This study analyzed 250 drawings created by Leo between ages 5-13 to understand how and why he drew over time. Researchers categorized each drawing by "Levels of Drawing" (LOD) to assess how he drew, and whether it was descriptive or narrative to assess why. They found that while Leo's development generally followed the LOD scale, the pattern varied depending on why he drew. Descriptive works were more likely to be schematic, while narrative works tended toward connected drawings. Later works integrated multiple LODs, showing drawing development involves building a "toolbox" of skills rather than replacing earlier approaches.

1. How and Why children draw as mutual determinants of the development of drawing:
A longitudinal case-study of Leo’s drawing
Noah Blohm ‘16 STRIDE & Joanna Bagienska ‘15 AEMES
Peter B. Pufall, faculty advisor, Department of Psychology
Wilson (2004) identifies two conditions in which
children draw. Their drawing is either spontaneous,
playful drawing when what and how they draw is
dictated by their interests, or it is dictated by others,
class time drawing when children accommodate what
and how they draw to their teacher’s lesson plan.
Within this study approximately 250 of Leo’s
playfully generated drawings done between his 1st
to the
9th
year in school, from age 5 to 13 years were
individually assessed for how and why he drew it.
How he draws is assessed by categorizing each of the
drawings within a Levels of Drawing (LOD) scale that
traces the development of realistic representation over
six levels. Why he draws is defined in terms of whether a
drawing is Descriptive or Narrative, that is, whether the
purpose of the drawing is to depict things or scenes or to
tell a story or convey an event.
Two general questions guide this research. One, is
the development of how children draw affected by why
they draw? Two, are levels of representational drawing
steps toward realism or are they a collection of
competencies, a repertoire (Wolfe & Perry, 1989) or
toolbox, some of which develop toward realistic
representation while others toward unique motifs of
drawing.
Narrative Images
➢ Constants throughout
✧ Not much nature; mostly man-made
structures
✧ Typically outdoor battle scenes with
human/alien combatants and man-made
structures (buildings, airplanes)
✧ Settings can be cluttered but the elements
are not drawn in detail (Image 9)
✧ Scribbled colors accentuate explosions,
collisions, blood
✧ When illustrating text scenes are primarily
indoor or restricted outdoor scenes
➢ Elements specific to Early works (1st
thru 3rd
year)
✧ Seascapes dominate over landscapes (Image
9)
✧ Effects of actions (i.e., explosions, blood) are
highlighted (Image 9 vs. 10).
✧ Scenes are populated with combatants,
vessels, and aircrafts, none are drawn in
detail
➢ Elements specific to Later works (4th
thru 7th
year)
✧ Battle scenes shift to land and air over those
at sea.
✧ Fewer explosions and scenes are less chaotic
✧ Combatants, buildings, and aircraft are
drawn more precisely but not in more detail
(Image 10)
✧ Space still lacks detail but is developing
towards Realism, i.e., cues of 3rd dimension
such as perspective (Images 10, 11)
interposition and occlusion.
How does Conventional drawing develop?
Descriptive Images
➢ Constant Throughout
✧ Flat representations of land- and seascapes
with no definition of sky, hints of Realistic
drawing
✧ Line drawings with pencils and markers
✧ Minimalist use of color -- primarily accenting
primary features/subjects
✧ When illustrating text, characters in the story
are situated within indoor scenes or restricted
view of outdoor areas.
➢ Elements specific to Early works (1st
thru 3rd
year)
✧ Nearly all include transcribed text (Image 6)
✧ Real and imagined landscapes pictured from a
ground-level perspective
✧ Initially spaces are ill-defined and vary
between indoor and outdoor spaces
✧ Later, spaces are complex outdoor scenes
(Image 7)
✧ Most include buildings, houses, and castles,
but not people or animals
➢ Elements specific to Later works (4th
thru 7th
year)
✧ Less likely to have text
✧ Landscapes dominate, primarily maps
o Geometric maps with a bird’s-eye
perspective emerge
o Later, “hybrid” maps of topographic
features, socially defined boundaries of
regions, and names of features (Image 8)
✧ Drawing develops towards Realism with the
inclusion of cues of a 3rd dimension
(interposition)
✧ Yet maps emerge as a Conventional to
dimensional Motif (Image 8).
Conclusions
➢ In general, the development of how Leo draws
replicates the pattern outlined in the LOD scale.
➢ However, the pattern of development varies as a
function of Why Leo is drawing. Leo is more likely
to draw Schematically when he intends to Describe
than when he intends to tell a story, and,
conversely, his drawing is more often Connected
when he is drawing a story than when he is
describing things and scenes.
➢ Leo’s drawing indicates that development occurs
both between and within LODs specifically, his
Conventional drawing is transformed into Realistic
drawing. However, within his descriptive drawings
he creates a Conventional Motif, maps, in which
realism and convention coexist.
➢ Advanced LODs do not displace earlier LODs. The
earlier LODS persist as a repertoire or “toolbox” of
stylistic forms that communicate different things
about the same subject matter or effectively
convey different feelings or emotions. Within our
study it is clear that the likelihood of Leo using a
tool varies depending on whether he intends to
describe or narrate.
Results
Development of How Leo draws
Figure 1: Percentage of Leo’s Descriptive drawings that fit
best within LODs for each school year.
Figure 2: Percentage of Leo’s Narrative drawings that fit
best within LODs for each school year.
➢ Developmental patterning: In general, the development
of Leo’s drawing correlates with the sequence in the LOD
scale. Schematic, Connected and Conventional drawing
flourishes in the early years and Realistic and Beyond
Realistic in the later years.
