Lopatovska, I. Carcamo, T., Dease, N., Jonas, E., Kot, S., Pamperien, G., Volpe, A. & Yalcin, K. (pre-publication version). Not Just a Pretty Picture Part Two: Testing A Visual Literacy Program for Young Children. Journal of Documentation. Accepted December 2, 2017.Not Just a Pretty Picture Part Two: Testing A Visual Literacy Program for Young ChildrenAbstract* Purpose (limit 100 words)In an effort to advance visual literacy education, the reported study developed and tested a visual literacy instruction program for 3- to 4-year-old children in a public library setting. * Design/methodology/approach (limit 100 words)The study was designed as a series of visual literacy workshops for young public library visitors. Each workshop collected information about children’s existing visual literacy knowledge, introduced them to new visual concepts, and measured their engagement and comprehension of the newly-acquired material. The study data were collected via questionnaires and observations. * Findings (limit 100 words)Most of the children who participated in the study workshops showed a solid baseline knowledge of colors, lines, shapes and textures and were actively engaged in instruction. After the instruction, children generally showed an improved understanding of the newly-introduced visual literacy concepts and were able to answer questions related to the new concepts, recognize them in images, and apply them in art projects. Research limitations/implications (limit 100 words)The study relied on a relatively small sample of library visitors in an affluent neighborhood. The findings are influenced by variations in the topics and delivery methods of instruction. The study findings might not be generalizable beyond the U.S. context. Practical implications (limit 100 words)The study methods and findings would be useful to visual literacy educators who work with children. Social implications (limit 100 words)As information continues to proliferate in non-textual contexts, visual literacy is becoming an increasingly important educational goal. The study advances a visual literacy agenda and advocates for introducing visual literacy early in life.

1

* Originality/value (limit 100 words)We are not aware of any other study that tested visual literacy instruction on a group of very young children in a public library.

IntroductionWithin the U.S., the concept of visual literacy (VL) was introduced to educational and scholarly discourse in the 1960s (Avgerinou and Pettersson, 2011) and is generally defined as an ability to interpret and create visual messages (Pettersson, 1993; Avgerinou, 2003; Hattwig et al., 2011; Lopatovska et al., 2016). Along with textual literacy, VL is often viewed as a component of general literacy that is essential to individual’s critical thinking and intellectual capacity (Avgerinou and Pettersson, 2011; Kennedy, 2010; Heinich et al., 1982). Similar to textual literacy, most VL skills do not come naturally and need to be developed (Brumberger, 2011). However, while textual literacy is considered fundamental to formal education, VL is not generally recognized as a fundamental educational need and is rarely introduced to children at the same age as textual literacy (Eckhoff, 2010; Metros, 2008; Williams, 2007).

This article reports on a study that developed and tested a VL instruction program for 2.5- to 4-year-old children in a public library setting. The reported study was designed as a follow-up to previous research that confirmed young children's abilities to comprehend VL instruction, as well as identified support for VL training from parents and educators (Lopatovska et al., 2016).

Literature ReviewThe Association of College and Research Libraries defines visual literacy (VL) as “a set of abilities that enables an individual to effectively find, interpret, evaluate, use, and create images and visual media” (Hattwig et al., 2011). Earlier research on VL is traced to John Debes, who, in 1968, defined VL as

a group of vision-competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects, symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, he is able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication. (Debes, 1968, p. 27)

VL is becoming an increasingly important educational goal, as information continues to proliferate in non-textual contexts (Carter, 2015; Cunningham, 2015; Flynt and Brozo, 2010; Williams, 2007). Students today are expected to create visual representations of ideas and information, in addition to the traditional skills required to write a textual report. The American Association of School Librarians (AASL) has developed Standards for the 21st Century Learner that broadly define literacy as “the degree to which students can read and understand text in all formats (e.g., picture, video, print) and all contexts” and as “a key indicator of success in school and in life” (American Association of School Librarians, 2007, “Reading is a window

2

to the world.,” para. 1). The Common Core Standards 1.1.6, 2.1.6, and 4.1.8 are particularly focused on visual literacy and define visual literacy as reading and writing in (or through) pictures (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2017). For example, kindergarteners (4- to 6-year-olds) are expected to use drawings to complement writing of opinion pieces and informative/explanatory texts. Kindergarten to 5th grade students (4- to 11-year-olds) are expected to create visual displays to complement speaking and listening skills and identify relationships between illustrations and the story as integration of knowledge and ideas in reading standards for literature/informational text (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2017). However, despite the standards that relate to visual literacy, much more time and testing is concentrated on developing and evaluating students’ ability to communicate effectively in a purely written form (Silverman and Piedmont, 2016).

Developing and exhibiting VLThe literature describes multiple ways in which children develop and exhibit VL. Some reports suggest that children start to consume digital visual content at a very early age (Chassiakos et al., 2016; Rideout et al., 2010). However, there is little evidence that exposure to digital visual content alone directly translates into children’s abilities to interpret it (Cook et al., 2015; Metros, 2008). By studying a group of second graders during story time, Prior et al. (2012) found that children used some visual clues to infer information about characters, including character actions, facial expressions, body posture, and how the characters related to each other. The children also referred to line and color but not symbols, position of characters, focal point, or other elements of visual literacy. A few children discussed size and breaking the frame, but overall children were not attuned to the elements of VL found in the illustrated books for their age (Prior et al., 2012). Work by Lopatovska et al. (2016) found that preschool students (5-year-olds) were already familiar with the elements of color, shape, and line, and could recognize most of these elements in a visual artwork. However, children needed guidance and instruction to understand and recognize the more advanced concepts of primary and warm/cool colors, perspective and salience, and the use of shapes to construct objects (Lopatovska et al., 2016). A survey of students enrolled in undergraduate writing courses at Virginia Tech demonstrated that VL skills do not inherently develop with age and experience (Brumberger, 2011). The study found that “exposure to visual information does not necessarily lead to visual literacy – to the ability to decode and create visual messages” and “a students’ [sic] ownership or mastery of visual communication technology (a digital camera, graphics software, etc.) does not equate to an ability to create effective visual communication through the application of design principles and techniques, nor does it show the way to analyzing [sic] the visual work of others” (Brumberger, 2011, p. 45). A more recent study of college students led to a similar conclusion: students’ VL skills are essentially confined to contemporary images that relate to their own experiences, e.g., Facebook and recycling symbols (Emanuel and Challons-Lipton, 2013). Observing a similar trend in students’ inability to sufficiently interpret visual information during the research process, Harris (2010) proposed to align learning outcomes for information and visual literacies. In summary, the authors of the reviewed studies emphasize the importance and benefits of teaching VL to students and stress that, without training in visual literacy, individuals may be left without the ability to understand much of the visual information which they encounter (Cunningham, 2015; Flynt and Brozo, 2010, Moline, 2011).

