According to Perry Art Is Another Way to Share Stories

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on involving children in enquiry. Childhood and children are seen as worthy of investigation in their ain right, and researchers now seek to larn about children'southward knowledge, perspectives and interest from the children themselves (Christensen & James, 2000).

Graue and Walsh (1998) have pointed out that research is a artistic procedure, and generating data with children challenges researchers to exist creative. Participant observation has been widely used in research with children in early childhood settings (e.g. Corsaro & Molinari, 2000; Johansson, 2005; Pramling Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006) and video has become increasingly popular for recording observations (Graue & Walsh, 1998). Grouping interviews, child conferencing, conversations and individual interviews take as well been used (Clark, 2005a). Some researchers have recommended having children engaged in doing something during the interviews (Cappello, 2005; Parkinson, 2001) or using props, like toys, paper and crayons, sand, dirt, pictures, photographs, dolls and puppets (Doverborg & Pramling Samuelsson, 2003). Questionnaires have been adjusted to use with young children. For instance, Einarsdottir (2005b, 2007) designed a cardboard game that served as a questionnaire to discover children'due south views and opinions nearly their experiences in an early childhood setting.

Children's drawings are used to access young children'due south views and experiences by listening to children as they draw and paying attention to their narratives and interpretations (Clark, 2005a, 2005b; Dockett & Perry, 2005a; Dial, 2002; Veale, 2005). Photographs taken by children have been used as an avenue for them to express their views and experiences. The children are given cameras and take pictures, which they hash out with the researcher. In this mode, the data gathering is, in part, in the hands of the children. They make choices virtually what to photo and pick out things that are important to them. The photos then straight the interviews that follow (Clark, 2005a; Clark & Moss, 2001; Dockett & Perry, 2005b; Einarsdottir, 2005a; Rasmussen, 1999; Rasmussen & Smidt, 2002). In the Mosaic approach tours and maps are also used to elicit children'due south perceptions and experiences. Tours involve young children taking the researcher on a guided tour around their early childhood settings. They make maps and record the experience through photographs, drawings or audio recordings (Clark & Moss, 2001).

This article focuses on drawings as a method for listening to immature children's perspectives on their lives in early childhood settings.

Children's drawings – review of the literature

A great deal of existing enquiry analyses the graphic, perceptive and psychological aspects of children'southward drawings (Colonnade, 1998). Much of this enquiry has centred on children's drawings of the human being figure and connections between children'southward mental models and their cartoon (Goodenough, 1926; Goodnow, 1977; Kellogg, 1969). While more contempo research has supported this (Cox, 1992), there have also been cautions that the developmental sequence outlined may well reflect the authority of Western culture and expectations (Cox, 1998), and that assessing realism may underestimate the symbolic content of children'southward drawings (Golomb, 1992; Matthews, 1994), especially the pregnant attributed to the drawings past the drawer (Gross & Hayne, 1999). Similar cautions have been voiced about assessing children's drawings in relation to their emotional adjustment (Madigan, Ladd, & Goldberg, 2003) and compositional elements (Catte & Cox, 1999; Jolley & Vulic‐Prtoric, 2001).

A range of recent research has moved from the psychological stance of describing children'south drawings in terms of developmental sequences, to considering children's drawings every bit expressions of meaning and understanding (Band, 2006). Recognising their communicative power, Stanczak (2007, p. 11) notes that: 'the significant of images resides nigh significantly in the means that participants interpret those images, rather than as some inherent property of the images themselves'. This view regards drawings as an effective means for children to explore and communicate their understandings, particularly when attention is paid to the narratives that develop around the drawings (Kress, 1997; Steele, 1999). Focusing on cartoon as meaning‐making moves abroad from the discourse of drawing as representation and, instead, focuses on children'south intentions, considers the process of cartoon and recognises children's drawings as purposeful: 'drawing thus becomes a constructive procedure of thinking in action, rather than a developing ability to make visual reference to objects in the globe' (Cox, 2005, p. 123).

The discourse of drawing equally meaning‐making recognises the importance of context in children'southward drawings. Context includes the availability of resources and materials as well as social and cultural elements. Drawings both reverberate their cultural context (Cox, Perara, & Fan, 1999) and constitute a cultural practice (Cox, 2005). The social context of drawing – be it within communities of practice (Anning, 2002), in the visitor of peers (Richards, 2003; Thompson, 1999) or in interactions with meaning adults (Braswell & Callanan, 2003), besides impacts on the cartoon process and the meanings constructed and conveyed (Light, 1985).

