DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

ABSTRACT

Although different approaches to teaching children to draw have been advocated and

practiced, little is known about how these may influence children’s developing drawing

abilities. In this study the drawings of pupils receiving an art education which attempts to

teach representational and expressive skills concurrently (mainstream schools in England) are

compared to those of pupils who experience an alternative art education which emphasizes

imaginative, creative and expressive drawings before introducing representational drawing

skills (Waldorf Steiner schools).

One hundred and sixty 7- to 16-year-old pupils from the two school types completed

three expressive (happy, sad and angry) drawings, two representational drawings (an

observational drawing of a mannequin and a drawing of a house from memory) and one free

drawing. Two artists rated all the drawings for quality on 7-point scales, and stylistic features

(scene-based, size and color) of the free drawings were assessed. No consistent between-

school differences were found in the expressive drawings but Waldorf pupils produced

superior representational drawings. In respect of stylistic differences Waldorf pupils

produced larger and more scene-based free drawings. Waldorf pupils also combined colors

more frequently, and the 7- and 10-year-olds tended to use more colors than their Mainstream

school counterparts. These results appear inconsistent with the difference in emphasis on

expression and representation in the two school types. However, observational research

investigating actual classroom practices within the two school types is required, as maybe

practices differ to what is outlined in the curricula.

Key words: drawing development, art education, representation, expression,

1
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN MAINSTREAM AND WALDORF STEINER SCHOOLS

REVISITED

Drawing is one of the most basic forms of art as most works of art will either include

the representation of an image on the paper or canvas, or will work from sketches of the

artwork (Hickman, 2010). Furthermore, children generally report that they enjoy drawing and

benefits of drawing are recognized by teachers, parents and children (Burkitt, Jolley & Rose,

2010). Nevertheless, some teachers are uncertain about how children should be taught to

draw and to develop their creativity and aesthetic understanding (Burkitt et al., 2010). There

is also uncertainty about the impact of different school art education programs on children’s

drawing development (Jolley, 2010). Consideration of children’s developing drawing skills

has tended to focus on two types of drawing communication, representational and expressive.

Representational drawings refer to those in which the child aims to depict subject matter from

the three-dimensional world and can be recognized as such by a viewer. In contrast an

expressive drawing aims to communicate mood, feelings, and ideas. This paper will assess

the expressive, representational and free drawings of children taught by two school art

programs, the English National Curriculum and the Waldorf Curriculum. These programs

have been chosen as these have a different emphasis on the teaching of representation and

expression.

Development of Representational and Expressive Drawing

The development of representational drawing in childhood is characterized by the

denotation of subject matter in representational forms of increasing visual likeness to their

real-world referents (for reviews, see Cox, 2005; Golomb, 2002; Jolley, 2010). In particular,

with increasing age children produce subject matter with more detail, with elements that

display more appropriate spatial alignment and proportion, showing dimensionality with

2
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

depth and occlusion and with evidence of perspective systems. Furthermore, theoretical

accounts have been proposed to illustrate and explain developmentally the different types of

representational systems children’s drawings display. In Luquet’s (1927/2001) influential

account of drawing development he described four ‘stages’ of realism in which children’s

drawings can be characterized (fortuitous, failed, intellectual and visual). For Luquet, young

children become representational drawers by noticing that their scribbled marks show some

resemblance to reality (fortuitous realism), which encourages them to make intentional

representational drawings despite these displaying a number of motor, cognitive and graphic

‘mistakes’ (failed realism). As cognitive and attentional capacities develop in mid-childhood

the child draws what he or she considers to reflect the essential or criterion elements of the

topic, where each element is drawn in its generic and characteristic shape (intellectual

realism). These are symbolic representations that reflect the child’s internal mental model of

the subject matter. Luquet explained that in these drawings children use a number of graphic

strategies including separation of details, transparency, air-view plan and folding out

techniques, often leading to multi-perspective drawings. Finally, Luquet comments that older

children notice that their representations are not accurate depictions of how the subject matter

is seen in reality. Consequently, children begin then to grapple with the graphic techniques of

visual realism with the aim of drawing subject matter or the scene from a single visual

perspective (visual realism). In a more recent theory, Willats (1997, 2005) presented five age-

related representational drawing systems in which he unpacked how children shift from a

typological system (rudimentary intellectual realism) through various projective systems that

show increasing visual likeness to subject matter in reality from a single viewpoint.

Both artists and researchers have noted that children’s drawings not only represent

real-world referents but also express emotional and conceptual messages. Artists from varied

artistic traditions have admired, studied and even collected children’s drawings to gain

3
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

inspiration from the natural creativity and inventiveness they have perceived in the drawings,

particularly those produced by young children (see Fineberg, 1997, 1998; Golomb, 2002).

Researchers have noted three broad types of expressive techniques used by children: literal,

content and abstract (Ives, 1984; Jolley, 2010; Jolley, Fenn & Jones, 2004; Morra, Caloni &

d’Amico, 1994; Picard, Brechet & Baldy, 2007). Literal expression is most commonly

communicated through facial expressions, while content expression uses subject matter from

our world for expressive effect such as a children’s birthday party scene. Both literal and

content expression are facilitated by abstract expressive properties such as color, line and

composition. For instance, content drawn with bright colors, uplifting lines and a balanced

composition is likely to contribute to the positive affect of the topic or scene, or if presented

without representational content is considered abstract expression. Studies have assessed the

developing frequency with which children use the three techniques in prescribed drawing

tasks (see Ives, 1984; Picard & Gauthier, 2012; Winston¸ Kenyon, Stewardson & Lepine,

1995). An alternative approach has been to use quantitative rating scales to assess the quality

of expression in children’s drawings (Davis, 1997; Jolley et al., 2004; Pariser & Van den

Berg, 1997, 2001) where both U-shape and age-incremental patterns have been reported. A

number of commentators have suggested that the U-shape curve is dependent upon rating

criteria and judges that favor a modernist perspective on art that emphasize expressive formal

properties above representation (Duncum, 1986, Jolley, 2010; Pariser, Kindler & van den

Berg, 2008). Indeed, in a recent empirical study seeking to explain these apparently

conflicting patterns, Jolley, Barlow, Rotenberg & Cox (in press) found that age incremental

patterns of expressive drawing measures were observed without statistically controlling for

variations in children’s and adults’ representational drawing ability (independently assessed),

but patterns tending towards a U shape curve were found with the statistical control.

