1 23

Early Childhood Education Journal ISSN 1082-3301 Early Childhood Educ JDOI 10.1007/s10643-013-0617-2

Conversations about Visual Arts:Facilitating Oral Language

Ni Chang & Susan Cress

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Conversations about Visual Arts: Facilitating Oral Language

Ni Chang • Susan Cress

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Visual arts, such as drawings, are attractive to

most young children. Marks left on paper by young children

contain meaning. Although it is known that children’s oral

language could be enhanced through communication with

adults, rarely is there a series of dialogues between adults and

young children about their drawings. Often heard instead are

simple comments given by adults like ‘‘It is a neat picture!’’

‘‘You did a great job painting!’’ Yet, dialogic communication

between adults and young children could not only help

facilitate children’s oral language, but also bring about many

other merits. Regrettably, little literature addresses oral lan-

guage facilitation about visual arts. This article describes the

significance of facilitating children’s oral language via adults’

talking with young children about their visual arts based on

Otto’s (Literacy development in early childhood: reflective

teaching for birth to age eight, 3edn. Pearson Education Inc,

Upper Saddle River, 2008) linguistic scaffolding strategies

and Halliday’s (Language in a social perspective: explorations

in the functions of language. Edward Arnold Model of Lan-

guage Functions, London, 1973). Implications and sugges-

tions for future research are given at the end of this paper.

Keywords Oral language facilitation �Conversations � Dialogues � One-on-one interactions �Visual arts � Drawings � Early childhood

Introduction

Adults working with young children have been strongly

encouraged to converse with children in order to develop

their oral language skills. Oral language development is a

powerful precursor to conventional reading and writing.

The development of oral language, as a tool to convey

meaning, is an important developmental process in terms of

vocabulary, grammar, and concept development (Schick-

endanz and Collins 2013). At home and in classrooms,

adults facilitate young children’s language skills in various

activities, such as lunch time, at the dinner table, during

group time, free play time, and outdoor play. Although

visual arts, such as drawing or painting, are part of chil-

dren’s play, conversations about visual arts are not as

extensive and in-depth as those in other activities. Nor are

children very often observed when they engage in these

activities. When children approach adults with their art-

works with utterances, such as, ‘‘See what I have drawn!’’

Often heard are adults’ comments, such as ‘‘It is a neat

picture.’’ ‘‘I see you used a lot of colors.’’ ‘‘Let’s put it up!’’

As a result, children’s products are seldom used as com-

mon foci to launch conversations between adults and

children.

Young children often use visual arts to communicate what

they know (Kress and van Leeuwen 2006) and to think about

or understand the world surrounding them (Kendrick and

McKay 2004). Therefore, most of drawings contain meaning

(Anning 2008; Brook 2009; Chang 2007; Kress and van

Leeuwen 2006). A conversation between an adult and a child

about visual arts could help uncover information useful for

adults to know about children in a different light, or at a

higher level. Having conversations with children could also

eliminate the possibility of adults’ arbitrary interpretations

that may miss or mistakenly conceive children’s intended

meaning (Chang 2007, 2012a, b). Observing and interacting

with children at an art center could also engender much

useful information about young children’s social, cultural,

and intellectual views (Iorio 2006; Hopperstad 2010).

N. Chang (&) � S. Cress

Indiana University South Bend, South Bend, IN, USA

e-mail: nchang@iusb.edu

123

Early Childhood Educ J

DOI 10.1007/s10643-013-0617-2

Author's personal copy

However, there is a scarcity of literature addressing facili-

tation of children’s oral language during or after children’s

visual arts. In addition, research conducted by Ouellette

(2006) shows the focus on oral language development in

early childhood programs is often somewhat narrow, con-

centrating only on words at a recognition level. Therefore,

the purpose of the article was to explore how young chil-

dren’s language skills were facilitated during or after chil-

dren’s participation in visual arts. The research questions

underlying the study were, ‘‘How do adult-child interactions

during or after visual arts facilitate oral language develop-

ment?’’ ‘‘How can adults foster a partnership in the inter-

actions?’’ ‘‘How do the visual arts serve as a referent for

language and conversations?’’.