VL instruction

3

The need for VL education is partially addressed by museum programs with varied topics, delivery methods, and intended audiences (a detailed review is included in Lopatovska et al., 2016). VL instruction also finds its way into the pre-K-12 curriculum. Grenda and Short (1993) explored the benefits of using picture books in VL instruction for pre-K children. The authors showed that discussing book art and illustrations with children advances their abilities to interpret narratives and develop critical thinking (Grenda and Short, 1993). Book illustrations were also used in a study that introduced VL to second grade students (Williams, 2007). The VL concepts were first introduced using children’s books. Then, the author asked students to interpret Edvard Munch’s Winternach (c. 1900) painting and noted the students’ tendency to describe the image, not interpret it. Williams (2007) applied a “questioning the painter” technique to encourage students to think critically about the image and concluded that the technique helped students develop a more creative and personal interpretation of the image (p. 639). Pantaleo (2013) conducted a classroom-based case study of sixth grade students in order to examine the potential for developing VL through a series of instructional sessions over a 9-week period. The instruction focused on selected VL elements (e.g., color, line, perspective) and ways in which these elements can be combined to create meaning. After the instruction, Pantaleo (2013) asked the participants to create a multimodal text that included the learned VL elements and determined that students “made purposeful decisions about most of the visual elements of art...when composing their work” (p. 357). Chang et al. (2012) analyzed three approaches to teaching art methods courses in an elementary school: a child art based approach, a visual culture based approach, and an issues-based approach. In a child art based approach, the teacher reflects on her own personal art experiences to guide and understand a student’s interaction with art. In a visual culture based approach, the teacher uses art from the mainstream media as the foundation to lecture. In an issues-based approach, the social and cultural implications of contemporary art is discussed in the educational setting. The authors uncovered strengths and weaknesses in all three methods. Louis (2013) conducted a longitudinal study of artistic development in children ages 4 to 7 and found that a student’s artistic comprehension grew with more exposure to the exercise of painting. The study emphasized the importance of conducting longer workshops and classes that focus on a specific medium and provide consistent exposure to new art mediums. Gates (2016) examined art education practices and concluded that “providing students with significant choices about their artwork enhances their intrinsic motivation. Students are likely to have a deeper level of engagement and commitment to their work when it is motivated by their own idea, rather than a grade or deadline” (p. 18).

There are several examples of projects in which schools and museums joined forces to promote VL. DeSantis (2009) reported on the joint program between the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, Massachusetts and 8th graders of a partnering school. The program applied the Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) teaching method, which relies on open-ended, structured discussions of visual art to advance students’ aesthetic and critical thinking and communication skills (Yenawine, 2013). The program assessment indicated that students exposed to the program showed more aesthetic development growth and performed better on verbal and written description tasks than non-program students (DeSantis, 2009). Between 2004 and 2006, four public schools in New York City collaborated with the Guggenheim Museum on the Learning through Art program. The program enlisted experienced teaching artists and paired them with classroom teachers to create curriculum-related art projects. Students in the program were evaluated on their discussion of a passage in Cynthia Kadohta’s Kira-Kira and the Arshile Gorky

4

(1926) painting The Artist and His Mother. Responses showed that students exposed to the LTA program performed better in six areas of critical thinking and literacy than students who were not part of the program (Kennedy, 2006; Randi Korn & Associates, Inc., 2007).

While the progress made by some schools and experimental programs is encouraging, the research shows a wide gap between VL and art education available in high and low-income schools (Sparks et al., 2015). If students are not learning these skills in school, the instruction needs to take place elsewhere. Most extracurricular programs in VL and art are aimed at children who are at least 4-5 years old (Doolin, 2016) and are usually not free.

While there are no reports of VL programs currently offered in the U.S. public libraries . (which might not indicate the lack of programs, only the lack of publicly disseminated reports about them), libraries are naturally positioned to contribute to the development of young children’s VL, similar to how they currently support early literacy through story time and other programs for young children.

Several recommendations that proved helpful in developing instructional programs for young children were considered in the present study and could inform the development of VL programming for the very young. One of them includes tailoring VL programs to the developmental levels of the children. Preschool children (2-7 years old) are in the preoperational stage of development, according to Piaget’s four main stages of cognitive development (Piaget et al., 2013/1958). During this stage, the child can use symbols and understands representation, instead of relying on sensory and movement feedback (McLeod, 2014). Erik Erikson’s model (1959) includes multiple developmental stages across the same age range. During early childhood (1.5 to 3 years old), children begin to assert independence, discover their abilities, and become confident and secure in themselves when they are supported by their caregivers. Preschoolers (3-5 years old) explore the world by asking questions and asserting themselves by initiating play to develop purpose. For school-age children (5-12 years old), learning new skills requires support from peer groups and teachers and results in a feeling of competence as the new skills are mastered (McLeod, 2013). Developmentally appropriate practices for preschoolers, 3- to 5-year-olds, include receiving carefully planned and intentional guidance that allows them to safely encounter and explore interesting things in their environment. Cognitive gains during this time allow children to represent their world through symbols, objects, and drawings, making this an ideal time to introduce the foundations of visual literacy (National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.). As noted by Yenawine (2003), it is important to choose visual works that are level-appropriate for young children. Selected artwork should therefore be accessible, captivating, and somewhat familiar in terms of content but also leave room for diversity and interpretation (Yenawine, 2003).