The values significant adults ascribe to drawings, including parents and teachers' perceptions and expectations of drawings, are important. For case, Rose, Jolley, and Burkitt (2006) annotation that teachers in prior‐to‐school settings and schools tend to differ in their perceptions of drawing, also equally their purposes for including information technology inside the curriculum. Drawing in prior‐to‐school contexts is often open‐ended and kid‐initiated, but interpreted in terms of a fine‐motor activity that is an important precursor to writing. School contexts can see drawings used as a 'time‐filler' as well as an activity to encourage realistic representations of object, people, places or events. Drawing at abode is generally more than kid‐led than in educational contexts. Both Richards (2003) and Anning (2002) note that as children motion through school their interest and engagement in drawing tends to refuse, maybe considering of the irresolute contexts.

Adult provisions, interactions and supports influence children'south drawings. Peers are as well important, with many children drawing in the company of others (Anning, 2002; Anning & Ring, 2004). Children's drawings can be influenced by what others draw or say (Richards, 2003; Thompson, 1999) and the meanings ascribed to drawings may be co‐constructed by the participants in the cartoon experience (Cox, 2005).

Focusing on the procedure of children's drawings directs attending to the narrative that accompanies the marks made on paper (Kress, 1997) linking children'southward meaning‐making to the marks fabricated equally they draw. Drawings and the accompanying narrative are not separate entities – both are integral parts of the meaning‐making process (Cox, 2005; Matthews, 1999; Wright, 2007). Considering both the commentary and the drawing recognises the social construction of meaning and directs adults to the meanings children seek to convey in their drawings, rather than what they contain (Low-cal, 1985). This arroyo recognises the fluidity and flexibility of children'due south meaning‐making – changes that occur to drawings every bit a result of comments, or drawings that generate unlike comments are all recognised every bit part of the construction of significant (Cox, 2005). Such transformations are not perceived every bit limitations that reflect developmental deficiencies. Rather, they reflect children's control of the procedure: 'changes of listen are central to what the child is quite intentionally engaged in when drawing – the process of decoding and encoding mark and pregnant' (Cox, 2005, p. 123). Two immediate consequences of this view emerge – firstly, the importance of noting the children's narrative throughout the drawing procedure and secondly, the implications of recording or fixing the meaning of the drawing by labelling it.

If children's narrative over the drawing process records the journeying of their construction of meaning, it is this, as well as the drawing itself, that volition provide insight into children'due south understandings and perspectives. It then becomes important for researchers to engage with children or at least to exist enlightened of this process, in gild to sympathize children's intentions in drawings. Nonetheless, much of the attention to children's drawings has been on the finished product and the labelling of that product. Barthes (1967) argues that words ballast meanings, as evidenced in the mode captions serve equally interpretations of photographs. Hence, in one case a label is fastened to a drawing, the pregnant is ascribed. Children in early on babyhood settings are quite familiar with this process – they draw something, say what it is and the adult scribes the text. While the aim of asking children to explain their drawings may well be to avoid adult interpretation of drawings (Merry & Robins, 2001), Coates (2002) notes that this highly ritualised process does not necessarily result in children sharing their intended meaning: children can get quite adept at giving the data that is required to complete the task.

The discourse of drawing as meaning‐making is evident in recent research involving young children. For example, Wright (2007) notes the complexity of children's drawings as verbal and non‐verbal signs are used by children to convey meaning; Haney, Russeo, and Bebell (2004) accept used children's drawings equally a mode to document educational phenomena and to gain insights to children'due south perspectives of lives in schools and classrooms; Óskarsdóttir (2006) has engaged children in drawing to assist access their noesis about the body; and Lenz Taguchi (2006) has used children's drawings to assistance teachers examine the beliefs and values underlying their pedagogical practices. In addition, the longitudinal study of young children drawing in home, pre‐school and school contexts reported past Anning and Ring (Anning, 2002; Anning & Ring, 2004; Ring, 2006) has done much to extend our understanding of drawing as a tool for constructing and sharing meaning.

