SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
EDUKACJA BIOLOGICZNA I ŚRODOWISKOWA | ebis.ibe.edu.pl | ebis@ibe.edu.pl | © for the article by the Authors 2016 © for the edition by Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych 2016
Drawing in education
Drawing can be defined as a combination of lines on a surface. Some drawings have the evoke strong emo-tions or important ideas. Sometimes drawings emerge through deep thinking or creative effort. The interplay between creative thought and drawing is of particular importance in education. In a teaching-learning con-text, drawing can be conceptualized as a communica-tive act that, under certain circumstances, can carry meaning for both the creator and the interested reader and can also have value for personal and group sense-making.
Charles Darwin is mentioned to be among first re-searchers who turned his attention also (among many others fields of his interests) into children’s drawings as a tool that might help us to understand their concep-tions about the world that surrounds them (after Lob-ocki, 2000). Drawings have been used in psychological and pedagogical research – especially in the study of creativity. In Poland, this topic has attracted the interest of many researchers, including Zbigniew Pietrasinski, Krzysztof Szmidt, Wieslawa Limont, Katarzyna Krasoń, Janina Uszyńska-Jarmoc, Hanna Krause-Sikorska, Urszula Szuścik, Jolanta Bonar, Dorota Czelakowska, Edward Nęcka and others. As a tool in didactical re-search, or as a tool for probing children’s conceptions about themselves or the environment, it was initially used in the 1980’s. Drawings are still quite commonly used in contemporary research, (for example: Driver et al., 1985; Tunnicliffe and Reiss, 2001; Prokop and Fančovičova, 2006; Ehrlén, 2009). In Polish didactical research, especially on the Didactics of Biology, the use of drawings as a research tool is still minimal.
Hayes and Symington (1984) showed that a child’s drawing can illustrate a scientific observation that was made by this child (Rennie and Jarvis, 1995). In 1983,
A model for
conceptualizing drawing
as a teaching-learning
activity in biology education
Eliza RybskaSummary:
The purpose of presented article is to propose a way of dividing a graphical activity of a student in accordance to his/her mental involvement. Presented proposition is not strictly limited to school situations. The three dimensions of drawing would include: 1) schemes – when students draws what they see, 2) drawings – where students draws what they understand, and 3) sketches – when basing on their knowledge and skills and understanding of the presented issue they can solve a biological problems, may create representations new for them as a result of creative problem solving. It seems like usually at the biological les-sons the first type of drawing is used (if ever). Such situa-tion may lead to limiting a creativity development among polish students. The additional claim of the presented article is to show and encourage everyone who is deal-ing with teachdeal-ing to invite all three dimensions of draw-ing into regular practice. Especially that drawdraw-ing used as a method might help and support learning progression in science education.
Key words: scheme, drawing, sketch, creativity, problem solving
received: 17.02.2015; accepted: 29.03.2016; published: 1.04.2016
Chambers published the ”Draw-a-Scientist-Test”, which is still in use as a tool for collecting data on children’s perceptions of scientists and, by extent, science (Finson, 2002). For a young child drawing can be a tool that al-lows them to record and reflect on what they have been observing, experiencing or inquiring, or how they are visualizing processes and mechanisms (Katz, 1998; Chang, 2005). Teachers who gain access to such draw-ings can interpret information about the level of chil-dren’s understandings of phenomena (Chang, 2005). In such cases, drawings can also serve as a source of infor-mation about students misconceptions, that are present in children’s personal knowledge. This is also true for the scientific research, where through drawings a re-searcher is able to probe children’s conceptions and mis-conceptions about the relevant phenomena (e.g. Köse, 2008; Prokop and Fančovičova; 2006, Ehrlén, 2009).
A drawing is sometimes viewed as a special ”win-dow” into a child’s mental representation (Cherney et al., 2006). Dewey (1897) highlighted the important role of creating images as part of the learning process. In this sense, drawing can be conceived of as a personal and metaphorical representation of the world. Promoting drawings is similar to promoting the process of creat-ing images (Kąkolewicz 2011). In education, drawcreat-ings, as graphical representations of the world, serve for more than just meeting the Comenius principle of obtaining ideas through objects rather than through worlds. As it will be demonstrated in this article, drawings can be a tool for constructing personal knowledge through creative problem solving.
