The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Rigidity in children’s drawings and its relation with representational change

Rigidity in children’s drawings and its relation with representational change
Rigidity in children’s drawings and its relation with representational change
Four studies tested the application of to the drawing domain. In particular, we tested her claim that young children are inhibited in their attempts at changing their graphic representations (representational change) due to being constrained by the order in which the elements of the representation are drawn (procedural rigidity). The first study required 60 children (4- to 6-year-olds and an older comparison group of 8-year-olds) to make three drawings of a familiar and novel topic. From these drawings each child was measured for procedural rigidity. In a further drawing the child was asked to modify their usual representation of each topic. Regression analyses revealed procedural rigidity levels were not predictive of manipulation performance. A second study, testing 75 4- to 6-year-olds and a third study, testing 30 3- to 4-year-olds, revealed that when young children were specifically asked to manipulate rigid sub-procedures on a familiar topic they were indeed able to do so. Finally, a fourth study (testing 40 5-year-olds and 40 8-year-olds) removed the notational trace in drawing (a possible aid for procedural interruption) but this still produced no evidence of a relation between procedural rigidity and representational change. We suggest how the concept of procedural rigidity might be re-interpreted for the drawing domain so that the RR model can remain as a domain-general theory of cognitive development. We also suggest the development of information processing may be crucial for flexibility in drawing.
representational redescription, rigidity, children’s drawings, information processing, representational change
0022-0965
124-152
Barlow, Claire M.
2340cb18-b34f-4028-9c73-6ea52d600c58
Jolley, Richard P.
400bbce9-3425-4bb4-8557-1d58d409ea4b
White, David G.
fe598442-5640-4ea2-9378-dffc274fd8d7
Galbraith, David
c4914b0d-4fd1-4127-91aa-4e8afee72ff1
Barlow, Claire M.
2340cb18-b34f-4028-9c73-6ea52d600c58
Jolley, Richard P.
400bbce9-3425-4bb4-8557-1d58d409ea4b
White, David G.
fe598442-5640-4ea2-9378-dffc274fd8d7
Galbraith, David
c4914b0d-4fd1-4127-91aa-4e8afee72ff1

Barlow, Claire M., Jolley, Richard P., White, David G. and Galbraith, David (2003) Rigidity in children’s drawings and its relation with representational change. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86 (2), 124-152. (doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00109-7). (PMID:13129699)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Four studies tested the application of to the drawing domain. In particular, we tested her claim that young children are inhibited in their attempts at changing their graphic representations (representational change) due to being constrained by the order in which the elements of the representation are drawn (procedural rigidity). The first study required 60 children (4- to 6-year-olds and an older comparison group of 8-year-olds) to make three drawings of a familiar and novel topic. From these drawings each child was measured for procedural rigidity. In a further drawing the child was asked to modify their usual representation of each topic. Regression analyses revealed procedural rigidity levels were not predictive of manipulation performance. A second study, testing 75 4- to 6-year-olds and a third study, testing 30 3- to 4-year-olds, revealed that when young children were specifically asked to manipulate rigid sub-procedures on a familiar topic they were indeed able to do so. Finally, a fourth study (testing 40 5-year-olds and 40 8-year-olds) removed the notational trace in drawing (a possible aid for procedural interruption) but this still produced no evidence of a relation between procedural rigidity and representational change. We suggest how the concept of procedural rigidity might be re-interpreted for the drawing domain so that the RR model can remain as a domain-general theory of cognitive development. We also suggest the development of information processing may be crucial for flexibility in drawing.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: October 2003
Keywords: representational redescription, rigidity, children’s drawings, information processing, representational change
Organisations: Southampton Education School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 337486
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/337486
ISSN: 0022-0965
PURE UUID: 8a221f60-7218-4c7a-b527-54535c80b903
ORCID for David Galbraith: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-4195-6386

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 Apr 2012 11:47
Last modified: 10 Jan 2022 02:59

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Claire M. Barlow
Author: Richard P. Jolley
Author: David G. White
Author: David Galbraith ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×