Literature Review

The Importance of Conversations

By ages 3–4, most children learn how to use language to

ask questions, respond to others’ questions, and express

their ideas for a variety of purposes (Otto 2008). These

experiences could advance children’s acquisition of con-

ceptual knowledge, which is rudimentary to the develop-

ment of their literacy skills (Otto 2008). Dickinson (1990)

and Dickinson et al. (2009) underscored the importance of

language development in literacy development, because it

is a foundation for the development of children’s knowl-

edge of literacy and for children’s later development of

reading and writing (Schickendanz and Collins 2013).

Zimmerman et al. (2009 found that one-on-one com-

munication is equally or even more beneficial to the

development of children’s language competencies. The

researchers encouraged parents to launch one-on-one con-

versations with young children, as they stated, ‘‘Adult-child

conversations are robustly associated with healthy lan-

guage development’’ (p. 342). Zimmerman et al. suggested,

‘‘Parents should be encouraged not merely to provide

language input to their children through reading or story-

telling, but also to engage their children in two-sided

conversations’’ (p. 342).

Art and Conversations

Iorio (2006) perceived that art could engender purposeful

conversations. Characterized by Iorio (2006), adult-child

conversations are aesthetic experiences. When an adult

consciously thinks of what and how to communicate with a

child artist, it forms a true collaboration, where both could

genuinely connect with one another and where a learning

experience could be promoted. Iorio (2006) explained, ‘‘This

collaboration between personal history and perception raises

consciousness, openness, and sharing’’ (p. 281). Both an artist

and a viewer are unique individuals who possess various

prior, cultural, and historical experiences. When both parties

are ‘‘within’’ rather than ‘‘without’’ ‘‘a piece of art’’ (Iorio

2006, p. 282), they become willing to open up and become

cognizant of other’s views. Rethinking of adult-child con-

versations as aesthetic experiences is concerned with the

identification of the power dynamic between participants. In

order for children to be in conversations, adults need to adapt

to discourse by allowing children to hold power. This process

eventually leads to sharing of power between adult and child

and paves the way for an intimate partnership between an

artist and a viewer. Involved in the close relationship with

children are adults who respect children (Dombro et al. 2011;

Iorio 2006) and who are able to ‘‘best see and appreciate the

spirits of children’’ (Iorio 2006, p. 282). Listening to children

attentively (Dombro et al. 2011) enables adults to make an

informed decision as to what questions and answers may be

delivered and gathered (Iorio 2006) to keep children in the

communication loop and to promote their language devel-

opment (Otto 2008). The dialogic interaction that leads to the

development of oral language competencies should be a

major accomplishment during the preschool years (Otto

2008). Unfortunately, there is not much literature focusing on

talking with young children about visual arts to facilitate their

oral language. This study was intended to fill the void to make

a contribution to the relevant field.

Methods

Participants

A total of four parents, three mothers and a father con-

versed with their children ages 3–4 (Mean = 44 months) at

drawing or painting activities for over a month.

Settings

Each of the experiences took place in the authentic setting

in the normal course of day. Three of the children inter-

acted with their parents at home. One child’s mother

directed a home child care with several other educators and

had the opportunity to interact with her child during the day

in the home child care setting.

Research Design

This was a qualitative research study. The researchers did

not seek to control what would happen in the field. The

conversations, tape-recorded, occurred whenever a child

drew or painted and whenever an adult talked with the

child about the activity. The purpose of audio taping

Early Childhood Educ J

123

Author's personal copy

offered extensive and rich data of the interactions, which

allowed the authors to ‘‘understand the central phenome-

non under study’’ (Creswell 2002, p. 210) and to plausibly

create theory emerging from the data (Peshkin 1993) about

adult–child conversations during or after drawing or

painting in facilitating children’s language skills.