In his book ”Great Didactics” (Didactica Magna) Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius) recommended the use of pictures, drawings and models mainly in the case of lacking the ability of direct observation of nature, also highlighting the Latin quote that there is nothing in the mind that was not first in your senses. He was also the
dr Eliza Rybska: Faculty Laboratory of Teaching and
Environmental Protection, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
first to formulate the idea of education according to na-ture, and applied in a systematic manner the principles of thought and of investigation to the organization of education.
Referring to Comenius’s principles, Rykow (1956) claimed that this principle of teaching based on the senses (we can also name it here ”visual” or ”experien-tial” principle) comes from the idea of ”making some-thing visible”. In other words, this kind of teaching would have to involve somebody’s senses to influence his/her awareness. Rykow distinguished three types of visualization principles:
1) direct (natural) – where a natural object would serve as stimulus to our senses,
2) indirect (conditional) – where a teacher would have to use some substitute (like diagrams, pic-tures) in order to help students create biological concepts, and
3) theoretical (verbal) where students have to use their imagination.
Drawing as a form of communication has been de-scribed by many researchers including Karczmarzyk (2010). Describing the issue of giving meaning to the children’s drawings she identifies three schemes that can be used: the person who is proceeding the mean-ing is also pickmean-ing one of the schemes. In the first type drawing is a form of a dialog between the child as an au-thor and those who are looking at the picture. Accord-ing to the second scheme, readAccord-ing the meanAccord-ing from the picture is a monolog with the observer: through the drawing, the observer might see the essence of his/her being. In the third scheme proposed by Karczmarzyk, a drawing is a symbolic dispatch, substituting language, which is necessary to realize our own being and be able to stay in touch with other beings in society.
Among other types of research tools, drawings have the advantage that they allow us to compare results
re-ceived from different perspectives, circumventing any linguistic barriers (Prokop and Fančovičova, 2006). On the other hand, a mixed approach of methods that com-bines graphical and verbal means for gathering data can yield good results as well. This need was highlighted by Ehrlén (2009) who stressed the importance of collecting from children not only the drawing but also the mean-ings or labels they would give to their own pictures.
Describing the role of drawing teaching Mrożkiewicz (1961) was highlighting that it offers to students the ability of:
1) inquiring a knowledge about the form that exist in the environment and is available to us through the observation,
2) practical graphomotor activities, 3) forming of aesthetic culture and
4) influencing students mental development – mai-nly emotional.
Kąkolewicz (2011) draws the attention to the possi-bility of using drawing as a form of “personal notes that are illustrating and stimulating: thinking, cognitive processes and own expression that is reflecting emo-tions” of a person who is drawing with respect to the object being drawn.
Lately this topic was raised by Mirosław Orzechows-ki (2015) who would stress in his book that the drawing activity seems getting less and less used in nowadays schools. This author threats drawing as a method of teaching future architects, and for this profession draw-ing is a tool of cognition and tool that serves as a record of creative thoughts. The same author also claims that drawing allows children to discover the world on his own. Such way of treating drawing as a teaching and learning method is not very common, and in typical didactical textbook we might not find support for it. It may be caused by observed lately the great development of a ICT and narrowing the significance of drawing
activity even in early school years education. But it is worth to take a question under consideration – whether by closing our eyes and hands for drawing we are edu-cating people who will not be able to draw with a pencil, and everything they will create will be a digital picture?
So far described advantages of the use of
graphical products (referred to drawings) in
science education
Drawings can be effective tools in providing stu-dents ability of developing their own observing skills, letting them at the same time to understand better the nature. Careful observation and interpretation of na-ture, they both are key components of the scientific pro-cess and they might became lost unless time is devoted to drawing skills (Dempsey and Betz, 2001). In addi-tion, drawings help in exploring students’ knowledge and beliefs that remain hidden for other operations or methods in the absence of verbal limitations at the same time (Ören, 2012). Góra (1974) reported and described also the ability of the use of drawings in the strategy of problem solving.
On the other hand, Levie and Lentz (1982) while re-viewing 55 different experiments made by other scien-tists noticed the role of a picture that is provided with a text. They indicated that a simple illustration may initiate the interests to the reader or affect its attitude towards reading topic (or subject). It might also arouse an emotional response. They attributed drawing as an opportunity for spatial visualization of content that is difficult to convey through words.
