The Use of Kinetic School Drawings to Explore the Educational Preferences of Gifted Students Dorothy Ciner Armstrong Researchers have long understood that children's drawings provide mean. ingfal insights into the individual. This research extends previous use of Kinetic School Drawings (KSD) by asking students to represent their ideal ‘as well as their actual school experiences. The drawings provide nonverbal documentation of gifted students’ perceptions oftheir current school experi ences and clearly indicate the changes the students would prefer in their ‘schooling. Information on the particular educational preferences of gifted students can be applied, whether or not these students are served by spe cial programs, to insure that their school experiences meet their unique educational needs. Gifted students (GT) are often distinguished from their peers by their interest and ability in learning as well as by their reflective insight about their own education. While studies have documented that gifted elementary and secondary students were able to provide self-report data about their school experiences, either while involved in it (e.g, Adams, 1983; Coleman & Cross, 1993; Dorhut, 1983; Galbraith, 1984; Kunkel, Pittman, Hildebrand, & Walling, 1994) or in retrospect [e.g., Cross & Coleman, 1992; Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994, Perrone & Dow, 1993; Purcell, 1993; Torrance, 1993}, no studies were found that asked elementary-age gifted students to do so for the purpose of using those opinions in determining what constitutes appropriate gifted education for themselves. Background of the Study This research builds on a series of studies in which the preferences of gifted students were elicited about their ideal classroom, school, and Dorothy Ciner Armstrong is Associate Professor in the School of Education at Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Journal for the Education ofthe Gifted Vol. 18, N (© 1995 The Association forthe Gifted, Reston, Vis 1995, pp. 410-439. Copyright 1220091 410Kinetic School Drawings a teacher. In those earlier studies, gifted elementary students could successfully articulate both their actual and their ideal classrooms when asked to respond verbally, both with prompts (Armstrong, 1989a} and without prompts (Armstrong, 1989b). While as a group gifted students endorsed the practices recommended by experts in gifted education (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991], individual students differed in their choices of preferred practices. Having previ- ously established that gifted elementary students can verbally state ‘opinions about their cognitive and affective educational preferences that are not limited to the approaches found in their current gifted programs, this study sought to determine whether gifted elemen- tary students could represent and communicate these preferences effectively to others through drawings. Findings developed using this method can be corroborated with other assessment data and used to modify classroom practice so that it is consistent with the sifted student’s particular educational needs and preferences (Arm- strong, 1992) Previous Study of Children’s Drawings Although the meaning of children’s drawings has intrigued persons since the time of Plato (1970) in The Republic, itis only in the twen- tieth century that we have begun to study the developmental and cognitive meanings, as well as the emotive value, of children’s art. Piaget and Inhelder (1971) stated that drawing consists of externaliz- ing previously internalized mental images. Read (1966a| agreed that art is a mental image; but he saw it as a visual representation of ‘that image, one that is imbued with emotional as well as intellectual, elements. In their drawings, children select from the outside world in ways moderated by their internal emotions and experiences. Read (1966b) also saw art as a language of symbols, and he maintained that its value for civilization lies in its power to communicate these symbols universally. Stern (1966) found that: Words are an imperfect language for children. Their sensations and experiences find more exact and complete expression in another language, the language of art. Child art is like verbal language in that it possesses its own grammar and its own vo- cabulary. One cannot expect to learn all the principles of the child's artistic language at once. One would not expect to master a foreign language in an hour. (p. 69]412 Journal for the Education of the Gifted He concluded with the cautionary note that all one can hope to achieve initially is an introduction to the understanding of the lan- guage of children’s art Cognitive and Developmental Research of Children’s Drawings Research using children’s drawings has along history in developmen- tal and cognitive psychology. Goodenough {1926} reported that young, children’s drawings reflect more than visual imagery: they reflect cognitive development and have intellectual meaning. Her “Draw-a- Person” technique continues to be used widely as a nonverbal way to assess intelligence (Naglieri, 1988}. Other researchers have studied children’s drawings to learn more about the characteristics of spe- cial educational populations (Buck, 1948, 1964, Buck & Hammer, 1969; Clark & Wilson, 1991, Davis & Hoopes, 1975, Dennis, 1966, Dileo, 1970; Fuller, Pruess, & Hawkins, 1970, Green & Levitt, 1962, Hammer, 1953, 1971; Harris, 1963, Koppitz, 1960, 1966b, 1968, Kuhl- man & Bieliauskas, 1976, Kutnick, 1978; Lourenso, Greenberg, & Davidson, 1965; Machover, 1949; Nathan, 1974, Wagner, 1980). Burns and Kaufman added a dynamic component to the study of children’s drawings when they directed children to draw each mem- ber of their family “doing something.” This action-oriented approach to both family (Burns, 1982; Burns & Kaufman, 1970, 1972) and school drawing (Prout & Celmer, 1984, Prout & Phillips, 1974) has generated much interest between both clinicians and researchers because it seems to provide a richer source of data than static draw- ings provide (Andrews, & Janzen, 1988a, 1988b; Habenicht, Shaw, & Brandley, 1990; Hulse, 1951, 1952; Knoff, 1983; Knoff & Prout, 1985, 1991; McPhee & Wegner, 1976, Meyers, 1978; Mostkoff & Lazarus, 1983; O’Brien & Patton, 1974; Prout, 1983; Prout & Celmer, 1984, Raskin & Bloom, 1979; Raskin & Pitcher, 1977, Reynolds, 1978, Sarbaugh, 1982; Schneider, 1978; Walton, 1983} The popularity of this approach, also known as Kinetic Family Drawing, was demonstrated by Prout's (1983) survey of school psy- chologists, practitioners, and university professors. While clinical interviews (91% and informal classroom observations (93%) were reported as being used most frequently, 62% of those surveyed re ported Kinetic Family Drawing as a component of their assessment battery. Children’s school drawings have been used widely to assess the cognitive and social-emotional development of the handicapped or of children referred for clinical evaluation, but only one study (Rogers & Wright, 1971] could be found that used normal school chil:Kinetic School Drawings 413, dren. This study is the first one using identified gifted students as a distinct educational population. Purpose of Study ‘The purpose of this study was to determine whether gifted students could represent their preferred educational programming through Kinetic School Drawings in ways that educators could understand. The educational practices they depicted in their pictures of their actual school experiences were compared to the preferred practices they drew in their pictures of their ideal school to see whether the drawings would shed light on the students’ preferences in such key aspects of classroom life as interpersonal relationships, instructional relationships, settings, and style of instruction. Method Subjects Subjects were 60 elementary gifted students in a university-based summer program: 47% (n = 28) were female and 53% (n = 32] were male, Forty-seven percent of the subjects were ages 6-8 (16 male, 12 female}, the other 53% were ages 9-11 16 male, 16 female}. For data analyses, the first group was designated as “Younger” and the second group as “Older.” GT students were selected to participate in the program based on compelling evidence that they were in the top 5~ 8% of ability based on their application that asked for their scores on standardized achievement tests, teacher-made tests, state-mandated competency tests, and teacher recommendations. The students in the study were representative of many types of educational experiences: ‘they came from schools in rural, suburban, and urban areas and were from various socio-economic levels and ethnic backgrounds. Some had been identified as gifted and participated in gifted programs in their home schools; others were not formally identified as gifted prior to being selected for this program. Procedure ‘Teachers who were completing a master’s degree program in gifted education participated in a three-week seminar prior to teaching students in the three-week program. During the final week of the414 Journal for the Education of the Gifted seminar the teachers were trained to administer two forms—actual and ideal—of KSD to their own self-contained GT class. After the teacher gave each student in the class a pencil and an Actual KSD Form, he or she read aloud the following directions, which were also printed on the student's copy (see Figure 1): “Draw a school picture. Put yourself, your teacher, and a friend or two in the picture. Make sure everyone is doing something. Draw whole people and make the best drawing that you can” [Prout & Phillips, 1974). ‘The teachers also asked the students to think of all their regular- school experiences over the years and not the current summer pro gram when doing their drawings. On the bottom of the student's worksheet, an additional instruction asked the student to go back to identify each person in the picture and tell what he or she is doing, Students were given as long as they needed to complete their picture (normally about 20 minutes). Teachers could clarify the di- rections and assist in labeling or describing. Since a pilot study had shown that students could not provide two pictures of comparable quality when asked to do both forms in a single session, teachers administered the Ideal Form of the KSD on a subsequent day. For this form, the teacher asked the students to draw their ideal school; the student's worksheet instructed them to do the same. Evaluation of Drawings Scoring Instruments. Since children’s drawings have typically been analyzed by psychologists seeking to better understand pathologi- cal and emotional indicators of distress within the child (Burns & Kaufman, 1972; Dileo, 1970; Hammer, 1953; Klepsch & Logie, 1982; Koppitz, 1966a; Machover, 1949] or to measure intelligence (Good- enough, 1926) rather than their educational preferences, a scoring instrument had to be devised. Also, since prior KSD researchers had not asked students to depict their “ideal,” there were no scoring pro: tocols for this or for the comparison between the actual and the ideal depictions cach student produced. However, by incorporating rele- vant and reliable indicators from earlier studies (Andrews & Janzen, 1988a) and then using additional descriptors of the school experi- ence, two scoring instruments were developed that allowed raters to document a range of observable indicators of students’ educational preferences. The items on educational preferences were drawn from the research on classroom climate (Fraser, 1986, 1989, Moos, 1979, 1987; Raviv, Raviv, & Reisel, 1990, Walberg, 1984, Walberg, Welch,Kinetic School Drawings 415 & Fraser, 1985}, learning styles (Dunn, 1993; Dunn & Price, 1980; Dunn, Dunn & Treffinger, 1992; Ewing & Yong, 192, and the rec- ommended practices in gifted education (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, ‘& Ward, 1991), The instruments were the Specific Indicators and the Global Indicators forms. Specific Indicators Form. The Specific Indicators Form asked raters to analyze each drawing [an actual and an ideal by each student) for the presence or absence of 114 specific items. Items like inter- personal relationships were indicated by the distance between and among the student, peers, and-or teacher and the size of the student, peers, and teacher measured in centimeters and rounded to the near- est tenth, For all other variables, raters documented whether an item ‘was present (Ij, absent (2), or unclear (3}. Raters indicated the gender of peers and teacher, ways the student, peers, and teacher were shown in the setting, the behavior of the persons in the picture; the style of instruction, and the learning facilities. The setting section asked raters to look at such variables as where instruction takes place [e.g within the classroom, on the playground, in a nontraditional set ting), the presence of educational technology, and physical indicators of the need for structure or freedom of movement. In the behaviors section, the raters were asked to categorize the behavior depicted in the drawings as to whether it represented desirable or undesirable school behaviors, showed people engaged in academic schoo! learn- ing (reading, writing, listening, speaking, drawing, or calculating) or other type of learning (playing a sport], depicted active or passive involvement, and whether the behavior of the subject is similar to or different from that of the other persons in the drawing. The next sec tions went into more detail about the teacher's behaviors (e.g., shown. as working directly with student and/or peers, sitting at or behind desk, shown from back|, the styles of instruction (direct or indirect], and the learning facilities (e.g., chalkboard, VCR, or indicators of tuaditional classrooms like clocks or posted alphabets} In order to determine whether gifted students who had not been clinically referred for emotional evaluation showed the same indica- tors of emotional pathology as those that emerged in other studies of students who had been clinically referred, the scoring form included indicators that have consistently been found to be associated with emotional distress among such children (Prout & Celmer, 1984) ‘These data can contribute to a fuller understanding of the affective component of a student's educational preferences. Typically the pic- tures clinicians present as case study examples have at least five416 Journal for the Education of the Gifted indicators of emotional distress present (e.g., Knoff & Prout, 1985). Since research on the emotional adjustment of the gifted shows that they are average or above average in emotional health {Horowitz & O'Brien, 1985}, the expectation was that this sample would not show the same number of emotional indicators as in earlier studies. There- fore, raters in this study were asked to complete that component of the form only if they found five or more of those indicators in the drawing The final section of this form included a series of items drawn from the literature on developmental levels of children’s drawing (Gardner, 1980}, Goodnow, 1977, Herbetholz & Herberholz, 1990; Hurwitz & Day, 1991, Lowenfeld, 1987). These were included in order to learn more about the interaction between developmental maturity and the content of the gifted students’ school drawings. (Clark, 1993; Kellogg, 1959; Porath, 1993) Global Indicators Forms, Hammer {1971} is one of a number of KSD researchers who thinks that the message conveyed by the total draw- ing may be more valid than that derived by analyzing individual graphic details in isolation. To date no system for doing a global analysis has been offered, but Andrews and Janzen (1988a) suggest that such a gestalt analysis of the drawings might be done by “inter relating the content, structural, and expressive components rather than interpreting on the basis of each separately” (p. 219), Based on the above guidelines, the Global Indicators Form asked the raters to move beyond the discrete information provided by the specific graphic indicators within each picture to make holis- tic, qualitative assessments of the gestalt message conveyed by the picture as a combined image. After analyzing each subject's actual and ideal pictures, raters were asked to look for the differences in the categories of classroom preferences (e.g, setting, behaviors, and learning facilities) that they had evaluated separately using the Spe- cific Indicators Form. For example, when looking from a student's actual to ideal picture, was the setting different? Were the behaviors of the student, peers, or teachers changed? If so, in what ways? Were there changes in the use of technology (e.g., blackboards, desks)? Information gained through the global analysis included the areas that remained similar between the student's two pictures and where there were noticeable differences. Figure 1 presents an example of a global analysis. The setting is, a traditional classroom in both pictures, but in the student's actual picture everyone seems static and separate. In the ideal picture, theKinetic School Drawings 47 behaviors change; they are all active and mobile with students re- sponsible for determining when they go in and out. In the actual picture, the symbols of traditional instruction are abundant (e.g, the teacher behind her desk that is laden with papers right down to the apple on her desk]. The learning is depicted as nonmeaningful and ‘stagnant. In the ideal, the teacher has been freed from her desk and she is now “helping” rather than “record keeping.” The most im- portant change in learning facilities is that in the ideal picture, the student has shown that she would like to use computers regularly. She has not only drawn herself using a computer, but she has in- cluded daily use of computers as the only academic caveat in her rules of the classroom that she has written on the board. The rules and the image of the sun on the board in the ideal picture also show how important this student thinks itis to have a balance of cognitive and affective components in her schooling. Further, this classroom should be one that respects the individual as a responsible partner in the learning process (Armstrong, 1994). More technical information on the instruments can be obtained by writing the author. Training of Raters. The decision was made to use two expert raters, both of whom were experienced teachers completing their master’s degree. One had expertise in gifted education, the other in art edu- cation, At the four training sessions, the raters clarified technical questions (eg., which reference points to use for measurements) and made certain that they recorded the same observation in the same way (e.g., coding the playground as outside the school, not as a nontraditional school setting) Figure 2 illustrates in one child’s drawing the clear but multiple ‘messages that the same picture may contain. In the actual picture, wwe see that this inner-city student is concerned both about the sim- plistic content in the classroom and her peers’ lack of interest in learning. In her ideal school picture, she stays in the same school set- ting, but now she is engaging advanced content, and her peers share her interest in learning, Inter-rater Reliability. inter-rater reliability was established by hav- ing each of the raters evaluate the same 80 pictures (40 in the actual condition, 40 in the ideal] using the Specific Indicators Scoring Form. The reliability was greater than .77 for any item and greater than .88 for 80 of the 94 items. The only items for which reliability was below {88 were ones that called for the rater to infer the student's emotion (eg, a positive attitude), and these items will not be reported. The418 Journal for the Education of the Gifted ACTUAL ene —_# B6O soy oe GD chee ony eter cats a Deny penn) plop, mt youre, your ence, EES RELL Sitios te ‘raw whote people nd sake the best dreving ttt you can. Figure 1 Example