Researchers have long understood that children's drawings provide meaningful insights into the individual. This research extends previous use of Kinetic School Drawings (KSD) by asking students to represent their ideal as well as their actual school experiences. The drawings provide nonverbal documentation of gifted students' perceptions of their current school experiences and clearly indicate the changes the students would prefer in their schooling. Information on the particular educational preferences of gifted students can be applied, whether or not these students are served by special programs, to insure that their school experiences meet their unique educational needs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. (1983). Preferences for the ideal classroom environment: A comparison of gifted and non-gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(9-A), 2869.
2.
AndrewsJ.JanzenH. (1988a). A global approach for the interpretation of the Kinetic School Drawing (KSD): A quick scoring sheet, reference guide, and rating scale. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 217–238.
3.
AndrewsJ.JanzenH. (1988b). Objectifying the Kinetic School Drawing (KSD): A comparison of LD vs Non LD Grade 5 Students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 3, 27–51.
4.
ArmstrongD. C. (1989a). Appropriate programming for the gifted: An analysis of elementary students' perceptions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(4), 277–291.
5.
ArmstrongD. C. (1989b, April). Appropriate programming for the gifted. A student-centered model. Paper presented at Council for Exceptional Children National Convention, San Francisco, CA. April 1989.
6.
ArmstrongD. C. (1992). ADAPT: A diagnostic technique for accommodating both individual and group differences among the gifted. Gifted CMd Today, 15(4), 55–61.
7.
ArmstrongD. C. (1994). A gifted child's education requires real dialogue: The use of interactive writing for collaborative education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 136–145.
8.
BuckJ. N. (1948). The H-T-P technique: A qualitative and quantitative scoring manual. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 317–396.
9.
BuckJ. N. (1964). The House-Tree-Person (H-T-P) manual supplement. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
10.
BuckJ. N.HammerE. F. (Eds.). (1969). Advances in House-Tree-Person techniques, variations and applications. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
11.
BurnsR. C. (1982). Self-growth in families: Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): Research and applications. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
12.
BurnsR. C.KaufmanS. F. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawing (K- F-D): An introduction to understanding children through kinetic drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
13.
BurnsR. C.KaufmanS. F. (1972). Actions, styles, and symbols in Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): An interpretative manual. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
14.
ClarkG. (1993). Judging children's drawings as measures of art abilities. Studies in Art Education, 34(2), 72–81.
15.
ClarkG.WilsonT. (1991). Screening and identifying students talented in the visual arts: Clark's drawing abilities test. Roeper Review, 13(2), 92–97.
16.
ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (1993). Relationships between programming practices and outcomes in a summer residential school for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(4), 420–441.
17.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. (1992). Gifted high school students' advice to science teachers. The Gifted Child Today, 25(5), 25–26.
18.
DavisC. B.HoopesJ. L. (1975). Comparison of house-tree-person drawings of young deaf and hearing children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 28–33.
19.
DennisW. (1966). Group values through children's drawings. New York: John Wiley.
20.
DileoJ. H. (1970). Young children and their drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
21.
DorhutA. (1983). Student and teacher perceptions of preferred teacher behavior among the academically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(3), 122–125.
22.
DunnR. (1993). Learning styles of the multiculturally diverse. Emergency Librarian, 20(4), 24–32.
23.
DunnR.DunnK.TreffingerD. J. (1992). Bringing out giftedness in your child. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
24.
DunnR.PriceG. E. (1980). Identifying the learning style characteristics of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(1), 33–36.
25.
EwingH. J.YongF. L. (1992). A comparative study of learning style preferences among gifted Afro-American, Mexican-American, and American-born Chinese middle school students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 120–123.
26.
FraserB. J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.
27.
FraserB. J. (1989). Twenty years of classroom climate work: Progress and prospect. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(40), 307–327.
28.
FullerG. R.PruessM.HawkinsW. F. (1970). The validity of the human figure drawings with disturbed and normal children. Journal of School Psychology, 8, 54–56.
29.
GalbraithJ. (1984). The gifted child's survival guide. Minneapolis: Free Spirit.
30.
GardnerH. (1980). Artful scribbles. New York: Basic Books.
31.
GoodenoughF. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
32.
GoodnowJ. (1977). Children's drawing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
GreenM.LevittE. E. (1962). Constriction of body image in children with congenital heart disease. Pediatrics, 29, 438–441.
34.
HabenichtD. J.ShawJ.BrandleyL. S. (1990, March) Black children draw their families: Some surprises. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Association for Counseling and Development, Cincinnati.
35.
HammerE. F. (1953). The role of the H-T-P in the prognostic battery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 371–374.
36.
HammerE. F. (1971). The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
37.
HarrisD. B. (1963). Children's drawings as measures of intellectual maturity. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
38.
HerberholzD.HerberholzB. (1990) Artworks for elementary teachers: Developing artistic and perceptual awareness (6th ed.). Dubuque, LA: Wm. Brown.
39.
HulseW. C. (1951). The emotionally disturbed child draws his family. Quarterly Journal of Child Behavior, 3, 152–174.
40.
HulseW. C. (1952). Childhood conflict expressed through family drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 16, 66–79.
41.
HorowitzF. D.O'BrienM. (Eds). (1985). The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
42.
HurwitzA.DayM. (1991). Children and their art. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
43.
KelloggR. (1959). What children scribble and why. Palo Alto, CA: National.
44.
KlepschM.LogieL. (1982). Children draw and tell: An introduction to projective techniques of children's human figure drawings. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
45.