Drawing Education

4
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Consideration of the Western history of teaching drawing and art reveals different

pedagogical practices of facilitating children’s representational and expressive drawing.

Although the teaching of drawing to children has a long history (see Carline, 1968), it was

not until the 19th century that drawing lessons were received widely among the Western child

population (Ashwin, 1981; see also Jolley, 2010). The aim at that time was to facilitate

children’s representational drawings of observed subject matter. Two approaches were

commonly followed. In one pedagogical practice children developed a repertoire of lines and

shapes through prescriptively set geometric exercises with the goal of producing accurate

representations of three-dimensional models (e.g., the teachings of Walter Smith and Henry

Pestalozzi as described in Ashwin, 1981). Alternatively, drawings were made from direct

observation of nature where children were expected to use problem solving skills to develop

accurate representational drawings (Ruskin, 1857). In contrast, the first half of the 20th

century saw some Western art educators, such as Cizek (see Carline, 1968), Lowenfeld

(1939) and Richardson (1948), emphasize the importance of creative freedom for children in

their drawing, favoring drawing activities that fostered imagination and expression. For

example, Richardson encouraged children to create imaginative drawings based on their own

visualizations and imagined detail of an event that she verbally described to them.

In England, two contrasting approaches to teaching drawing can currently be found

that place a different emphasis on representation and expression, and in the timing of their

delivery. The National Curriculum for England is taught in Mainstream schools. For drawing,

this curriculum aims to support children between the ages of 5 to 14 years to develop

representational, imaginative and expressive drawing skills simultaneously (Department for

Education & Employment, 1999). The art curriculum is delivered by a general teacher (who

typically does not have specialist art training) to pupils up to the age of 11 – after this the

curriculum is delivered by a teacher who has received specialist art training (Ofsted, 2009). In

5
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

addition to the dedicated art lesson drawing may also be included in subject lessons, however

this is hard to quantify (Downing, 2004). At age 14 children are given a choice about whether

to continue studying the arts, including drawing, or not. Those who continue to study art take

an examination at age 16 which focuses on their ability to create works of art from

imagination and from observation (Evans, Birkin & Bowes, 2013).

A contrasting approach is experienced by pupils attending Waldorf Steiner schools.

These schools teach according to the philosophies of Rudolf Steiner, who advocated a

curriculum in which creativity and imagination are emphasized (Carlgren, 2008). Art

activities are central to the Waldorf curriculum and between the ages of 7 and 14 years

drawing activities are included in almost all subject lessons (Jünemann & Weitmann, 1977)

However, few directions about what or how to draw are given, instead children are

encouraged to express their own ‘creative artistic ability’ (Nobel, 1997, p. 149).

Representational drawing skills are not introduced until pupils are 12 years old (Jünemann &

Weitmann, 1977). Worldwide there over 1000 Waldorf schools and within England there are

29 schools (Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen, 2015).

Only two studies have considered the drawing abilities of pupils attending

Mainstream and Waldorf schools in England. Cox and Rowlands (2002) investigated the

drawing abilities of 5- to 7-year-old pupils and concluded that Waldorf pupils produced

‘better’ representational, scene and free drawings. However, limitations in this study

compromised the generalizability of the findings. The drawings were rated by undergraduate

psychology students with no art training who were given no guidelines on how rate the free

and scene drawings. Therefore, it is unclear on what basis the drawings were judged, and

without explicit instruction it is unlikely that the expressiveness of the drawings was

considered. Furthermore, the children studied were only at the beginning of their formal

education. A more recent study published in this journal by Rose, Jolley and Charman (2012)

6
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

went some way towards addressing these limitations. They investigated the representational

and expressive drawing abilities of pupils aged 5 to 9 years from the two school types. The

drawings in this study were assessed by trained artists using previously developed rating

scales. Among the younger pupils the findings lacked consistency for between-school

differences. However, at age 9 Waldorf pupils demonstrated more advanced expressive

drawing skills compared to their Mainstream counterparts, although there was no evidence of

their representational drawing skills being more advanced at this age. Nevertheless,

unanswered questions still remain as Rose et al. did not consider the drawing abilities of older

pupils. These are particularly relevant as children within Waldorf schools are not taught

representational drawing skills until approximately 12 years old (Jünemann & Weitmann,

1977). Furthermore, drawings free from specific task instructions were not collected. Such

drawings may reflect more closely children’s self-directed drawings and therefore may

provide additional insight into their developing drawing ability. Finally, although Cox and

Rowlands and Rose et al. anecdotally commented that stylistically the drawings of Waldorf

pupils tended to reflect the art values emphasized within this pedagogy (larger, more colorful

scene-based drawings), there has been no empirical investigation of these claims.

Aims and Predictions of Present Study

Building upon this early ground-breaking work the aim of the current study was to

investigate representational and expressive drawing development in Mainstream and Waldorf

schools, as well as drawing ability and stylistic differences in the free drawings. To address

the limited age range of samples in the earlier work the current study included children aged

7 to 16 years. Therefore, the current study aimed to corroborate and extend findings from

previous studies. The need for replication has recently been argued for by Makel (2014) and

is especially relevant to emerging topics where the body of evidence is, as yet, small.

Accordingly, our procedure for the expressive and representational drawing tasks followed

7
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

that reported by Rose et al. (2012). In addition, artist raters assessed the free drawings for

overall artistic merit and stylistic features of use of color, size and the extent to which a

scene, compared to a single object, had been depicted.

