changing face of
Japan, in L. Lindstrom [Ed.] The Cultural Context:
Comparative Studies of Art Education and
Children’s Drawings. Stockholm: Stockholm
Institute of Education Press, pp. 160–78

Wilson, B. & Wilson, M. (1977) An iconoclastic

view of the imagery sources in the drawings of
young people, Art Education, Vol. 30, No. 1,
pp. 4–12

JADE 29.3 (2010)

© 2010 The Authors. JADE © 2010 NSEAD/Blackwell Publishing Ltd