Drawings in research with young children

Across our different contexts (Iceland and Australia), nosotros have asked children to share their experiences of preschool and starting primary school. One of the strategies we have employed involves asking children to draw (Dockett & Perry, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Einarsdottir, 2005b). The contexts in which children take been asked to draw encompass one‐to‐one interactions betwixt researchers and children in preschool and school, whole‐class activities and pocket-sized group experiences. Our purposes for using cartoon are to:

provide a context where children had some control over the nature of their date in data generation activities;
constitute a non‐confrontational footing for interactions, where children can draw and are not forced to maintain heart contact with researchers. This is especially important in a school context, where existing power structures can encourage children'due south responses that align with teacher expectations;
provide familiar tools and materials to encourage children to engage in conversations about schoolhouse or preschool in a meaningful way for them;
encourage children to take time to respond to questions or engage in discussion as they take the time to draw, recognising that co‐structure of meaning takes time and is a transformative process; and
recognise that some children prefer to convey their perspectives and experiences through a combination of verbal and not‐verbal means.

The post-obit discussion reports the strategies nosotros take used, examines the benefits and challenges we have encountered and discusses implications of using drawings every bit a strategy for engaging with immature children (anile 4–6 years) in research.

Example I: Reflections of kickoff year at schoolhouse

In several studies, we have asked children to draw impressions of their commencement year of school. Sometimes the focus has been on how children experience about that yr at other times the focus has been how they have changed over that year (Dockett & Perry, 2004; Einarsdottir, 2005b).

In one Icelandic report children were asked what had changed for them over their starting time year of school. On a large piece of folded paper, three classroom teachers invited children to describe how they felt when they started school on one side and how they were feeling at the end of the first year of school on the other side. Two of the teachers gave the children the activeness to work on independently during their free time. One teacher discussed the action with the whole form and and then asked the children to describe about school.

In an Australian report, children in their commencement year of schoolhouse were asked to reflect on what had changed for them over the yr. Once again, using a large slice of paper folded in half, children were asked to depict and/or write to complete the statements: 'When I started schoolhouse I …' and 'Now I …' Comments were either written by children or scribed past the instructor. With some groups of children, course teachers introduced the drawing activity to the whole form, after some initial word (Effigy 1). In other groups, children were invited to join the researcher, either individually or in small groups, to talk and/or draw nearly starting school (Figure ii).

Figure 1 Child'south reflection on how he has inverse during the first year of school [When I started school I was crying because it was scary and I fabricated new friends and that made me happy. Now I am happy because I am used to school.]

Figure 2 Kid's reflection on how she has changed during the beginning twelvemonth of school [When I started school I was sad considering I didn't know anyone. At present I am happy considering I know lots of people.]

In terms of the generation and sharing of relevant data, the activeness of asking children to reflect upon their experiences has been a very successful strategy. Children's willingness to exist involved and the significant amount of time many of them spend completing the chore and sharing it with researchers have indicated that they regard it as a meaningful and worthwhile activity to complete. We have encouraged the employ of this activity as a means of demonstrating children's competence equally communicators and as people capable of reflection on what is meaningful for them.

However, we accept also experienced some challenges in the use of this activity. In item, we note that teachers and the classroom context are influential factors in the generation of drawings and conversations. When the instructor introduces the job to the whole class, children conspicuously place it equally an academic task, potentially open to correction or assessment (as in Figure 2 where the teacher has corrected the spelling). In other studies, children take indicated that anything produced in form for the teacher constitutes work (King, 1987). We should not exist surprised then, if children completing the activeness with their instructor may exist constrained by regarding it as a work sample (Coates & Coates, 2006). We have also noted that teachers when sharing the drawings with researchers accept tended to share those they perceive equally 'skilful', rather than 'poor' drawings. As researchers, nosotros are interested in the drawings of all children, and fully expect that some drawings and comments will not relate to the focus expanse (starting school). We accept this as children exercising some command over the action.

Nosotros have also noted that when the activity is undertaken by a whole‐class grouping, it is preceded by discussion, oft led past the teacher. Does this discussion influence the drawings and comments made past children? We believe that it does, peculiarly as we conceptualise data as co‐constructed by the participants in any experience. Discussions with the children could accept influenced their drawings and their explanations. Were they cartoon what they wanted or were they influenced by the classroom word and/or the views of the teachers? Was the instructor consciously or unconsciously influencing what the children drew? All of these are possible. On the other paw, the discussion could also have been beneficial and thought provoking for the children, helping them to retrieve and reflect on their experiences.

Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages in introducing the drawing activeness as a role of the classroom routine. Advantages include children participating in an activity that is familiar, in a familiar context that does non disrupt classroom routine. Disadvantages relate to children regarding the activity as 'work'. I mode to build on the advantages is to conduct the activity within the familiar context, but in pocket-size groups led by the researcher.