The present paper reports on a study of VL instruction that extended previous research (Lopatovska et al., 2016), and tested a method for delivering group VL instruction with the aim of developing reusable instructional materials.

MethodsThe reported study was designed as a follow-up to earlier work that identified the VL elements of color, shape, line, and perspective that engaged very young children in VL conversations and

5

increased their knowledge of related concepts, such as color temperature and value (the earlier study report can be found in Lopatovska et al., 2016). However, the earlier study was designed as a series of individual conversations with children, a method that might not scale well in an instructional/educational setting. In order to test the feasibility of group VL introduction programs for very young children (3-4 years old) and advance the development of standardized VL instruction methods and instruments, a study was developed to explore the following research questions:

RQ1: What VL knowledge do children exhibit prior to an introduction to VL?

RQ2: How do children engage with group VL instruction and what instructional elements affect engagement?

RQ3: How do children express comprehension of the newly-acquired VL knowledge and what instructional elements affect comprehension?

RQ4: What VL knowledge do children retain and exhibit seven or more days after the introduction to VL? In order to address the research questions, a) a series of VL workshops were developed and presented to 3- to 4-year-old children; b) children's engagement during the workshops was analyzed; and c) children’s comprehension VL elements before and after the workshops were measured via workshop discussions and activities, observations and questionnaires. The study was conducted by information science graduate students led by a professor in collaboration with the staff of the Carroll Gardens Library Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL) over the course of two months (September to October 2016). A library staff member recruited 30 children from a pool of library visitors. Participants self-selected for the study, and every 3-4 year-old child who wanted to participate in a VL workshop was included until the workshop caps of 12 participants were reached. No testing of the children’s or caregiver’s VL or other skills were administered during the recruitment. During the workshop sign-in, the librarian explained the study and the data collection procedures and obtained written consent from the parents for their children to participate in the study. Some children participated in multiple workshops. Table I summarizes study participants’ ages, workshop attendance numbers, and number of completed pre- and post-workshop questionnaires that evaluated children VL knowledge.

Table I. Participants’ ages, workshop attendance, and questionnaire completion.

In order to test children's knowledge of VL elements before and after the workshop intervention (RQ1 and RQ4), pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were developed. A structured written questionnaire administered by a child participant’s caregiver (parent, babysitter, teacher) offered an efficient way to gauge children’s baseline and post-treatment understanding of VL concepts. The caregiver was asked to show their child a picture of the Vincent Van Gogh (1888) painting Farmhouse in Provence, follow the questionnaire script with a series of questions about its visual elements, and record the child's responses using the predefined answer options on a printed form. The answers that did not fit the predefined options were recorded by the caregivers and later coded by researchers to support existing or create new categories of responses. The questionnaire

6

administration process was overseen by the librarian to ensure consistency of the data collection and, when needed, provide assistance to the caregivers in following the study protocol. The questionnaire instrument was not intended to provide any instruction to caregivers or children about the VL elements. When a child was not familiar with a concept (e.g., color temperature), a caregiver would follow the script to offer some examples of a concept. If examples did not help the child to recall the concept, the caregiver would move to the next item without explaining the concept. The pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were administered within a week of a workshop attended by a participant. The aim of the pre-workshop questionnaire was to measure children’s baseline knowledge of VL elements. The post-workshop questionnaire measured changes in the children’s VL knowledge that might have resulted from the workshop attendance. The decision to discuss VL elements in the context of artwork was influenced by previous research that successfully integrated artwork in VL instruction (Housen and DeSantis, 2000; Frey, 2015; Lopatovska, et al., 2016).

The questions focused on the same basic VL elements that were covered in the instructional workshops, namely color, shape, line and texture. These four elements were chosen, because they are the most likely to be known by children (The New York State Education Department, 2011) and were previously found to be easy for children to comprehend and engage with (Lopatovska, et al., 2016). The questionnaire also collected information about children’s initial description of the image, since we expected this initial description to focus on the image’s subject matter (Gardner, 1970) and differ from more informed post-instruction description. The complete copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

The questionnaires and workshops focused on children’s abilities to identify, define, and, when appropriate, re-create the following concepts related to the four VL elements:

Coloro Color temperature (warm/cool colors)o Primary and secondary colors

Shapeo Basic and compound shapeo Warped shapeo Use of shapes to create objects and compositional elements of an image

Lineo Line typeso Use of lines and vanishing point to create perspectiveo Horizon line

Texture o Link textures from the real world and their visual representations

In order to test the robustness of the instructional methods and materials for generating children’s engagement and comprehension, the group instruction was designed as real-life workshops, not a controlled experiment. The workshops were designed to facilitate connections between children’s existing knowledge of VL elements, newly-acquired knowledge and the ability to apply it (Bloom et al., 1984). All workshops included the following components:

7

1. Introduction to the workshop theme and researchers (1-2 minutes).Example: My name is ___ and I am going to talk to you about colors today.

2. Initial engagement phase aimed at generating children’s interest in a workshop theme and measuring their initial knowledge of the VL concept (5 minutes).

Example: What colors do you know? What colors do you see in this room? What is your favorite color?

3. Instruction on one of the four VL elements aimed to introduce new VL concepts and stimulate critical thinking about artworks (10 minutes).

Example: [Show an image created mainly with warm colors.] How would you feel if you were in this picture? What clothes would you be wearing? What are the main colors in this picture? [Children mention yellow, orange, red.] These are the colors of the sun, and we call them “warm colors.” Do you see any warm colors around you?

4. Activity aimed at reinforcing and assessing newly-acquired knowledge by inviting children to create art projects related to the covered themes (15 minutes). During this phase, short-term retention was measured by one-on-one conversations with participants and observations of how closely their projects matched the instruction. The instructor, moderator, and caregivers all provided assistance throughout the activity.

Example: [Children were invited to create collages from warm- and cool-colored scrap paper.]

All workshops utilized three types of images for discussions and instruction: photographs, paintings, and children’s book illustrations. All three types were previously used in VL work with children, and we wanted to examine whether a particular type stimulates more interest and engagement in children than others (e.g., do children discuss book illustrations with more enthusiasm than paintings?).