of a global KSD analysis of a GT student with educational preferences for a cognitive/affective balance in instruction.Kinetic School Drawings 419 Ip: EAL me Bist e tab athe pictures Mike aure’ "everyone As Figure 1 Continued420 Journal for the Education of the Gifted a ne san 0 wr Ged ee one meee wae Be a alo Figure 2 Example for rater training for KSD of a GT student with educational preferences for advanced content.au Kinetic School Drawings Figure 2 Continued422 Journal for the Education of the Gifted .88 inter-rater reliability criterion chosen was an especially demand- ing one; the most similar previous studies had used 82.5% (Rogers & Wright, 1971) and a range of “between .7 and 8" |Andrews & Janzen, 1988b). Data Analysis ‘The data from the Specific Indicators Scoring Form were analyzed to determine the relationship between the education students perceive they are actually receiving and the education they would ideally pre- fer and to learn whether perceptions were related to the demographic variables of gender and age (either separately or in combination]. Using SAS, frequencies were run for the total sample: (a] by con- ditions (actual and ideal} for all students, (b) by gender; (c) by age (younger and older groups}, and (d) by age and gender combined. The data were analyzed using Tukey tests and chi-square as appropriate, Results and Discussion This research examined the educational preferences of gifted stu- dents that emerged when gifted elementary students were asked to represent their school preferences by drawing their actual and ideal school experiences. These educational preferences were analyzed to see whether they were mediated by a student's gender, age, develop: mental drawing level, and emotional health. Specific Indicators Analysis Previous researchers who analyzed children’s drawings believed that each drawing has particular importance because the person who has, drawn the picture has deliberately selected to depict "that image” from among all the possible images that are meaningful for that indi- vidual. In this study, for example, all students had a huge bank of school experiences from which to select. The challenge was to be able to recognize and understand the import of the images the stu- dents drew. The student's labels and written descriptions assisted in this process by clarifying the actions or the context for the drawing. ‘Three themes emerged in this study: 1. the child’s perception of peers and their relationships, 2. the child’s perception of the teacher, and 3. the child's perception of him- or herself in school.Kinetic School Drawings 423 ‘The gifted students showed us that they identify with peers and want to continue to have them in their ideal environment. They showed that they require a variety of teaching-learning environments. And they failed to show teachers meeting their needs in either their actual or their ideal drawings. We infer these relationships by analyzing the relative size of drawn figures, positive or negative actions, aca- demic or nonacademic settings, activity similar to or different from that of peers and/or teachers, and evidence of pathology (Prout & Phillips, 1974). Figure 3 illustrates these themes. In the actual picture, the student draws herself equal in size to her peer, and both are disproportion: ately large compared to the teacher. In the ideal, both the student and her peer are in a more proportionate relationship with the teacher, but now the student is much closer to the teacher and not as near her peer. Perhaps this student prefers more teacher-connected learning, It is interesting to note that in the actual drawing, only the teacher is shown as being empowered by having hands with fingers (Burns & Kaufman, 1970, 1972}, but all are empowered in the ideal. The symbols of traditional school structure also change from actual to ideal. The desks are no longer barriers, and the room now seems fully dedicated to facilitating the student's interest in learning about dinosaurs. While the children are smiling in the actual, everyone, including the teacher, is smiling in the ideal Interpersonal Relationships. In both their actual and their ideal draw- ings, the students provided many indicators of strong, positive rela- tionships with their peers and with their teachers. Size and proximity have been the most consistently reliable indicators of relationships in analyzing children’s drawings (Andrews & Janzen, 1988a, 1988b; Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Koppitz, 1960; Prout & Celmer, 1984}. In both their actual and their ideal pictures, the students showed that they identified closely with their peers by drawing themselves equal in size with their peers and by maintaining consistent distances be- tween themselves and their peers and themselves and their teachers {see Table I). ‘These relationships were consistent with reality; for example, younger and female students drew themselves smaller across condi: tions (x"[1, N = 120] = 8.435, p > .004), Females drew smaller peers than males in their actual but not ideal pictures ("{1, N = 120] = 4.022, p > .05} It is intriguing that every student's ideal drawing depicted exactly the same number of peers that he or she had drawn in the actualCDE LY TZ3 FS 67gTS ee ee Example fort educatio he mal preferences 1¢ interpretation of KSD of a GT student with ices for interest-based learning.Kinetic School Drawings426 Journal for the Education of the Gifted Table 1 ‘The Gifted Students Model Their Relationships with Peers in Size and Distance ‘Actual Ideal Height Self 1713.8 413.4 Peer 15-15 513.1 Distance from Self to Nearest Peer 615.1 6-159 Note. Measurements ih centimeters and rounded to nearest 10 condition |p = 1.0}; 75% drew 1 peer, while 18% drew 2 peers. One student drew 12 peers. It is possible that such a high proportion drew one or two peers because the instructions told them to “draw a friend or two," but other studies such as Andrews and Janzen (1988b) that compared the actual KSD drawings of Sth-grade learning-disabled and nonlearning-disabled students who had been given the same di- rections as in this study found that 93% of that sample drew three or more peers. Prout and Celmer (1984) also reported that low-achieving Sth-grade students drew more peers and drew a smaller teacher and self than did high achievers. Since the students were drawing from all, not just their current, school experiences, there is no indication whether they preferred having gifted peers. The majority of students did draw the same peers in both pictures. What scems important for educators of the gifted is not the number of peers but that the gifted students do