Example 2: What did yous like/dislike about preschool?

Studies in both countries have asked children about things they do, and do not, similar about school or preschool. Drawing has been 1 of several different strategies children have chosen to use to convey these likes and dislikes. Individually or in small groups, children have been asked to talk as they draw, over again using a large piece of paper folded in half. As children drew, or at the cease of the activity, they take been asked about their drawing. Researchers take and so recorded these comments on the drawing (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure iii Child's likes and dislikes nearly school [At schoolhouse I similar skipping. I don't like Hoola Hooping because I don't desire to get hurt and it'south hard.]

Figure four Child's likes and dislikes about school [I similar to play outside. I don't like Lego.]

The task of drawing one situation and then the opposite state of affairs – such as what children like virtually schoolhouse besides as what they practise not similar, has been described every bit offering two opportunities for children to clarify meanings (Maxwell, 2006). Information technology likewise has the potential for forcing children to call back in dichotomies. In some drawings children themselves have negated this potential to dichotomise, by nominating the same things every bit likes and dislikes. We are keen to promote a range of opportunities to explore meaning, and the use of opposites in cartoon achieves this. All the same, we are cautious near enforcing any polarity of thinking, and recognise that the boundaries betwixt opposites – such every bit likes and dislikes – are oft blurred and are highly dependent on context.

For some of the children participating in the Icelandic study, the drawing and talking action was a stimulating exercise: they were excited when they were given a sheet of paper and crayons to use and they spent considerable time on their drawings. However, other children did not care much for this exercise. They left the paper blank or did non spend much fourth dimension on their drawings. This was more common with the preschool children; for the school children this was a more highly-seasoned do.

There are several possible explanations for this deviation. Co-ordinate to the results of the Icelandic study overall, some of the school children were bored with school activities in full general. Perhaps they were more content to spend fourth dimension drawing, and so avoiding some classroom activities. The preschool children, on the other mitt, may have felt that they were missing out on playing with their peers or participating in another interesting activities while interacting and drawing with the researcher. Regardless of the reason, it has been of import for us to remember that not all children like to draw: indeed some are adamant that they 'can't depict', or that their drawings are 'no good'. Richards (2003) has noted that both children and adults expect drawings to become more realistic equally children get older. There is as well evidence that children compare their drawings and brand judgements based on how accurately drawings reverberate reality (Richards, 2003). It may be that children's discomfort well-nigh cartoon relates to their perceived lack of ability to draw realistic representations. Classroom climate also has an influence on children'southward willingness to draw. Where teachers emphasise the process of drawing, rather than the quality of the final product, and where dispositions such equally creativity and persistence are rewarded, children are probable to regard drawing every bit a pleasurable activity.

Example III: Memories of preschool experiences

Drawing was used in a report investigating how Grade 1 children in Iceland (the first year of school) remembered their preschool experience. Data were gathered midway during the children's first year of main school. The children's preschool teachers were co‐researchers and participated in the data gathering. The children were interviewed in modest groups. They were asked to draw pictures nearly their preschool experience after the interview. It is interesting to annotation that these children put a lot of effort into their drawings. Most of the children took ten–15 minutes to piece of work on the drawings and some of the girls took even longer. The drawings provided a range of data which complemented the interviews. The children expressed their feelings and emotions very clearly in their drawings. For example, Figure five is one male child'due south recollection of beingness sad and lonely. Figure 6 reflects a girl's positive memories of rest time.

Figure 5 Kid's memories near sad things [I was sad when someone was unhappy.]

Effigy 6 Child'due south memories about happy things [I liked the rest fourth dimension in playschool.]

The high level of children's interest and engagement in this task made it a successful means of exploring children'southward perspectives. Part of the success of the task may exist related to the involvement of the preschool teachers, who fabricated special visits to the schoolhouse to talk with the children. The positive relationship existing between children and the preschool teachers may have been responsible for the children's excitement and eagerness to be involved. Another possible explanation for the successful apply of the drawings is that these children came from a preschool that incorporated curriculum principles based on the Reggio Emilia approach (Edwards, Gandini & Forman, 1993/1998) and particularly emphasised creative activities. The presence of the preschool teachers could well have prompted the children'southward willingness to depict.

