Referring to a theory of social semiotics, I consider drawing as a semiotic “meaning- making tool” (Brooks, 2004, p. 42), “a means for surfacing the meaning-making of young children” (Wright, 2011, p. 158). Children draw signs to convey their thoughts, understandings and emotions in a visual-graphic form, where they not only represent objects but they use their drawings to externalise and communicate inner meanings and designs (Ahn and Filipenko, 2007; Coates, 2002; Hope, 2008; Hopperstad, 2008b; Van Oers, 1997). Kress (2010, 1997), Mavers (2011) and Pahl (2002, 1999b), also support this notion and contend that children draw to explore and share their ideas with others, to record their experiences, to convey their learning, and to develop imaginary texts. Adams (2002) categorised children’s drawings in three main functions of meaning-making: “drawing as perception” (p. 222) or in other words as a “tool for thought and action” (p. 221), where children follow their interests, explore and organise their thinking, feelings and ideas, and process their understandings of the world around them; “drawing as communication” (p. 222) where children communicate their thoughts, feelings and ideas to others; and “drawing as manipulation” (p. 222), or “as invention” (Adams, 2004, p. 6) where children explore, develop and refine their thoughts to come up with creative ideas and alternative possibilities. Focusing on children’s narrative, Ahn and Filipenko (2007), on the other hand, classified children’s drawings in three different taxonomies of communication: “engendering” (p. 279), where children focus on the construction of the self as social and cultural beings; “re-configuration” (Ahn and Filipenko, 2007, p. 279) where they perceive themselves in relation to others; and “reconstruction/re- imagination” (Ahn and Filipenko, 2007, p. 279), where they use drawings as a dramatic and imaginative narrative to process abstract concepts and knowledge.
Literature Review
____________________________________________________________________ 65 Atkinson (2009) describes drawing as a “powerful tool” (p. 7), which children use to articulate their notions and reflect the ways they shape their understandings. Children’s drawings therefore, resemble a potpourri of intricate events, knowledge, emotions, narratives and perspectives, which as Malchiodi (1998) argues, make them complex texts to analyse where, “simple explanations and interpretations … are not always possible” (p. 19). Various scholars (Atkinson, 2002; Brooks, 2009a; Kress, 2010, 1997; Matthews, 1999, Wright, 2010b) agree that drawings provide invaluable insights into the children’s thinking processes and present evidence of their cognitive and emotional growth. Likewise, Hope (2008), regards drawing as “a tool for thought” (p.7), where children use drawing as a receptacle for their ideas. In my view, children’s drawings are a “dynamic enactment” (Wright, 2008, p. 18) of meaning generation, where they make sense of their ideas, emotions and knowledge to subsequently construct their own theories. Congruently, Susan Cox (2005), states that constructive processes of drawing allow children to be active participants and agents of their own learning, where they use their drawing to “purposefully bring shape and order to their experience, and in so doing, their drawing activity is actively defining reality, rather than passively reflecting a ‘given reality’” (p. 12). Thus, drawing combined with talk, vocalisation and gestures, provides children with opportunities to “not only ‘know’ reality, but to create’ it” (Wright, 2011, p.159). From my interpretive and constructionist position, it was fundamental for me to use the children’s drawings as “a means of investigating what children know” (Kendrick and McKay, 2004, p. 111) and bring out what Nicolopoulou et al. (1994) describe as the “structures of meaning” (p. 106).
3.6.1 Meanings are fluid
Children’s representational drawings are not fixed and their meanings are unpredictable, dynamic and fluid, in a constant process of change, where new meanings are continuously created: what is meant now might change later (Davis, 2005; Kress, 1997; Pahl, 2002, 1999b). Meanings are complex and “partial” (Albers, 2007, p. 134) where it is the sign-maker who decides what to include and what to leave out. Using symbols to manipulate images and concepts, and moving between modes to bring new possibilities and alterations to their drawings, children constantly design new interpretations and new meanings when drawing (Kress, 2003a, 1997;
Literature Review
____________________________________________________________________ 66 Pahl, 2003b, 1999b; Wright, 2010b). Decisions about which semiotic resources are most appropriate and which meanings to communicate enfold throughout the process of production. This interaction is extended when children plan, describe, narrate, explain, question and evaluate their drawings (Coates, 2002; Cox, 2005; Mavers, 2011).