➢ Deviations from patterning: The presence of an LOD is
not always continuous, nor do earlier LODs decrease over
time. For example, Schematic drawing appears,
disappears, and increases from early to late years.
➢ Persistence of earlier LODs: Earlier LODs are not displaced
by advanced levels; they persist over time and function in
parallel with the later LODs.
➢ Realistic and Beyond Realistic drawing: While Realistic
emerges before Beyond Realistic drawing, in the late year
these LODs are co-existing forms of drawing.
Development Independent of Why
Further Questions
Specific Questions
Descriptive images
imagesNarrative
Development Linked to Why
Why children draw
In this study why children draw is defined in terms of the
function of the drawing; is the drawing Narrative, Descriptive, or
Graphic (abstract). Because our measure of How children draw
focuses on the development of representational drawing our
analysis of Why Leo drew is limited to the representational
function, Narrative and Descriptive.
Narrative drawing tells a story or describes an event. (refer to
examples on the poster)
Descriptive drawing depicts subject matter, still-life, or
scenes, landscapes. (again, refer to examples on the poster)
How children draw
How children draw is assessed by a level of development
(LOD) scale we constructed based on published normative
descriptions of the development phases of representational
drawing. There are 6 levels:
1. Symbolic: definitive referent but shape does not resemble
the referent, no context (Image 1).
2. Schematic: drawings represent categories of a referent;
often segmented (composed of shapes); a single drawing or
several that do not relate to one another (Image 2).
3. Connected: many elements represented, generally clear
referents, but no organizing context (Image 3).
4. Conventional: many elements within a coherent setting
(either outdoors or enclosed), 2-dimensional (Images 6 – 11).
5. Realism: three dimensional, realistically represented, and
detailed content and context. (Image 4)
6. Beyond Realism: conveys subjective and emotional world
view; displays development of a personal artistic style;
includes features of various earlier forms of drawing; may be
a cartoon or caricature (Image 5).
Methods
Participant
Leo attended a private day-school in a small New
England town for nine years. He was chosen at random
from other students attending the school in the mid 70s.
School Philosophy
It was school policy to collect and archive the students
daily drawings. Leo’s archive includes 251
drawings/paintings; they are now available online at the
Prospect Archive of Children’s Work of the University of
Vermont Libraries.
The school’s educational policy centered on self-
directed and experiential learning. The children were
encouraged to draw on a daily basis but there were no
formal art classes. The children’s interests guided what
and how they drew, constrained by the materials
available. Their experience was consistent with Wilson’s
description of play drawing.
Procedures
Three judges assessed each of Leo’s drawings in terms
of Why and How he drew. The proportions of agreement
exceeded 80% on each measure.
Development within Conventional
drawing
Toward Realism or a Conventional Motif?
The question of development within levels of drawing is relevant to
all levels, however, in this poster we focus on the development with
Conventional drawing. We had no prior categories to guide us, hence,
the process is qualitative and discovery-oriented.
Three of us independently identified qualities in Leo’s conventional
drawing that were invariant over time and those that varied. There
were two outcomes when there was variation over time. One form of
variation anticipated the next level of development. Later
conventional drawing would foreshadow realistic representation; the
other outcome is the development of a motif. Conventional drawing
appeared to be a refined version of its earliest form.
➢ Schematic drawing: Schematic drawing is less likely in
Leo’s Narrative than Descriptive images.
➢ Connected drawing: Connected drawing is more frequent
in Leo’s Narrative than Descriptive drawings. (He draws
only one Descriptive image in the second year)
➢ Realistic and Beyond Realistic drawing: In the last three
school years these two LODs are almost equally likely
when Leo creates Narrative images, but Beyond Realism
comes to dominate his Descriptive works.
➢ Does the development of Leo’s representational
drawings replicate the pattern laid out in the LOD
scale?
➢ Does the pattern of how Leo draws vary depending
on why he draws? How is development similar and
different between Descriptive and Narrative
drawings?
➢ Does development occur within Conventional
drawings? Does that development vary depending on
why he is drawing?
➢ Is there evidence that Leo develops a “toolbox” of
LODs, using earlier LODs even after he has reached a
higher LOD? Does development lead to a motif, or to
the next level of drawing?
Introduction
Image 6.
Conventional
Descriptive, 1st
year, age 5.
Image 8. Conventional Descriptive,
7th
year, age 12
Image 11. Conventional Narrative,
5th
year, age 10
Image 10. Conventional Narrative,
6th
year, age 11
Image 9. Conventional
Narrative, 2nd
year, age 6.
Image 1.
Symbolic,1st
year, age 5
Image 2. Schematic,1st
year, age 5
Image 3.
Connected,
6th
year, age
10
Image 7. Conventional
Descriptive, 2nd
year, age 6
Image 4. Realistic, 9th
year, age 13
Image 5. Beyond
Realism, 9th
year, age 13
➢ Is there development within other LODs? That is,
do all the tools within the toolbox develop? Does
the development of one influence the
development of the others?
➢ What happens next in Leo’s life as an artist? Does
he continue to draw, and if so, how, once he has
established all the LODs and moves on from his
primary education at the Prospect School?
➢ Is the development of drawing, both within and
between LODs, common across children? The
companion poster presentation on Emma
indicates the answer is yes and no. How do we
account for the differences? We have preliminary
evidence suggesting the themes they explore
constrains their choice of LODs.
➢ Leo experienced drawing at Prospect School
drawing Wilson refers to as playful drawing, is the
development described in this case study unique
to this experience?