1. May 2015 n ART EDUCATION 19
Study Synopsis
When I began teaching art at an urban elementary
school, I soon saw that the students’drawings were done
as a group—contrary to what I had thought about the
nature of children drawing. Yes, each student had his or her
own paper; but when the students sat at a table of four or
had their individual desks grouped in fours, frequently the
drawings from that group of students had similar imagery.
At one table, houses and flowers were dominant. At
another, dogs ran wild on the paper.
The students were in 1st and 2nd grade. As an elemen-
tary art specialist, I worked with the students twice a week
in their regular classroom for 45-minute periods. Though
the students’desks in each of the nine classrooms were
arranged differently, many of them sat in small groups
facing each other. As one of two art teachers at the school,
I traveled with cart or box in hand from classroom to class-
room. I taught five classes of 1st-grade children and four
classes of 2nd-grade children.
At the beginning of each class, I would present a topic or
subject for the students to focus on in their drawings. The
topics ranged from their neighborhood to the things that
they were studying in their classroom, such as dinosaurs
or the seasons. I presented visual reproductions of works
of art when they were available and appropriate to the
learning objectives. I also presented the drawings of one
class to the students of another to serve as motivation and
to provide models of what could be. While the students
sat at their desks, working on the drawings, I circulated
throughout the room observing their work and behaviors. I
listened to their comments, questions, and conversations. I
asked questions. I offered suggestions for further realiza-
tion of their drawings. Periodically, I would ask the students
to present their drawings to the class and describe them
and their intent for the drawing.
What I Saw: The Students Drawing Together
Thomas
Thomas1
sat with a group of five or six boys in their
2nd-grade basement classroom. He was the center of the
other boys’attention; he quietly commanded their atten-
tion and respect. His vivid imagination and exceptional
skill in linear drawing seemed to mesmerize his peers. It
was not uncommon for most of the other boys to wait until
Thomas’s drawing was well begun, and then do their best
to copy it in form or content. I recall elaborate war scenes
and dinosaurs with zigzagging spines and frighteningly
Social Learning and Drawing:
What Children Learn by Copying
the Images of Their Peers
hildren ought be allowed and encouraged to copy and interact, for it is
through these actions—along with singular focus on the drawing, painting,
or sculpting—that children develop thoughts and ways of being together. “We
must acknowledge benefits of a classroom learning community in which students
interact, help, and push each other to improve their work”(Freedman, 2010, p. 13).
C
G A E TA N O A . L A R O C H E
First and second graders learn drawing
by copying from peers, as encouraged
by their teacher. Art teachers can
consider how to integrate copying and
collaboration into the classroom.

2. ART EDUCATION n May 201520
pointed teeth. Thomas once drew an image of Santa Claus that
filled the paper from top to bottom. Santa was armed with a range
of lethal weapons.
The boys spoke among themselves, argued, and debated. It was
as if they were all, as a group, working on one idea and trying to
perfect it. Because Thomas’skill was exceptional, the other boys
would discuss what he had drawn or was in the process of drawing
with him and among themselves.
Joel and Vincent
Joel treated people with kindness and generosity, and was
polite and thoughtful. He read at a higher level than his classmates.
He drew and colored with grace and skill, and was one of his class-
room teacher’s stars. His teacher rearranged the desks, and where
and with whom the students sat, on a monthly basis. The 1st-grade
desks were referred to as biplane desks because they had a center
shelf with space to the left and right for students to sit and work.
Two students shared each biplane desk. Joel shared his desk with
Vincent for a period of time.
Vincent, unlike Joel, demonstrated impulsive behavior.
Frequently, he was in conflict with the other students or with the
classroom teacher. His behaviors were at odds with those encour-
aged in school. Vincent spoke loudly and out of turn. He was often
out of his seat and roaming the room. He had limited attention,
except when sitting next to Joel and copying his drawings. He did
this intently and with great concentration!
Though Vincent had been seated with other students during the
year, he would come and sit near Joel during art class. Occasionally,
Joel would complain that Vincent was sitting in the wrong place
and copying him. I would then explain to Joel that Vincent liked
his drawings and was trying to learn from him. I explained that
their drawings were not a test of individual knowledge or skills, but
rather an opportunity to work and learn. I told the children that we
all learn from each other and that that was perhaps one of the best
ways to learn something.
