Drawing and Visualisation Research

Published in TRACEY | journal [Theme]

[Date of publication]

www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sota/tracey/

tracey@lboro.ac.uk

Notions of constructivism are not alien to the disciplinary discourse of 'STEAM' subjects, but are less commonly reflected in typical teaching and learning practices in those disciplines, particularly in 'STEM'. The somewhat simplistic taxonomy of 'surface' and 'deep' approaches to learning has gained traction in the teaching discourse, but often in a way that is not consonant with the creative ethos of knowledge construction. Some schools of thought in the higher education literature refer to deeper kinds of learning as 'seeing things in a changed way' or similar metaphors. This has prompted me to include a series of perception and drawing exercises into a range of workshops with students and teachers, to prompt critical reflection on common assumptions concerning the nature of conceptual learning in higher education. The process is essentially allegorical, but raises core questions and provokes key insights about learning in general, doing so in a particularly memorable and effective way. The sequence typically takes around 30 minutes, where a more direct engagement with conceptual change would be likely to take much longer and with much less memorability and experiential impact.

SIMPLE DRAWING EXERCISES TO PROVOKE INSIGHTS INTO LEARNING COMPLEXITIES Paul Walker

University College London

paul.walker@ucl.ac.uk

1

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

INTRODUCTION

Although a considerable body of academic literature focuses on student learning in higher education, relatively little of this is concerned with ways of offering students the opportunity to directly access the insights arising from the research. Students are typically presented as if objects of study or as respondents in interviews, rather than as one of the primary audiences for the outputs emerging from the inquiry. This paper describes an example of engaging with students in a reflective consideration of the learning paradigms within which they might typically operate, albeit likely to be doing so unconsciously. Only when they experience the character and limitations of their current conceptions, can the possibility of more sophisticated conceptions become explicit and potentially enhance the process and outcomes of their educational endeavour.

Evidence suggests a correlation between students’ approaches to learning and their underlying conceptions of what learning is (Entwistle 2009). When learning is conceived of as a process of taking in and storing transmitted information, the approach to learning tasks will naturally follow as one of attempted memorisation and recall through strategies such as drill and practice, repetition of tasks and exercises to reinforce the acquisition of information and algorithms. At this end of the spectrum, the metaphor of ‘surface’ approaches to learning has gained currency in higher education discourse, in obvious contrast to ‘deep’ approaches which involve real world engagement, with nuances of personal meaning and transformation (Prosser & Trigwell 1999). The hierarchy suggested is not exclusive, as the use of the word ‘spectrum’ might suggest, but one of inclusivity. Those expressing the ‘deeper’ conceptions are found to also articulate ideas typical of the more superficial ones, whereas the converse is not true. There is some discussion (Entwistle 2009) regarding the implication of this inclusivity for a developmental trajectory; it is reasonable to think that a direct developmental engagement with students’ conceptions of their learning has potential to deepen their approaches and the quality of their learning outcomes.

However, a word of caution is appropriate. Engaging with people’s underlying conceptions requires a strategy of indirection, since existing conceptions inevitably influence how they will interpret the input, as if forming a perceptual filter. For instance, an exposition of transformative learning theory (Mezirow 2000; Cranton 2002) will most likely be received by a learner predisposed to surface approaches as yet more information to take in and store for future reference, rather than something with practical implications for the receiver. Thus the strategy I am presenting here uses intriguing perception and drawing exercises as experiential allegories, with explicit direction of attention to the parallels in experience of and approaches to academic learning. The immediacy of ‘seeing’ (or not) and of being able to draw (or not) makes the process visceral and highly memorable.

2

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

The exercises developed for this purpose are appropriate to a diverse range of lessons and learners, from secondary school ‘study skills’ sessions to postgraduate modules concerned with professional development. Audiences across the entirety of this range find the process intriguing, informative and enjoyable.

THE EXERCISES

1. Perception

As adults, our perception of objects in our environment is normally a well developed faculty which needs little if any conscious thought. Perhaps occasionally we can’t “make something out” because it is marginally visible in some way, for example with poor illumination making it difficult to determine what it is. In most circumstances we are able to resolve the difficulty to our satisfaction by changing our vantage point, closer inspection or deciding it is of insufficient interest to pursue. In everyday circumstances, it is rare to encounter something that defies interpretation. The vast majority of our experience is navigating and negotiating relatively familiar situations with objects that we at least think we know and understand well enough. Occasionally though, something on the margins of familiarity can grab attention and create intrigue. Such is the character of the images below.

