偏鄉兒童和都市兒童之再現性和表現性繪畫研究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2023
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本論文旨在探討偏鄉和都市兒童之再現性和表現性繪畫特質及其相似和相異處，參與者為72位大班至小一的兒童，其中36位來自雲林偏鄉的一所公立幼兒園和兩所公立小學，另外36位來自臺北都市的一所公立幼兒園和一所公立小學。兩組兒童的平均月齡、性別比例和家庭社經背景之人數分布未達顯著差異。兒童有兩次任務，每次任務畫兩幅畫，包含再現性繪畫：「風景畫」和「學校畫」；以及表現性繪畫：「快樂畫」和「傷心畫」。研究者每次邀請4到6位兒童畫畫，兒童畫完後研究者個別訪談其繪畫內容。本論文以量化研究法，編碼系統方面，再現性繪畫有四個面向（空間處理、用色與構圖、作畫的視點、繪畫內容）及其17個代碼，而表現性繪畫有三個面向（表象表現、內容表現、用色與構圖）及其11個代碼。接著以卡方檢定分析兩組兒童在上述面向之相似和相異處。主要的結果如下：一、相似處：（一）「風景畫」方面，大部分兒童較少畫「漂浮」、「X光透明畫」、「重疊或遮蔽」，以及有半數左右的兒童較常畫「反覆出現相同的景物」和「大自然的現象或景物」；（二）「學校畫」方面，大部分兒童較少畫「以基底線為地面」和「重疊或遮蔽」，以及有半數以上的兒童較常畫「人物」、「大自然的現象或景物」和「符號」，同時所有的兒童均有畫「物件」；（三）「快樂畫」和「傷心畫」方面，大部分兒童較少畫「擬人化」，以及有三至六成的兒童傾向畫「單一人物的狀態」、「人際互動」和「色彩增減」，多數的兒童畫了「人物表情」。
二、相異處：（一）「風景畫」方面，偏鄉兒童較常畫「以基底線為地面」、「對稱安排相同的景物」、「人在山內的視點」和「動植物」，而都市兒童較常畫「以畫紙邊緣為地面」、「鳥瞰的視點」、「有著色」、「人在山外的視點」和「符號」；（二）「學校畫」方面，偏鄉兒童較常畫「人在校外的視點」和「動植物」，而都市兒童較常畫「鳥瞰的視點」、「有著色」、「反覆出現相同的景物」和「人在校內的視點」；（三）「快樂畫」和「傷心畫」方面，偏鄉兒童較常畫「物件」，而都市兒童較常畫「天氣」。
最後，本論文依據研究結果提出討論與建議。
This study aimed to investigate similarities and differences in children's representational and expressive drawings produced by children residing in rural and urban areas. Seventy-two children aged 5 to 7 years were recruited, including 36 rural and 36 urban children. Children's monthly age, gender, and family socioeconomic status were similar in both groups. To collect their drawings, children were invited to sit at a table of four to six. Each child completed 2 representational drawings (landscape and school) and 2 expressive drawings (happy and sad). Upon completion, individual children were interviewed about their drawings. Drawings were analyzed quantitatively. Each representational drawing was coded according to 4 aspects, including spatial treatment, color and composition, viewpoint, and content. The 4 aspects were further divided into 17 codes. Each expressive drawing was coded according to 3 aspects, including literal expression, content expression, and color and composition. The 3 aspects were further divided into 11 codes. Chi-square tests of independence were then applied to compare similarities and differences between two groups. The main results were as follows:1. In comparison of the similarities, first, in landscape drawings, children were less likely to draw floating objects, X-ray drawings, and overlap or occlusion. They were more likely to draw repetition and natural phenomena. Second, in school drawings, most children tended to draw baseline drawings and overlap or occlusion less often. They were more likely to draw people, natural phenomena and symbols. All the children drew objects. Finally, in happy and sad drawings, most children tended todraw personification less often. They were tended to draw the state of a person, social interaction, and inclusion or disappearance of color. Almost all children drew facial expressions.2. In comparison of the differences, first, in landscape drawings, rural children tended to draw baseline drawings, symmetrical drawings, inside the mountain, and animals and plants, while urban children tended to draw bottom edge line, aerial views, coloring, outside the mountain, and symbols. Second, in school drawings, rural children tended to draw outside the school and animals and plants, while urban children tended to draw aerial views, coloring, repetition, and inside the school. Finally, in happy and sad drawings, rural children tended to draw objects, while urban children tended to draw weather.Discussions and implications were also included.
This study aimed to investigate similarities and differences in children's representational and expressive drawings produced by children residing in rural and urban areas. Seventy-two children aged 5 to 7 years were recruited, including 36 rural and 36 urban children. Children's monthly age, gender, and family socioeconomic status were similar in both groups. To collect their drawings, children were invited to sit at a table of four to six. Each child completed 2 representational drawings (landscape and school) and 2 expressive drawings (happy and sad). Upon completion, individual children were interviewed about their drawings. Drawings were analyzed quantitatively. Each representational drawing was coded according to 4 aspects, including spatial treatment, color and composition, viewpoint, and content. The 4 aspects were further divided into 17 codes. Each expressive drawing was coded according to 3 aspects, including literal expression, content expression, and color and composition. The 3 aspects were further divided into 11 codes. Chi-square tests of independence were then applied to compare similarities and differences between two groups. The main results were as follows:1. In comparison of the similarities, first, in landscape drawings, children were less likely to draw floating objects, X-ray drawings, and overlap or occlusion. They were more likely to draw repetition and natural phenomena. Second, in school drawings, most children tended to draw baseline drawings and overlap or occlusion less often. They were more likely to draw people, natural phenomena and symbols. All the children drew objects. Finally, in happy and sad drawings, most children tended todraw personification less often. They were tended to draw the state of a person, social interaction, and inclusion or disappearance of color. Almost all children drew facial expressions.2. In comparison of the differences, first, in landscape drawings, rural children tended to draw baseline drawings, symmetrical drawings, inside the mountain, and animals and plants, while urban children tended to draw bottom edge line, aerial views, coloring, outside the mountain, and symbols. Second, in school drawings, rural children tended to draw outside the school and animals and plants, while urban children tended to draw aerial views, coloring, repetition, and inside the school. Finally, in happy and sad drawings, rural children tended to draw objects, while urban children tended to draw weather.Discussions and implications were also included.
Description
Keywords
兒童繪畫, 再現性繪畫, 表現性繪畫, 偏鄉兒童, 都市兒童, children's drawing, representational drawing, expressive drawing, rural children, urban children