Lucy and Mary, Paul and Manny
In another class, I saw that the children also looked to each
other for drawing ideas, strategies, and ways of creating forms and
making marks to represent things seen and imagined. The children
did not sit facing each other, but rather in four long rows side by
side. They were right next to their peers to the left and right; this
and my way of classroom management allowed for talking and
sharing ideas. Wilson (1974) and Wilson and Wilson (1977) maintain
that children learn to draw by observing, studying, and copying
the graphic images around them. These children did just that.
One afternoon, I read the Mother Goose nursery rhyme“Old
Mother Hubbard”to the class. I asked them to imagine and then
draw a dog doing the kind things that Old Mother Hubbard’s dog
did. The children drew with black magic marker on large white
paper. Some children also used crayons for color. The students
worked on drawings for two or three classes, depending on the
amount of time that they needed. There was something about
this challenge that captured the students thoroughly. Perhaps the
familiarity with the nursery rhyme, or their love of or fear of dogs,
or the thrill of drawing with black marker on a large paper—almost
half their size—caught their attention. I recall them drawing and
talking, problem solving together, with vigor. Some students
entered into a collaborative process where they seemed to decide
on a theme together.
In other instances, students would copy and modify what they
saw their peers doing. Mary (Figure 4b) seemed to do just that,
looking to Lucy’s (Figure 4a) competently drawn dog: head and
tail upright, standing firmly upon a baseline. Lucy came into the
school late in the school year, and her eagerness to participate in
the class set her apart from the other students. She appeared to be
an articulate, bright, and energetic girl. Mary, like Lucy, also seemed
thoughtful, but she seemed to lack the confidence that Lucy
possessed. When she came to the task of drawing a dog, she looked
to Lucy for direction. Lucy provided a graphic model for Mary.
ABOVE: Figure 1a. Drawing by Joel.
RIGHT: Figure 1b. Drawing byVincent.

3. May 2015 n ART EDUCATION 21
Another pair of boys who seemed to get along well despite
large differences in personality and temperament were Paul and
Manny. Paul was larger in size and sometimes seemed aggressive.
Manny seemed to have a gentle disposition and always got along
well with his peers. I vividly recall Paul’s frightening werewolf-like
dog that had blood dripping off its two outstretched paws as a
hapless, vacant-eyed victim stood nearby, with blood gushing from
a hole in his chest (Figure 5a). This was power, violence, and force.
It caught Manny’s attention. His drawing (Figure 5b) repeats Paul’s
characters, but with much different effect. Manny came up with a
complex drawing that seems to consider violence, pain, and the
effects of both upon the perpetrator and victim: dog and cat.
Imagining Why
Though I never directed my students to copy from each other,
I did encourage it indirectly by presenting examples of other
students’drawings, by providing an opportunity for students to
present their work, and by never discouraging what appeared to
be a natural inclination in some students toward copying. I would
often tell my students that we all learn from each other and that
it was fine to get ideas from other people, including those sitting
nearby. In retrospect, I created an environment that was collab-
orative. Students sitting next to each other shared ideas, images,
concerns. A dialogue developed and they came to know each
other better.
Thomas
In the midst of the classroom, with students surrounded by
peers, learning and growth accelerate—not just take place. “For
that is how knowledge comes about, a work is achieved, and
image and symbol made, in the midst of living beings”(Buber,
1958, p. 40). The boys that were seated next to each other within
the large group demonstrated a wisdom that went beyond notions
of right and wrong in school and about copying. They drew and
spoke together, creating worlds—worlds seen on paper springing
from their minds collaborating and reaching each into its own.
Angelides and Michaelidou (2009) speak of the great benefit of
collaborative artmaking to reduce feelings of isolation and margin-
alization. In their study, preschool children who had been socially
and academically marginalized“made friends and they were
accepted by the team”(p. 47) when they engaged in collaborative
artmaking. Manifold (2009) has considered the place that group
artmaking occupies in identity development, arguing that teens
try out possible adult roles and more immediately find affective
connections to others who choose to enter into the group.
