Running head: MICHAELS DRAWING ANALYZED

Michaels Drawing Analyzed

Julia Hickcox
University of Missouri

MICHAELS DRAWING ANALYZED

Michaels Drawing Analyzed

Have you ever sat with a young child and had them show you a picture they drew? The
picture probably just looked like a page of scribbles but, when they started to tell you about their
picture a rich story unfolded. Drawing is one of the first ways children can communicate through
print. Burton (1980) stated that, The emergence of the ability to make visual symbols, to create
and communicate meaning through manipulating materials such as paint, clay, paper, is a
momentous and important step in all childrens development. Long before children learn to
write their letters and numbers, they discover they can draw (Horn & Giacobbe, 2007, p. 61). A
childs drawing ability can be a door into understanding their view of the world and a valuable
tool for a teacher who understands how to incorporate a childs understandings into the
classroom.
Lowenfeld and Brittain demonstrated that childrens drawings move through
developmental stages of drawing (as cited in Erickson & Young, 1996). They start with random
scribbles that lead to shapes and, eventually, grow into pictures that others can recognize.
Brittain and Lowenfelds stages begin with the Scribbling Stage, which is often occurs from ages
two to four years old, followed by the Preschematic Stage (ages 4-7), the Schematic Stage (ages
7-9), the Gang Age (ages 9-12), the Pseudo-Naturalistic Stage (ages 12-14), and, finally, the
Adolescent Art Stage (ages 14-17). Children will not always fall into a specific stage based on
their age, rather, they provide a guide for where a child may be (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970). A
childs placement in the Lowenfeldian Stages is determined by their drawing characteristics,
space representation, and human figure representation (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970). With these
stages in mind I will analyze a drawing (figure 1) of student artist, Michael (name changed).
During my analysis I will determine what Lowenfeldian Stage I think Michael is currently at.

MICHAELS DRAWING ANALYZED

Method
I chose to work with a 9 year old male named Michael. I asked Michael to draw me a
picture of either a self-portrait, family picture, or an outdoor scene. Michael chose to draw an
outdoor scene. He was given the option to choose what drawing material he would like to use
and chose to use marker. When Michael had decided what he was going to draw and what he was
going to draw with, he and I sat at a table. While Michael drew his picture I asked him questions
about what he was drawing in order to better understand his creation.
Michael drew a picture of his two dogs in their backyard. One dog was watching the
second dog dig a hole. One dog is brown and one dog is black because that is the color of his
dogs. The dogs are standing with their tongues hanging out. The brown rectangles are holes in
the yard that the dogs have already dug. The green coloring is the grass which Michael did not
finish coloring because his green markers kept running out of ink. When I asked Michael about
his picture he told me that it was supposed to be a raised, angled view of the yard and the dogs
so that you could see the dogs bodies and see into the holes from above.
Findings
I analyzed Michaels drawing using the Lowenfeldian Stages. I looked at each component
of the stages (drawing characteristics, space representation, and human figure representation) to
determine what stage Michael was currently drawing at. I then considered my conversation with
Michael and Michaels drawing together to determine a holistic view of whether he was at a
preschematic stage, schematic stage, or another stage all together.
First, I reviewed and analyzed the drawings drawing characteristics. For this area I found
Michaels drawing to have both preschematic and schematic elements, though they are primarily

MICHAELS DRAWING ANALYZED

schematic. The shapes in his drawing lose their meaning when they are removed from the whole
picture and are not accompanied by an explanation. However, his dogs show a form of concept
which is repeated (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970) because both dogs are drawn using the same
characteristics. Michael also has an active understanding of how his dogs interact with their
environment and he conveyed that in his drawing.
Second, I reviewed the drawings space representation. Michael again shows both
elements of preschematic and schematic drawing, though, in this area it tends to be more
preschematic. Michaels drawing is not drawn with proportions in mind. Both his dogs and the
holes are the same size. Additionally, his placement of his objects appear to be random, however,
it is hard to be sure with this drawing. Michael does not overlap the elements of his drawing
demonstrating some understanding of space representation.
Finally, I reviewed the drawings human figure representation. In this area Michael tends
to be more schematic through he still has some preschematic elements in his drawing. Michael
uses repeated schema when he draws the dogs because both dogs are drawn the same way.
Michael drew his dogs so that the legs that are closer to the viewer are longer then the legs that
are farther from the viewer. However, Michael did not draw ears for his dogs.
Based on my analysis of Michaels drawing I think that Michael is between the
Preschematic and Schematic Lowenfeldian Stages. He shows elements of both stages in his
drawing. However, through conversation with him his understanding of drawing is more in line
with the schematic stage. He understands the relationship of his drawing to the viewers and how
his drawing are laid out. He understands that his drawings are interpreted by other people and
draws with the viewer in mind. He understands the spatial relationship of the components of his
drawings to each other and drawing with a specific view point in mind.

MICHAELS DRAWING ANALYZED

Michaels drawing tends to be behind what Brittian and Lowenfeld have suggested a
child his age should be. Michael can benefit from further practice of drawing objects in relation
to each other and guided scaffolding from a mentor or teacher. While Michael may be a late
developer, Burton reminds us to be mindful that this happens, not because children are
preprogrammed, nor as a consequence of maturation alone. It is because some fairly fundamental
learning is acquired at each stage (1980).
Conclusion
Understanding where a child is at in the Lowenfeldian Stages can be valuable
information as a teacher (Brittain & Lowenfeld, 1970). Just Piagets Stages of Cognitive
Development can give insight into the intellectual ability of a child, so too can the Lowenfeldian
Stages. These stages act as evidence of how children think and what children do as they
progress beyond developmental milestones into and through stages of development (Luehrman
& Unrath, 2006). Through this understanding teachers can develop lessons that are tailored to
their students needs and capabilities. Teachers can scaffold their art incorporated lessons to meet
the needs of each child and provide each student the best learning experience possible.

MICHAELS DRAWING ANALYZED

Figure 1 Michaels Drawing (unfinished)

MICHAELS DRAWING ANALYZED

References
Burton, J. (1980). The First Visual Symbols. Developing Minds, p. 60-65.
Erickson, M., & Young, B. (1996). What Every Educator Should (But Maybe Doesn't) Know.
School Arts, 40-42.
Horn, M., & Giacobbe, M. (2007). Drawing. In Talking, Drawing, Writing Lessons for Our
Youngest Writers (p. 61). Portland, Me.: Stenhouse.
Brittain, W.L, & Lowenfeld, V. (1970). Creative and Mental Growth. (p. 474-479). New York,
NY. MacMillan Co.
Luehrman, M., & Unrath, K. (2006). Making Theories of Children Artistic Development
Meaningful for Preservice Teachers. Art Education, (p. 6-12).