Data Collection

Prior to the interactions, the researchers explained to the

parents ways to foster discourse with their child. Specifi-

cally, the parents were asked to use different strategies to

engage and sustain children in conversations. To initiate a

conversation, parents were asked to use a question ‘‘Could

you please tell me about your drawing?’’ or make a request,

i.e. ‘‘Please tell me about your drawing’’. (Please note, this

study was originally designed to focus on children’s

drawings, but then included children’s paintings due to the

child’s initiatives). They were also provided with addi-

tional questions, such as ‘‘What is happening here?’’

(Oken-Wright 1998, p. 79) or ‘‘What did you draw?’’

Parents used nonverbal cues, such as children’s facial

expressions and body language, to determine if additional

questions were needed to scaffold an invitation to the child

to dialogue with the adult. The parents were also encour-

aged to be flexible to come up with their own ideas to

prompt their children so as to engage them in conversations

about their drawings or possible other forms of visual arts.

In order to protect the participants’ confidentiality,

pseudonyms were used. There were altogether 14 dialogues

over the course of the study with the shortest dialogue

being 41 s and the longest 17 min and 29 s. In total, 13

drawings and 4 paintings were collected, some of which

were produced along with conversations while some others

were completed before conversations took place. Visual

arts in this case are meant as drawings or paintings.

Data Analysis

All the qualitative data were analyzed with the constant

comparative method (Creswell 2002). The researchers first

individually read and re-read the transcribed data to get ‘‘a

general sense of the information’’ (Creswell 2002, p. 265).

The data were coded, and recoded, classified, and sorted

consistent with Otto’s (2008) classification of questions and

linguistic scaffolding strategies (see Table 1) for adults’

utterances and Halliday’s Model of Language Functions (see

Table 2) for children’s verbal communication.

Otto’s Linguistic Scaffolding Strategies

Otto (2008) highly recommended that adults provide lin-

guistic scaffolding to support and advance the development

Table 1 Otto’s linguistic scaffolding strategies

Name Meaning Example

Question Keeping a child in a

conversation or in a

segment of a

conversation (contingent

question)

Adult: Could you tell me

about your drawing?

Child: J: This is my dog

Daisy. My dog Daisy is a

really nice dog. I love

her.

Intending to understand

better the message of

what was just said

(clarifying question)

Child: They are fireworks.

Adult: You drew

fireworks?

Knowing the answer, but

intending to check for

understanding

(recitational question)

Adult: What is the first

letter of your name?

Child: My name starts with

J.

Intending to know

information

(informational question)

Adult: What are those

jiggly lines on your

pictures?

Focusing on things or

events not presented in

the immediate context

(there-and-then question)

Adult: We went to that

apple orchard last year.

Did you remember?

Child: I do not remember.

But I like apples.

Expansion Completing what a child

was just said into a full

sentence to demonstrate

more complex syntax,

morphology, semantics,

phonology.

Child: A bird.

Adult: Yes. I see the bird is

flying to the South

because Fall is

approaching.

Repetition Repeat a child’s utterance

to confirm or sustain the

conversation

Child: I want a big apple.

Adult: You want a big

apple?

Table 2 Halliday’s model of language functions

Code Meaning Example

Instrumental To express their needs I need help making a

robot.

Regulatory To influence the

behaviors of others

You do that other thing.

Mommy, smell this one.

Interactional To form relationships Mommy.

Personal To express opinions or

emotions

I’ll make something that

you really like.

Doesn’t make any.

Heuristic To seek information

and ask questions

How do you make

purple?

Imaginative To express creative

language

Why do you have all

those ears?

Representational To give information

facts and information

I made a Daddy

snowman.

They help him, they

help him walk like

this.