All four workshops were piloted on a small group of children, critiqued, and revised to ensure that the procedures and the language of instruction were age-appropriate. Feedback from the BPL librarian who closely works with young children was also incorporated into the design of the final instruments and procedures.

The workshops were conducted in a classroom of the library branch. The librarian who recruited participants attended all workshops along with a researcher-instructor, a researcher who observed the workshop or took notes, and children’s guardians. All four workshops were evenly attended, with the number of attendees varying from 10 to 12 (Mean=11.25, see Table I). A dedicated researcher conducted observations during each workshop and took notes on participants’ verbal and nonverbal responses to workshop questions and activities. During the pilot phase, the four observers were trained to look for manifestations of engagement and comprehension (and take semi-structured notes using a form that included the workshop items, e.g., initial instruction/question 1, activity 2, and rubrics for verbal/nonverbal behaviors). Several photographs were taken during the workshop activities to complement the notes taken during the workshop observations. The content of the photographs was used primarily to clarify the content

8

of the notes. Each individual workshop was offered on different days of the week and times of the day, and lasted approximately 40 minutes.

Results and DiscussionThe pre- and post-workshop questionnaires collected quantitative data, while the observation notes produced mainly qualitative data that were analyzed to address the study questions. The results of the qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics are presented below.

Children’s engagement with instruction and comprehension of the newly-introduced VL concepts (RQ2, RQ3). Open coding of the unstructured observation notes was performed in order to address RQ2 and RQ3. During the open coding, manifestations of participants’ verbal and nonverbal responses to the workshop components were labeled (e.g., correct, incorrect, off-topic, and other response types listed in Table II) and grouped into larger categories of behaviors related to engagement and disengagement (RQ2), comprehension of instruction, and response to the workshop activity (RQ3). The coding labels and broader categories were discussed and defined by the whole research team (N=8) based on the initial coding of a subset of the notes data. Once the coding rules were established, the coding was conducted by the four groups of three researchers: a note-taker and an instructor involved in the analyzed workshop, and a “neutral” researcher who was not part of the workshop. The coders’ groups exhibited high levels of coding consistency, with Cronbach’s Alpha test scores ranging from .93 to .99.

The main themes in the observation notes included manifestations of engagement with instruction, and comprehension of newly acquired material. Instances of disengagement (not following instructions and non-participation) were also noted and counted. The major themes and their frequencies in participants’ workshop responses are summarized in Table II.

Table II. Main themes, their frequencies, and examples of the observation notes’ data

Participants’ verbal and nonverbal expressions of (dis)engagement were noted throughout the entire workshop. Participants’ engagement was primarily expressed through direct verbal responses (N=186) to instructor’s questions during the warm-up, instruction and activity phases of the workshop. For example, when the instructor asked what shapes children knew, all participants shouted the names of one or more shapes. Children’s engagement was also noted in their active nonverbal body expressions, such as head nods or shakes and raised hands. Non-active expressions of engagement (e.g., looking at/listening to the instructor) were not recorded. High overall levels of child engagement with instruction and activity can be explained by the instructors’ teaching styles and the fast-paced designs of the workshops that incorporated a variety of instructional techniques, visual media, and activities that, for the most part, successfully maintained students’ interest and involvement.

The highest frequency of engagement manifestations was noted during the line workshop (77 instances), followed by the color (59), shape (27), and texture (23) workshops. The variation in observable engagement can be attributed to the variations in children’s pre-existing knowledge of VL concepts (e.g., children were more engaged in discussions about the more familiar concept of color than texture), as well as the differences in instructors’ teaching styles. For example,

9

instructors who taught the color and line workshops asked more group questions and spent more time discussing the concepts that children already knew, leading to higher observable engagement, while the instructors in the shape and texture workshops focused more on individual interactions or spent less time discussing children’s pre-existing knowledge.

Disengagement manifested itself mainly during the activity part of the workshops. We observed several instances of children refusing to participate in an activity or answer instructor’s questions, whether because they did not understand the instruction, did not find the activity interesting enough, or were simply tired. However, the majority of children sustained focus and demonstrated engagement through verbal and nonverbal behaviors during the instructional and activity phases of the workshops.

High levels of comprehension of the newly-introduced concepts were noted in all four workshops. The comprehension manifested itself through children’s abilities to correctly respond to instructors’ questions related to the newly-introduced concepts and/or appropriately apply new concepts in their hands-on activities. The highest number of correct responses that manifested comprehension was recorded during the line workshop (a total of 60 correct responses and 6 incorrect or off-topic responses). The high number of correct responses during the line workshop can be attributed to the instructor’s engaging teaching style, a longer amount of time allocated for discussion, an atmosphere of open discussion (e.g., children did not have to raise their hands to answer but could shout the answer from their seat), and the ease with which children could identify and recognize different types of lines in the workshop images and surroundings. The lower number of correct responses during the shape (N=7) and texture (N=13) workshops can be attributed to a more controlled discussion format created during the workshops. For example, unlike the line workshop, instructors and caregivers involved in the shapes workshop were more involved in controlling the discipline and ensuring that children raised their hands to respond to the questions. The shape and texture workshop instructors also spent less time discussing the VL concepts and more time on the hands-on activity where children learned and expressed their ability to apply newly-introduced concepts in their artwork (e.g., creating a house out of felt shapes, making a picture of a tree and grass using textured paper.)

Not all of the children’s responses were related to the discussed VL elements and related activities. In some instances. children expressed difficulties refocusing their attention to instruction, discussion, or activity and continued talking about their favorite VL elements, as well as life events and emotions associated with them. For example, the highest number of off-topic responses was recorded during the color workshop when several participants could not transition from the warm-up to the instructional phase of the workshop and kept discussing their favorite colors.