Based on the greater emphasis on expression in the Waldorf curricula, and the

superior expressive drawings of Waldorf pupils reported by Rose et al. (2012), it was

anticipated that the Waldorf School pupils throughout all age groups tested would show more

advanced expressive drawing ability than their Mainstream counterparts. In terms of

representational drawing our predictions were more cautious. The teaching of

representational drawing features throughout the English National Curriculum but not until

around 12 years of age in the Waldorf curriculum, suggesting that Mainstream pupils might

have superior representational drawing ability at least up until 12 years of age. However,

previous research has indicated that younger Waldorf school children produce

representational drawings of at least the same quality as their Mainstream school counterparts

(Cox & Rowlands, 2002; Rose et al., 2012). Taking both curricular difference and empirical

research into account, we therefore tentatively predicted that there would be few differences

in representational drawing ability of the pupils younger than 12 years between the two

school types, but that adolescent Waldorf school pupils would display more advanced

representational drawing skills. For the free drawings it was predicted the Waldorf pupils

would produce drawings of higher artistic merit due to the greater emphasis on the arts in the

Waldorf curriculum. Furthermore, based on reports from Cox and Rowlands and Rose et al.,

it was expected that Waldorf school pupils would producing more scene-based drawings, use

a greater number of colors, combine colors more frequently and cover more of the page with

their drawing compared to the Mainstream school pupils.

Method

Participants

8
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Participants were 160 pupils from four age groups: Mean ages of the four groups were

7 years 3 months (SD = 3 months), 10 years 0 months (SD = 4 months), 13 years 11 months

(SD = 5 months) and 15years 11 months (SD = 5 months). In what follows, these age groups

are labelled as 7-, 10-, 14- and 16-year-olds, respectively. Forty children participated in each

age group, consisting of 20 children from each school type (Mainstream, Waldorf) with an

equal number of boys and girls. Teachers were instructed to select children who were

representative of their classes’ drawing ability rather than just those who were especially

good at drawing. For the youngest age group The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn,

Dunn, Whetton & Burley, 1997) was administered to check that all children could be

expected to understand the task instructions. All these children had average, or above average

vocabulary comprehension, so none were excluded. Five mainstream and four Waldorf

schools were involved in the research. To reduce sampling bias participants were recruited

for each age group and each school type from at least two schools. All the schools were from

areas predominantly classified as ‘urban prosperity’ and ‘comfortably off’ according to the

internet geodemographic tool ACORN (2010). This tool categorizes each postcode in the UK

into one of five main sociodemographic types based on data from the UK census data and

extensive lifestyle surveys. The current statutory inspection report for each school was

consulted, and although these make no reference to art teaching specifically, only schools

where the teaching was rated as satisfactory or good were chosen. Written consent was

gained from parents of each pupil and pupils gave verbal consent to participate. Ethical

approval was given by the university in which this project was conducted, and APA ethical

guidelines followed.

Materials

For each drawing every child was provided with a sheet of A4 paper, seven easy grip

colored pencils (red, green, blue, yellow, pink, brown and black) and an HB pencil. For the

9
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

observational drawing artists’ wooden mannequins with added facial features (eyes, mouth

and nose) were used. One was set up in a running position (facing the right) on the table in

front of each pupil.

Procedure

The BPVS was administered individually to all participants in the youngest age group prior to

the drawing tasks. All participants, in small groups, completed the six drawing tasks in three

sessions to avoid fatigue. The order of the sessions and tasks within each were

counterbalanced. For both expressive and representational drawing tasks the instructions

followed those reported by Rose et al. (2012). In the expressive drawing session the children

were asked to draw a happy, sad and angry picture, but with no further stipulation on the

content as ‘it can be of anything that you want’. In the representational drawing session the

children drew an observational drawing of an artist’s mannequin in a running positon facing

towards the right. Children were asked to draw exactly what they saw and the researcher

emphasized the direction that the man was running in by saying ‘draw the man running that

way’ and pointing to the child’s right. Children were also asked to draw a real and life-like

house from memory. For the free drawing session, children were asked to draw anything,

‘whatever they wanted’. The instructions for each specific drawing task were followed by

general directions that they had 10 minutes to complete each drawing, that they should use

the paper and pencils in front of them, to try and make it their best drawing and that the

drawing should be their own and not to copy anyone else’s drawing. To reduce further the

risk of pupils copying or collaborating the children were seated apart from one another, and

talking was discouraged. In most schools these sessions took place over two consecutive

days, however in some they took place a week apart.

Some pupils also took part in a short semi-structured interview during the free

drawing session, these participants completed this session individually. They were provided

10
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

with the additional instruction that they should tell the researcher what they planned to draw,

before they started to draw. Furthermore, once they had declared the drawing finished, or the

ten minutes time allowed was up, they were asked to tell the researcher about their drawing.

They researcher used reflective comments (e.g. ‘what a lot of colors’, ‘that is big/small’,

‘really!’) and nudging prompts (e.g. ‘what about this part here’, ‘is there anything else that

you can tell me?’) to encourage as full a description as possible. This data is not reported

within this manuscript as it is a rich and full qualitative data set that addresses a somewhat

different research question, that of children’s creative intentions, to the focus of the present

study.

Scoring the Drawings

The expressive drawings were rated on the expressive use of color, composition, line,

and overall quality of expression on separate 7-point scales for each measure. These scales

had been developed previously by the two artists and used by Rose et al. (2012). Drawings

assigned to the lowest points on each of the scales were deemed to show an inappropriate

mood (pt. 1) or neutral mood (pt. 2) instead of the intended mood. Drawings displaying

minimal but nevertheless noticeable evidence of the appropriate mood were scored on the

next point (pt. 3) on the scale. Higher points on the scales were characterized by drawings

showing clearly the appropriate mood with improving consistency of expression throughout

the drawing, with increasing creative expressive ideas, and with a striking (intensifying)

expressive element in the drawing. A summary of the overall quality of expression scale can

be found in the online supplementary materials.

For the present study the artists who had originally been involved in the construction

of these scales for rating expressive drawings were used to rate all the drawings. For the

expressive drawings they were re-familiarized in the use of the criteria for each of the four

expressive scales through joint discussion of a sample set of drawings from previous studies.