Example IV: Expectation of school

As office of several Australian studies exploring children's expectations of school, we accept invited children to draw while engaging in a conversation near schoolhouse. The combined job, described as 'cartoon‐telling' past Wright (2007), has been undertaken either by children individually or in small groups, with a researcher. These interactions have taken place within the early on childhood setting, guided by the children's interest. Figure 7 was produced by one child, Ellen, aged 4, in her child care centre, over at 15‐minute period. An excerpt of the narrative accompanying the drawing is also included.

Ellen: Mmm, school [Draws two windows].

Practise y'all know this is Reecey's schoolhouse? Merely over there – 'cross the road'.

Researcher: Is that your friend, Reece?

Ellen: Yeah, he's my friend, and my cousin. You can write that if you want … 'This is Reecey's school … and Trany, Leanne and Warwick…' and do you lot know my name is the aforementioned as my Nanny's? Y'all can write that too: 'my Nanny'southward name is the same as mine'. Not the same as my Mum'southward, just the same as mine. See the East? Mmm, that's for me, and my Nanny [writes name on summit left of paper].

[draws a dot, continues drawing over information technology until it is a filled in circumvolve] Mmm, a door [adds a rectangular shape around the circle. Repeats the actions to complete another 'door']

Reecey, he started schoolhouse simply now. He did. An' he just lives virtually me …

This is Reece's part here – and a little door [laughs]. An' he'south gotta be really trivial to get in the door [laughs]. This is the window. He could just climb out the window if he can't fit in the door!

Effigy 7 Child's images of schoolhouse [This is Reecey's schoolhouse and Trany, Leanne, Warwick and my Nanny's proper name is the same like mine. This is Reece's part and a little door. This is the window. This is grass with big bindies.]

The narrative and the drawing together reflect the meanings Ellen was constructing in response to the chore of drawing what she thought school would be like. Ellen'due south strategy of making significant of the job was to relate information technology to her friend and cousin, Reece, who had just started school. In keeping with this, Ellen described school every bit a personal place every bit well as a physical infinite. Yet, it is the concrete structures but that are represented in her cartoon – it was her narrative that reflected the personal element. The combination of drawing and telling provided opportunities for Ellen to focus on both physical and personal elements. Throughout the process of cartoon, her chat was reflected in the drawing and vice versa: the marks Ellen made on the newspaper both influenced her comments and were guided by them. For example, Ellen started cartoon a dot, which became a circle and so a door. Her label of 'a door' came later on the drawing. On other occasions, her conversation influenced the drawing – for example, when Ellen added a window considering Reece might not be able to get out of the door. The ritual process of drawing and having an adult scribe some words was anticipated, and Ellen was articulate nearly what should be noted on the cartoon. However, her conversation included much more than than this – information technology became a more personal narrative relating to family and friends and the contexts in which she was familiar.

The strategy of asking children to draw while besides engaged in conversation has the potential to promote meaningful interaction, over an extended period of time. However, some children are uncomfortable with drawing and talking, focusing on one or the other. For example, Liam focused on his drawing, rather than engaging in conversation. He drew a effigy, indicating that it was his schoolhouse, and then scrawled over the pic. He added some letters, but then indicated that he had finished the task. He indicated that he wanted the label for the drawing to be 'Liam's school'. He was groovy to consummate the drawing chore, simply too keen to exercise it equally quickly equally possible (Effigy 8).

Discussion

Inviting children to draw their experiences and expectations of schoolhouse has facilitated discussion of their perceptions and understandings. In almost of the studies reported in this newspaper, it has been the children'south choice to draw. Several other means of engaging with researchers have too been available – including photograph‐essays, role play and discussions. However, these children have made an active selection to draw, suggesting that they are comfy and familiar with the action. In the remaining studies, teachers have introduced the activity of cartoon and children have participated in this activity, much every bit they would in other academic activities. Even so, even in this latter instance, children have exercised control over what they have fatigued and what they have chosen to share about that drawing. In each written report, some children have chosen not to describe, or to draw in means that accept not been clearly related to the suggested focus of starting school – over again indicating some exercise of control.

Cartoon has been proposed as a familiar chore for children. Indeed, many of the children involved in these studies seemed eager to draw. However, in each written report there have been children who did non want to describe, said they 'couldn't draw' or avoided the drawing activeness. While regarding drawing as an effective strategy for engaging with children in research, we are cautious almost promoting drawing equally a comfortable and positive feel for all children.