Drawings were and still are used as a research tool in diagnosing students’s knowledge and conceptions about biological phenomena. For example Reiss and Tun-nicliffe (2001) or Prokop and Fančovičova (2006) were using drawing to collect data about students’
under-SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
EDUKACJA BIOLOGICZNA I ŚRODOWISKOWA | ebis.ibe.edu.pl | ebis@ibe.edu.pl | © for the article by the Authors 2016 © for the edition by Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych 2016 standings of human organs and organ systems. Similar
research was done on children conceptions about ani-mal anatomy. In such research Prokop and co-workers (2008) showed that children would mostly have problem with understanding a gas exchange system – all draw-ings of the stag beetle and crawfish had a typical higher vertebrate lung. Dikmenli (2009) found out many stu-dents misconceptions about cell division by analyzing their drawings. Barraza was comparing English and Mexican school children drawing as a way of evalua-tion of the environmental percepevalua-tions, and their major expectations and concerns for the future. Dove, Everett and Preece (1999) were investigating children’ s draw-ings of a river basin, a concept linked to the water-cycle.
Benefits resulting from the use of drawing on science education were collected and summarized by the authors of “Drawing to learn in science” written by Ainsworth, Prain and Tytler (2011), an article which appeared in the pages of Science. Noting that visualiza-tion is an integral part of scientific thinking, these au-thors listed the additional benefits that result from the use of drawing in science education. A worrying phe-nomenon, according to these authors is the fact that the school students during science lessons usually interpret the images presented to them by the teacher, but they do not make visualization of the process, or the phe-nomenon by themselves. They also listed five reasons why teaching drawing should be treated equally with teaching writing, reading or providing arguments as a key element of science education. The author of pre-sented paper believes that in such education it is also essential to learn counting, since the use of statistics and mathematical models in the natural sciences is an important part of today’s research. Among the reasons for the introduction of teaching how to draw in order to support science education Ainsworth et al. (2011) had listed:
1) increasing the commitment – as the drawing changes the position of the student from passive recipient to the creator, while pointing to indivi-dual differences between students;
2) teaching students how to present scientific ideas – to create their own representation can deepen students’ understanding of specific natural scien-ces conventions of representation (e.g. graphs), their applications, or even a comprehensive un-derstanding of the issues discussed;
3) assistance in developing scientific reasoning – to demonstrate conceptual understanding, students should learn to apply and analyze data presented in various forms – often in the form of visual mo-dels;
4) drawing, as a learning strategy – If the strategy of effective learning includes such elements as: helping learners to be able to overcome their own limitations in these issues so they can reorgani-ze their knowledge more efficiently and integrate new incoming information from existing in the minds of understanding of these issues, it meets the criteria for drawing such a strategy;
5) drawing as a form of communication – just as scientists draw diagrams, charts to enable under-standing of their own research and present them to colleagues and the broader community, the same figure is a form of communication the sen-der to the recipient.
The role of drawing in teaching and learning science was described by a few Polish authors, e.g. Barbara Góra (1974) or John Winklewski (1969). In didactical prac-tice, mentioned earlier, Rykov (1956) has encouraged the use of drawings while teaching zoology. Biology teachers can easily recognize the usefulness of drawing in the labolatory, in anatomical topics and microscopic studies, as well as in the field – all of them mentioned
by Dempsey and Betz (2001). The same authors would claim that biology teachers spend little or no time on students’ drawing skills or on grading such activity. As a result, many students do not like nor appreciate draw-ing and end up with copdraw-ing drawdraw-ings from lab manuals or textbooks.
Kazimierz Sośnicki in his book “Outline of didac-tics” printed in 1925 lists among the advantages of the pictures and drawings the intrinsic property of a certain modification of it for educational purposes. Such modi-fication would rely on highlighting the most character-istic features of the object. Among the other advantages of drawing on the blackboard there are listed: an op-portunity to present developmental stages by using the sequence of appearing drawings and ability to “schema-tize” (which means here – simplifying the content). In addition, this author recommends that the method of drawing should be applied not only to the subjects dedi-cated for it – like arithmetic or geometry, but also for those for whom the teacher’s word is sufficient without the use of graphics, and that would be the learning of languages, history, nature (now biology), geography and physics.”