11
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

The artists then independently rated all 540 expressive drawings. The artists were blind to the

age and school of the child. Intraclass correlations (ICCs(a, k)) were used and were above 0.77

for all measures and for all moods, which is a level of interrater agreement that is at least

satisfactory (Nuendorf, 2002). For the statistical analysis the mean of the two raters scores for

each measure of each drawing was used.

The representational drawings of the mannequin running and the house were rated on

a 7-point Likert type scale for representational realism. The artist raters were provided with

guidelines, instructing them to use the whole scale and asking them to consider specific

elements of the drawing and the level of representational skill shown for each. The guidelines

for the mannequin drawings were based Cox, Perara and Xu’s (1999) rating scale and

included a photograph of the man set up in the running positon, from the view point seen by

the child. They were asked to rate each drawing taking into consideration the following

features: whether all parts of the man were depicted, whether limbs were depicted as single

lines or zone, the direction the man was facing, the overlap of limbs, the proportion in

comparison to the model, the detail of the facial features and the extent to which movement

was portrayed. For the house drawings raters were given guidelines based on Barrouillet,

Fayol & Chevrot (1994) rating scale, these asked raters to consider how visually realistic the

depictions of the house, roof, door and windows were, the extent to which perspective was

realistic, the amount of realistic detail included and whether the house was placed in realistic

surroundings. A copy of all the guidelines given to the raters is included in the online

supplementary materials. The house and mannequin drawings were rated by the same artist

raters as the expressive drawings. The interrater agreement between their ratings was high,

ICCs(a, k) > .85.

The free drawings were assessed on a 7-point scale for their overall artistic merit by

the same artist raters. These raters were instructed that a score of 7 should be given to those

12
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

drawings which they believed showed the greatest artistic merit and a score of 1 to those

which they felt showed the least. Intraclass correlations demonstrated high interrater

reliability, ICC(a, k) =.828. The more stylistic aspects of the drawings were assessed in four

ways. First, the extent to which a scene compared to a single object had been depicted (7-

point scale: 1 = single object to 7 = detailed and extensive scene). Second, the size of the

drawing (height x width) was measured. Third, the number of colors used was counted, and

fourth, the number of times colors were combined to create secondary or tertiary colors. For

scene/object, size and number of colors the interater reliability was very good, ICCs(a, k)

> .92. Furthermore, good interrater reliability was also found for the number of times colors

were combined, Cohen’s Kappa = .848.

Results

Multi factorial ANOVAs were conducted to examine the between school differences

within the four age groups. To keep the reporting of these results brief higher order

interactions involving between school differences and main effects of school are focused on.

Higher order interactions were followed up with appropriate simple effects and post hoc

pairwise contrasts were carried out using Tukey’s tests to identify significant differences

between schools. For each level of tests done, on each data set, a Bonferroni adjustment to

alpha was made when interpreting whether the simple effects and post-hoc contrasts were

statistically significant. The alpha level was adjusted according to the number of tests done at

each level (base level .05).

Expressive Drawings: Quality

Example expressive drawings created by Mainstream and Waldorf school pupils from

the four age groups are shown in Figure 1. These example drawings all depict a happy mood

and were selected to represent the mean quality rating for each age group from each school

type. Additionally a graph showing the mean overall quality of expression scores by age

13
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

group and school type is presented in Figure 2. From this it appears that there are no large or

consistent between school differences in the quality of expression scores. Three-way mixed

ANOVAs were conducted to examine the effects of school (2), age (4) and mood (3) on

scores for the overall quality of expression and the use of line, color and composition to

express the prescribed mood. For overall quality of expression the main effect of school and

interactions involving school are summarized in Table 1, none of these were significant (ps

>.139).

Expressive Drawings: Line

For expressive use of line the results are summarized in Table 2. The main effect of

school was marginally significant as pupils from Mainstream schools (M = 3.89, SD = 0.84)

used line more expressively than Waldorf pupils (M = 3.64, SD = 1.00). However, the three-

and two way interactions were not significant (ps > .283).

Expressive Drawings: Color

For expressive use of color results are summarized in Table 3. There was no

statistically significant main effect of school, nor any significant two-way interactions (ps

> .172). However, a significant three-way interaction between mood, age and school was

detected. Investigation of this indicated that, when mood was held constant, significant

between-school differences were identifiable in drawings depicting a happy mood but not in

those expressing an angry or sad mood. Further analysis this indicated that at age 14, Waldorf

pupils (M = 4.82, SD = 1.28) used color more expressively in their happy drawings compared

to their Mainstream school counterparts (M = 3.72, SD = 1.37), F(1, 38) = 6.88, p = .013, η2

=.15. Furthermore, at age 7 there was some indication (not significant at the adjusted alpha

level but p<.05) that Waldorf pupils (M = 3.58, SD = 0.94) may use color more expressively

in drawings expressing happiness compared to the Mainstream pupils (M = 2.94, SD = 0.56),

F(1, 38) = 4.82, p = .034, η2 =.11.

14
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Expressive Drawings: Composition

For expressive use of composition results are summarized in Table 4. For composition

there was no significant main effect of school or two-way interaction between mood and

school. However, there was a significant two-way interaction between age and school and

investigation of this (holding age constant) demonstrated that at age 10 Mainstream (M =

4.12, SD = 0.60) school pupils used composition more expressively than Waldorf pupils (M =

3.62, SD = 0.60), F(1, 38) = 6.67, p =.014, η2 =.15. Further insight into this was gained

through investigating the significant three-way interaction between mood, age and school.

This indicated that the between school difference at age 10 was only present in drawings

depicting an angry mood F(1, 38) = 18.28, p < .001, η2 =.33, with Mainstream pupils (M =

4.77, SD = 0.82) using composition more expressively in their angry drawings than their

Waldorf school counterparts (M = 3.55, SD = 0.99).

Representational Drawing

Example representational drawings created by Mainstream and Waldorf school pupils

from the four age groups are shown in Figure 3. These examples are the pupils’ drawings of

the artists mannequin set up in a running position, and each drawing was selected to represent

the mean rating for each age group from each school type. Additionally a graph showing the

mean representational drawing scores by age group and school type is presented in Figure 4.