While Luquet (1927/2001) wrote in his classical study, Children’s
Drawings, that the“enrichment of the child’s repertoire is due
primarily to productive mistakes”(p. 30), it must also be considered
that the creating of mistakes is in fact the creating of new forms.
When these new forms emerge, children’s drawing repertoires
grow. Repertoire, a term frequently used by Burton (1980, 2009),
implies an ever-growing resource upon which to draw. I believe
that the repertoires of the boys around Thomas, as well as Thomas’
own repertoire, grew exponentially larger due to their interacting.
These repertoires went beyond the repertoires of drawing to
include the repertoires of ways of relating to each other.
Joel and Vincent
What could Joel and Vincent have learned? Joel learned that
the teacher thinks copying is alright. He also learned that there are
no negative consequences to Vincent for copying. He may have
learned tolerance for another student whose ways were different
from his own.
Vincent likely learned some ways to draw the sun, clouds, crabs
(Figure 1), turtles (Figure 2), and superheroes (Figure 3). He might
have learned ways of making forms to create narrative. Did Joel
learn how to negotiate with someone who was seeking direction
from him? I suspect so, as Vincent continually looked to him for a
graphic model and Joel had to resolve the conflicting mores of life
and school, such as:“Copying is bad. You are allowing someone
to cheat and this can get you in trouble.”Joel had to resolve
LEFT: Figure 2a. Drawing by Joel.
ABOVE: Figure 2b. Drawing byVincent.

4. ART EDUCATION n May 201522
these possible thoughts with Vincent’s need and persistence,
and an art teacher who said:“It’s OK. He’s learning from you. It’s a
compliment!”
Gombrich (1956) insisted that an artist needs a formula, a
schema, from which to begin. The artist then modifies the schema
that he has learned through imitation to suit his expressive
intentions. Gombrich argues that—and we can consider from
the drawings that Joel, Vincent, and the other children presented
here—“From what we have seen of the need for schemata, we
need no longer be surprised that even a wrong schema is a useful
tool”(p. 172).
David Baker (1994) challenged my belief that drawing ability
should be naturally evolving, like a flower from a seed. He stated
that much could be learned from the teaching practices used in
the 19th and early 20th centuries. The work of drawing master
Walter Smith (1872) in Massachusetts public schools was presented
as a way of teaching wherein children developed control of their
marks, an understanding of forms and patterns, and increased
perceptual ability through the copying of adult forms and patterns.
The historical scholarship of Foster Wygant (1983) documents this
wonderfully.
When Vincent placed his eyes and thoughts upon Joel’s drawing
and made what looks to most people like a copy, did he copy the
drawing or the boy? Edward Young, the English poet, wrote back in
1759:“imitate not the composition, but the man”(McFarland, 1985,
p. 6). Was Vincent’s act of drawing very similar shapes and forms,
and using nearly the same colors, as Joel just a way to become
more like Joel? Did Vincent see in Joel not only a boy who could
draw and visualize the tasks presented by the teacher, but a person
whom he wanted to be like?
Picasso said that one can never truly copy another, for it is in the
“botch”of copying that one reveals his true personality (Ashton,
1972). While the boys’drawings of turtles seem almost identical, it
is in the“botch”that we see Vincent’s personality and how it differs
from Joel’s. The turtles in Vincent’s drawing (Figure 2b) have down-
turned and frowned mouths, while those in Joel’s (Figure 2a) have
straight and seemingly quiet mouths. The pleasure is in looking
at the drawings over and over again and considering the why, the
how, and everything that we do not know.
Lucy and Mary, Paul and Manny
In Lucy’s drawing (Figure 4a), the dog stands tall and erect,
appearing confident and thoughtful. I believe that it was these
qualities that encouraged Mary (Figure 4b) to copy her drawing.
On this day, Mary learned to draw a dog with cloudlike spots and
a bow on its head, and compose a strong central image in a simply
defined space. Her drawing repertoire grew. We can also infer that
for Lucy, there was likely some sense of accomplishment as her
peer found her drawing solution so appealing that she copied
many of the aspects of it. For Lucy, who came into the class late,
this likely contributed to her feeling accepted. Mary also may have
felt less alone in drawing and navigating the challenges set by the
teacher.
