THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ART & DESIGN EDUCATION, 2018

DOI: 10.1111/jade.12116

Drawing as Social Play: Shared Meaning-Making in Young Children’s

Collective Drawing Activities
Tiina Kukkonen and Sandra Chang-Kredl

ABSTRACT
The ability to construct shared meaning with peers is important for young children’s social and linguistic
development. Previous studies have mainly focused on shared meaning-making within cooperative pre-
tend play with little mention of other childhood activities that might promote intersubjectivity. This
study investigated the group play that occurs within young children’s open-ended drawing activities
and how this encourages the development of shared meaning. One preschool class of 4–5 year-old chil-
dren was observed over eight 1 hour free play sessions. During each session, the children were pre-
sented with a variety of drawing materials and large drawing surfaces. No restrictions were placed on
the number of children that could participate, or the subject matter of the drawings. The findings sup-
port the notion that group drawing can be understood through theories of socio-dramatic play. The
children initiated and maintained shared meaning through the use of common knowledge, and applied
various verbal and non-verbal communication strategies to advance the joint theme. This study supports
the integration of open-ended drawing activities in early childhood environments.
KEYWORDS
preschool, group-drawing, play, children, shared-meaning

Drawing has traditionally been emphasised as an individual form of expression, with little acknowledgement given
to the potential play benefits of group drawing. However, when children draw in the presence of their peers, they
converse about their drawings and remain focused for long periods of time (Coates & Coates 2006; Cox 2005;
Wood & Hall 2011). Further research is required to determine how children play together through open-ended
drawing and what specific processes they use to arrive at a shared understanding about the nature and direction
of the activity. This study examined open-ended collective drawing as a form of group play akin to social pretend
play to better understand how children develop and maintain shared meaning during group drawing. This infor-
mation will advance our knowledge regarding early childhood curriculum planning, particularly in the areas of
social and artistic development.

Literature review: drawing as a social activity that promotes the development

of intersubjectivity
Children often exhibit similar behaviour in drawing as they do in shared pretend play, as both activities
encourage the use of creativity and the manipulation of meaning (e.g. Coates & Coates 2006; Wood & Hall
2011), suggesting that drawing may also provide a constructive context for children’s social development. It
appears, however, that drawing is most often emphasised as a solitary form of play (e.g. Wright 2007).
Although solitary drawing can be enjoyable and beneficial, there are also several benefits of engaging in
group drawing (e.g. drawing in pairs, or in groups of three or more).
According to Vygotsky and social constructivist theory, children develop and learn various skills through
interactions with individuals in the social environment – parents, peers, siblings and teachers, for example
(Daniels 2001; John-Steiner et al. 2010) – and also through play-based activities (Vygotsky 1966/1976). Much

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL 75

€ncu
like social pretend play, which has received considerable attention in the literature (e.g. Go € 1993a; Howe
et al. 2005; Smith 2005), group drawing activities have the potential to encourage the development of vari-
ous social and creative abilities. For example, several processes take place simultaneously as children draw,
many of which go unnoticed by adults. Young children will often talk, narrate stories, share jokes, make
noises, sing songs, use gestures and act out what they are drawing (Coates & Coates 2006; Kolbe 2005;
Wood & Hall 2011). These words and actions are important for educators seeking to understand the signifi-
cance of children’s drawings, as well as how children communicate meaning through drawing (Cox 2005;
Kolbe 2005).
Go€ncu€ (1993b) highlights the importance of creating shared meanings, or ‘intersubjectivity’ through play,
as it enhances children’s social, cognitive and communicative abilities. Previous research has focused exten-
sively on how children create shared meanings through social pretend play (e.g. Farver 1992; Go €ncu
€ 1993a;
Howe et al. 2005), as it is a major activity in early childhood where ‘sophisticated language may be used,
roles are negotiated, and information may be exchanged about real-life activities’ (Smith 2005, 188), but
there exists limited research examining the development of shared meanings across other childhood activi-
ties, including drawing.
Go€ncu€ (1993b) states that to develop intersubjectivity, children must first have a shared focus of attention
and then engage in metacommunication (the process of reaching an agreement on the nature of the activ-
ity) and communication (the coordination of intentions throughout the activity). Researchers (e.g. Coates &
Coates 2006; Cox 2005; Wood & Hall 2011) have observed children verbally establishing common themes for
drawings (metacommunication), and then discussing the content of their drawings and providing each other
with feedback as the activity progressed (communication).
To promote the development of shared meanings and group play within drawing activities, it is important
to allow children to draw freely and choose the content of their drawings, otherwise the playful nature of
the activity is lost, which may affect their social interactions and drawing development. By using an open-
ended approach in their study on children’s drawing and speech, Coates & Coates (2006, 228) were able to
witness instances of children playing together through drawing, where their ‘involvement was so strong that
their voices became animated and there were shrieks, battle cries and singing’.