McLean, Henson and Hiles (2003) used the method of drawing as a qualitative evaluation of introduced problem solving strategies in medical school. They es-tablished the fact that the drawing is a kind of meta-phor, and this was defined as “based on the resources imaginative way of describing something by referring to something else, which has features that we want to ex-press” (definition taken from the dictionary Sinclair J, ed. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993). Sfard (1998) draws attention to the fact that the very act of creating metaphors must be preceded by reflection, thus present-ing a graphical representation of the changes that oc-curred in the perception of themselves by the students
SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
after the one year of medicine is a kind of metaphor. Among not deeply analyzed but perceived by McLean, Henson, and Hiles (2003) features as such way of evalu-ation is that it gives “living, emotional involvement” of students in its execution. They noted that the drawings provide information about feelings, emotions and re-flections of the authors.
Three dimensions of drawings
In this part of the article will be presented my own proposition of graphic products division. From here, the term “drawing” is used in a specific sense, which is de-scribed below. The proposed allocation is based not on generally accepted taxonomy of graphic products, but it takes into account the degree of intellectual involve-ment of an author of such product. This tripartite divi-sion includes (three dimendivi-sions of drawing activity):
1) scheme – which means visualization, repro-duction, copying, imitation (here we might pla-ce the redrawing the object from a microscope); a student basically draws what he/she sees; 2) drawing – which is a graphical representation of
understanding the content, the figure in line with the principle of learning by doing (learning by doing) – entered here can be mental maps, cre-ating charts, models, or graphic notes; a student draws what he/she understands;
3) sketch – which means a graphical problem sol-ving, externally can have different forms, but is distinguished by the fact of innovation, sketch allows one to move from image to text, allows to innovate or to do mental investigation by the sketch; when student is sketching – he/she crea-tes.
Scheme is recognized as a simple visualization. It assumes copying, or imitating an object presented in
textbooks or other schemes sources. At school, this type of drawing is most commonly used at the biology les-sons. It includes a copying of the presented scheme or to redrawing the graphics presented by the teacher once on the board – now more often on a screen multimedia projector. Such type of activity involves also drawing the observed object from a microscope, making charts, or diagrams (if student does not engage relay, but only apparently). In this dimension, most scientific research
are published and a schemes there serves as a commu-nication with the other scientists (a researcher is pre-senting to the readers a ready diagram as a visualiza-tion of the collected data). Diagram of the presented approach is a kind of transition from image to image, without the need for treatment of mentally taken steps, it allows customers to focus on details rather than pro-vides a holistic approach. This dimension of drawing activity encourages the faithful copy, but not to look for
Fig. 1. Examples of schemes used during the biology lessons
a) scheme made during microscopic observation of preparation of shusk of onion bulb’s leaf bases (scales,)
b) scheme of macroscopic observation edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum).
Source of figures: notebooks of students who want to remain anonymous and attend biology lessons taught by the author’s of presented paper
a b
Fig. 2. Scheme/Diagram of the cyclic phosphorylation occurring in photosynthesis A similar scheme is often depict-ed students to rdepict-edraw without mental involvement of process-ing what they have to redraw. Source: own work.
Ferredoksyna NADP NADPH2
X1 H2O H+ + OH- fotodysocjacja wody
e- e- O
2 – do atmosfery
światło
Chlorofil A cyt. F cyt.b X2 Chlorofil A (680 nm) PS I (700 nm)
ATP ADP + Pi
Światło
Rycina 2. Schemat fosforylacji cyklicznej zachodzącej w fotosyntezie. Podobny schemat jest często przedstawiany uczniom do przerysowania, bez konieczności umysłowego przetwarzania
SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
EDUKACJA BIOLOGICZNA I ŚRODOWISKOWA | ebis.ibe.edu.pl | ebis@ibe.edu.pl | © for the article by the Authors 2016 © for the edition by Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych 2016 questions and answers. It gives the possibility of
activat-ing restorative, in which, as Cieszyńska (2010) writes, the new information is only recorded. An example of a typical scheme is given in Figure 1 and 2. Schematic drawing would therefore be classified as a method based on the observation (according to the classification pre-sented by Zborowski, 1974) or a method of knowledge assimilation based on the cognitive activity of a repeti-tive character (according to the classification provided by Okoń, 1998).