Paul’s dog (Figure 5a) looks more like a jackal. The hole in the
person’s chest pours out blood and it streams from the jackal’s
clawed hands. The drawing is as powerful and fascinating as it is
horrifying. Manny may have thought so, too. Manny’s drawing
(Figure 5b), while similar to Paul’s, differs in substantial ways. First,
the victim is a cat rather than a person. Rather than the vacant
expression of pain that we see on the face of the heartless man in
Paul’s drawing, the cat seems to be smiling. The perpetrator—a
huge dog with a red nose, Batman mask, and brown spot—seems
pained. In Manny’s drawing, the dog who rips out the cat’s heart
seems more pained than the cat.
ABOVE: Figure 3a. Drawing by Joel.
RIGHT: Figure 3b. Drawing byVincent.

5. May 2015 n ART EDUCATION 23
LEFT: Figure 4a. Drawing by Lucy.
ABOVE: Figure 4b. Drawing by Mary.
ABOVE LEFT: Figure 5a. Drawing by Paul. RIGHT: Figure 5b. Drawing by Manny.

6. ART EDUCATION n May 201524
Swift (2009) found that through the artmaking process itself—
the engagement with shaping material to forms, ideas, and experi-
ence—people discover themselves as much as they create art.
When children are encouraged to learn from each other, they grow
in the discipline and in their understanding of their social world.
Significant cognitive gains can be made when children collabo-
rate with peers who are more expert than themselves in an area
of learning. Duran and Gauvain (1993) found that young children
developed greater planning capabilities when they collaborated
with children of the same age who already exhibited those abilities.
They also found that children who collaborated with same-age
peers made greater gains in their planning abilities than children
who collaborated with children older than themselves. They
hypothesize that:“Children may feel more comfortable collabo-
rating with experts of the same age and even perceive the partner’s
skill as attainable”(p. 220).
The Value of Models, Copying, and Learning
From Others
Children learn to draw by looking, copying, and creating anew.
When a child looks at his neighbor’s drawing and realizes that a
triangle on top of a rectangle makes a house, or that zigzagging
lines create scary and ferocious teeth, then he has learned some-
thing. Today he may copy his peer’s house. Tomorrow, he has a
schema for a house in the woods with wolves all around.
The children that I had the pleasure to observe taught me that
much learning occurs from student to student, perhaps far more
so than from teacher to student. This is consistent with Vygostgy’s
(2005) assertion that children learn best from siblings and peers
who have slightly more skill than they do in the area in which
they seek growth. And when Gardner (1985) was considering
how primates learned to use tools, he concluded:“More gener-
ally, primates are much more likely to learn use of a tool if they are
situated (and play) in proximity to other individuals that are already
able to accomplish desirable goals”(p. 217).
June King McFee (1984), in reflecting back on her distinguished
career as an art educator, recognized the need“for art as a basic
communication skill in education”(p. 188) and sought to advocate
for it in her teachings and writings. In communicating we come to
understand our own thoughts and begin to know the person next
to us. As Martin Buber (1958) stated in his classic book, I and Thou,
Throughout the Thou a man becomes I. That which
confronts him comes and disappears, relational events
condense, then are scattered, and in the change conscious-
ness of the unchanging partner, of the I, grow clear and
each time stronger. (p. 28)
In interacting with others, we grow more I, more clear of what is
essentially us.
As Carolina Blatt-Gross (2010) discusses, there is growing
research into the functioning of the brain by neuroscientists and
cognitive psychologists that points to“the distinctly social nature
of the human brain and the role art plays in satisfying this”(p. 353).
According to Johnson and Johnson (1991), in cooperative environ-
ments, children with the least skills or understanding can benefit
greatly from working with peers who possess greater skill and
understanding, and the more-advanced students can develop a
deeper understanding of the content by teaching it.
Some Working Ideas
Within the curriculum, art educators can consider how to
integrate copying and collaboration. Art teachers may direct their
students to copy—as accurately as they can—a drawing of a peer
with the stated goal that, in doing so, the students may learn new
ways of creating forms, making marks, and imaging. The students
will develop their perceptual ability through copying and may
acquire a new appreciation for their classsmate.