Early Childhood Educ J

123

Author's personal copy

of young children’s oral language competencies. These

strategies encourage children’s participation in conversa-

tions at a higher level than children could otherwise do on

their own. With linguistic scaffolding, adults are able to

recognize children’s linguistic capabilities so as to enable

them to appropriately promote and enhance children’s

language development. Linguistic scaffolding includes

questioning, expansion, repetition, or a combination of

these. Questioning, consisting of various kinds of questions

(see Table 1), serves to move the child forward in the

dialogue, and to sustain the verbal communication. The use

of questioning enables a teacher to engage the child in

sharing more complete information and to also promote the

child’s thinking (Iorio 2006). Expansion is used by an adult

to complete a child’s utterance and to model more complex

syntax, morphology, semantics, phonology, and pragmat-

ics, which are five essential areas for young children to

gain oral language capabilities. Repetition serves the pur-

pose of clarifying what a child has just said to support the

child’s continued participation.

Halliday’s Metalanguage Functions

Language is a resource for understanding meaning and

used for expressing meaning. In Halliday’s (1973) view,

language is regarded as social semiotics. According to

Halliday, young children use language to interact with

others and learn about the world around them. There are

seven metalanguage functions or uses (see Table 2), which

transpire in social and cultural settings, and are funda-

mental to adult language. Halliday (1973) believed that

young children were motivated to use language for various

purposes, resulting in their acquisition of language.

Conversations at Visual Arts Activities

In the following, three conversation episodes: (1) fire and

smoke, (2) mixing colors, and (3) seven ears and 16 feet

will be provided to answer the three research questions. For

easy reading, the conversations are placed in Tables. Each

utterance either by adult or child will be identified in

accordance with either Otto’s (2008) language scaffolding

theories (O) or Halliday’s (1973) Model of Language

Function (H) to address the research questions. In addition,

the Tables provide reasons behind these presented con-

versations and further elaborate how these conversations

contribute to children’s thinking. Following the presenta-

tion of each Table is an in-depth discussion centering on

the three research questions to allow the reader to see the

broader importance of the complexities of the data to

illuminate the significance of facilitating children’s lan-

guage skills during or after drawing or painting.

Fire and Smoke

The conversation (see Table 3) took place between John, a

5-year-old boy, and his mother following the completion of

a drawing (see Fig. 1).

The child’s ability to finally be able to clarify his mes-

sage was, in part, ascribed to the role that the topic of fire

and smoke as the common referent played in dynamic

conversation (Otto 2008). The topic drew the undivided

attention from both of the parties. While paying attention to

the child’s expressions, the adult let the child lead the

conversation (Iorio 2006) by the adult’s subsequent adap-

tation of the conversation, with the use of appropriate

questioning linguistic scaffolding strategies. The employed

linguistic scaffolding strategies simultaneously provoked

the child’s thinking (Iorio 2006) and encouraged him to

work harder at using informational language (Halliday

1973) to clarify his intended thoughts (Otto 2008).

Although the conversation below only lasted 41 s, lin-

guistic scaffolding and the child’s acquisition of language

Table 3 Fire and smoke

Conversations episodes Type of question

or scaffolding

Importance

Adult: Ok, can you tell

me about your picture

that you drew today,

John?

Informational

question (O)

Sustains verbal

communication and

promotes thinking

(Iorio 2006)

Child: Good. Shows child’s dialogic

turn taking although

responses are limited

(Otto 2008)

Adult: What about your

picture?

Informational

question (O)

Child: I want some fire. Representational

function (H)

Shows child tries one

more time to express

his intended act

Adult: You made some

fire?

Clarification

question (O)

Adult: What kind of

fire?

Informational

question (O)

Reframes question to

engage child

contingent on

ongoing situation

Child: I forgot to do

some smoke.

Adult: You forgot to do

some smoke on your

fire?

Clarification

question (O)

Stimulate child’s

thinking and

encourages child to

further use language

to clarify information

Child: Yeah, some

black smoke.