While all children who attended the workshops chose to engage in the post-instruction activities, not all of them correctly applied newly-introduced VL concepts in their art projects. In some instances, incorrect application of VL concepts was intentional and did not signal lack of comprehension. For example, during the color workshop all children showed strong comprehension of the color temperature concept by answering instructor’s questions. However, many children chose to mix warm and cool scrap papers in the making of warm and cool collages. Some participants felt that mixing the colors would result in a “prettier” artwork than

10

just using single-temperature colors. In other instances, children inability to apply newly-introduced concepts manifested their lack of deep understanding of this concept. For example, during the line workshop, some children found it easy to talk about lines they knew and/or were learning about during the instruction. However, during the activity they struggled to identify perspective and horizon lines on the painting, though they did not have any trouble creating flowers by bending pipe cleaner wires into various lines. Connecting lines to more advanced concepts of horizon and perspective proved so difficult for children that many of them lost interest, and all researchers, including the observer, had to get involved in maintaining discipline (hence the lack of notes for the line workshop activity).

In summary, we noted relatively consistent expressions of engagement and comprehension throughout the workshop instruction and activities that illustrated children’s engagement and general understanding of the VL concepts across all four workshops. We observed that engaging instructors, lack of strictly-enforced discipline within the classroom, discussions about familiar VL concepts that participants could connect to their prior experiences and emotions had positive effects on engagement. The factors that negatively affected engagement included VL concepts that were too difficult for some participants to comprehend (e.g., the concept of perspective) and young participants’ fatigue and disinterest towards the end of the workshops, manifested through several participants’ refusal to follow the activity instructions or participate in an activity altogether. In some instances, high levels of engagement and excitement had a negative impact on the children’s ability to follow instruction and demonstrate understanding of the new concepts. This observation points to the importance of “classroom management,” a concept from the field of education that refers to the process of ensuring effective delivery of instruction while controlling for disruptive behaviors (Evertson, 1994). Based on our experience, we recommend that researchers or practitioners who consider delivering group instruction to young children receive training in the basics of classroom management in order to ensure an engaging, yet structured, learning environment that would help their participants to switch activities while maintaining focus.

Across the four workshops, all participating children demonstrated their comprehension of the newly-acquired VL concepts by answering instructors’ questions and/or applying new VL concepts in their artwork. The two workshops that spent more time on discussion than a hands-on activity (color and line) observed the most verbal and nonverbal expressions of comprehension during the instructional and discussion phases. However, by the final activity phase, some children were too distracted or fatigued to follow instructions and demonstrate their newly-acquired knowledge by constructing their artwork with the proper VL elements. The other workshops that spent less time on discussion and more time on activity (shapes and texture) provided children with more opportunities to apply their knowledge to their artwork. However, in these workshops children were given fewer opportunities to talk about visual elements in relation to their personal experiences. The difference in time allocation for instruction vis-à-vis activity in the two types of workshops was within five minutes (e.g., the line workshop spent 15 minutes on instruction/discussion, while the texture workshop spent 10). However, in dealing with very young participants, even this little time difference might have affected children’s abilities to focus on instruction and demonstrate comprehension. The solution to ensuring the proper time allocation for all important learning objectives could lie in appropriate classroom management and adherence to the lesson plan. In developing our workshops, we tried to address

11

several elements of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives (1984) and to facilitate remembering, comprehension, and application of the newly-acquired VL knowledge. Some of our workshops demonstrated better results on the comprehension objective, others, on the application objective. With proper classroom management, future instructors could be more successful in addressing all of these objectives equally.

The variations in participants’ responses to the different workshops resulted from the study’s naturalistic design and is attributed to the variations in a) the content and VL elements covered that have generated different levels of participants’ interest and understanding; b) the number and characteristics of participants; c) the durations of various workshops activities; and d) instructors’ teaching styles. Since our study aimed to examine levels of engagement, comprehension and the factors that affect them within individual workshops, and not to compare children’s performance across different workshops, the variations in recorded behaviors were acceptable. Future studies that might be interested in comparing children’s behaviors across multiple instruction sessions should consider an experimental setting that would enable stricter control over variables and experimental procedures.

Children’s knowledge of visual elements before and after the workshops (RQ1 and RQ4).A total of 20 child participants responded to the pre-workshop questionnaire, and 18 participants responded to the post-workshop questionnaire. Thirteen participants filled out both pre- and post- workshop questionnaires, with four participants not filling out the pre- and five not filling out the post-workshop questionnaire. Participants’ responses are summarized in Table III below.

Table III. Summary of the pre- and post-workshop questionnaire responses

Analysis of the questionnaire data indicates that prior to instruction children’s initial description of an image focused on objects, such as a house, tree, or person. This finding is consistent with prior research on young children (Gardner, 1970). After the workshops, children included additional visual elements, such as shapes, different types of lines, textures, and colors, in their descriptions of the image.

The post-workshop questionnaire data shows improvements in participants’ understanding of most of the visual elements introduced in the workshops, including color, shapes and texture. After the workshops, participants were able to name more colors on the paintings (from an average of 4.5 before the workshops to 5.5 colors after the workshops). Their ability to identify warm/cool and primary colors also improved. Post-workshop responses indicate that participants were able to use more descriptors in discussing the texture of a sandy road, brick fence and other painted objects, indicating an improvement in understanding this visual element. The only area related to texture that did not improve after the workshops was participants’ understanding of general painting technique. While participants recognized approximately the same number of shapes before and after the workshops, their ability to discuss how these shapes were used to create objects improved from 40% to 88% of correct responses between the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires respectively. After the workshops, children were also able to see and

12

mention more shapes in their initial description of the painting. The analysis of pre- and post-workshop questionnaire data offers a mixed picture of children’s understanding of the line element. On the one hand, participants’ general recognition of lines declined from the average of 4 to 1.75 lines per respondent, with fewer participants responding to horizon and salient point questions after the workshops. On the other hand, though the average line answers per participant dropped, more participants were able to recognize at least some lines (an increase from 85% to 94% of correct responses) and mentioned lines in their initial descriptions of the image more frequently. The finding that horizon and perspective lines might be harder for young children to learn is consistent with earlier observations (Lopatovska et al., 2016), but should not discourage future VL instructors from including them for several reasons: a) we found that harder VL concepts stimulated interest and engagement in children during the workshops; b) while discussions about complex concepts might not lead to total comprehension, they prepare children to better understand them at an older age and expand their VL vocabulary and attention (e.g., change in children’s initial attention from the image subject matter to a variety of VL elements, Table III).