not depict themselves as isolated from or devoid of peers in cither condition of instruction. Nor do they show that they desire clusters or groups for learning. Even young students have strong gender preferences when choos: ing peers and teacher. Over 80% of both genders accurately depict their actual teachers as being predominantly female, but half of the older males changed and drew male teachers in their ideals. This finding, being consistent with age expectation, is an example that supports the students being able to distinguish between their actual and ideal experiences; and it also reinforces the importance of pro- viding male teachers for these students. The choice of peer is strongly gender-linked. Only two younger females and one younger male show a member of the opposite sex as an actual nearest peer, while only two females and no males do so in their ideals.Kinetic Schoo! Drawings 407 Instructional Practice and Setting. Table 2 presents a summary of the frequencies in percentages of students’ depictions of a particu- lar setting, learning behavior, or learning facility across conditions [actual and ideal}. In addition to the frequencies that were tabulated across conditions, there were a number of significant differences that emerged that were linked to the gender and age. ‘Across conditions, females were more likely than males to show themselves and their peers in a traditional classroom setting (x1, N= 120] = 4.069, p >.05}, at student desks (x*I1, N = 120] = 3.936, >.05}, and working with books or writing (x2[1, N = 120] =10.330, P >.001}; older students (y"[1, N = 120] = 7.767, p >.005} were more likely to do so than younger students. Females (x?(1, N = 120] = 4.875, p >.03) were more likely to include a chalkboard, a symbol of structure, order, and traditional schooling in their actuals. Across conditions older students (y"[1, N = 120] = 11.380, p >.001| were much more likely to include a chalkboard in their actual but not their ideal picture. As Table 2. shows, students seldom depicted technology (TV, movie, robot, or computers) in their drawings of their actual school experiences; but they frequently included it in their ideals. This sug- gests that they want more opportunity to learn using technologies than they now have. Males were more likely than females (x"{1, N = 120] = 5.732, p >.02) to draw themselves learning with technology. More younger and more male students across conditions drew them- selves on the playground or doing a kinesthetic activity than the younger and female students did {x?{1, N = 120] = 5.109, p >.02} Style of Instruction. Few students in this study showed their teacher as playing an active role in their education. None of them chose to show the teacher working closely with them individually in their actual drawings, and only 12% did so in their ideal drawings. Nor did the students show that they had been singled out for this treatment: they showed their closest peers getting individualized instruction in only 7% of the actual pictures and only 15% of the ideals. The teach- ing they chose to depict is impersonal group instruction, but even that appears in only 22% of the actual pictures and decreases to 14% in the ideals. In Figure 4, the student's actual picture shows the teacher, stu- dent, and peer all sitting behind desks that seem like barriers. This image is strengthened by the boots on the student and peer that look like lead weights. The teacher, as in Figure 1, is shown “cor- recting,” the board has a very simple math problem for Sth grade, and the peer is reading nonmeaningful words. In the ideal picture,428 Journal for the Education of the Gifted Table 2 ‘The Gifted Student's Perceptions of Self in School: Comparison in Percentages of Differences Depicted from Actual to Ideal School Picture: Condition Actual Ideal Setting The Student is Shown in a traditional classroom 0 5 In a non-traditional leaming setting, e.g, futuristic technology center, nature area, etc. 2 6 Shown on playground, gym or other sport setting now Shown outside classroom but at schoo! eg, hall or library 2 0 Learning Behavior The Student is ‘Engaged in academic behavior e.g., reading, writing, listening, speaking, calculating, drawing. 29 14 Engaged social behavior (e-g., chatting} 22» 25 Engaged in undesirable school behavior 2 3 Engaged in a kinesthetic activity % 27 ‘Working with books or writing 1 6 Learning with technology (e.g,, computer or VCR) o ou Teachers Are Giving group instruction 2 14 Record keeping or organizing is Making eye or physical contact/subject 0 6 Making eye or physical contact/peer o 5 Shown as excessively detailed o 7 Shown from back/not facing students 8 16 Technology not human 2 7 Working with GT student directly o 2 Working with peer(s) not teacher 7 15 Doing same as GT student and peer(s) 4 1B Learning Facilities Specialized school setting appropriate for content 1023 Computer depicted aKinetic School Drawings 49 Table 2 Continued Condition Actual Ideal TV, VCR o movie depicted 2 10) Chalkboard 15 2 Student desks 19 9 Student sitting at student desk 1B 8 Peer(s) sitting at a student desk 8 8 "Note. Reported in percentage of students in whose drawings these were evident, the peer is actively answering a harder math problem on the board, the teacher {now male] is bringing in visual technology to help the students learn more about animals, and the student is learning about animals through her observations of the mouse in the cage. In the ideal picture, the teacher has become the facilitator of learning, the symbols of traditional teaching are shown isolated and abandoned, Gifted students may, however, want teachers to be more involved, the number of students showing teachers involved in record keeping decreased in the ideal pictures (x1, N = 120] = 4.672, p >.03}. Developmental Indicators. Art educators (Gardner, 1980; Herber- holz & Herbetholz, 1990, Hurwitz & Day, 1991, Lowenfeld, 1987, Scott, 1988) posit that there are developmental sequences in the de- velopment of children’s art. School-age children proceed from (a) the symbolic stage [ages 6-9), which is marked by the use of geometric schema in which the child uses shapes like circles and squares to represent the outside world, to (b) the postsymbolic stage (ages 7— 9), a transitional stage in which the child begins to alter the schema to produce more realistic representations, and then to (c} the real- istic stage {ages 10-13), which is marked by more proportional and anatomically correct representations of the body and by the use of perspective. ‘A number of age and gender differences emerged in analyzing the developmental drawing levels. More older students