It appears from this that the drawings of Waldorf school pupils are consistently scoring more

highly, especially in the older age groups. A two-way between-group ANOVA was

conducted to examine the effects of school (2) and age (4) on the representation scores (7-

point scale) for the mannequin drawings. The main effect for school was significant F(1, 152)

= 31.74, p <.001, η2 =.18, indicating that Waldorf pupils (M = 3.90, SD = 1.68) had drawn

significantly more representational mannequin drawings compared to the Mainstream pupils

(M = 3.01, SD = 1.57). The two-way interaction between age and school was not statistically

15
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

significant F(3, 152) = 1.24, p = .297, η2 =.02. A similar pattern of findings were found for

school and age effects on ratings (7-point scale) of the house drawings. The main effect of

school was significant and indicated that the houses drawn by Waldorf pupils (M = 4.02, SD

= 1.58) had been rated as more realistic than those drawn by their Mainstream school peers

(M = 3.52, SD = 1.06), F(1, 150) = 36.89, p = .003, η2 =.43. The two-way interaction between

school and age was not statistically significant F(3, 150) = 1.94, p = .125, η2 =.04.

Free Drawings: Artistic Merit

The free drawings were analyzed on overall artistic merit, as well as stylistic measures

of number of colors, occurrences of color combing, size of drawing, and the extent to which a

scene was depicted. Example free drawings created by pupils from the two school types and

from the four age groups are shown in Figure 5. These example drawings were selected as

they represent the stylistic differences identified and the mean rating for artistic merit for

each age group from each school type. A two-way between group ANOVA was conducted to

examine the effects of school (2) and age (4) on the 7-point scale assessing artistic merit. The

main effect for school was very close to significant, F(1, 150) = 3.78, p = .054, η2 =.03,

suggesting that Steiner pupils’ (M = 3.72, SD = 1.40) free drawings were rated more highly

for artistic merit compared those of their National Curriculum counterparts (M = 3.31, SD =

1.34). The two-way interaction between age and school was also found to be very close to

statistical significance, F(3, 151) = 2.55, p = .058, η2 =.05 with follow up analysis indicating

that at age 7 Waldorf pupils (M = 3.63, SD = 1.55) produced drawings which were

significantly more highly rated than their Mainstream school peers (M = 2.44, SD = 0.97),

F(1, 38) = 7.95, p = .008, η2 =.17.

Free Drawings: Color Use

A two-way between group ANOVA investigating the association between school type

(2), age (4) and the number of colors used indicated that there was no significant main effect

16
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

of school , F(1, 150) = 2.24, p = .137, η2 = .02. However, the two-way interaction was very

close to significant, F(3, 150) = 2.63, p = .052, η2 = .05. Further analysis demonstrated that at

age 7, F(1, 38) = 4.08, p = .050, η2 = .10, and 10, F(1, 38) = 5.41, p = .025, η2 = .13, Waldorf

pupils (age 7: M = 4.70, SD = 1.63; age 10: M = 3.7, SD = 1.61), used more colors in their

drawings compared to their Mainstream school counter parts (age 7: M = 3.74, SD = 1.63;

age 10: M = 2.4, SD = 1.67). A Chi squared test indicated that across all age groups colors

were combined more frequently by those pupils attending Waldorf compared to Mainstream

schools, X2 (1) = 3.81, p = .040, w = .16.

Free Drawings: Size

A two-way between group ANOVA was carried to investigate the size (cm2) of the

free drawings produced by Mainstream and Waldorf pupils from the four different age

groups. The main effect of school was statistically significant indicating that Waldorf pupils’

drawings covered more of the page (M = 48.11, SD = 16.63) than those of their Mainstream

school counterparts (M = 37.09, SD = 19.57), F(1, 151) = 14.98, p < .001, η2 =.09. The two-

way interaction was not statistically significant, F(3, 151) = 2.25, p = .085, η2 =.04. The

findings for the extent to which drawings depicted a scene compared to a single object

followed a similar pattern to those found for the size of the drawing. There was a significant

main effect of school, F(1, 151) = 10.88, p = .001, η2 =.07, indicating that Waldorf pupils (M

= 3.59, SD = 1.58) produced drawings depicting more scene-based compositions compared to

their Mainstream peers (M = 2.77, SD = 1.58). The two-way interaction from the ANOVA

was not statistically significant, F(3, 151) = 0.79, p = .502, η2 =.015.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to compare drawing development in Mainstream and

Waldorf school pupils. In expressive drawings very few between school differences were

identified in overall quality of expression and the use of line, composition and color for

17
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

expressive purposes. This is reflected in the many non-significant findings in the analysis of

this data and also the small effect sizes found (generally <.01). In contrast, when the

representational drawing data was analyzed significant between school differences with effect

sizes exceeding large (>.18) were identified (see Cohen, 1988, for effect size guidelines).

These consistently indicated that Waldorf pupils, across all age groups, tended to produce

more visually realistic drawings than their Mainstream school counterparts. For the free

drawings, there was some indication that Waldorf School pupils produced drawings which

were rated more highly for artistic merit, but this was only significantly at age 7 with an

effect size approaching large (η2 =.17). Furthermore, wide-ranging and consistent stylistic

differences were found as Waldorf School pupils produced drawings which were more likely

to be scene based, cover more of the page, included more colors (at age 7 & 10) and with

more frequent combining of colors.

That there were more similarities than differences in the expressive drawing measures

appear contrary to previous research by Rose et al. (2012) and also surprising given the

widespread emphasis on expression in the Waldorf Curriculum. It seems unlikely that the

inconsistency with Rose et al.’s findings are due to any differences in the administration of

tasks or their assessment as these were the same in the two studies. However, through

matching the locations of schools on geodemographic classification and assessing the

comprehension vocabulary of the youngest children the sampling strategy in the current study

was improved. Therefore the similar quality of expressive drawing may have been the result

of better matching of pupils across the two school types. Accordingly, contrary to previous

research and the differences in the curricula we are cautious of whether there is an expressive

advantage shown by Waldorf pupils. A potential explanation for this could be that classroom

practices in the two school types may actually be more similar than the curricula suggest.