In light of the previous research and our study observations and reflections, the questionnaire findings can be explained and were likely influenced by the following:

Children’s prior knowledge. Even prior to engaging with the workshops, young participants demonstrated advanced understanding of colors, lines, shapes and textures, evidenced in a high number of responses to pre-workshop questions and participants’ workshop interactions. The workshop instructions were able to build on this prior knowledge and further children’s understanding of color temperature and primary colors, perspective, relations between objects and shapes, textures in nature and painting techniques. After instruction, participants were able to recognize more VL elements and describe them in greater detail.

Children’s interest in VL elements. Some VL elements, specifically color and texture, solicited more interest and generated more active response in the children. Young children’s natural inclination to focus on colors has been noted in earlier studies (Gardner, 1970; Eckhoff, 2010; Yenawine, 2003). During and after the workshop, children showed an improved ability to recognize and describe various types of colors in shown images and surroundings. Participants expressed a similar level of interest in a texture element, eagerly discussing the tactile and visual characteristics of various surfaces. This interest explains the high number of responses to the texture question in pre- and post-workshop questionnaires. While the frequencies of children’s responses to the questions about lines and shapes are comparable between the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires, the variability of their responses decreased. For example, participants mentioned fewer types of lines and shapes in the post-workshop questionnaires compared to the pre-workshop questionnaires. Based on indicators of children’s strong initial knowledge of these elements, the most probable explanation of the decline in variability is diminished interest in an image, certain VL elements and/or instrument decay.

Complexity of some of the introduced VL elements. During the workshops, we noted that some of the most difficult VL elements for children to understand were the elements of

13

horizon, perspective and salient point. These observations are in line with prior research on children’s comprehension of more complex VL elements (Lopatovska et al., 2016; O’Neil, 2011; Callow, 2008; Gardner, 1970; Alper, 1996), and were further confirmed by the post-workshop questionnaire data that did not show significant improvements in children’s abilities to discuss these concepts.

Children’s workshop (non)attendance. Not all participants responded to the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires. Of those who responded, three attended all four workshops, and nine only attended the color workshop. The fact that many participants did not attend all workshops and were not introduced to all four VL elements helps to explain the distribution of the answers to the post-workshop questions.

Conclusion At a very early age, children naturally tend to understand and express themselves through visual means (Bamford, 2003). As children grow up, most of the attention of their educators shifts to developing their language skills and textual literacies, while their visual literacy needs are often overlooked (Eckhoff, 2010; Metros, 2008; Visual Literacy, n.d.; Williams, 2007). In an effort to bring attention to early VL education, advance children’s understanding of the visually-intense digital culture and promote visual art appreciation, we explored methods of VL instruction for very young children. During the earlier study of young children, the children were interviewed about paintings and introduced new VL concepts during one-on-one conversations. The initial findings confirmed young children’s ability to engage in VL instruction and showed interest among children, parents and teachers in VL education (Lopatovska et al., 2016). The study reported here tested methods of delivering VL instruction to groups of children, examined changes in children’s knowledge of VL concepts before and after the instruction, measured children’s engagement and comprehension during the instruction, and examined instructional elements that might have influenced children’s expressions of engagement and comprehension during the workshops.

Overall, we found our instructional method and lesson plans effective in keeping children engaged and enhancing their understanding of the new VL concepts. Most of the children who participated in the study workshops showed a solid baseline knowledge of colors, lines, shapes and textures. Some children were familiar with more advanced VL concepts prior to the workshops, including the types of colors (temperature, primary), lines (horizon), textures (rough/smooth) and advanced shapes. After the instruction, most of the children showed an improved understanding of the newly-introduced VL concepts by displaying abilities to apply these concepts in art projects, answer questions related to the new concepts and recognize them in study images and their surroundings.

In addition to measuring changes in children’s VL knowledge brought about by the workshops, we examined children’s engagement during the workshops. We noted very few instances of disengagement (e.g., refusal to participate in hands-on activity); most of the children were actively involved in conversations about VL elements in their surroundings, instructional images and art-making activities.

We noted several factors that affected children’s engagement and comprehension of VL instruction. Some of these factors, including children’s prior knowledge of VL elements, their

14

interest in and willingness to join a discussion or an activity cannot be controlled by an instructor, and can only be measured in order to gauge their effect on the knowledge changes resulting from instruction. However, a number of factors affecting children’s engagement and comprehension can be built into the instruction. During our workshops, we succeeded in keeping most of the children engaged throughout the 40-minute workshop by relying on engaging instructors and following the lesson plan that included a wide range of instructions, activities, visual and tactile materials (e.g. felt, old leafs, cleaning pipes). Facilitating discussions that allowed children to connect VL elements to their experiences and apply them to create new artworks were conducive to engagement and comprehension. The issues that negatively affected engagement and comprehension were participant fatigue and, in some cases, inability of instructors to control disruptive behaviors and keep all participants focused on learning. The first issue can be controlled by offering shorter instruction sessions, especially for younger children. The second issue can be addressed by training instructors in classroom management techniques.

The study had a number of limitations that can be addressed in the future. Our study participants were recruited from the pool of users of a public library located in a relatively affluent part of Brooklyn. Participants self-selected to attend the workshop, so it is possible that the workshops attracted the children and caregivers with interest in VL, access to VL resources and education that might not be available to other socio-economic groups. Offering VL workshops in more socioeconomically diverse communities and/or selecting participants from diverse backgrounds would not only benefit the communities but could also provide a more accurate measure of an average young person’s baseline knowledge of VL elements. During our study, the variation in baseline VL knowledge was addressed through flexible lesson plans that were prepared with a variety of instructional scripts and activities. For example, our participants knew basic shapes well, allowing us to skip the basic introduction to shapes and discuss how shapes create objects. If participants do not exhibit knowledge of basic VL concepts, more time can be allocated to introductory VL topics. In any context, measuring the baseline knowledge would be advisable for assessing the effectiveness of instruction; in our study, the baseline was rather high but the increase in post-instruction knowledge demonstrated the benefits of instruction. Our workshops were developed and conducted by graduate student researchers without extensive experience in early childhood education. This led to variations in instruction styles/techniques, children’s engagement and comprehension. While some degree of variation in participants’ responses is expected due to the workshop topics, individual characteristics of instructors and participants, it can be minimized by delegating instruction to experienced educators or professionals who work with children (e.g., children’s librarians) or training inexperienced instructors in classroom management to ensure the smooth delivery of instruction. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, we used grounded theory approach in uncovering the meaning of our workshop observation notes. Since we now have a better understanding of the signs and manifestations of children’s engagement and comprehension, we would advise using more structured instruments and protocols for measuring these constructs.

