Children's understanding of the dual nature of pictures

Girls in detail, boys in shape: Gender differences when drawing cubes in depth

“…In terms of psychological theory of visual cognition, our suggestion is that at a time when children discover the appearance–reality distinction and the dual nature of pictures (Flavell, Green, & Flavell, ; Jolley, ; Robinson, Nye, & Thomas, ) as well as the rules of visual projection (Flavell, Green, Herrera, & Flavell, ), boys were more likely to attend to the projective appearance of the cubes (the visual object), while girls were more likely to graphically explore aspects of the identity of the cubes (the real object). These gender‐specific profiles would allow making predictions for gender‐specific challenges that could be investigated in future research.…”

Early Predictors Of Creative Writing At Age 9

“…The dualistic nature of drawing requires children to think symbolically and flexibly in order for them to recognise that a drawing refers to both a thing in itself and its existing referent (Malchiodi, 1998). By the age of four, children begin to develop these cognitive skills, enabling them to transform their schematic representations of objects or thoughts into drawings (Jolley, 2008).…”

“…It has been argued that divergent thinking tests are unlikely to represent the multifaceted nature of the development of creativity (Baer, 2012;Said-Metwaly, den Noorgate, & Kyndt, 2017). A further limitation of the TTCT is that young children may find it difficult to comprehend or conceptualise the task requirements because of their limited representational and language skills (Jolley, 2008;Klepsch & Logie, 2013;Welsh, 1975). This could both constrain and demotivate them from engaging in the drawing task, which may obscure their true creative potential.…”

Cultural perspectives on children’s tadpole drawings: at the interface between representation and production

“…Jolley (2010) outlined three possible sources for these differences: children’s perceptual input (e.g., pictorial models, art, and media), drawing experiences (e.g., availability of drawing material), and learning environments (e.g., instructions, art education, and caregiver-child interactions). In contrast to studies that considered only one of these sources to explain cultural variability (e.g., Aronsson and Andersson, 1996; La Voy et al, 2001; Richter, 2001), the present study proposes a more integrated model.…”