FIGURE 1 : A MARGINALLY INTERPRETABLE IMAGE (GREGORY 1970)

3

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

FIGURE 2 : AN EVEN MORE MARGINALLY INTERPRETABLE IMAGE (DALLENBACH 1951)

The first of these is usually not too challenging, but the second typically takes quite some time before people ‘see what it is’. In offering this to students, or colleagues, as an exercise I will point out that this period of unclarity is important, for reasons that will become obvious later. Such is the apparent catharsis on resolving this confusion, that I usually have to caution members of the audience in advance to refrain from calling out when they do recognise something in the projected image. The commentary accompanying the display of the images usually unfolds as follows:

1. “Look carefully at the following image(s). At first, perhaps very briefly, you will just see black patches or dots on a white background, but then may see something that you can put a name to – if and when you do, don’t call it out and spoil it for others.” This is repeated a couple of times, after which I will ask for a show of hands from those who see something that they can put a name to and then those who still see a seemingly random array of patches or dots. Typically 90% of individuals in a group will say they see something recognisable in the first image, but less than half will say that they see something in the second after a few minutes observation of both.

2. “What most people say when they see something that they can put a name to is that the image is one of a dog (first image), or a cow (second image).” At this point, those who have seen ‘correctly’ usually offer some non-verbal affirmation of their success by nodding or similar gesture. Those who haven’t look even more puzzled and may

4

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

start asking others to explain it to them. For their benefit, I will usually identify the various features (head, flank etc.) with a pointer or similar means. Often there will be audible indications of the delights of recognition and I will validate these verbally, but then suggest that this ‘one shot learning’ (Ishikawa & Mogi 2011) creates a potential trap. This caveat sets up a later stage of the exploration. While the memory of puzzlement is fresh, I ask people to keep in mind the feeling of being confused and compare this to how they experience academic subjects that they find difficult, with statistics as a fairly common example.

3. Depending on the group, the purpose of the session and the time available, it may be possible to explore the common assumption that people are simply observing entities which are ‘out there’. Many will not have considered the possibility that the act of recognising and naming phenomena is a linguistic projection onto external reality, although many will be familiar with the idea of modelling. The simple question ‘Where is the dog (or cow)?’, asked somewhat hypothetically, provokes some passing engagement with such matters. But this is not the main point of the exercise and can distract somewhat from the power of the next stage.

4. By now everyone has ‘seen’ the things represented in the images. (On the rare occasions that someone is still struggling, it can be worth pointing out that sometimes confusion can be self-amplifying and again draw parallels with other learning experiences where frustration arises and remains prevalent.) I review the experience thus: Each person, for some duration of time however short, initially saw something that didn’t make sense, as if random marks on a plain background. Then they ‘saw’ something, often suddenly, that they could put a name to: ‘dog’ or ‘cow’.

5. What I ask at this stage is that they reverse this process and return to the naïve state of seeing the dots and splotches as they did at first. Without fail, this gets the group abuzz. Some speak up and say that it’s impossible, that they can’t do this. I’m not sure about whether a return to the previous state of innocence is impossible, but all agree that it is much more difficult. This is the key point of the exercise: once something has been perceived a certain way, it is very difficult to experience it differently. Our most difficult task in adult learning is to see familiar things freshly.

The take-away message from this brief exercise is presented to participants in a way that bridges to the next stage, nuanced to their background and interests. Contrary to the common assumptions of learners, it is less a matter of ignorance about a topic or field of study that impedes learning and more one of what is already known tacitly about it. When learning physics for instance, many if not most students struggle because of preconceptions arising from everyday experience and conversation, which suffice in that context but which impede a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena. From a young age, we learn about ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ in very immediate ways, sometimes frightening ones and reinforced by parental emotion. For example an initial encounter with thermodynamics, in which familiar terms such as temperature are

5

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

redefined in a somewhat arcane discourse, will produce conflict between the prior concept derived from experience and the new one, which also may seem unnecessarily cumbersome or irrelevant. Not only does the prior concept have the advantage of precedence, but also of everyday reinforcement in ongoing experience. The visual analogy illustrates the ‘stickiness’ of preconception in learning generally.

2. Drawing

The perception of images, somewhat processed ones in this case, would be little more than a curiosity were it not for the effect that it has on the perceiver’s actions and capacities in relation to what is seen. Building on the previous activity, I will then lead participants into a more active exercise, in which they are also asked to maintain an awareness of the thoughts and feelings which arise, not only during the exercise but also as it its three simple steps are gradually revealed in the briefing:

1. Take a sheet of paper and a pencil or a pen; 2. Get a good view of someone else in the room; 3. Make a realistic drawing of their face.

At the second step there are often ripples of apprehension, but the final instruction invariably provokes expressions of widespread dismay among the group; this usually prompts me to remind them of the need to simply notice the thoughts and feelings arising and just to engage in the task for the next two minutes. The silence ensuing is periodically broken by suppressed giggles and other non-verbal expressions of awkwardness and embarrassment, but almost everybody produces something in the period and there are inevitably signals of widespread relief when time is called.