Shows child’s final

success in clearly

expressing what he

intended

Provides an effect on

the child’s thinking

Early Childhood Educ J

123

Author's personal copy

and thinking were notably observed. This short, interactive

communication indicates when the adult was respectfully

interested in the child’s selected drawing topic, the adult

could consequently let the child hold the power over the

conversation. This act not only shows the adult’s being

‘‘within’’ the child’s artwork (Iorio 2006), but also denotes

the adult’s willingness to be cognizant of the child’s view

(Iorio 2006), which made her work harder to help the child

clarify his thoughts. The mother expressed sincere interest

in the child’s artistic intention helped promote the part-

nership between the adult and child, which was useful in

keeping the child in the communication loop. The sus-

tained conversation made available opportunities for the

child to use language, to clarify his intended meaning, and

to take turns in a conversation.

Mixing Colors

A mother and her 5-year-old son, Jacob, had conversed at a

painting easel for a while before the mother drew the

child’s attention to the mix of green and yellow colors by

questioning linguistic scaffolding strategies (Table 4 and

Fig. 2).

Jacob’s silence after the mother’s first attempt informed

the adult she had to rephrase her question to bring the child

back into the communication loop. With the mother’s two

additional reframed questions, the child eventually reported

his correct discovery of the experiment. Perhaps the child

was affected by his mother’s linguistic scaffolding strate-

gies. Rather than responding to his mother’s simple ques-

tion, he posed a question similar to the second question

raised by the mother earlier and also added an additional

one to demonstrate the child’s intellectual thought. With

the mother’s further linguistic scaffolding strategy and

encouragement of self-discovery, the child obtained

another success in discovering a mix of two different col-

ors: red and green.

This dialogue only consists of three rounds of commu-

nication. However, it clearly shows how the adult’s

employed linguistic scaffolding strategies at the right time

provoked the child’s thinking. As both parties paid atten-

tion to the mixture of colors, the adult was able to suc-

cessfully inspire the child to further explore his own

thought, which also indicated the mother’s respect for the

child’s initiative. The mother’s respect was shown in let-

ting the child lead the conversation (Iorio 2006; Otto

2008), making clear the mother was within the child’s

artwork (Iorio 2006). The mother’s guidance not only

helped build the close partnership between the adult and

child, but also was essential to helping the child internalize

how to use conventional language to express his thinking in

this particular interactive context (Kress and van Leeuwen

2006; Otto 2008). In short, not only did the adult facilitate

Fig. 1 Fire and Black Smoke

Table 4 Mixing colors

Conversations Type of question

or scaffolding

Importance

Adult: So, what

happens when you

mix the yellow and

the blue together,

Jacob?

Informational

question (O)

Promotes child’s

thinking

Adult: What happens

when you mix a little

bit of yellow and a

little bit of blue?

Informational

question (O)

Reframes question to

assist child’s

comprehension

Adult: What color does

that make when you

mix those two colors

together?

Informational

question (O)

Reframes question to

assist child’s

comprehension

Child: Green! Representational

function (H)

Shows child’s

understanding

Adult: It does. Isn’t that

interesting?

Informational

question (O)

Encourages child’s

discovery

Child: What happens

when you mix green

and red?

Heuristic

function (H)

Shows child’s framed

question impacted by

the adult’s modeling

Child: What difference

does that make?

Heuristic

function (H)

Adult: Hmm. Well, I

think you should find

out for yourself

because I’m not quite

sure either.

Informational

question (O)

Encourages child’s

independent thinking

and experiment

__

Child: It makes black. It

makes black.

Representational

function (H)

Shows child’s

discovery and a

sense of pride

Early Childhood Educ J

123

Author's personal copy

the child’s oral language skills, such as turn taking and

when and how to pose right questions (Dickinson 1990),

but also help deepen his thinking and learn some content

knowledge, i.e., concepts of mixing different colors

together.

