O GoConqr está de visual novo! Conte para nós o que você achou.

Registre-se grátis

Flashcards

Children Drawing

Dooney 205 Developmental Inglês 87 flashcards

Flashcards do conjunto (87)

  1. 1Who tested to see if the single square represented a face or the whole cube?Moore (1986)
  2. 2What did Moore (1986) do in their study and what was found?Presented cube with different coloured faces, asked children to colour drawing. 7 year old's squares were multiple colours (whole object), 9 years were one colour (one face).
  3. 3What tends to be harder for children, drawing from imagination, or copying line diagram?Copying
  4. 4What are the two explanations as to why copying is hard for children?Different denotion strategies
    The demands are hard for children
  5. 5Who found children fail to use parallel construction?Mitchelmore (1985)
  6. 6Who found 7- and 9-year-olds make more errors in coping 3-D diagrams over 2-D? What did they conclude?Phillips et al. (1978). Concluded when presented with a familiar object, internal representation takes over, but this is different from drawing from memory
  7. 7Who found 5- and 9-year-old children copied line diagrams and photos more accurately than drawing the real thing?Chen (1985)
  8. 8Who looked at the effect of familiarity on drawing, and how did they test it?Moore (1987), presented 2 line diagrams, one familiar, the other unfamiliar.
  9. 9What were the results of Moore (1987)?Both 7- and 9- year olds drew unfamiliar better, despite being more complex, and 3-D. When presented with the model of unfamiliar, accuracy decreased
  10. 10What did Chen (1985) say about internal representations as explanation of greater accuracy with unfamiliar objects?Doesn't explain greater accuracy in copies of line diagrams and photos over familiar solid objects. Possibly just difference between task
  11. 11What are the two strategies identified by Chen (1985) in regard to line drawing?Content directed, ignores 3-D, vs structure directed, line diagram
  12. 12Who found despite meaning disrupting accurate portrayal, in some cases, it enhances it?Sheppard et al. (2005)
  13. 13What Sheeppard et al. (2005) do and find?Gave no 3-D information, more accurate to copy something familiar
  14. 14What is the problem with Sheppard et al. (2005)?Without 3-D cues, it is similar to what children produce anyway
  15. 15Who found doing a line diagram enhances drawing a solid object after?Bremmer et al. (2000)
  16. 16In regard to human figure drawing, what do young children tend to draw?Tadpole Figures, big head with limbs.
  17. 17What were Freeman's (1980) 3 explanations of young children's human figure drawings?1) Single circle denotes a whole person
    2) Tadpole Figure is more aesthetically pleasing
    3) They think arms should be attached to head (unlikey)
  18. 18What did Freeman (1980) do to study their explanations of young children's human figure drawing?Children were presented with already drawn body and heads, both varying in size.
  19. 19What was the results of Freeman (1980), and what is the explanation for it?Children attached arms to larger element. When they draw a person,s tart with head, using it for anchor for other parts, no chance to add body. Sequence order problem
  20. 20Who created the general theory of representational redescription?Karmiloff-Smith (1990)
  21. 21How does the general theory of representational redescription describe the cause of planning problems?Young children's knowledge or representations are implicit in sense they guide habitual action appropriately, but not a cognitive system which can reorganise for a more flexible use
  22. 22What is the evidence for the general theory of representational redescription?Karmiloff-Smith (1990), when children asked to draw two heads, couldn't do it, ended up putting the heads separately.
  23. 23Which studies found more flexibility than Karmiloff-Smith predicted? (3)1) Zhi et al. (1997)
    2) Berti and Freeman (1997)
    3) Morse and Bremmer (1998)
  24. 24What did Zhi et al. (1997) find?Children under 5 could alter sequence of drawing, but most parts are inflexible, eg symmetry
  25. 25Berti and Freeman (1997), and Morse and Bremmer (1998) found...Can alter sequence if less extreme than head, or if support is given.
  26. 26What did Karmiloff-Smith (1999) say about the studies which seemed to show some flexibility in drawing sequences?They were not true cases of flexibility, just a new procedure specific to the task, and isn't generalisable.