FIGURE 3 : STUDENTS DOING THE DRAWING EXERCISE (STILL EXTRACTS FROM VIDEO†)

† A 17-minute ‘highlights’ video of a large group induction session (viewable online at http://youtu.be/dAhIj8n4pj4) includes the perception exercise from 11:00 and the drawing exercise from 12:30.

6

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

I will begin debriefing the exercise by asking what thoughts and feelings arose when the instructions were fully revealed. These inevitably confirm the non-verbal signals of dismay that were apparent at the time, expressed in words such as “Oh no!” or “But I can’t draw”, reflecting on a perceived inability to address the task as given. This leads to a comparison with a similar exercise, but without time limit, presented by Betty Edwards as a starting point in her process of teaching adults to draw (Edwards 1981). I show some of the typical ‘before’ and ‘after’ drawings by her students to illustrate the point. Her claim is that a major factor in the difficulty that adults experience in making realistic drawings is the conceptual knowledge that they have of what they are drawing and the linguistic labels attached to them. Thus if one goes to draw a feature such as the person’s eye, the prior knowledge of what such a feature ‘should’ look like takes precedence.

“To sum up, adult students beginning in art generally do not really see what is in front of

their eyes - that is, they do not perceive in the special way required for drawing. They take

note of what’s there, and quickly translate the perception into words and symbols mainly

based on the symbol system developed throughout childhood and on what they know about

the perceived object.” (Edwards 1981, p. 78, italics in original)

There are several practical books (De Reyna 1996; Curtis 2009) intended to support learning to draw alluding to a similar premise, that a common impediment is simply observing and drawing what is in front of the drawer, without the distraction of conceptual interpretation. Again this has strong parallels across all fields of learning.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNING

The point of these exercises extends beyond the visual and kinaesthetic processes of seeing and drawing, but is far more powerful for the experiential immediacy of actually doing the exercises. A subsequent discussion is needed however, to ensure that participants apply the insights to the learning issues with which they are engaged, perhaps struggling, elsewhere and in seemingly unrelated areas. The application to physics mentioned earlier can be extended quite readily to almost any field of study, learning and/or development. I have encountered similar principles underpinning advanced driving instruction for example (Coyne et al 2007), with transformative outcomes in driver behaviour and attitude.

The debriefing from these simple exercises is also intended to encourage a reflective process, surfacing preconceptions and attitudes which most likely have been hitherto in the unconscious; it can be useful also to make this explicit as a powerful learning tool. It is too easy for learners to assume that both learning resources and impediments are all external to themselves, save for a common but unspecific concern about their general adequacy as learners, in the global notion of 'ability'. The next logical step would be to have

7

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

participants embark on a process of learning to draw and discovering that they can do something they might have previously thought impossible. However, while the insights are powerful and effectively instantaneous, developing the skills to realise the possibility that they illuminate takes time and discipline. In the present case, where seeing and drawing are being used analogically, we might risk losing sight of the point for learning in general. The particular institutional context (learning workshops in higher education) allows for a relatively brief intervention and the remit would argue against an extended period spent on drawing per se. In a different context, it may well be useful to extend the exercise to achieve breakthrough in practice, building on the conceptual insights achieved in the foundation exercises.

For sustained learning and development of capabilities, in this instance drawing, the role of training, discipline and practice should not be neglected. The insights arising in a short intervention like this can be powerful, but if not acted upon over time, are likely to remain as simply nice ideas which quickly fade from memory. Thus when a student (and are we not all students?) sees the possibility of their being capable in a field of activity – drawing, mathematics, creative writing etc. – it is as if something inspiring has been glimpsed in the distance. This opening, as distinct from the commonly negative self-assessments that inhibit wholehearted engagement, may provide the impetus needed to begin and perhaps to continue autonomous learning journeys in a wide range of fields.

8

TRA

CEY | journal: D

rawing K

nowledge 2

01

2

REFERENCES Coyne, P., Mares, P., MacDonald, B. & Britain), P.F., 2007, Roadcraft : the police driver's handbook,

Stationery Office [for] the Police Foundation, London.

Cranton, P., 2002, Teaching for transformation, New directions for adult and continuing education, 2002(93), pp. 63-72.

Curtis, B., 2009, Drawing from observation : an introduction to perceptual drawing, McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Dallenbach, K.M., 1951, A puzzle-picture with a new principle of concealment, The American Journal of Psychology.

Edwards, B., 1981, Drawing on the right side of the brain, Souvenir Press, London.

Entwistle, N.J., 2009, Teaching for understanding at university : deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York.

Gregory, R.L., 1970, The Intelligent Eye, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ishikawa, T. & Mogi, K., 2011, Visual one-shot learning as an 'anti-camouflage device': a novel morphing paradigm, Cogn Neurodyn, 5(3), pp. 231-9.

Mezirow, J., 2000, Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, ERIC,.

Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K., 1999, Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education, Open University Press

De Reyna, R., 1996, How to draw what you see, Watson-Guptill, New York.