Conversation on Turkeys

The conversation (see Table 5) took place between Mary

and her mother. Both of them were sitting at a family

dinner table with paper and markers. After completing the

drawings of a lawnmower and of a baby bed, Mary created

a brand new topic: turkeys (see Fig. 3). Even though this

child was only 37 months old at the time when the research

was conducted, the dialogue with her mother lasted 17 min

and 29 s. The duo seemed to have great fun conversing

about turkeys drawn on paper. However, the adult-child

interaction not only provided the child with a plethora of

opportunities to use language and gain content knowledge,

(e.g., turkey’s physical characteristics), but also offered

opportunities for the child to think abstractly, (e.g.) ‘‘tur-

keys on a farm, in a cage, and at zoo’’ and imaginatively,

(e.g.) ‘‘seven ears and 16 feet.’’ Due to the limited space,

we will only offer an example, which portrays the imagi-

native play centering on the topic of ‘‘seven ears and 16

feet,’’ for the purpose of analysis and discussion.

Seven Ears and 16 Feet

Toward the end of a conversation on the topic of turkeys on

a farm, at a zoo, and in a cage, the mother, as a respectful

partner in the interactive dialogue, perceived it was the end

of their conversation and tried to sum it up. However,

instead of concluding it, the mother extended the conver-

sation (see Table 5) due to the perceived needs of the child.

Fig. 2 Color Green

Table 5 Seven Ears and 16 Feet

Conversations Type of question

or scaffolding

Importance

Adult: Well, we have

eyes, we have a beak,

and we have feet, and

we have feathers, do

you think you need

anything else?

Informational

question (O)

Promotes child’s

thinking and exposes

child to complex

language

Child: I don’t know it. Representational

function (H)

Shows child’s turn

taking

Adult: I think that about

covers it, unless

there’s something else

you think we need.

Informational

question (O)

Reframes question to

provoke child’s

thinking and exposes

child to complex

language

Child: Well, did you

have any idea, what it

also has … (illegible)?

Heuristic

function (H)

Shows effect of

adult’s language

modeling

Adult: Hmm, I’m

thinking, do you think

he has ears?

Informational

question (O)

Extends conversation

due to child’s strong

interest

Child: Yeah. Shows how to take a

dialogic turn

Adult: Ohh, there’s an

ear, … Five ears? Six

ears, seven ears?

Contingent

question

Keeps child in the

communication loop

Child: I’ll bet he hears

really well.

Representational

function (H)

Demonstrates child’s

undivided attention

Adult: You want him to

hear really well?

Clarification

question (O)

Encourages child to

further express

information

Child: Yeah. Outside. Representational

function (H)

Shows child’s

understanding of how

to take a dialogic turn

Adult: What would he

listen for?

Informational

question (O)

Extends conversation

and further provokes

thinking

Child: Listen for girls Representational

function (H)

Shows child is having

fun with use of

language

Adult: (chuckles) that

would be fun.

Encourages child to

express more

Child: Maybe he would

listen for his mama!!

Representational

function (H)

Shows child is being

encouraged to

extend conversation

Adult: Maybe, What do

you think his mama

would say?

Informational

question (O)

Encourages child to

express more

Child: Why do you have

all those ears?

Representational

function (H)

Shows adults’

previous questions

impact child

Adult: (chuckles) …Why do you have seven

ears? …Informational

question (O)

Provokes child’s

thinking to extend

conversation

Child: cause I just have

seven, they’re stronger

that way

Representational

function (H)

Shows complex

language

Early Childhood Educ J

123

Author's personal copy

The mother’s first two questions inspired the child to

think. Consequently, rather than answering the adult’s

questions, the child posed a question, which made the

mother sensitively recognize a need for extending the

conversation (Otto 2008). The subsequent interactive

communication engendered the imaginative play, which is

not only strongly supported by Copple and Bredekamp

(2009), but also made available opportunities for the child

to be exposed to complex language and open to the

facilitated oral language competencies provided by the

adult.