In each of the studies referred to in this newspaper, we accept considered children's drawings and their accompanying narrative as the unit of analysis. While it is certainly possible to analyse children's drawings in terms of the artful and compositional elements, we have been interested in the meanings synthetic by children, rather than their ability to create a particular style of drawing. This is non to suggest that the drawing is not important – it is an essential aspect of the meanings synthetic and shared by children. We rely on children'due south combined narrative and drawing to convey the meanings they have constructed and are prepared to share. In keeping with this view, nosotros expect children's narratives (and the narratives of other children around them) to influence their drawings, and conversely, for the drawings to influence the narratives that surrounds them.

There is a range of advantages connected with the research strategy of seeking children's involvement in drawing. These chronicle to cartoon being an open‐concluded, often familiar activity. For some children, drawing is a preferred means of advice (Barker & Weller, 2003). An invitation to children to describe tin encourage them to accost issues that are relevant for them, in a fashion that also is meaningful for them. When engaged in conversations with children, drawing can provide a focus that enables children to interact on their ain terms – for example, by not necessarily maintaining eye contact with an adult, by having something to practice when interacting with others and by controlling the discussion most the drawing. In addition, the combination of children'southward drawing and narrative can provide valuable insights into the meanings children ascribe – in this case, into the meanings they construct about school.

It is possible to identify a number of disadvantages in research methodologies where children are invited to participate in cartoon experiences. These mainly relate to fourth dimension and the provision of resource. Engaging in conversation with children as they draw and talk does take time – yet it is also a keen opportunity to promote mutuality in interaction as researchers and children share focus and attending. Some children are uncomfortable with drawing, indicating that they cannot describe. Richards (2003) suggests that this conventionalities is more prevalent as children go older and reflects the expectation that drawings will exist realistic and representative.

A farther potential disadvantage relates to the control children tin can do over their drawing. In several instances in our studies, children have spent considerable fourth dimension on a cartoon, but then scrawled all over it, finer masking the cartoon. If the drawing alone was the data to be considered, researchers could be quite disheartened. All the same, where the process of amalgam the drawing and the narrative that accompanies the cartoon are considered, the final cartoon production assumes much less importance.

Conclusion

Much recent inquiry has emphasised the importance of listening to children'southward perspectives on issues that are of import and relevant for them. In reporting several studies where children have been encouraged to depict, we take noted the importance of drawing as a process, rather than the drawing product. In particular, we note that when children draw and talk, they construct and convey meaning, in our case, meanings related to the transition to school.

Drawing is non a favoured method of communication for all children but information technology has been used past many of the children with whom we have interacted in our studies. Their choice of cartoon and our pick to consider both the drawing and the narrative that accompanies the cartoon has proven to exist a powerful combination. Children have some control over what they depict and what they say, and they exercise this control. Our response is that such activity is their correct and, if we are serious about the importance of listening to children'southward perspectives, nosotros must facilitate their involvement equally equitably as possible.

The stimulus of having children depict and comment on their drawings has enriched the research reported here. It has given researchers – both adult and child – another way in which to communicate with each other and this has led to important findings. Not anybody likes to depict but those that practice take enhanced research on starting school through their rich drawings and accompanying narratives.

Notes on contributors

Johanna Einarsdottir is Professor in Early Childhood Instruction at University of Republic of iceland. Her inquiry interests include transitions to school and children's perspectives in research, policy and practice.

Sue Dockett is Professor in Early Babyhood Didactics at Charles Sturt University, Australia. Her research interests include transition to schoolhouse and other educational transitions. Sue is interested in including children'south perspectives in enquiry, particularly in ways that are meaningful and relevant for the children involved.

Bob Perry is Professor in the Murray Schoolhouse of Education at Charles Sturt University, Commonwealth of australia. Bob's enquiry interests include educational transitions, notably the transition to schoolhouse, immature children's mathematical thinking, pedagogical approaches in early childhood instruction and instructor professional person development.

myerssweend.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430802666999

According to Perry Art Is Another Way to Share Stories

Introduction

Children's drawings – review of the literature

Drawings in research with young children

Example I: Reflections of kickoff year at schoolhouse

Published online:

Published online:

Example 2: What did yous like/dislike about preschool?

Published online:

Published online:

Example III: Memories of preschool experiences

Published online:

Published online:

Example IV: Expectation of school

Published online:

Published online:

Discussion

Conclusion

Notes on contributors

0 Response to "According to Perry Art Is Another Way to Share Stories"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel