Re-analysis of typical development characteristics in children's drawings, according to Victor Lowenfeld

Abstract

The purpose of this pilot study was to compare typical developmental characteristics of eight-year-old children in art productions as established by Lowenfeld (1947), with drawings collected from eight-year-old children currently attending a Philadelphia public school to determine if there were any detectable changes between the drawings collected and what Lowenfeld considered age appropriate for an eight-year-old child. The art therapy field lacks a contemporary reanalysis of typical developmental characteristics in children's graphic productions. The most frequent description used was researched and developed by Victor Lowenfeld (1947) in the 1940s. Since then, there have been shifts in socio-cultural factors that have had direct effects on the psychological development of children today (Edelstein, 1999; Elder 1996; Gauvin, 1998; Levick 1998; O' Rand 1996). The changes in society include the cultural face of our country and world with increased immigration and the changing complexion of the family (Gantt, 1998; Levick, 1998).The major finding in this study indicates that there are differences between the drawings collected in this study and what Lowenfeld considered age appropriate for the age of study, therefore there may be changes in normal human development as reflected in children's art productions. There was no direct evidence found in this study that supports what changes have occurred, however there were implications to further research contemporary typical developmental characteristics in children's graphic productions to investigate this issue further. The differences between the drawings collected in this study and Lowenfeld's findings include 1) different rates of development in each drawing and 2) the use of broader range of developmental characteristics among all three developmental stages included in the rating form. Many limitations were found in the measurements of this study that may have influenced the outcome. The limitations included 1) environmental issues that may have influenced the data collection such as group regression, time and day of data collection, and children imitating one another, 2) geographic location, socio-economic status, and race, 3) issues identified in the rating form; for instance some of the drawing characteristics were more concrete then others, some required subjective judgment, and some may have lacked description and clarity, 4) the inaccuracy of the prescribed description given to Lowenfeld as the third rater, 5) the inability to make a comparison of the findings of Raters 1 and 2 to Lowenfeld's prescribed description. Although demographics were not collected in this study, it is possible that the results were influenced by geographic location, socio-economic status, and race.%%%%M.A., Creative Arts Therapy – Drexel University, 2003