KnoffH. M. (1983). Justifying projective/personality assessment in school psychology: A response to Batsche and Peterson. School Psychology Review, 12, 446–451.
46.
KnoffH. M.ProutH. T. (1985). The Kinetic Drawing System: A review and integration of the Kinetic Family and School Drawing techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 50–59.
47.
KnoffH. M.ProutH. T. (1991). Kinetic Drawing System for Family and School: A handbook. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
48.
KoppitzE. M. (1960). Teacher's attitude and children's performance on the Bender gestalt test and human figure drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 204–208.
49.
KoppitzE. M. (1966a). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings of children: A validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 313–315.
50.
KoppitzE. M. (1966b). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings of shy and aggressive children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 466–469.
51.
KoppitzE. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's human drawing. New York: Grune & Stratton.
52.
KuhlmanT. L.BieliauskasV. J. (1976). A comparison of black and white adolescents on the H-T-P. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 728–731.
53.
KunkelM.PittmanA.HildebrandS.WallingD. (1994). Expectations of gifted junior high students for a summer enrichment program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 260–275.
54.
KutnickP. (1978). Children's drawings of their classrooms. Child Study Journal, 8, 175–185.
55.
LombrosoC. (1891). The men of genius. London: Robert Scott.
56.
LourensoS.V.GreenbergJ. W.DavidsonH. H. (1965) Personality characteristics revealed in drawings of deprived children who differ in school achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 59, 63–67.
57.
LowenfeldV. (1987). Creative mental growth, (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
58.
MachoverK. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
59.
McPheeI. P.WegnerK. W. (1976). Kinetic Family Drawing and emotionally disturbed childhood behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 487–491.
60.
MeyersD. (1978). Toward an objective evaluation procedure for the Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD). Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 358–365.
61.
MoonS.FeldhusenJ. F.DillonD. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue three-stage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 38–48.
62.
MoosR. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63.
MoosR. H. (1987). Learning environments in context: Links between school, home, work, and family settings. In FraserB. J. (Ed.), The study of learning environments: Vol. 2. (pp. 1–16). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
64.
MostkoffD. L.LazarusP. J. (1983). The Kinetic Family Drawing: The reliability of an objective scoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 16–20.
65.
NathanS. (1974). Body image in chronically obese children as reflected in figure drawings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 456–463.
66.
NaglieriJ. A. (1988). Draw a person: A quantitative scoring system. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
67.
O'BrienR. O.PattonW. F. (1974). Development of an objective scoring method for the Kinetic Family Drawing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 156–164.
68.
PerroneP.DowE. (1993). First and second year college experiences of Wisconsin's academically talented 1988 high school graduates. Roeper Review, J5(3), 144–148.
69.
PiagetJ.InhelderB. (1971). Mental imagery in the child. New York: Basic Books.
70.
Plato (1970). The Republic (CornfordF., Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
71.
PorathM. (1993). Gifted young artists: Developmental and individual differences. Roeper Review, 16(1), 29–33.
72.
ProutH. T. (1983). School psychologists and social-emotional assessment techniques: Patterns in training and use. School Psychology Review, 12, 377–383.
73.
ProutH. T.CelmerD. S. (1984). School drawings and academic achievement: A validity study of Kinetic School Drawing technique. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 176–180.
74.
ProutH. T.PhillipsP. D. (1974). A clinical note: The Kinetic School Drawing. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 303–306.
75.
PurcellJ. (1993). The effects of the elimination of gifted and talented programs on participating students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 177–187.
76.
RaskinL. M.BloomA. S. (1979). Kinetic Family Drawings by children with learning disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 4, 247–251.
77.
RaskinL. M.PitcherG. B. (1977). Kinetic Family Drawings by children with perceptual-motor delays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 370–374.
78.
RavivA.RavivA.ReiselE. (1990). Teachers and students: Two different perspectives?! Measuring social climate in the classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(1), 141–157.
79.
ReadH. (1966a). Art and society. New York: Schocken Books.
80.
ReadH. (1966b). Art as a unifying principal in education. In LewisH. P., (Ed.), Child art (pp. 17–36). Berkeley: Diablo Books.
81.
ReynoldsC. R. (1978). A quick scoring guide to the interpretation of children's Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD). Psychology in the Schools, 15, 489–492.
82.
RogersR. S.WrightE. N. (1971). A study of children's drawings of their classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 64, 370–374.
83.
SarbaughM. E. A. (1982). Kinetic Drawing-School (KD-S) technique. Illinois School Psychologists Association Monograph Series, 1, 11–70.
84.
SchneiderG. B. (1978). A preliminary validation study of the Kinetic School Drawing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(11–A), 6628A.
85.
ScottL. E. (1988). A comparative study of personality, values, and background characteristics of artistically talented, academically talented, and average 11th and 12th grade students. Studies in Art Education, 29(3), 292–301.
86.
ShoreB. M.CornellD.RobinsonA.WardV. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
87.
SizerT. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
88.
SternA. (1966). The child's language of art. In LewisH. P., (Ed.), Child art (pp. 69–74). Berkeley: Diablo Books.
89.
TorranceE. P. (1993). The beyonders in a thirty-year longitudinal study of creative achievement. Roeper Review, 25(3), 131–135.
90.
WagnerR. F. (1980). Human figure drawings of LD children. Academic Therapy, 16, 37–41.
91.
WalbergH. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 41(1), 19–30.
92.
WalbergH. J.WelchW. W.FraserB. J. (1985, April). Use of national assessment in science data in testing a model of educational productivity. Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
93.
WaltonJ. R. (1983, March). Kinetic School Drawings of referred school children. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists, Detroit.