Another lesson may be one in which two to four students work
on one drawing together, necessitating speaking, listening, and
negotiating so that the drawing conveys a coherent story or image.
Another collabrative lesson may involve the study of architecture
and a discussion of cities, wherein small groups of students create
their own city with model buildings made from clay, sticks, and
cardboard—learning from each other to sculpt and build.
As it is essential to the psychological well being of children that
they have healthy peer interactions, the art teacher can promote
both growth in the discipline and the person by designing and
allowing for communication and interaction between children and
teens. They learn about each other; themselves; and ways to draw,
sculpt, paint, and think. There are immense social and psycho-
logical benefits of finding one’s place within a group and—as this
is truly the task of life—beginning early in that task sets one along
well. For, as Luquet (1927/2001) wrote:“Childhood is not just the
beginning of life, but also its apprenticeship, and so the mental
mechanisms of children need to be adapted to the preservation of
their lives throughout childhood and into adulthood”(p. 148).
Gaetano A. LaRoche is an Art Teacher in the public schools of
Yonkers, New York. E-mail: gaetanolaroche@yahoo.com
AUTHOR NOTE
The drawings reproduced here were made by the students when I was their
art teacher.
The art teacher can promote both growth
in the discipline and the person by designing
and allowing for communication and
interaction between children and teens.

7. May 2015 n ART EDUCATION 25
Angelides, P., & Michaelidou, A.
(2009). Collaborative artmaking for
reducing marginalization. Studies in
Art Education, 51(1), 36-49.
Ashton, D. (1972). Picasso on art: A
selection of views. New York, NY: Da
Capo Press.
Baker, D. (1994). Class lectures for
“Historical Foundations of Art
Education” [unpublished]. The
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Blatt-Gross, C. (2010). Casting
the conceptual net: Cognitive
possibilities for embracing the
social and emotional richness of art
education. Studies in Art Education,
51(4), 353-367.
Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. (2nd ed.)
(R. G. Smith, Trans.) New York, NY:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Burton, J. (1980). Developing minds:
The first visual symbols. School Arts,
80(2), 60-65.
Burton, J. (2009). Creative intelligence,
creative practice: Lowenfeld Redux
Studies in Art Education, 50(4),
323-337.
Duran, R. T., & Gauvain, M. (1993).
The role of age versus expertise
in peer collaboration during joint
planning. In M. Gauvin & M. Cole
(Eds.), Readings on the development
of children (pp. 213-222). New York,
NY: Worth.
Freedman, K. (2010). Rethinking
creativity: A definition to support
contemporary practice. Art
Education, 63(2), 8-15.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind:
Theory of multiple intelligence. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Gombrich, E. H. (1956). Art and
Illusion: A study in the psychology of
pictorial representation. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.
(1991). Learning together and alone.
(3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Luquet, G. H. (2001). Children’s
drawings (Le dessin enfantin). (A.
Costall, Trans.). New York, NY: Free
Association Books. (Original work
published 1927)
Manifold, M. C. (2009). What art
educators can learn from the
fan-based art making of adolescents
and young adults. Studies in Art
Education, 50(3), 257-271.
McFarland, T. (1985). Originality &
imagination. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
McFee, J. K. (1984). Reflections. Studies
in Art Education, 25(3), 188-190.
Smith, W. (1872). Art education:
Scholastic and industrial. Boston,
MA: James R. Osgood and Company.
Swift, J. (2009). Reflective inquiry
and artistic practice: Identifying
consistencies originating from
experience (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2005). Interaction
between learning and development.
In M. Gauvin & M. Cole (Eds.),
Readings on the development of
children (pp: 34-40). New York, NY:
Worth.
Wilson, B. (1974). The superheroes of
J. C. Holz: Plus an outline of a theory
of child art. Art Education, 27(8), 2-9.
Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1977). An
iconoclastic view of the imagery
sources in the drawings of young
children. Art Education, 30(1), 5-11.
Wygant, F. (1983). Art in American
schools in the nineteenth century.
Cincinnati, OH: Interwood Press.
REFERENCES
ENDNOTE
1 Pseudonyms used throughout.