Observational research of actual classroom practices in the two school types could provide

18
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

insight into this. A further factor that may contribute to the similarities found in expressive

drawing ability is the pupils’ wider shared culture, including picture books and images in the

media. Through these they will be exposed to similar repertoire of graphical symbols and

formal properties being used both literally and metaphorically to express emotion.

The superior representational drawing ability of Waldorf School pupils found in the

current study extend the findings of Cox and Rowlands (2000) to an older age group. In

addition they present a more stable picture than those of Rose et al. (2012) who suggested

that at age 5 years Mainstream pupils had superior skill, at age 7 Waldorf pupils had superior

skill and at age 9 there were no differences in their representational drawing skill. Therefore,

it seems that the most consistent finding, based on the available evidence, is that Waldorf

pupils appear to have representational drawing skills which are at least as good as, if not

indeed better, than those of their Mainstream school counterparts. Considering that

representational drawing is covered in the curriculum for even the youngest Mainstream

school pupils but not introduced until pre-adolescence in the Waldorf curriculum it is rather

surprising that the younger Waldorf school pupils seem to have better representational

drawing ability. It might be that other features of the Waldorf curriculum, such as the

considerable amount of time available for drawing, may support the development of

representational drawing skills from a young age. Furthermore, the differing approaches

advocated in the curricula may not be reflected in actual classroom practices. For example, in

Mainstream classroom pupils may not be receiving specific instruction on how to create

representational drawings and in Waldorf classrooms teachers may provide more support to

younger pupils than their curriculum suggests. Therefore, as suggested in relation to

expressive drawing, observations of teaching practices in the two schools are needed.

The free drawings were analyzed for artistic merit as well as stylistic differences. The

analysis of the free drawings supports the previous findings of Cox and Rowlands (2000) as

19
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

they found that young Waldorf pupils produced free drawings which were rated as ‘better’

than those of their mainstream school counterparts. As the drawings in the current study were

rated by artists, rather than undergraduate students without specialist training in art,

confidence in the validity, as well as reliability, of this finding is increased. Furthermore, the

findings provide empirical evidence to support the anecdotal comments made by Cox and

Rowlands and Rose et al. about Waldorf pupils producing larger, more colorful scene-based

drawings in comparison to their Mainstream school counterparts. These findings also seem to

reflect differences in the two curricula. For instance, the larger size of the drawings and the

tendency to make more scene-based depictions appear to reflect art values expressed by

Waldorf teachers (Nicol & Taplin, 2012).

Wider characteristics of the school education received may also contribute to the

tendency of the Waldorf pupils to depict larger, colorful, scene based drawings. Rudolf

Steiner was influenced by Goethe (Woods, Ashley & Woods, 2005) and this is evident within

the Waldorf curriculum, particularly in the emphasis on color (based on Goethe’s Theory of

Colors) and also the emphasis on viewing things as a whole, within their context (Steiner,

1985). These characteristics of the Waldorf curriculum may account for the tendency for

Waldorf pupils to use a greater number of colors and also to depict scenes rather than single

objects in their free drawings. Consulting the Exemplar Schemes of Work (QCA, 2000)

provided to help Mainstream school teachers plan art lessons suggest that many of the lessons

might be topic based. If Mainstream pupils are often required to produce drawings of a

single topic this further supports our finding of fewer scene-based pictures in the Mainstream

school pupils’ free drawing. Furthermore, any pedagogic bias to topic-based drawings in the

Mainstream schools is likely to be accompanied by teachers specifically naming the object

that they would like the children to draw. Bremner and Moore (1984) reported that when

objects are named as part of the task instruction children tend to draw intellectually realistic,

20
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

rather than visually realistic forms. They argued that the verbal label cues the child’s

conceptual knowledge of the subject matter, or internal model as Luquet (1927/2001)

described, leading children to draw in an intellectual realistic style rather than depicting the

features of the object that they actually see in front of them. Other factors may also account

for the between school differences found, for example it has been found that children with

better perspective taking skills also have better spatial drawing ability (Ebersbach, Stiehler &

Asmus, 2011). Furthermore, any difference in the pupil’s predisposition to focus on

projective space around an object rather than the design features of the object (Lange-Kuttner

& Ebersbach, 2013) may also predispose them to draw more scene based drawings compared

to single objects. Furthermore, links between children’s developing concept of space and

their ability to draw visually realistically have been well documented (for a review see

Milbrath, McPherson, & Osborne, 2015). Consequently future research investigating these

perspective taking skills in pupils attending the two school types might provide evidence that

could explain the between school differences in their drawings.

The focus of our paper was to examine art curricular effects on children’s drawings in

Waldorf and Mainstream schools. Nevertheless, there are other school art resources beyond

the art lesson that are likely to have an impact on children’s drawing development. The use of

drawing in other subject lessons, extracurricular art activities, and the amount of time and art

material resources are all likely to shape graphic skills and their development. The value

Waldorf schools place upon fostering children’s creativity and the pivotal role of art activities

throughout the curriculum (Carlgren, 2008) is in contrast to the Mainstream schools where

the arts have long since been the poor relation to the teaching of ‘academic’ subjects (e.g. see

Downing, 2004). This suggests that any Waldorf advantage in drawing needs to be seen in

this wider context of the respective art cultures in the schools. Nevertheless, considering the

superior artistic environment Waldorf schools appear to provide it is somewhat surprising

21
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

that the school differences in drawing performance in our data were not more pronounced and

consistent. The broadly similar performance across the expressive drawing measures

between the school types is particularly interesting in this respect. It reminds us that

universally children appear motivated to draw across cultures (e.g., see Golomb, 2002;

Lindström, 2000) and that maybe drawing will develop irrespective of the specifics of art

curricula experienced.