The present study

The present study used an exploratory qualitative method to investigate children’s social interactions as they
engaged in collective free drawing activities in an early childhood classroom. The design was adapted from
the open-ended approach used by Coates & Coates (2006, 225), where the ‘direction, content, and duration’
of each drawing episode was dependent on the children who participated. The following research questions
guided the inquiry:

• How do the children initiate and co-construct play themes while engaged in group drawing?
• What specific strategies do children use for metacommunication and communication in open-ended group
drawing?

Method
Participants
The participants consisted of one class of 16 preschool-aged children (ages 4–5) from middle-class back-
grounds. The early childhood centre is located in a multicultural Canadian urban environment and is affili-
ated with a university. The classroom is culturally and linguistically diverse, as there are several children that
speak a third language, in addition to French and English. Pseudonyms are used in this study to protect the
children’s identities.

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
76 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL

Procedure
The children were observed twice a week for four weeks (a total of eight days), for a period of approxi-
mately one hour each day during their morning free play time. The drawing station was set up in the
art area of the classroom prior to each session, including all drawing materials, the video camera and
the audio device. The first author situated herself at the drawing station and waited for any interested
children to approach the tables. No restrictions were placed on the number of children that could partic-
ipate at any one time. The researcher sometimes asked clarifying questions (e.g. ‘What have you drawn?’
or ‘Why did you choose this colour?’) and made comments about the drawings (e.g. ‘I like what you
have drawn here’ or ‘Great job!’) without being directive, as noted in Coates & Coates (2006).

Materials
The choice of appropriate and engaging materials played an important role in the realization of this study.
As noted in Swann (2009), large drawing surfaces, drawing materials that are easy to manipulate, and the
incorporation of toys may all be conducive to group play through drawing. Therefore, for each session, sim-
ple drawing mediums and large surfaces were presented to the children, along with toys on two occasions.
The mediums and surfaces were varied for each observation to maintain the children’s interest. Table 1
describes the materials and set-up for each observation session.

Data collection and analysis

Data was collected using a participant observer approach, where the researcher played an active, albeit mini-
mal, part in children’s conversations (Coates & Coates 2006; Lo €fdahl 2005). Triangulation was achieved by
collecting data from various sources, including written field notes, photographs of the children’s work, videos
of the children drawing and audio recordings of their conversations. The time spent in collaborative draw-
ing/play was also noted for each episode, as previous studies have suggested that collective drawing encour-
ages children to remain focused for long periods of time (e.g. Wood & Hall 2011), which may have
implications for children’s social development.
As defined by Rubin (1977), the category of group play was comprised of instances when children engaged
in joint activity with a shared goal (i.e. when children were seen working together to create a collaborative
drawing or when they were creating similar drawings while simultaneously discussing the content). Instances
of group play were transcribed. The start of a group play episode was determined by the initiation of a theme
(e.g. princesses) by one of the children that was then built upon/expanded by other children. The termination
of a play episode was determined by departures from social play, such as when children left the table, or
started drawing individually and/or conversing about unrelated topics without reverting back to the shared
theme. Instances where the children conversed about topics unrelated to their drawings were not considered
group play for the purpose of this study, neither were instances where children simply discussed the content
of their individual drawings without building on each other’s ideas.

Table 1. Materials and set-up for each day of observation

Observation
Day Materials and Set-Up
1 Cardstock paper, pencils, pencil crayons
2 Long white paper taped to a 30 9 40 table, pencils, pencil crayons
3 Large white board, dry erase markers, erasers
4 Neon coloured Bristol boards taped to the floor, markers, plastic toy animals
5 Long white paper taped to a 30 9 40 table (edges cut into a wavy pattern), multi-coloured crayons
6 2 black Bristol boards taped to a 30 9 40 table, oil pastels
7 Long white paper taped to a 30 9 40 table, pencils, pencil crayons, foam building blocks
8 Large white board, dry erase markers, erasers

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL 77

The transcribed instances of group play were interpreted in terms of thematic content and intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity was defined using Go €ncu €’s (1993b) definition of how children create shared meanings through
the use of metacommunication and communication. An example of metacommunication (i.e. the process of
reaching an agreement on the nature of the activity) is Child A saying, ‘Let’s draw cars!’ and Child B responding,
‘Okay!’. An instance of communication (i.e. the coordination of intentions throughout the activity) is Child A say-
ing, ‘Let’s make the car yellow’ and Child B responding, ‘And then we’ll make a road for the car to drive on!’