demonstrated use of perspective and proportionately correct people (x*{1, N= 120] = 4.022, p > .05). Females put more details on people than they did on objects (xA{1, N= 120] = 10.917, p > .001}, among males, it was the reverse (x'[1, N'= 120] = 6.695, p > 01). More younger students used430 Journal for the Education of the Gifted AcTuAL, 5 oy or GED (cixste one) teacher ceate_S ny aS Ty ‘rw woke people and athe the bust dreving aut you can. Me treading o beck and Label te people in your éraving and. tal sae eney are olan. Figure 4 Example of the role of the teacher in a KSD analysis of a GT student with educational preferences for learning-style based inKinetic School Drawings 431 TDeAL ane #56 oy ox) (ctecte one) eens: RENEE orc > beck and abe the people in your éreviog and talt Figure 4 Continued432 Journal for the Education of the Gifted the geometric schema in their ideals (x{1, N = 120] = 5.109, p > .02}; more older males did so in their actuals (x[1, N = 120] =6.671, P > 01). More older students and more males used nongeometrie schema in their ideals. Students also included more varied schema ({[1, N = 120] = 9.882, p > .002) and multiple baselines (x21, N= 120] = 4.242, p > .04) in their ideals. Students have more knowl- edge about their current school than they can have about an ideal, which may account for the greater detail they included when they drew their actuals. Overall, the drawings of this gifted sample were consistent with the developmental level appropriate for their age. Emotional Indicators. As noted earlier, most of the analyses of chil- dren’s drawings have been done by clinicians looking for ways to identify emotional distress. The decision was made to evaluate draw- ings in this sample only if they showed 5 or more of the 31 clinical indicators on the form, but only 2 subjects in this sample, one of ‘whom was in therapy, met that criterion. Neither in this study, nor in that of Andrews and Janzen (1988b), who sampled both learning disabled and nonlearning-disabled populations, was there evidence of pathology. The failure to observe indicators of emotional distress in these nonclinically referred populations provides inverse validation for those clinicians who have documented these same indicators in the drawings of children who were clinically referred. The absence of indicators of emotional distress in the drawings of the gifted also provides additional evidence to debunk the long-standing but persis- ‘tent myth (Lombroso, 1891) that the gifted are prone to emotional instability. And, while these gifted students do not show much en- thusiasm for their actual school experiences, neither does their lack of enthusiasm manifest itself in pathological forms. Global Indicatots Analysis In this study, gifted students were able both to communicate about their actual school experiences and to successfully depict ways that schooling could be modified so that it would be more nearly ideal for them, There were clear and significant distinctions between the ways that the students depicted their actual class experiences and their ideals, They preferred challenging content, active learning, learning sites appropriate for the content, and directing their own learning. The preferred types of instruction, while consistent with those recommended by experts in educating the gifted, did not constitute a single shared vision. No one ideal predominated. Instead, a review of the examples of student work in Figures 1-4 illustrates multipleKinetic School Drawings 433 preferences: cognitive-affective balance (see Figure 1), advanced con- tent |see Figure 2, interest-based learning (see Figure 3), and learning styles that fit their needs (sce Figure 4] |Armstrong, 1989a). This study thus supports the need to provide an array of programs in order to meet the needs of individual gifted students. Conclusions Gifted students were able to draw representations of their educa- tional preferences that researchers could understand. In both their actual and ideal pictures, they show that they identify with their peers. They show that they prefer to learn in differentiated settings and through different styles of instruction and sensory modalities ‘They confirm that they are similar to their age and gender peers in predictable ways by demonstrating stereotypical age and gender differences. ‘Teachers received significant implied criticism. The teaching de- picted in the drawings of actual school environments consisted almost entirely of impersonal group instruction: The students never drew themselves as actually receiving individual instruction and seldom drew their peers as receiving it. Gifted students do want as- sistance in learning, but apparently they could not envision getting it from the teachers they have known; in their ideal drawings, 16% even replaced the teacher with a computer or a robot. KSD's greatest importance lies in its ability to provide a window into each individual. Moreover, it frees students to generate their ‘own options rather than limiting them to choosing among options envisioned by others. As such, it can be the source of valid informa tion about the particular educational preferences of individual gifted students—specific information about the particular modifications that each gifted child prefers—in ways that teachers can understand and use. Some students want merely to move the teacher nearer, while others call for radical changes in the status quo. Sizer (1984) wrote: “That students differ may be inconvenient, but is inescapable. Adapting to that diversity is the inevitable price of productivity, high standards, and fairness to the students” (p. 194). If we learn more about gifted students’ educational preferences, we can use this infor- mation to plan, monitor, and modify their school programs to mect their particular needs, Information on the individual differences among the gifted can be applied whether the students are served by special programs or,434 Journal for the Education of the Gifted as seems more likely in the wake of educational reform, are main- streamed in the regular classroom. Each prescription, though, is ‘unique and needs to be communicated, understood and valued. Stu- dents thus can interact with the teacher, making each a partner in the process and practice of individually appropriate education. References Adams, J. (1983). Preferences for the ideal classroom environment: ‘A comparison of'gifted and non-gifted students. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 4319-A), 2869. Andrews, J., & Janzen, H. (19884). A global approach for the inter- pretation of the Kinetic School Drawing (KSD}: A quick scoring sheet, reference guide, and rating scale. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 217-238. Andrews, J., & Janzen, H. (1988b). Objectifying the Kinetie School Drawing (KSD): A comparison of LD vs Non LD Grade 5 Students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 3, 27-51 Armstrong, D. C. (1989a). Appropriate programming for the gifted: ‘An analysis of elementary students’ perceptions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(4), 277-292. Armstrong, D. C. (1989, April). Appropriate programming for the gifted: A student-centered model. Paper presented at Council for Exceptional Children National Convention, San Francisco, CA. April 1989. Armstrong, D.C. (192). ADAPT: A diagnostic technique for accom- ‘modating both individual and group differences among the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 15|), 55-61. Armstrong, D.C. (1994). A gifted child’s education requires real dia- logue: The use of interactive writing for collaborative education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(2), 136145 Buck, J. N. (1948). The H-T-P technique: A qualitative and quantita- tive scoring manual. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 317-396. Buck, J. N. (1964). The House-Tree-Person (H-T-P) manual supple- ‘ment. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Buck, J. N., & Hammer, E. F. (Eds). (1969). Advances in House- ‘Tree-Person techniques, variations and applications. Los Angeles: ‘Western Psychological Services. Burns, R. C. (1982). Self-growth in families: Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): Research and applications. New York: Brunner/ Mazel. Burns, R. C,, & Kaufman, S. F. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawing (K-Kinetic School Drawings 435 F-D): An introduction to understanding children through kinetic drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S. F. (1972). Actions, styles, and symbols in Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): An interpretative manual. New York: Bruner/Mazel. Clark, G. (1993). Judging children’s drawings as measures of art abili- ties. Studies in Art Education, 34(2), 72-81 Clark, G., & Wilson, T. (1991), Screening and identifying students talented in the visual arts: Clark’s drawing abilities test. Roeper Review, 132), 92-97. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T-L. (1993). Relationships between program- ‘ming practices and outcomes in a summer residential school for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1614), 420-441. Cross, T. L, & Coleman, L. (1992). Gifted high school students’ advice to science teachers. The Gifted Child Today, 155), 25-26. Davis, C. B,, & Hoopes, J. L(1975]. Comparison of house-tree-person drawings of young deaf and hearing children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 28-33, Dennis, W. (1966). Group values through children’s drawings. New York: John Wiley. Dileo, J. H. (1970). Young children and their drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Dorhut, A. (1983). Student and teacher perceptions of preferred teacher behavior among the academically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27/3), 122-125. Dunn, R. (1993). Learning styles of the multiculturally diverse. Emer- gency Librarian, 20\4}, 24-32. Dunn, R,, Dunn K,, & Treffinger, D. J. (1992). Bringing out giftedness in your child. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dunn, R., & Price, G. E. {1980}. Identifying the learning style charac- teristics of gifted students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(1}, 33-36. Ewing, H. J., & Yong, F. L. (1992). A comparative study of learning style preferences among gifted Afro-American, Mexican- American, and American-born Chinese middle school students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 120-123. Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm. Fraser, B,J. (1989). Twenty years of classroom climate work: Progress and prospect. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(40), 307~327. Fuller, G. R,, Pruess, M., & Hawkins, W. F. (1970}. The validity of the human figure drawings with disturbed and normal children. Journal of School Psychology, 8, 54-56.436 Journal for the Education of the Gifted Galbraith, J. (1984). The gifted child's survival guide. Minneapolis: Free Spirit. Gardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles. New York: Basic Books. Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Goodnow, J. (1977). Children’s drawing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Green, M,, & Levitt, E. E. (1962). Constriction of body image in children with congenital heart disease. Pediatrics, 29, 438-441. Habenicht, D. J., Shaw, J., & Brandley, L. S.(1990, March) Black chil- dren draw their families: Some surprises. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Association for Counseling and Development, Cincinnati. Hammer, E. F, (1953). The role of the H-T-P in the prognostic battery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 371-374. Hammer, E. F. (1971). The clinical application of projective draw- ings. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Harris, D. B. {1963}. Children’s drawings as measures of intellectual maturity. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Herberholz, D., & Herbetholz, B. (1990) Artworks for elementary teachers: Developing artistic and perceptual awareness (6th ed.) Dubuque, IA: Wm. Brown. Hulse, W._C. (1951). The emotionally disturbed child draws his family. Quarterly Journal of Child Behavior, 3, 152-174. Hulse, W. C. (1952). Childhood conflict expressed through family drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 16, 66-79. Horowitz, F. D., & O'Brien, M. (Eds). (1985). The gifted and tal- ented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American. Psychological Association. Hurwitz, A., & Day, M. (1991). Children and their art. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kellogg, R. (1959]. What children scribble and why. Palo Alto, CA: National Klepsch, M., & Logie, L. 1982}. Children draw and tell: An introduc- tion to projective techniques of children’s human figure drawings. New York: Bruner/Mazel Knoff, H. M. (1983). Justifying projective/personality assessment in school psychology: A response to Batsche and Peterson. School Psychology Review, 12, 446-451. Knoff, H. M., & Prout, H. T. (1985). The Kinetic Drawing System: A review and integration of the Kinetic Family and School Drawing techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 50-59.Kinetic School Drawings 437 Knoff, H. M,, & Prout, H. T. (1991). Kinetic Drawing System for Family and School: A handbook. Los Angeles: Western Psycho- logical Services. Koppitz, E. M. (1960). Teacher's attitude and children’s performance on the Bender gestalt test and human figure drawings. /ournal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 204-208, Koppitz, E, M. (1966a). Emotional indicators on human figure draw- ings of children: a validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 313-315. Koppitz, E. M. (1966b). Emotional indicators on human figure draw- ings of shy and aggressive children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 466-469. Koppitz, E. M1968). Psychological evaluation of children’s human drawing. New York: Grune & Stratton. Kuhlman, T-L,, & Bieliauskas, V.J.