Drawing – should be a tool for creative activation, not restorative. Drawing in presented understanding would be an activity, which allows to present of what the student already understands; it can fit into the idea of “learning by doing”. Drawing gives you the
oppor-tunity to move from language area to the graphic area, from the text to the image. Students while drawing, pro-vide answers to question posed by the teacher. Drawing stimulates the imagination, but it still does not promote creativity, as the student works within the known al-gorithms. And creativity here is taken in the manner proposed by Pietrasiński (1969) as “activity that brings creations yet unknown, yet socially valuable.” The need of a product to undergo of creative assessment was also featured by Stein (1963). Drawing, as mentioned above, allows to search for answers, and in order to do such drawing a student must go through the state of contem-plation, he or she must think about the possibilities of presenting the text in a graphical manner. It requires a rejection of unnecessary information given in the text
and present the essence of things. Such skills stimu-late thinking, both synthetic and analytical. Problems (questions) are known, and the student is looking for answers to these problems by converting words into images – e.g. how to present graphically the law of tol-erance (Shelfort law)? (An example of such a drawing made during a biology lesson is provided in Figure 3). This type of drawing was also proposed by Ainsworth and colleagues (2011). The authors of many articles and publications wishing to bring their research recipients – use this type of drawing to themselves, as their authors – they pass from words to images – makes the trans-formation of the idea to the graphical symbols. Draw-ing in this sense is shaped by existDraw-ing or arisDraw-ing ideas that student has. It is created also in accordance with its knowledge of the visual conventions (Ainsworth et al., 2011). Erasmus of Rotterdam has already wrote that it is worth noting that there is the need to bound im-ages to the words in the educational process in order to make learning more enjoyable for a child (source: Gora, 1974). Therefore, drawing would be classified as a meth-od based on observation (according to the classification presented by Zborowski, 1974), but also as a method of self-directed inquiry based knowledge construction but more like case studies than problem solving (according to classification proposed by Okoń, 1998).
Sketch – allows one to navigate from image to words – students while sketching may formulate or discover of a law, might ask questions, and graphically respond to them. Sketch in this approach is the hypothesis at-tempt to answer the question in the mind of its creator. Regular sketching allows a systematic creativity in the classroom at school. By introducing to the teaching pro-cess a specific prototype, even a category from the level of the basic concepts and allowing for the modification of the prototype, but according to the specified list of modification – we enable students to carry on an
inves-Fig. 3. Example of the drawing
The task presented to the students was to illustrate the law of tolerance (Sfelford’s low), which came up as a new for the students since the did not know it before.
Source: notebooks of student who want to remain anonymous and attended biology lessons taught by the author’s of presented paper.
Fig. 4. Example of a drawing made by the student showing functions of selected vitamins in the human body
Source: the work done by the students who want to remain anonymous and attended to biology lessons taught by the author of this article.
SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
tigation, enable them to find the “solutions” by sketch-ing, but encouraging students to ask more questions de-rived from the solved problem. Even if these laws which students discover, are known and described in the sci-entific world many years ago, it is for the child a new one and it came as a result of his/her mental activity. In such case we are dealing with the work of the “sec-ondary creation”. Creativity can dabble in the already small child complementing the gaps in the information provided to him by adults and by developing their in-tellectual performance (Pietrasiński, 1969). This type of activity graphically promotes creativity, the students
create a model output (prototype – the basic concept) and by adding or subtracting elements, the transfor-mation of a model they create new entities, ask ques-tions and seek answers. The proposal sketching means being able to verify the thesis about the possibility of a programmed process of creative problem solving by drawing. De facto it is not an entirely new recognition, because this idea is a kind of adaptable solutions pro-posed for industry (TRIZ). Such solutions was propro-posed by engineers Altshuller and Shulyak (1996). An example of this sketch is presented in Figure 5. Sketching would be classified as a method based on the action (according
to the classification Zborowski, 1974), or as an inquiry-based method (Zborowski distinguished this type of methods in 1966). According to the classification of teaching methods provided by Okoń (1998) sketching would be located as one among method of self-directed inquiry based knowledge construction by addressing problems (classical problem based learning) or even as a practical method in which a student takes the activ-ity of a practical-technical kind and aims to change the environment or creates a new form thereof.