  27. 27What study supports Karmiloff-Smith (1999) criticisms of the flexibility of drawing studies, and what was found?Hollis and Low (2005), evidence as children only applied solution to novel task, then revert back.
  28. 28At what age do drawing sequences become more flexible?5 years
  29. 29Who identified the difference between male and female drawings emerges at 5 years?Sitton and Light (1992)
  30. 30The flexibility in drawing sequences arises with....Flexibility in visual realism and depth protrayal
  31. 31What is the explanation for even when children draw the body, the head tends to be bigger?They tend to start with the head, and they don't have enough room on the page for proper body size.
  32. 32Who tried to get children to draw trunk first, and found they were unwilling?Freeman
  33. 33Who found when children started with the trunk the ratio was more accurate, and what was this more to do with?Thomas and Tsalimi (1988), and was more to with decrease of head
  34. 34What did a student project find when children started with the legs?A better ratio, but the smaller head could have been due to running out of room
  35. 35Apart from starting with the head, what is another reason as to why it could be drawn bigger?It is more important, with advanced planning due to lots of features
  36. 36Who tested to see whether the fact the head has a lot of features was the cause of children drawing it bigger?Henderson and Thomas (1990)
  37. 37What are the three conditions of Henderson and Thomas (1990)?Children were asked to draw a person with either; jacket, teeth, or from a back view
  38. 38What were results of Henderson and Thomas (1990)?Jacket caused torso to be bigger, but heads did not become larger. Teeth no difference, probably due to no need. Backview, lead to smaller head, omitting features
  39. 39Who found children have issues with scaling, and order is important, and how?Silk and Thomas, inaccurate ratios between objects, and largest drawn first.
  40. 40Who found children note their production lags behind what makes a good drawing?Jolley et al. (2000)
  41. 41What did Jolley et al. (2000) find in regard to picking advanced drawings?Children consistently select more advanced drawing, than theirs, when asked to pick most realistic. Even like it best, or similar to theirs.
  42. 42What did Jolley et al. (2000) find in regard of advanced drawers and ranking drawings?Were able to rank drawings in developmental sequence, showing meta-knowledge
  43. 43How do younger children draw cubes at first, and how does this progress?Tend to draw a square to represent whole object, then partially interconnected set of two or more squares. Lines represent faces but not consistently the interrelations, then gradually accurate
  44. 44What did Davis (1983) find when mug had an invisible handle, was presented with a sugarbowl?Found the child drew handle on mug, possibly to show difference
  45. 45Who found if you ask a child to name an object before drawing it, the hidden features appear?Bremner and Moore (1984)
  46. 46Who failed Freeman and Janikain, and Barrett and Light's work, due to not naming the objects prior to drawing?Taylor and Bachcrach (1982)
  47. 47Who showed if asked to named a mug, hidden handle would appear, but if named 'this', hidden handle was omitted?Lewis et al. (1993)
  48. 48What is the explanation of the shift from intellectual to visual realism due to naming?Naming cues symbolisms, the class of object, over object in front child.
  49. 49Who naming effect in novel objects with novel names?Walker et al. (2006; 2008)
  50. 50Who suggested the naming effect maybe beyond drawing, as an object name is linked with an object-centred representation?Landau (1994)
  51. 51What area of psychology has the naming effect moved into according to Hodgson (2002)?Visual cognition and neuroscience
  52. 52Who found older children can be reverted to intellectual realism in certain circumstances?Krascum et al. (1996)
  53. 53What did Krascum et al. (1996) do in their study and find?Showed children a novel object, with function explained, and put function out of sight. Found even older children include hidden feature
  54. 54What did Krascum et al. (1996) suggest caused their results?Children are likely to include features salient in formation of a new functional concept.
  55. 55What is an alternate explanation of Krascum et al. (2006)?The prior stress on novel object's function may prompt an object centred, intellectual realistic, drawing.
  56. 56Who found 4 to 7 year olds drew more accurately if stressed to draw what they see?Barrett and Bridson (1983)