One of the main conclusions of our study is that VL research with young children is challenging but very rewarding. Even with minimal guidance, children absorb new knowledge and immediately start connecting it to their personal stories, applying it to their explanations and creations of new visual objects. Children’s interest and creativity provided us, researchers, with a fresh outlook on familiar objects and concepts, and inspired participating parents, caregivers,

15

librarians and teachers to seek additional means to continue VL conversations with their children. We hope that our study will encourage further experimentation and sharing of best practices in the area of VL instruction and will bring attention to the importance of educating the next generation of visually-literate adults.

References

Alper, M.A. (1996), “Visual literacy/aesthetic development research: museum-public school cooperation”, Visual Arts Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 62-78.

American Association of School Librarians (2007), Standards for the 21st-century learner, available at: www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_Learning_Standards_2007.pdf (accessed 14 June 2016).

Avgerinou, M.D. (2003), "A mad-tea party no-more: Revisiting the visual literacy definition problem", in Griffin, R.E., Williams, V.S. and Jung, L. (Eds.), Turning trees, IVLA, Loretto, PA, pp. 29-41.

Avgerinou, M.D. and Pettersson, R. (2011), "Toward a cohesive theory of visual literacy", Journal of Visual Literacy, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1-19.

Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R. and Masia, B.B. (1984), Bloom taxonomy of educational objectives, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Brumberger, E. (2011), "Visual literacy and the digital native: An examination of the millennial learner", Journal of Visual Literacy, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 19-46.

Callow, J. (2008), “Show me: principles for assessing students’ visual literacy”, Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, Vol. 31 No.1, pp. 34-44.

Carter, D. (2015), "Connected to my world: Seeing to understand", Access, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 22-29.

Chang, E., Lim, M. and Kim, M. (2012), "Three approaches to teaching art methods courses: Child art, visual culture, and issues-based art education", Art Education, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 17-24.

Chassiakos, L., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M. and Cross, C. (2016), "Children and adolescents and digital media", Pediatrics, Vol. 138 No. 5, available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/138/5 (accessed 2 August 2017).

Common Core State Standards Initiative (2017), "Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts", available at: www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/ (accessed 2 August 2017).

16

Cook, E., Teaff, E.A. and Cook, L.J. (2015), "A collaborative vision: Partnering with STEM faculty to teach visual literacy through multimedia research presentations", Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3-4, pp. 63-88.

Cunningham, M. (2015), "Vision quest: Museum director eyes changes in education", UT News, 1 April, available at: http://utnews.utoledo.edu/index.php/04_01_2015/vision-quest-museum-director-eyes-changes-in-education (accessed 2 August 2017).

Debes, J. (1968), "Some foundations for visual literacy", Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 961-964.

DeSantis, K. (2009), The 8th grade school partnership program, Visual Thinking Strategies Adaptation, 2008-2009, available at: www.gardnermuseum.org/FILE/402.pdf (accessed 2 August 2017).

Doolin, H. (2016). "Art classes for kids in New York City", Time Out, 4 May, available at: www.timeout.com/new-york-kids/things-to-do/art-classes-for-kids-in-new-york-city (accessed 17 June 2016).

Eckhoff, A. (2010), "Young children–using games to explore visual art with young children, National Association for the Education of Young Children", available at: www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naeyc/youngchildren_201001/index.php?startid=17;www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naeyc/youngchildren_201001/index.php?startid=17#/20 (accessed 2 August 2017).

Emanuel, R. and Challons-Lipton, S. (2013), "Visual literacy and the digital native: Another look", Journal of Visual Literacy, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 7-26, available at: doi:10.1080/23796529.2013.11674703 (accessed 2 August 2017).

Erikson, E.H. (1959), Identity and the life cycle, International Universities Press, New York, NY.

Evertson, C. M. (1994). Classroom management for elementary teachers. Allyn & Bacon, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., Needham Heights, MA.

Flynt, E.S. and Brozo, W. (2010), Visual literacy and the content classroom: A question of now, not when. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 526-528, available at: doi:10.1598/RT.63.6.11 (accessed 2 August 2017).

Frey, S. (2015), "Art appreciation helps young children learn to think and express ideas", EdSource, 9 April, available at: https://edsource.org/2015/art-appreciation-helps-young-children-learn-to-think-and-express-ideas/77734 (accessed 2 August 2017).

Gardner, H. (1970), “Children’s sensitivity to painting styles”, Child Development, Vol. 41 No.3, pp. 813-821.

17

Gates, L. (2016), "Rethinking art education practice one choice at a time", Art Education, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp.13-19.

Gorky, A. (1926), The artist and his mother [Oil on canvas], Whitney Museum of American Art, New York.

Grenda, L. and Short, K. (1993), "Children’s books: Visual literacy: Exploring art and illustration in children’s books", The Reading Teacher, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 506-516.

Harris, B.R. (2010), "Blurring borders, visualizing connections: Aligning information and visual literacy learning outcomes", Reference Services Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 523-535, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321011090700 (accessed 3 August 2017).

Hattwig, D., Burgess, J., Bussert, K. and Medaille, A. (2011). "ACRL Visual Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education", available at: www.ala.org/acrl/standards/visualliteracy (accessed 14 June 2016).

Heinich, R., Molenda, M. and Russell, J.D. (1982), Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction, Macmillan, New York, NY.

Housen, A. and DeSantis, K. (2000), "Annual report on year I of the aesthetic development and creative and critical thinking skills study, San Antonio" [Unpublished report], Prepared for Holt Companies, San Antonio, TX, available at: https://vtshome.org/publications/aesthetic-development-and-creative-and-critical-thinking-skills-study/ (accessed 3 August 2017).