Indications that supports apportionment of
proposed dimensions of graphic products to the
biology classes
The proposed distribution of graphic products is based primarily on intellectual commitment to their au-thors. Schemes are generally the most commonly used graphics at schools. Most often students do not even redraw them to the notebook, nowadays they receive a ready picture as a note of the lessons from the teacher as a pdf file. Nonexistence of two additional forms of graphic products wake up anxiety. Drawings are repre-sentations of the idea, so they are the graphical form of more accurate response to the earlier question posed in the head. Sketches by contrast, are generators of ideas, through sketches we might graphically ask questions and provide an answers to them. In its’ nature sketches reflect the first steps of the scientific method, which puts the research problems – questions and based on scien-tifically based assumptions formulates an answer in the form of hypotheses. It seems that the proposed division of graphic products (three dimensions of drawing activ-ity) can also serve as a model for the investigation of creative problem solving by drawing. Starting from the schemes that are presenting the details and donating what the learner sees while he or she observes the object
Fig. 5. Example of a sketch made during the course of ecology illustrating the student idea of how to classify active defense mechanisms that animals perform to protect themselves from predators
SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
EDUKACJA BIOLOGICZNA I ŚRODOWISKOWA | ebis.ibe.edu.pl | ebis@ibe.edu.pl | © for the article by the Authors 2016 © for the edition by Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych 2016
through drawings, which are formed as a kind of proof of understanding of the issues they discussed about the sketches, which will serve as a tool for creative solving biological problems. Going through the whole process of involving all three types of drawing activity allows a teacher not only to support students learning but also to solve problems in a creative manner.
Eddens and Potter (2003) decided to test whether the use of drawings created by students helps them with a conceptual change and understanding of the law of energy conservation. They randomly selected and stud-ied three groups: the first in which students had to create descriptive drawings, the second in which the students copied a ready diagrams and the third which made notes. Results obtained by researchers showed statisti-cally significant differences between the first group and the other two (in favor of the first one). The differences between the group that was copying the schemes and the one that just did the notes were in favor of using the copy, although in this case it was not a statistically significant difference.
Problems with the use of creativity in education draw attention of some researchers. For example pro-fessor Uszyńska-Jarmoz (2011) writes about the reactive creativity that is dominant in our schools in opposition to proactive, that by its definition is taken by the creator spontaneously, e.g. as a result of the cognitive, biological or social needs. As a consequence, if in the schools there is the creative education it is usually motivated exter-nally rather than interexter-nally. Based on the observation of the educational reality there can be extended another hypothesis, which should be verify in the study: that besides described above “infantile content” of graphic products the most common seems to be the command: “to color in”, which trains graphomotor skills, but it has very little in common with creativity.
Conclusion
The issue of creativity lies in the area of interest of psychology, pedagogy, cognitive scientists, and many other fields of science and art, but rarely creativity is combined with the teaching of science. The deliberate and systematic introduction of presented model (start-ing from schema and go(start-ing through draw(start-ings up to sketches) to the educational process opens the path of systematic investigation to be creative also on science lessons. Activation can be creative and reconstructive, and graphic creations produced in the classroom should be a natural tool for creative activation – in the spirit of constructivism and contrary to traditional teaching of biology or science. In the era in which creativity in Western culture seems to be appreciated value an edu-cation that allows or even supports the improvement of such value should be promoted. Therefore, education “through creativity” can and should be done also dur-ing the science lessons.
References
Ainsworth, Shaaron, Vaughan Prain, and Russell Tytler. “Drawing to learn in science.” representations 3 (2011): 5.SCIENCE, VOL 333, 1096-1079
Altshuller, G., & Shulyak, L. (1996). And suddenly the inventor ap-peared: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving. Technical Innovation Center, Inc.
Barraza, L. (1999) Children’s Drawings About the Environment, En-vironmental Education Research, 5:1, 49-66,
Chambers, D.W. (1983). “Stereotypic Images of the Scientist: The Draw a Scientist Test”. Science Education 67 (2): 255–265. doi:10.1002/sce.3730670213
Chang, N. (2005). Children’s drawings: Science inquiry and beyond. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 104-106. Cherney, I. D., Seiwert, C. S., Dickey, T. M., & Flichtbeil, J. D. (2006).
Children’s drawings: A mirror to their minds. Educational Psy-chology, 26(1), 127-142.
Cieszyńska A. Aktywizacja twórcza i odtwórcza w edukacji przyrod-niczej – czyli pomiędzy konstruktywizmem a behawioryzmem,
[w] Rola i zadania dydaktyk szczegółowych w kształceniu nauczy-cieli, red. Kwatera A., Cieśla P., Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Kra-kowie, Kraków 2010: 236 -244.