Findings
A total of 27 instances of group play were noted in the video data where children were observed sharing
ideas, developing common themes and playing through drawing for both brief and extended periods of
time. The length of the play episodes varied between 15 seconds to just over 30 minutes. Similar to an
approach used by Frisch (2006), from these instances of play, five specific episodes were chosen for analysis,
as they stood out as being exemplary of the types of drawing themes and social interactions that were
observed across the eight days of observation (see Table 2 for descriptions of these episodes).

Developing shared themes using common knowledge and interests

Instances from the play episodes will be presented in the following sections to demonstrate the process of
how children initiated and developed shared themes using common knowledge and interests.

Knowledge of nature
The children exhibited shared knowledge of nature and other objects, which allowed them to initiate and
build on common themes. In play episode 1, the children created drawings of bumblebees and beehives.
Amanda was the first to mention that she had drawn a beehive:

A = I did a beehouse. I did a bee . . . I did a beehive.

Matthew then started drawing an image of a tree and added a vertical line with an oval shape at the end to
the tree. After completing his drawing, he confirmed what he had made:

M = That is a . . . a beehouse. It’s like that one [points to Amanda’s drawing]. It’s another bee-
house.

Table 2. Descriptions of five major play episodes

Length
Play Episode of Episode Description
1. Bumblebees 8 minutes Matthew, Amanda and Sabrina were drawing bees and beehives around the
and Beehives white board with markers.
2. Good and 30 minutes Sabrina and Amanda worked together to develop a narrative and imagery on
Bad Princesses the white board about a good princess who is turned evil by a bad princess.
3. Rainbow World 5 minutes Nathan, Matthew, Ethan, Katie and Samantha created a large collective scribble
drawing with multi-coloured pencil crayons that represented a ‘rainbow world’.
4. Angry Birds 19 minutes Matthew, Nathan, Kim and Sadia used oil pastels on black paper to draw
characters and plotlines from the Angry Birds franchise.
5. Fire, Wheels 11 minutes Ian and Andrew were drawing together with the oil pastels on black paper.
and a Train The drawing started out as fire, and evolved into a drawing that depicted
vehicles and a train.

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
78 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL

Matthew used a typical drawing schema for a tree (see Figure 1) and his beehive drawing is reminiscent of
what one would typically see in a drawing of a beehive (i.e. oval shape with a small circle inside), suggesting
that he had some knowledge of how trees and beehives are commonly depicted.
Sabrina extended the theme of trees by drawing a fallen tree that overlapped onto Matthew’s drawing.
All of the children at the table then continued to draw bees, indicating their understanding that bees are
found in the presence of beehives and trees. As they drew, they shared their knowledge of how bees look:

S= How can you do the bee?

M= A real bee is just like that [points to his drawing].
S= A bee looks like that?
M= Yeah.

Matthew started to make buzzing noises as he drew, followed by Sabrina, who paused from drawing to flap
her arms and make buzzing sounds as well. From this scenario, it appears that common knowledge of where
bees live, their appearance and how they behave allowed the children to develop a shared theme and
engage in group play.

Knowledge of popular culture

The children in this study possessed common knowledge about certain characters and storylines from popu-
lar video games and movies that allowed them to develop shared narratives and themes in their drawings.
In play episode 2, Amanda and Sabrina developed a narrative about princesses, which was a common theme
in many of the girls’ drawings in the class.
Amanda initiated the theme by asking Sabrina to help her draw a princess. The girls then continued to
draw princesses side by side, and decided that Amanda’s princess would be the good princess and Sabrina’s
would be the bad one. As they drew, they discussed the features and developing narrative:

Figure 1. Matthew’s drawing of a tree and beehive

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL 79

S = I’m going to colour the hair, it’s all black.

A = And mine is going to be all black too!
S = No, because that’s her hair . . . You know, that when she was a baby, she would have green
hair and then she growed up, she had green hair still, and then what happened, is that witch
taked her in, so, so it changed to black.
A = Or maybe I’m drawing this girl black, because when she growed up she had red hair, but
now, when you are doing the bad princess, the bad princess turned her hair black, the bad
princess. And then the nice princess died when she had black hair.
S = What, the bad princess?
A = Yeah, when the bad princess puts black hair on the nice princess, then the bad . . . when the
bad princess puts a magic potion . . . then she will die when she has black hair . . . the nice
princess.
S = But she already put potion on her.
A = No, you have to . . . you actually have to colour the dress just like me. [points to her own
drawing]
S = She will be all black ‘cause she’s the bad one.