In addition to considering school based differences and similarities that may influence

children’s drawing abilities wider influences must also be considered. This is particularly

relevant as due to the quasi-experimental nature of this research, random allocation of

students to experimental groups (school types) was not possible. Consequently it is possible

that some pre-existing differences between the pupils in these two school types might account

for the differences found in representational drawing and drawing style. For instance, parents

who value the arts more highly may choose to send their child to a Waldorf school as these

schools emphasize art and creativity throughout their curriculum. Indeed, both Rose et al.

(2012) and Cox and Rowlands (2000) speculated that Waldorf parents might give their

children additional support with drawing and that this might, at least in part, account for the

differences in drawing ability where they have been found between Waldorf and mainstream

school pupils. However, Rose (2014) reports from a survey of 80 parents of Mainstream and

Waldorf school pupils that the parents of Waldorf school pupils actually spend significantly

less time sitting with their child while they draw. Furthermore, when these parents were

asked about the type of help they offered to their children while they drew a third of Waldorf

parents expressed the view that you shouldn’t help or interfere while a child is drawing

(compared to 7% of Mainstream pupils’ parents). Additionally, among those Waldorf parents

who did offer help, 65% offered general encouragement, with many fewer offering ideas of

what to draw (3%) or advice about technical skills (5%). This is in contrast to the views

22
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

expressed by the Mainstream school pupils’ parents who reported giving ideas of what to

draw (12%) and advice on technical skills (24%) more frequently. Therefore it seems

unlikely that Waldorf pupils receive more support for drawing at home and consequently this

does not appear account for differences in drawing ability.

In conclusion, the differences in representational drawing ability and the similarities

in expressive drawing abilities between pupils attending Mainstream and Waldorf schools do

not seem to reflect the differing emphasis on these drawing skills in the two curricula. To

gain further insight into the influence of teaching practices and school environment on

children’s drawing development observational research is required. Such observational

research would be particularly informative if drawings from the children of the observed

classes were also collected and compared between the two school types. This could provide

evidence of the direct effect that school differences and similarities might have on pupils’

drawing abilities and the stylistic characteristics of their drawings.

23
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

References
Acorn (2010). Acorn: User guide. London: CACI.

Ashwin, C., (1981). Drawing and education in German speaking Europe 1800-1900. Ann

Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press

Barrouillet, P., Fayol, M., & Chevrot, C. (1994). Le dessin d'une maison. Construction d'une

echelle de developpement [House drawings. Construction of a developmental scale].

Annee Psychologique, 94, 81-98, doi.org/10.3406/psy.1994.28738.

Bremner, J. G., & Moore, S. (1984). Prior visual inspection and object naming: two factors

that enhance hidden feature inclusion in young children’s drawings. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 2, 371-376, doi. 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1984.tb00944.x

Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen, (2015). Waldorf World List. Retrieved from

https://www.freunde-waldorf.de/fileadmin/user_upload/images/Waldorf_World_List/

Waldorf_World_List.pdf

Burkitt, E., Jolley, R., & Rose, S. (2010). The attitudes and practices that shape children’s

drawing experience at home and at school. International Journal of Art and Design

Education, 3, 257–270. doi. 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01658

Carlgren, F. (2008). Education towards freedom (3rd edition). Edinburgh, UK; Floris Books.

Carline, R. (1968). Draw they must: A history of the teaching and examining of art. London:

Edward Arnold Ltd.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cox, M. V. (2005). The pictorial world of the child. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Cox, M. V., Perara, J., & Xu, F. (1998). Children’s drawing ability in the UK and China.

Psychologia, 41, 171–182. doi.org/10.1111/1468-5949.00171

24
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Cox, M. V. & Rowlands, A. (2000). The effect of three different educational approaches on

children’s drawing ability: Steiner, Montessori and traditional. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 70, 485-503. doi. 10.1348/000709900158263.

Davis, J, H (1997). The what and whether of the U: cultural implications of understanding

development in graphic symbolisation. Human Development, 40, 145-154, doi.

10.1159/000278717

Department for Education and Employment, (1999). Art and design: the National Curriculum

for England. London, Stationery Office.

Downing, D. (2004). Saving a place for the arts? A survey of the arts in primary schools in

England. Management in Education, 18, 23–27. doi:10.1177/089202060401800306

Duncum, P. (1986). Breaking down the alleged “U” curve of artistic development. Visual

Arts Research, 12, 43-54.

Dunn, L.M., Dunn, L.M., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). The British picture vocabulary

scale (2nd edn). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.

Ebersbach, M., Stiehler, S., & Asmus, P. (2011). On the relationship between children’s

perspective taking in complex scenes and their spatial drawing ability. British Journal

of Developmental Psychology, 29, 455–474. doi:10.1348/026151010X504942

Evans, J., Birkin, G., & Bowes, L. (2013). Arts subjects at key stage 4: A review of current

GCSE provision and the development of proposed programmes of study. Leicester,

UK: CFE retrieved online http://cfe.org.uk/our-work/arts-subjects-at-key-stage-4-a-

review-of-current-gcse-provision

Fineberg, J (1997). The innocent eye: Children’s art and the modern artist. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Fineberg, J. (1998). Discovering child art: Essays on childhood, primitivism and modernism.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Golomb, C. (2002). Child art in context: A cultural and comparative perspective.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hickman, R. (2010). Why We Make Art - and why it is taught (2nd Ed.). Bristol, UK:

Intellect.

Ives, S. W., (1984). The development of expressivity in drawing. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 54, 152-159, doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb02575.x

Jolley, R. P. (2010). Children & pictures: drawing and understanding. Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Jolley, R.P., Barlow, C.M., Cox, M.V., & Rotenberg, K.J. (in press). Linear and U-shape
trends in the development of expressive drawing from pre-schoolers to adult artists.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
Jolley, R.P., Fenn, K., & Jones, L. (2004). The development of children's expressive drawing.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 545-567,
doi.org/10.1348/0261510042378236
Jünemann, M., & Weitmann, F., (1977). Drawing & painting in Rudolf Steiner schools.

Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press.