Dempsey, Brian C., and B. J. Betz. „Biological drawing a scientific tool for learning.” The American Biology Teacher 63.4 (2001): 271-281.
Dewey J. (1897 wyd. 2005), Moje pedagogiczne credo (tłum. J. Pieter), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie „Żak”
Dikmenli, M. (2010). Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: A drawing analysis. Scientific Research and
Essay, 5(2), 235-247
Dove, J. E., Everett L. A. & Preece P. F. W. (1999) Exploring a hydro-logical concept through children’s drawings, International Jour-nal of Science Education, 21:5, 485-497
Driver, R. Guesne E., Tiberghein A. (1985).Children’s ideas and the learning of science. In: Children’s ideas in science. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).pp – 1-9.
Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School sci-ence and mathematics,103(3), 135-144.
Ehrlén, K. (2009). Drawings as representations of children’s concep-tions. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (1), 41-57. doi: 10.1080/09500690701630455
Finson, Kevin D. “Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings.” School science and mathema-tics 102.7 (2002): 335-345.
Góra, B. (1974). Graficzne pomoce dydaktyczne a zasady nauczania biologii. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Kąkolewicz M., (2011). Uczenie się jako konstruowanie wiedzy. Świadomość, qualia i technologie informacyjne, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań Karczmarzyk, M. (2010). Znaczenia nadawane rysunkowi dziecka
przez „innych”. Rozważania na temat komunikacji dziecko-doro-śli. In Forum Oświatowe (Vol. 2, No. 43, pp. 79-83).
Katz, G.L. (1998) What Can We Learn from Reggio Emilia? in C. Ed-wards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds) The Hundred Languages of Children: the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood educa-tion, pp. 19-40. Greenwich: Ablex.
Komeński, J. A. (1956). Wielka dydaktyka. Tłum. K. Remerowa, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PAN.
Köse, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), 283-293.
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. ECTJ, 30(4), 195-232.
Łobocki, M. (2000). Metody i techniki badań pedagogicznych. Im-puls.
contribu-SCHOOL
SCIENCE
IN SHOR
T
tion of student drawings to evaluation in a new problem‐based learning medical programme: a pilot study. Medical educa-tion, 37(10), 895-906.
Mrożkiewicz J. (1961) Nauczanie rysunku w klasach I-IV. „Wspólna sprawa” Wydawnictwa Oświatowe, Warszawa.
Okoń, W. (1998) Wprowadzenie do dydaktyki ogólnej, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Akademickie Żak.
Ören, F. Ş. (2012). An analysis of pre-service teachers’ drawings about the digestive system in terms of their gender, grade levels, and opinions about the method and subject. International Journal of Biology Education, 1(1).
Pietrasiński Z. (1969). Myślenie twórcze. PZWS. Warszawa. Prokop, P. & Fančovičova, J. (2006). “Students’ Ideas About Human
Body: Do They Really Draw What They Know?” Journal of Baltic Science Education 2 (10): 86–95.
Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2008). Effects of keep-ing animals as pets on children’s conceptions of vertebrates and invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education. 30(4), 431-449
Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 383-399.
Rennie, Léonie J., and Tina Jarvis. “Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology.” Research in Science Education25.3 (1995): 239-252.
Rykow N. (1956) Metodyka nauczania zoologii. Tłum. W. Michajłow, PZWS, Warszawa
Sfard A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res; 27:4–13.
Sośnicki K (1925) Zarys dydaktyki. Podręcznik dla użytku semi-narjów nauczycielskich i nauczycieli. Wydawnictwo Książek Sz-kolnych. Lwów
Stein M. I. (1963). A Transactional Approach to Creativity. [w] Sci-entific Creativity:Its Recognition and Development, red Taylor C.W., Barron F., pp: 217-227.
Uszyńska-Jarmoc J. (2011) Czego nie wiemy o twórczości w szkole? Obszary zdeformowane, ignorowane i/lub zaniedbane. Chowan-na (ChowanChowan-na), issue: 1 (36) / 2011, pages: 13-24, on www.ceeol. com.
Winklewski J. (1969) Rysunek w nauczani geografii, PZWS, Warsza-wa.
Zborowski J. (1966) Unowocześnienie metod nauczania. Warszawa, Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych.