As the narrative progressed, the girls altered the princesses’ features and actions accordingly, using the white
board eraser and markers. The bad princess cast a spell on the good princess, causing her to ‘die’ and awake
as an evil princess (see Figures 2–4).

Figure 2. The bad princess (left) casting a spell (red line) on the good princess (right)

Figure 3. Amanda drawing the good princess lying down

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
80 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL

Figure 4. The good princess turns evil (right)

This storyline of the ‘bad’ woman harming the ‘good’ woman is prevalent in many fairytales, most notably
those depicted in Disney films (e.g. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid
and Tangled). Considering that Disney is a ‘major contributor to children’s media’ (Towbin et al. 2004, 24), it
is likely that the children in this study have been exposed to one or more of these narratives. Sabrina in par-
ticular was observed on several occasions making reference to films such as Frozen and Cinderella. Given the
similarity between the plots of Disney films and the girls’ narrative, it makes sense that perhaps the inspira-
tion for the shared theme of bad princess versus good princess derived in part from the girls’ awareness of
these popular storylines.

Interest in exploring mediums

The open-ended nature of this study allowed children to explore and experiment with the drawing materials
as they pleased. In some instances, they would examine and test out the drawing mediums to see what
effects could be achieved. The marks created through these explorations would sometimes lead to the
development of a common theme, such as in play episode 3 (Rainbow World).
Katie experimented first with the crayons on the large white paper, making scribbles across the surface
using quick, bold movements. As she coloured, she commented on the effects of the pencils:

K = It’s rainbow! You see it? [. . .] We’re gonna cover the whole paper with these colours!

After observing Katie drawing, Matthew picked up a crayon and made scribbles on the opposite side of the
paper. Samantha then picked up a crayon and started drawing beside Katie, as Nathan observed the draw-
ing. Ethan was the last to join in, scribbling beside Matthew and Katie. The children seemed impressed by
the effects of the crayons:

M= I have so many colours! Whoooaa! Whoooaa! Look at mine! Look at mine Nathan!
K= We’re gonna cover all the paper!
N= She has a colour one! [looking at Samantha’s crayon]
M= I have one!
S= I have a rainbow one.
E= Me too.

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL 81

At one point, Ethan stopped colouring to inspect his drawing, and pointed out that the colours resembled a
rainbow, and then suggested that they were creating a ‘rainbow world’ (see Figure 5):

E= This is like a rainbow!

M= Yeah!
E= Rainbow world! It is about a rainbow world!
K= Rainbow world, rainbow world [whispers as she continues scribbling].

In this scenario, it is evident that the act of mark-making alone was enough to stimulate the children’s imag-
inations and provided them with a common ground for a creating shared meaning.

Strategies for shared meaning-making

Children use a variety of strategies for communicating meaning with each other in collaborative activities.
Research has identified different forms of verbal strategies (e.g. descriptive statements, responses, clarifica-
tions) and non-verbal strategies (i.e. actions or gestures that maintain communication of ideas) children use
to develop intersubjectivity in social pretend play (e.g. Go €ncu€ 1993a; Howe et al. 2005), as well as academic
learning situations (e.g. Singer et al. 2008). Previous studies have also implied that children verbally negotiate
meaning in social drawing activities as they would in social pretend play (Coates & Coates 2006; Papandreou
2014; Wilson & Wilson 2009). As noted in Wood & Hall (2011, 274), communication about the subject matter
and direction of joint drawing is ‘essential to establishing and sharing meaning and actions’.
The findings of this study support the notion that children use different verbal and nonverbal strategies
to initiate and maintain shared meanings within instances of group play through drawing, as they do in
social pretend play. Examples of these strategies that were observed across the five episodes of play are
described here.
Attaining intersubjectivity within play is not possible without first establishing a mutual focus for the activ-
ity: that is, metacommunication (Go €ncu€ 1993a, 1993b). In order for the focus or theme to be agreed upon
and shared, one person must first have an interest in engaging in social interactions and then introduce the
topic to the other group members. This initiation of dialogue is achieved through a process known as

Figure 5. The children making a ‘rainbow world’

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
82 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL

prolepsis, whereby the speaker trusts that listeners are willing to communicate and assumes that they know
some information ‘about the topic that the speaker is introducing’ (Go €ncu
€ 1993a, 100). An example of this
was evident in play episode 4, Angry Birds (the video game character by Rovio Entertainment).
At the start of the play, Kim initiated the common theme by announcing to the others that she intended
to draw an Angry Bird (see Figure 6). This prompted the others to do the same:

K= I’m gonna draw Angry Bird.