The mother’s initial questions show the adult’s giving

respect to the child and her work (Dombro et al. 2011; Iorio

2006). Turkeys, as the topic of drawing, continuously

piqued the child’s interest and drew the attention of both

adult and child to the conversation. The dialogic interaction

shows how the adult was within the artwork (Iorio 2006),

as the adult let the child hold the power by adapting to the

discourse. Consequently, the conversation turned out to be

fun for the child, as the adult and child together cracked

jokes in harmony (Halliday 1973; Otto 2008). The child in

this process was also exposed to a complex sentence (a

sentence containing an independent and dependent clause;

Dickinson 1990; Otto 2008). Furthermore, impacted by the

adult’s framing and reframing questions, the child was able

to pose a question at the right time. This is consistent with

Dickinson’s (1990) notion that dialogic interactions enable

children to acquire what and when questions can be posed.

In general, during the imaginative play, the light-hearted

communication provided the child with a plethora of

opportunities to listen, think, learn to take turns to speak,

learn how to explicate thoughts clearly (Dickinson 1990;

Dombro et al. 2011; Otto 2008), and learn or be exposed to

conceptual knowledge (Chang 2007; Dickinson 1990; Otto

2008), (e.g., learning to count).

Conclusion

This study explored how adult-child interactions during

and after visual arts facilitated oral language development,

how adults fostered a partnership in the interactions, and

how visual arts served as a referent for language and sus-

tained conversations. The study shows that visual arts

created by young children could serve as topics of the

adult-child interactive communication. Centering on the

visual arts, both the adults and children paid attention to

one another, essential to opening up and extending the

conversations, as they worked hard to adapt to the ongoing

communication to have the children hold power by

employing various linguistic scaffolding strategies.

Attending to the child could genuinely connect both parties

and form the intimate partnership between adult and child.

The collaborative effort was an indication that adults were

attending to the children’s artistic renderings, respecting

the children’s initiatives and helping keep the children in

the communication loop. Communication like this made

available many opportunities for the children to not only

engage in various language functions (Halliday 1973) and

think imaginatively and abstractly, but also learn when to

listen and when to speak, how to appropriately raise

questions at right time (Dickinson 1990), how to elaborate

and/or change their thoughts to develop their oral language

abilities (Dickinson 1990; Dickinson et al. 2009; Otto

2008) and content learning.

To sustain communication, an adult needs to be a true

partner in the dialogue with the child. That is, the adult, a

fluent speaker, should attend to the child’s expressions

verbally as well as facially to determine what questions

need to be posed or reposed, and what answers need to be

delivered. In this sense, the adult may also know what

children are interested in and what assistance they may

need to further offer to extend and develop children’s

language and content learning, making ongoing dialogue

dynamic and reciprocal with employed linguistic scaf-

folding strategies.

Given that visual arts, such as drawing, hold meaning

(Anning 2002; Brook 2009; Chang 2007; Kress and van

Leeuwen 2006), drawing cannot merely be viewed as a pre-

cursor to writing (Kress 1997). Critically important is an

adult attending to what children intend to convey to be

cognizant of the children’s views and to learn their inner

world. Listening to children attentively (Dombro et al.

2011) allows adults to make an informed decision as to

what questions and answers may be delivered and gathered

(Iorio 2006) to keep children in the communication loop

and to promote their language development (Otto 2008).