Kennedy, R. (2006), "Guggenheim study suggests arts education benefits literacy skills", The New York Times, 27 July, available at: www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/books/27gugg.html?_r=0 (accessed 3 August 2017).

Kennedy, B. (2010), Visual literacy [PowerPoint slides], available at: www.toledomuseum.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/VISLIT_Brian_Keynote.pdf (accessed 3 August 2017).

Lopatovska, I., Hatoum, S., Waterstraut, S., Novak, L., and Sheer, S. (2016), "Not just a pretty picture: Visual literacy education through art for young children", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 1197-1227.

Louis, L. (2013), "'No one's the boss of my painting:' A model of the early development of artistic graphic representation", International Journal of Education and the Arts, Vol. 14 No. 11, pp. 1-29.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (n.d.), "DAP with preschoolers, ages 3-5", available at: www.naeyc.org/dap/preschoolers (accessed 18 January 2017).

McLeod, S. (2013), "Erik Erikson", available at: www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html (accessed 18 January 2017).

18

McLeod, S. (2014), "Preoperational stage", available at: www.simplypsychology.org/preoperational.html (accessed 18 January 2017).

Metros, S.E. (2008), “The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners”, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp.102-109.

Moline, S. (2011), I see what you mean: Visual literacy, K-8, 2nd ed., Stenhouse Publishers, Portland, ME.

Munch, E. (c. 1900), Winternacht [Oil on canvas]. Kunsthaus Zurich, Zurich. O’Neil, K.E. (2011), “Reading pictures: Developing visual literacy for greater comprehension”, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp.214-223, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/41331601 (accessed 3 August 2017).

Pantaleo, S. (2013), "Matters of design and visual literacy: One middle years student's multimodal artifact", Journal of Research in Childhood Education, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 351-376. doi:10.1080/02568543.2013.796334 (accessed 3 August 2017).

Pantaleo, S. (2016), "Primary students' understanding and appreciation of the artwork in picturebooks", Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 228-255. doi: 10.1177/1468798415569816 (accessed 3 August 2017).

Pettersson, R. (1993), Visual information. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J., (2013) The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (Original work published 1958).

Prior, L.A., Willson, A. and Martinez, M. (2012), "Picture this: Visual literacy as a pathway to character understanding", The Reading Teacher, Vol. 66 No. 3, 195-206.

Randi Korn & Associates, Inc. (2007), Teaching Literacy Through Art, available at: www.guggenheim.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/guggenheim-research-tlta-executive-summary-discussion.pdf (accessed 3 August 2017).

Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G. and Roberts, D.F. (2010), Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year olds, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA, available at: https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8010.pdf (accessed 2 August 2017).

Silverman, K.N. and Piedmont, J. (2016), "Reading the big picture: A visual literacy curriculum for today", Knowledge Quest, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 32-37.

19

Sparks, D., Zhang, J. and Bahr, S. (2015), Elementary and secondary school arts education instructors, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015085.pdf (accessed 3 August 2017).

The New York State Education Department (2011), New York State prekindergarten foundation for the Common Core, available at: www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-prekindergarten-foundation-for-the-common-core/file/121886 (accessed 3 August 2017).

Van Gogh, V. (1888), Farmhouse in Provence [Oil on canvas], National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.

Williams, T.L. (2007), “‘Reading’ the painting: Exploring visual literacy in the primary grades”, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 636-642, available at: doi: 10.1598/RT.60.7.4 (accessed 2 August 2017).

Yenawine, P. (2003), “Jump starting visual literacy”, Art Education, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-12.

Yenawine, P. (2013), Visual Thinking Strategies: Using art to deepen learning across school disciplines, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA.

Appendix A. Visual Literacy Questionnaire for Caregivers

Instruction:The purpose of this questionnaire is to measure your child’s knowledge of visual elements before s/he attends the workshop.

P1. On average, how many hours a day does your child play on a tablet or mobile phone? S/he does not use it Less than 1 hr More than 1 hr I don’t know

P2. How old is your child? [____]

P3. What is your child’s gender?: M [__] F [__]

Please show an image to your child and do not aid your child in answering the questions.Ask your child:

0. What do you see in this picture?

What is your child describing? [check all that apply]: OBJECTS (e.g. house, person, flower) COLORS SHAPES LINES

20

TEXTURES OTHER [please specify]_______________________

1 COLORAsk your child: 1.1 What colors do you see in the painting?

Red Orange Yellow Green Blue

Purple Pink Black Brown Gray

Other: ____________________________

1.2 Do you see cool and warm colors? Yes No  [do not introduce these concepts if your child is not familiar with them]

If your child responded yes, ask 1.3 Could you show me a cool color? [blue, green, purple]

Yes, the child can list cool colors No, the child cannot list cool colors  

1.4 Could you show me a warm color? [orange, yellow, red] Yes, the child can list warm colors No, the child cannot list warm colors

1.5 Do you see primary colors? Yes No  [do not introduce this concept if your child is not familiar with it]

If your child responded yes, ask 1.6 Could you show me a primary color? [blue, yellow, red]

Yes, the child can list primary colors No, the child cannot list primary colors  

2 SHAPEAsk your child:2.1 What shapes do you see in the painting?

Circle Square Triangle Rectangle Other: ____________________________

2.2 Could you show me a rectangle [or other shape your child identified]? Yes

21

No

3 LINEAsk your child: 3.1 What kind of lines do you see in the painting?

Short Long Dotted Wavy Straight Curvy Colored line Other: _________________________

3.2 Could you show me where the sky meets the ground? Yes No

3.3 Point to an object in the painting: _____________________. Is it near or far from us? Near Far Not sure

3.4 What is the first thing you see in this painting?_________________________

4 TEXTUREAsk your child: 4.1 How would the sandy road feel if you were able to really touch it?

Smooth Rough Other: __________________________

4.2 How would the bricks that make up the fence feel if you were able to really touch them? Smooth Rough Cool Other: __________________________

4.3 How did the artist paint the grass? Lines Dots Other ___________________________

Please indicate what workshop you plan to attend / attended: COLOR SHAPE

22

LINE TEXTURE

23