S= Me too I’m going to draw Angry Bird.
N= What are you drawing?
S= Angry Biiiird.
K= I was drawing too, I’m gonna draw . . .
N= There’s so many colours for Angry Birds [picks a pastel from the box].

After Kim made her opening statement, she did not go on to explain what an Angry Bird was, or why she
intended to draw one, because she assumed the other children already understood what she was talking
about. This communicative strategy used by Kim is also an example of an introduction, which is defined in the
research on shared meaning-making as an act that introduces new elements or ideas, such as a new theme,
€ncu
into the play (Go € 1993a; Howe et al. 2005). Prior to Kim’s statement, there was no specific theme being
used, but immediately after her introduction, the others started to draw Angry Birds as well. Similarly, in play
episode 1, Amanda introduced the topic by saying, ‘Look! I did a beehouse’, after which Matthew continued
the theme by drawing his own image of a tree and beehive.
Co-constructing and sustaining shared meanings throughout play requires the use of diverse negotiation
and maintenance strategies (Go €ncu€ 1993a, 1993b; Howe et al. 2005). In group drawing, children appear to
use a combination of verbal, gestural and drawing acts to achieve successful communication, as evidenced
by the observed episodes of group drawing.

Verbal strategies
Across the five play episodes, the children employed verbal communication strategies akin to those found in
social pretend play. In fact, several of the maintenance strategies that were coded by Howe et al. (2005) in a
study on shared meaning in sibling pretend play were evident in the children’s interactions. Some examples
include: the children repeating each other’s actions (e.g. Kim draws an Angry Bird and Sadia copies her),
extending each other’s ideas (e.g. Sabrina and Amanda discuss how the bad princess makes the good prin-
cess evil), asking questions to clarify actions (e.g. Nathan asks Sadia, ‘What are you drawing?’), and using

Figure 6. Kim’s drawing of Angry Birds

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL 83

prosocial statements and actions (e.g. Katie announces, ‘We’re gonna cover all the paper’, suggesting that
the drawing is a group effort).
A possible explanation for the similarity between the verbal strategies used in social pretend play and
spontaneous group drawing can be drawn from theories on play talk. Children are aware of the differences
between play and nonplay situations, and adapt their language accordingly (Go€ncu€ 1993b; Frost et al. 2012),
using speech ‘as a vehicle for indicating the play frame and its meanings’ (Frost et al. 2012, 35). Because
open-ended drawing has the same free-flowing and fantastical nature as pretend play, children may be
inclined to use the same type of language strategies in group drawing as they do in socio-dramatic play.

Gestural strategies
The video data revealed that children used many physical gestures while drawing cooperatively with their
peers. Gestures play a vital role in our ability to communicate with one another and construct knowledge
(McNeill 1992; Singer et al. 2008), indicating that they are also a significant factor in the development of
shared meanings. The children in this study used gestures primarily as a way of conveying thoughts and
ideas, explaining action sequences, communicating emotion and focusing a partner’s attention. For instance,
in play episode 2, Amanda and Sabrina consistently used gestures to communicate with each other. At the
start of the episode, Amanda voiced her frustration about not being able to draw a princess, and used hand
gestures to convey her emotion:

A = Errrr! [makes fists with both her hands at her sides] I just cannot draw a princess face!

Later, as the girls discussed the direction of the drawing, Amanda used gestures to focus Sabrina’s attention
on her drawing, and to explain how they needed to draw the princess lying down (see Figure 7):

A = Alright, now we’re going to wipe this princess off [points to her princess], and make a princess
who lies down like thaaat [gestures with her hands to indicate the direction she wants the
princess to lie], so it can be died, alright?

Figure 7. Amanda gestures with her hands to indicate how the princess should be drawn lying down

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
84 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL

Gestures are commonly used to convey meaning that cannot be expressed through speech, as well as infor-
mation that the speaker believes to be hidden from his or her audience (McNeill 1992; Singer et al. 2008).
When combined, gesture and speech provide the listener with a better understanding of the speaker’s inten-
tions, as compared with speech alone (McNeill 1992; Singer et al. 2008). In these examples, it is clear that
Amanda used gestures to relay important conceptual and emotional information to her play partner that she
believed could not be adequately expressed through words.