  57. 57Who found in 5 year olds if you stress to draw what you see, when drawing a mug with a hidden handle, they were more accurate?Beal and Arnold (1990)
  58. 58When children draw, how often do they usually look at the model?Rarely
  59. 59Who found children pay greater attention to a model, when they are instructed to draw what they see?Sutton and Rose (1998)
  60. 60What notion does the results of Sutton and Rose (1998)?That attention strategies is root of the difference, a deficit in spontaneous attention leading to intellectual realism.
  61. 61What is the problem with the notion an attention deficit causes the difference in drawing?Could equally be intellectual realism creates a deficit in spontaneous attention.
  62. 62Who said that we should be cautious about inferring cognitive abilities, based upon their drawings, and why?Kosslyn et al. (1977), as there are reasons as to why drawings may differ.
  63. 63What is the current idea about the cause of the difference?Children have different notions about what a drawing should show.
  64. 64Who identified the four stages of children's drawing development?Luquet
  65. 65What are Luquet's four stages;1) Fortiutous realism
    2) Failed realism
    3) Intellectual realism
    Visual realism
  66. 66What does the child do at the fortuitous realism stage?Child has no object in mind when starting but recognises the product
  67. 67What does the child do at the failed realism stage?Child attempts to draw an object, but fails to correctly represent it for various reasons.
  68. 68What does the child do at the intellectual realism stage?Child succeeds in representing object, but tends to show all features, visible or not.
  69. 69What does the child tend to do at the visual realism stage?Child focuses on drawing from a particular viewpoint.
  70. 70Luquet based stage model on the results of...Clark (1897)
  71. 71What did Clark (1897) find, when asking children to draw an apple with a hatpin stuck through it?Younger drew all the hatpin, older only visible parts.
  72. 72Who offered a different explanation to Luquet, not based on intellectual to visual shift)?Crook (1985)
  73. 73Who added to Luquet's account to their general theory, modifying it slightly?Piaget and Inhelder (1956)
  74. 74How did Piaget and Inhelder (1956) interpret intellectual realism arising from?Cognitive limitations
  75. 75Who got children to draw a mug, after examining it and naming it, with the handle out of sight, and a flower pattern in sight?Freeman and Janikoun (1972)
  76. 76What were the results of Freeman and Janikoun (1972)?5-7 year olds omitted the flower and drew the handle
    7+omitted the handle, and drew the flower
  77. 77What was the conclusion of Freeman and Janikoun (1972)?Younger children include defining features, even if invisible, and older include only visible features, even if not defining.
  78. 78Who suggested an extra stage of in development?Barrett and Light (1976)
  79. 79What did Barrett and Light (1976) do?Presented a house with no door, gave a story as to why there is no door, asked children to draw the house.
  80. 80What was the finding of Barrett and Light (1976), and what did it distinguish?Children still drew the door on the house. Distinguished symbolism (class of exemplar) and intellectual (features of object in front of them)
  81. 81What is the problem with Barrett and Light's (1976) extra symbolism stage?There is little evidence for it.
  82. 82Who tested the symbolist stage, looking to see if hidden features of an unfamiliar object would be drawn or not?Bremner and Moore (1984)
  83. 83What did Bremner and Moore (1984) find?5- and 6-year olds were as likely to include hidden feature in unfamiliar object, compared to a familiar one.
  84. 84What did the findings of Bremner and Moore (1984) show in terms of Barrett and Light?Children were being intellectual realists, with unfamiliar objects, when including hidden feature
  85. 85Who found younger children can be provoked into being visual realists over intellectual realists?Davis (1983)
  86. 86What did Davis (1983) do?Presented children with a mug, handle in or out of sight, and asked to draw it.
  87. 87What was the result of Davis (1983)?Children presented with handle out of sight, omitted handle when out of sight, but reappeared when it was in sight.

Informações

Descrição
205 Developmental FlashCards sobre Children Drawing, criado por Dooney em 01-05-2013.
Criado por
Dooney
Visualizações
54
Avaliação

Fale Conosco

Sobre o que é sua mensagem?

O que você acha do novo visual?

Você gostou?