Kress (2010, 1997), Hope (2008), Mavers (2011) and Pahl (2002, 1999b), define the semiotic process of children’s drawings as a transformation of meaning where children begin their drawing by representing their initial ideas which they change and develop as new ideas emerge. From her study with two, year-one classes, Hopperstad (2008a) concluded that children discover new possibilities of interpretation. Initial meanings are transformed into new ones, where, “meaning is changed when a new meaning is seen in a given visual form” (p. 92). An example of such transformation is illustrated by Cox’s (2005), in her observation of a boy who drew a zebra. Using black and white colours he then drew some vertical lines across his drawing, which prompted him to change his meaning by stating that it was raining. Cox argued that a change in meaning can be given even after the drawing is finished. In her second exemplar, she illustrated how another boy drew several arcs above each other interpreting them as a rainbow. A few moments later, when someone near him sneezed, he changed his construal and decided that the drawing represented a sneeze. Transformations occur constantly in children’s drawings, which bring the continuous emergence of multiple understandings that constantly permit for the creation of new perspectives and semiotic meaning (Dyson, 1993b; Flewitt, 2006, 2005b; Jewitt, 2009b, 2008; Kress and Jewitt, 2003; Kress and van Leeuwen, 2002, 2001; Pahl, 2003a; 2003c; Wright, 2005). Maureen Cox (1997) disputes this and argues that children’s transformations in their drawings are not intentional, but occur because they are not able to hold on to their ideas of what they want to draw. This implies that children are not in control of the drawing process. In line with the various authors cited above, I counter argue that children are agents of their own drawings and they purposefully change their minds in response to the complexity and fluidity of the semiotic process and the immediate, present context, space and time.
Literature Review
____________________________________________________________________ 67 Viewing drawings as semiotic processes, I also recognise them as “polysemic” (Christmann, 2008, p. 3); as signs that have multiple related meanings which the reader construes. As I argued in Chapter Two the reader may see, understand and interpret a sign in different ways from the sign-maker and thus, different meanings may emerge. Adults therefore can interpret children’s drawings differently from the children’s intended meaning. However, Wright (2011, 2008) and Atkinson (2002) caution, that an adult’s interpretation should not be limited to analysing drawings from a realistic point of view or from culturally structured expectations, but should be developed through an intersubjective understanding, and a knowledge of the children’s interests and their socio-cultural practices, as this enables a better understanding of the children’s ideas, actions and feelings.
3.6.2 Copying
Children’s drawings frequently involve elements of copying images, ideas, objects or scenarios, from storybooks, television and cultural productions, the surrounding environment or from each other. Considered as “an offence”, (Mavers, 2011, p. 13), “illegal” (Dyson, 2010, p.8), “ethically ‘wrong’ or educationally unacceptable” (Mavers, 2011, p. 2), copying, especially from each other, is frequently deemed as puerile, unworthy, and not to be emulated. It is also perceived as a passive activity that hinders imagination and creativity, and of having the aim of keeping children busy without providing any intellectual challenge. However, both Dyson (2010) and Mavers (2011) dispute this idea and consider copying as an intrinsic part of the semiotic process. They argue that copying is not a mere replication, but frequently involves a “remix” (p. 12), of selectively borrowing, evaluating and transforming the existing material, ideas, images and techniques, which are then reinterpreted recontextualised and reconfigured into new designs. Links to personal experiences, knowledge and interests are subsequently made to create new forms, meaning and purpose (Mavers, 2011). Thus, copying should not be considered as a haphazard or effortless act, but rather as a process of reselecting, redesigning and reproducing meanings which are transformed to supplement, extend or diversify a text into another. So while, two drawings might initially appear to be the same, they are likely to be very different from each other to include different concepts, understandings and signs. It follows that in a process of copying, children use their agency, to shape and
Literature Review
____________________________________________________________________ 68 design their drawings in a unique way that creates a personal meaning (Hopperstad, 2010; Mavers, 2011; Ring, 2010). As Mavers (2011) suggests “there is no such thing as a copy because copying is an agentive process of remaking afresh” (p. 16). Copying from each other, according to Dyson (2010) “mediates relationships” (p. 26) and manifests collegial interest and shared talking and thinking, that according to Pahl, (1999a) enables children to create links, experiment with possible ideas and co- construct meanings.