(1976). A comparison of black and white adolescents on the H-T-P. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 728-731. Kunkel, M,, Pittman, A., Hildebrand, $., & Walling, D. (1994). Ex- pectations of gifted junior high students for a summer enrichment program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 260-275. Kutnick, P. (1978). Children’s drawings of their classrooms. Child Study Journal, 8, 175~185. Lombroso, C. (1891). The men of genius. London: Robert Scott. Lourenso, S. V,, Greenberg, J. W,, & Davidson, H. H. (1965) Person- ality characteristics revealed in drawings of deprived children who differ in school achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 59, 63-67. Lowenfeld, V. (1987). Creative mental growth, (8th ed,]. New York: Macmillan, ‘Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure. Springfield, IL: Thomas. ‘McPhee, I. P, & Wegner, K. W. (1976). Kinetic Family Drawing and emotionally disturbed childhood behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 487-491. ‘Meyers, D. (1978). Toward an objective evaluation procedure for the Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD]. Journal of Personality Assess ment, 42, 358-365. ‘Moon, S,, Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue three-stage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 38-48. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.438 Journal for the Education of the Gifted Moos, R. H. (1987). Learning environments in context: Links be- tween school, home, work, and family settings. In B. J. Fraser (Ed), ‘The study of learning environments: Vol. 2. (pp. 1-16). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. ‘Mostkoff, D. L,, & Lazarus, P.J. (1983). The Kinetic Family Drawing: The reliability of an objective scoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 16-20. ‘Nathan, S. (1974). Body image in chronically obese children as re- flected in figure drawings. journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 456-463 Naglieri, J. A. (1988). Draw a person: A quantitative scoring system. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. O'Brien, R. O., & Patton, W. F. (1974). Development of an objec- tive scoring method for the Kinetic Family Drawing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 156-164. Perrone, P, & Dow, E. (1993). First and second year college ex- periences of Wisconsin’s academically talented 1988 high school graduates. Roeper Review, 15(3}, 144-148, Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1971). Mental imagery in the child. New York: Basic Books. Plato (1970). The Republic {F. Cornford, Trans.]. London: Oxford University Press. Porath, M. [1993]. Gifted young artists: Developmental and indi- vidual differences. Roeper Review, 16(1), 29-33. Prout, H.T. (1983), School psychologists and social-emotional assess- ‘ment techniques: Patterns in training and use. School Psychology Review, 12, 377-383, Prout, H.T., & Celmer, D. S. (1984). School drawings and academic achievement: A validity study of Kinetic School Drawing tech- nique. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 176-180. Prout, H. T,, & Phillips, P. D. (1974). A clinical note: The Kinetic School Drawing. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 303-306. Purcell, J.(1993). The effects of the elimination of gifted and talented programs on participating students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 17-187. Raskin, L. M., & Bloom, A. S. (1979). Kinetic Family Drawings by children with learning disabilities. journal of Pediatric Psychol: ogy, 4, 247-251. Raskin, L. M., & Pitcher, G. B. (1977). Kinetic Family Drawings by children with perceptual-motor delays. journal of Learning Dis- abilities, 10,370-374. Raviy, A., Raviy, A., & Reisel, E, (1990). Teachers and students: TwoKinetic School Drawings 439 different perspectives?! Measuring social climate in the classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(1), 141-157. Read., H. (1966a). Art and society. New York: Schocken Books. Read. H. (19666). Art as a unifying principal in education. In H. P. Lewis, (Ed.), Child art (pp. 17-36). Berkeley: Diablo Books. Reynolds, C. R. (1978). A quick scoring guide to the interpretation of children’s Kinetic Family Drawings |KFD). Psychology in the Schools, 15, 489-492, Rogers, R. S., & Wright, E. N. (1971). A study of children’s draw- ings of their classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 64, 370-374. Sarbaugh, M. E. A. |1982). Kinetic Drawing-School (KD-S) technique. Illinois School Psychologists Association Monograph Series, 1, 11-70, Schneider, G. B. (1978). A preliminary validation study of the Kinetic School Drawing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(11-A\, 628A. Scott, L. E. (1988). A comparative study of personality, values, and background characteristics of artistically talented, academically talented, and average 11th and 12th grade students. Studies in Art Education, 29(3), 292-301. Shore, B. M., Cornell, D,, Robinson, A., & Ward, V. (1991). Recom- mended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press. Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin Stem, A. (1966). The child’s language of art. In H. P. Lewis, (Ed), Child art (pp. 69-74). Berkeley: Diablo Books. Torrance, E. P. {1993}. The beyonders in a thirty-year longitudinal study of creative achievement. Roeper Review, 15(3}, 131-135, Wagner, R. F. (1980). Human figure drawings of LD children. Aca: demic Therapy, 16, 37-41. Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational Leadership, 41{1), 19-30. Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Fraser, B. J. (1985, April]. Use of national assessment in science data in testing a model of educa- tional productivity. Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Walton, J. R. (1983, March]. Kinetic School Drawings of referred school children. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists, Detroit.