It is not new that adults are encouraged to talk with

children to develop their oral language skills, (Copple and

Bredekamp 2009), nor is the one-on-one communication

Fig. 3 Turkey

Early Childhood Educ J

123

Author's personal copy

that is equally beneficial to children’s healthy language

development such as reading and storytelling (Zimmerman

et al. 2009). In light of the results of the study, talking

about visual arts could plausibly engage young children in

another well-focused and purposeful (Iorio 2006) one-on-

one communication (Zimmerman et al. 2009) while pro-

viding them with many opportunities to use language

meaningfully. Therefore, it seems that an opportunity to

further learning is potentially lost by neglecting to dialogue

with young children about their visual arts. For the sake of

the development of young children’s oral language, which

paves the way for reading, and writing skills, it is time for

teachers, parents, and other personnel working with young

children to begin to think how to react to young children

who present their artwork to them and what to do with

children who are engaged in visual arts at school, home,

and other settings.

Although the study offers significant preliminary find-

ings contributable to the relevant fields and can generate a

promising discussion in this respect for the benefits of both

children and adults, the sample of the study is small. Future

research may substantiate the research with a larger sample

to strengthen the findings. Suggestions can also be to

examine other types of artwork in contributing to chil-

dren’s oral language development and beyond.

References

Anning, A. (2002). Conversations around young children’s drawing:

The impact of the beliefs of significant others at home and

school. International Journal of Art and Design Education,

21(3), 197–208. doi:10.1111/1468-5949.00317.

Anning, A. (2008). Learning to draw and drawing to learn. Journal of

Art and Design Education, 18(2), 163–172. doi:10.1111/1468-

5949.00170.

Brook, M. (2009). What Vygotsky can teach us about young children

drawing. International Art in Early Childhood Research, 1(1),

1–13.

Chang, N. (2007). Embracing drawings in instruction and learning of

young children on a scientific concept: A grounded theory.

Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the The meeting of the American

Educational Research Association.

Chang, N. (2012a). The role of drawing in young children’s

construction of science concepts. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 40(3), 187–193. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0511-3.

Chang, N. (2012b). What are the roles that children’s drawings play in

inquiry of science concepts? Early Child Development and Care,

182(5), 621–637. doi:10.1080/03004430.2011.569542.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate

practice in early childhood programs: Serving children from

birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design. London: Sage.

Dickinson, D. (1990). Review of relevant research: Long-term effects

of facilitating oral language development. Journal of Children in

Contemporary Society, 21(1–2), 35–54.

Dickinson, D., Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Neuman, S., &

Burchinal, P. (2009). The language of emergent literacy: A

response to the national institute for literacy report on early

literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early

Education Research.

Dombro, A. L., Jablon, J., & Stetson, C. (2011). Powerful interac-

tions: How to connect with children to extend their learning.

Washington, DC: The National Association for the Education of

Young Children.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Language in a social perspective:

Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward

Arnold.

Hopperstad, M. H. (2010). Studying meaning in children’s drawings.

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(4), 430–452. doi:10.

1177/1468798410383251.

Iorio, J. M. (2006). Rethinking conversations. Contemporary Issues in

Early Childhood, 7(3), 281–289.

Kendrick, M., & McKay, A. (2004). Drawings as an alternative way

of understanding young children’s constructions of literacy.

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 109–128. doi:0.1177/

1468798404041458.

Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking paths to literacy. New

York: Routledge.

Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The

grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge.

Oken-Wright, P. (1998). Transition to writing: Drawing as a scaffold

for emergent writers. Young Children, 53(4), 76–81.

Otto, B. (2008). Literacy development in early childhood: Reflective

teaching for birth to age eight (Vol. 3). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education Inc.

Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning go to do with it: The role of

vocabulary in reading and reading comprehension. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554–566.

Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Education

Reader, 22(2), 24–30.

Schickendanz, J. A., & Collins, F. (2013). So much more than the

ABCs: The early phases of reading and writing. Washington,

DC.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Zimmerman, F. J., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Christakis, D. A.,

Xu, D. X., Gray, S., et al. (2009). Teaching by listening: The

importance of adult-child conversations to language develop-

ment. Pediatrics, 124, 342–350. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2267.

Early Childhood Educ J

123

Author's personal copy