Lange-Küttner, C., & Ebersbach, M. (2013). Girls in detail, boys in shape: gender differences
when drawing cubes in depth. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 413–37.
doi:10.1111/bjop.12010
Lindström, L. (2000). The cultural context: comparative studies of art education and
children's drawings. Stockholm: Stockholm Institute of Education Press.
Luquet, G. H. (1927). Le Dessin Enfantin [The drawings of a child]. Paris: Alcan.
Luquet, G. H. (2001). Children’s drawings. (A. Costell, Trans.) London: Free Association
Books (Original work published 1927).
Lowenfeld, M. (1939). The nature of creative activity. New York: Macmillan

Makel, M. C. (2014). The empirical march: Making science better at self-correction.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 2–7. doi:10.1037/a0035803

Milbrath, C., McPherson, G. E., & Osborne, M. S. (2015). Artistic development. In R.

Lerner, L. S. Liben & U. Mueller (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology and

26
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Developmental Science Volume Two: Cognitive Processes (7th ed.). Hoboken, New

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Morra, S., Caloni, B., & D’Amico, M. R. (1994). Working memory and the intentional

depiction of emotions. Archives De Psychologie, 62, 71-87.

Nobel, A. (1997). Educating through art: The Steiner school approach. Edinburgh, UK:
Floris Books.
Nicol, J. & Taplin, J. (2012). Understanding the Steiner Waldorf approach: Early years

education in practice. London: Routledge

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. London: Sage.

Ofstead (2009). Drawing together, art, craft and design in schools. Manchester, UK: Ofstead.

Pariser, D.A., Kindler, A.M. & van den Berg, A. (2008). Drawing and aesthetic judgments

across cultures: Diverse pathways to graphic development. In Milbrath, C. & Trautner,

H.M. (eds.), Children’s understanding and production of pictures, drawings and art:

Theoretical and empirical approaches (pp. 293-317). USA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Pariser, D.A., & Van Den Berg, A. (1997). The mind of the beholder: some provisional
doubts about the U-curve aesthetic development thesis. Studies in Art Education, 38,
158-178, doi.org/10.2307/1320291
Pariser, P. D., & Van Den Berg, A. (2001). Teaching art versus teaching taste, what art
teachers can learn from looking at cross-cultural evaluation of children’s art. Poetics,
29, 331-350, doi.org/10.1016/s0304-422x(01)00032-8
Picard, D., Brechet, C., & Baldy, R. (2007). Expressive strategies in drawing are related to

age and topic. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 243-257, doi.org/10.1007/s10919-

007-0035-5.

Richardson, M. (1948). Art and the child. London: London University Press.

Rose, S. E. (2014). Development of drawing ability and the attitudes and practices towards

children’s drawings in Steiner and National Curriculum schools (Unpublished

doctoral thesis). Staffordshire University, Staffordshire

27
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Rose, S. E., Jolley, R. P., & Charman, A. (2012). An investigation of the expressive and

representational drawing development in National Curriculum, Steiner, and

Montessori schools. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 83–95. doi.

10.1037/a0024460

Ruskin, J. (1857). The elements of drawing. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

Steiner, R. (1985). Goethe's world view. Spring Valley: Mercury Press.

Winston, A. S., Kenyon, B., Stewardson, J., & Lepine, T. (1995). Children’s sensitivity to

expression of emotion in drawings. Visual Arts Research, 21, 1-15.

Woods, P., Ashley, M. & Woods, G. (2005). Steiner Schools in England. Bristol, UK:

University of the West of England, Centre for Research in Education and Democracy.

QCA (2000). Schemes of work: Art and design at key stages 1 and 2. Retrieved from

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090608182316/http://standards.dfes.gov.u

k/schemes2/art/?view=get

28
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Expressive drawings depicting a happy mood by children of all four age groups

from Mainstream and Waldorf schools.

Figure 2. Mean quality of expression scores (with Standard Errors shown) for each mood and

age group from Mainstream (M) and Waldorf (W) schools.

Figure 3. Representational drawings depicting the artist’s mannequin by children of all four

age groups from Mainstream and Waldorf schools.

Figure 4. Mean representational drawing scores (with Standard Errors shown) for mannequin

and house drawings for each age group from Mainstream (M) and Waldorf (W)

schools.

Figure 5. Free drawings by children of all four age groups from Mainstream and Waldorf

schools.

29
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Table 1

Main effect of school and interactions involving school for overall quality of expression

Effect F(df1, df2) Significance Effect Size

School F(1, 152) = 0.18 p = .668 η2 <.01

School x Age F(3, 152) = 1.85 p = .139 η2 =.01

School x Mood F(2, 304) = 1.67 p = .190, η2 <.01.

Mood x Age x School F(6, 304) = 0.63 p = .700 η2 <.01.

Table 2

Main effect of school and interactions involving school for use of line

Effect F(df1, df2) Significance Effect Size

School F(1, 152) = 3.91 p = .052 η2 =.01

School x Age F(3, 152) = 1.25 p = .283 η2 =.01

School x Mood F(2, 304) = 2.27 p = .296 η2 =.01

Mood x Age x School F(6, 304) = .61 p = .542 η2 <.01

Table 3

Main effect of school and interactions involving school for use of color

Effect F(df1, df2) Significance Effect Size

30
DRAWING DEVELOPMENT IN TWO EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

School F(1, 152) = 1.39 p =.241 η2 <.01

School x Age F(3, 152) = 1.69 p = .172 η2 =.03

School x Mood F(2, 304) = .1.40 p = .249 η2 <.01

Mood x Age x School F(6, 304) = 3.61 p = .002 η2 =.03

Table 4

Main effect of school and interactions involving school for use of composition

Effect F(df1, df2) Significance Effect Size

School F(1, 152) = 0.17 p =.685 η2 <.01

School x Age F(3, 152) = 3.4 p =.019 η2 =.06

School x Mood F(2, 304) = 1.52 p =.219 η2 <.01

Mood x Age x School F(6, 304) = 2.89 p = .009 η2 =.03

31