Drawing strategies
Collective drawing activities afford children the opportunity to use a strategy of communication that is not
generally found in sociodramatic play: drawing images or marks that provide play partners with a concrete
visual representation of ideas and meanings as they develop in real time. The drawing strategies observed
across the episodes of play can be categorised in the same fashion as verbal semantic tying, or strategies
that add new elements to a partner’s contribution (Howe et al. 2005). In other words, drawing was used to
extend others’ ideas, build on one’s own ideas and to help explain courses of action. Examples of these
drawing strategies were observed in play episode 5 (Fire, Wheels and a Train).
Ian and Andrew started by experimenting with the pastels and drawing fire, after which Ian suggested
adding ‘x-wheels’ to the picture to create some kind of vehicle, and then drew a white circle overtop of the
drawing. Andrew then extended this idea using drawing:

A = Okay, x-wheels is like this [draws an ‘x’ inside Ian’s white circle].

The boys added many more similar wheels to the drawing, prompting Ian to mention that the drawing was
starting to resemble a train. They then continued with this theme, and Ian suggested making tracks for the
train. He added to his own idea by drawing tracks:

I = Alright, let’s make the tracks! We have to make the tracks. Let’s make the tracks. I’m gonna
make the tracks [takes a green pastel and starts drawing a long line underneath the drawing].
Traaack.

The boys revisit their fire imagery, adding fire above and on the train. Andrew coloured quickly and fer-
vently, using drawing as a way of conveying that the train was moving fast:

A = Ppppffffff. It is going fast! [continues colouring quickly]

In these examples, it appears that the children were conversing through drawing as they added to their col-
lective image, while simultaneously discussing the content of the drawing. This observation is in line with
the findings of Cox (2005), as well as Coates & Coates (2006), who found that drawing with peers promotes
a conversation ‘through drawing rather than words’ (Cox 2005, 119).

Discussion
When children are provided with the opportunity to participate in open-ended drawing activities with their
peers, they often engage in group play, as evidenced by the episodes of play presented in this article. These
episodes closely resembled social pretend play in terms of themes (e.g. princesses, fantasy worlds, popular
characters) and shared meaning-making strategies (i.e. verbal and nonverbal), adding support to the notion
that drawing and socio-dramatic play may be linked, and that children adapt knowledge and strategies
according to the play context.

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL 85

In response to the first research question (How do children initiate and co-construct play themes in group
drawing?), it was observed that prior knowledge and common interests figured prominently in the process
of initiating and developing group play scenarios in this study. In social pretend play, children often rely on
‘shared knowledge about everyday activities’ (Farver 1992, 513) in order to develop themes and roles for
their play. If a common ground cannot be established, children might experience difficulty entering and
maintaining group play, as they may not be able to reach a shared understanding about the roles and
actions involved (Go €ncu
€ 1993b). In a similar way during collective drawing activities, children cannot create
drawings without some general knowledge about or interest in the things they want to draw (Wilson & Wil-
son 2009). It is clear that all the children in play episode 1 knew some information about bees, otherwise
they would not have been able to build on each other’s imagery. Similarly, if the children did not possess a
common interest in exploring popular culture themes (e.g. Angry Birds), or experimenting with drawing
mediums (as in play episode 3), they would not have continued to build on each other’s ideas.
The common knowledge and interest in popular storylines, as seen in play episode 2, merits attention
because it further showcases the influence that popular cultural texts have on children’s play practices,
which has been a topic of much research and debate (e.g. Chang-Kredl & Howe 2010; Linn 2008). Many
scholars have argued that media-based play encourages the use of prefabricated storylines and ‘internalized
“scripts” from which it is hard to deviate’ (Linn 2008, 33). The limitation of this argument is that it negates
the fact that children are active interpreters of knowledge and do not passively internalise scripts and
images (Weber & Dixon 2010). In fact, Weber & Dixon (2010) argued that children draw on a variety of
sources to inform their play (e.g. personal experiences, movies) and adapt images from popular culture
according to the play space and opportunities provided to them.
Similarly in drawing, children adapt ideas from a combination of different sources to extend and enhance
their visual creations (Gentle 1985). Wilson & Wilson (2009) note that it is only natural that media images
should have an impact on children’s drawings, as these are the models with which children are most familiar
and graphics that are already two-dimensional in form are easier to remember. In the case of play episode
4, the simple forms of the Angry Birds characters were easy for the children to recall and replicate, facilitat-
ing the process of establishing a common ground for collective drawing.
The findings of this study also demonstrate that shared themes can arise from simple tactile exploration.
Children often participate in drawing for the sensory pleasure, satisfaction and stimulation that comes from
exploring various art mediums (Wilson & Wilson 2009). Piaget (1962, 110) coined the term ‘practice play’ to
refer to these types of activities where the sole purpose is the ‘pleasure of functioning’. In many cases, these
drawings consist of scribbles that mean nothing to the trained adult eye, but carry great significance for the
children that create them (Anning 1999; Kolbe 2005). This study reiterates the importance of listening to and
observing the ‘accompanying talk and gesture’ (Anning 1999, 166) that occur while children draw so as to
understand their thought processes.
In response to the second research question (What specific strategies do children use for metcommuni-
cation and communication in open-ended group drawing?), the children were observed using verbal
strategies (e.g. introductions, clarifying questions, extensions) and nonverbal strategies (e.g. hand gestures)
akin to those found in social pretend play, with drawing strategies as an additional way of communicating
meaning. Go €ncu€ (1993a) reported that in pretend play, children used both verbal and nonverbal acts to
introduce new ideas. However, in the case of nonverbal acts, the actions must be followed by a verbal
introduction for the children to reach an agreement about the activity, otherwise the play is simply paral-
lel, not cooperative. Therefore, it seems that nonverbal introductions are not enough to initiate a shared
theme. This was apparent across the five play episodes in this study. For example, in the princess episode,
the girls were both drawing individually until Amanda voiced her frustration about her drawing, sparking
a conversation and demonstrations about how to draw a princess. This finding suggests that shared
understanding in collective drawing activities cannot be initiated solely through the acts of observing and

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
86 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL

drawing alongside others; verbal introductions and agreements are required to advance the joint theme,
and drawings act as a type of a visual confirmation of the agreement.
The use of gesture in communicating meaning is common for adults and children alike, but carries partic-
ular importance for children who need gestures to compensate for their limited vocabularies to express
themselves (Thomas 2005). Across all the play episodes, gestures provided children with an additional means
of sharing thoughts and feelings with their peers. Similarly, drawing strategies were used to extend, build-
on, and explain the children’s ideas (e.g. when Andrew added to Ian’s drawing of a wheel). These findings in
particular reveal the value of open-ended group drawing for the co-construction of meaning and the devel-
opment of communication skills in young children.
In terms of the study’s implications for curriculum practices, the authors recommend that children be
provided with ample time to draw with their peers. However, the focus should remain on allowing chil-
dren to draw freely without pressure to create specific imagery or form letters, as is common practice in
early childhood settings and higher levels of education that focus heavily on developing literacy and
writing skills (Anning 1999; Mackenzie 2011). When given enough time to enter play and develop draw-
ings, children are able to create imagery and narratives that are rich and full of imagination, as seen in
the princess drawings created by Sabrina and Amanda. It is also recommended that educators and par-
ents familiarise themselves with children’s verbal and gestural expressions during drawing episodes, as
these may indicate important markers in social, communicative and cognitive skills. As well, adults should
be aware of how children’s interests, for instance, in popular culture can help the children sustain their
motivation to draw and engage in shared meaning-making.
This study was limited by the small sample size and short length of the observations; however, it was
designed to be an initial exploration that may serve as a basis for larger and more extensive inquiries. Future
research may investigate the benefits of open-ended collective drawing in more structured academic learn-
ing environments and with older children, as compared with younger children in preschools. This informa-
tion would be useful for generalists seeking to integrate art into the curriculum, as well as art educators who
wish to encourage imagination and/or move away from traditional individual projects. Future studies might
also conduct a comparison of how themes and content develop in solitary drawing versus group drawing to
gain a better understanding of the influence of peers and shared knowledge on drawing practices.

Conclusion
Drawing is a natural part of childhood. The fact that children spontaneously engage in drawing – either
alone or with others – on a regular basis shows that it is an activity that is intrinsically meaningful to them,
much like pretend play. This exploratory investigation demonstrated that there is more to be gained from
open-ended group drawing than is generally understood by many educators and parents. The observed
instances of group play through drawing in this study attest to the notion of drawing as a prominent source
of social and creative development in early childhood, as evidenced by the initiation of play themes based
on common knowledge and similar interests, as well as the strategies (verbal and nonverbal) that the chil-
dren employed to co-construct shared meaning. Overall, it can be said that drawing is a playful and engag-
ing activity where children share their interests with others, co-construct meaning and enjoy the process of
creation.

Tiina Kukkonen has a BFA in Art Education and an MA in Child Studies. She has taught art at all ages and
levels, but continues to be fascinated with the drawing practices of young children and the benefits associ-
ated with group art-making. She is currently pursuing a PhD in Education at Queens University in Canada.
Contact address: Duncan McArthur Hall, Faculty of Education, Queen's University, 511 Union Street, Kingston,
Ontario, K7M 5R7, Canada. Email: 14tk29@queensu.ca

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 KUKKONEN AND CHANGKREDL 87

Sandra Chang-Kredl is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at Concordia University where
she conducts research in early childhood education and children’s popular culture. She teaches courses in
children’s play, preschool education and curriculum studies. Contact address: Concordia University, Education,
1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd W, FG 6.139, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada. Email: sandra.chang-kredl@-
concordia.ca

References
Anning, A. (1999) Learning to draw and drawing to learn, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 163–72.
Chang-Kredl, S. & Howe, N. (2010) Children’s pretend play with media based toys, in E. E. Nwokah [Ed.] Play & Culture Studies, Volume
10: Play as Engagement and Communication. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 82–99.
Coates, E. & Coates, A. (2006) Young children talking and drawing, International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.
221–41.
Cox, S. (2005) Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.
115–25.
Daniels, H. (2001) Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Farver, J. A. M. (1992) Communicating shared meaning in social pretend play, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.
501–16.
Frisch, N. S. (2006) Drawing in preschools: a didactic experience, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.
74–85.
Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C. & Reifel, S. (2012) Play and Child Development, fourth edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gentle, K. (1985) Children and Art Teaching. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Go€nc€u, A. (1993a) Development of intersubjectivity in the dyadic play of preschoolers, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, No.
1, pp. 99–116.
Go€nc€u, A. (1993b) Development of intersubjectivity in social pretend play, Human Development, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 185–98.
Howe, N., Petrakos, H., Rinaldi, C. M. & LeFebvre, R. (2005) ‘This is a bad dog, you know . . . ’: Constructing shared meanings during sibling
pretend play, Child Development, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 783–94.
John-Steiner, V. P., Connery, M. C. & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2010) Dancing with muses: a cultural-historical approach to play, meaning
making and creativity, in M. C. Connery, V. P. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane [Eds] Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural-Histori-
cal Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the Arts. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 3–15.
Kolbe, U. (2005) It’s Not a Bird Yet: The Drama of Drawing. Byron Bay: Peppinot Press.
Linn, S. (2008) The Case for Make Believe: Saving Play in a Commercialized World. New York: New Press.
€fdahl, A. (2005) ‘The funeral’: a study of children’s shared meaning-making and its developmental significance, Early Years, Vol. 25,
Lo
No. 1, pp. 5–16.
Mackenzie, N. (2011) From drawing to writing: What happens when you shift teaching priorities in the first six months of school?,
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 322–40.
McNeill, D. (1992) Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Papandreou, M. (2014) Communicating and thinking through drawing activity in early childhood, Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 85–100.
Piaget, J. (1962) Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. New York: Norton.
Rubin, K. H. (1977) Play behaviors of young children, Young Children, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 16–24.
Singer, M., Radinsky, J. & Goldman, S. R. (2008) The role of gesture in meaning construction, Discourse Processes, Vol. 45, Nos. 4–5, pp.
365–86.
Smith, P. K. (2005) Social and pretend play in children, in A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith [Eds] The Nature of Play: Great Apes and
Humans. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 173–209.
Swann, A. C. (2009) An intriguing link between drawing and play with toys, Childhood Education, Vol. 85, No. 4, pp. 230–6.
Thomas, R. M. (2005) Comparing Theories of Child Development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Towbin, M. A., Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Lund, L. K. & Tanner, L. R. (2004) Images of gender, race, age, and sexual orientation
in Disney feature-length animated films, Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 19–44.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1976) Play and its role in the mental development of the child, in M. Cole [Ed.] Soviet Developmental Psychology: An
Anthology. New York: Sharpe, pp. 76–99 (reprinted from Voprosy psikologii, No. 6, 1966).
Weber, S. & Dixon, S. (2010) Growing up Online: Young People and Digital Technologies, revised edn. New York: Palgrave.
Wilson, M. & Wilson, B. (2009) Teaching Children to Draw. Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Wood, E. & Hall, E. (2011) Drawings as spaces for intellectual play, International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 19, Nos. 3–4, pp.
267–81.
Wright, S. (2007) Graphic-narrative play: young children’s authoring through drawing and telling, International Journal of Education &
the Arts, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 1–28.

iJADE 37.1 (2018)

ª 2017 The Authors. iJADE ª 2017 NSEAD/John Wiley & Sons Ltd