Florence L. Goodenough and Dale B. Harris Draw-A-Man Test

Florence L. Goodenough and Dale B. Harris Draw-A-Man Test
by: Mallory Jaryga Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Florence Laura Goodenough
Born August 6, 1886 in Honesdale, PA Youngest of nine children Parents were farmers Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Florence Laura Goodenough
She never married Forced to retire early because of a degenerative physical illness Died of a stroke at her sister’s home in Florida on April 4, 1959 #2 – She eventually went blind. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Goodenough’s Education
1908 – Bachelor of Pedagogy: Millersville, Pennsylvania Normal School 1920 – Bachelor of Science: Columbia University 1921 – Master of Arts with Leta Hollingworth: Columbia University 1924 – Doctor of Psychology: Stanford University #1 – Pedagogy = Teaching #2 – During this time, she served as a director of research for the New Jersey public schools. The position would be equivalent to a school psychologist today. Here she began her research on children’s drawings. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Landmarks in Her Career
1921 – Worked with Lewis Terman at Stanford while he developed the Stanford-Binet intelligence test 1925 – Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota 1931 – Professor at the University of Minnesota 1947 – Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota #1 – The Stanford-Binet test was an IQ test for children. The test had verbal and nonverbal sections and scores. Terman listed Goodenough as a contributor to his book, Genetic Studies of Genius, This was quite rare, even for today, that he acknowledged his student for her own accomplishments and did not take full credit. There is a correlation between the Stanford-Binet scale and Goodenough’s drawing scale. The values in both are comparable to each other. (Probably because she collaborated on the first and designed the second.) #3 – She held this position until her early retirement in Being appointed assistant professor was the marked beginning of much research resulting in numerous publications. Goodenough became interested in children, particularly the gifted and sought ways to measure intelligence. Finding the tools and means to do so unsatisfactory, Goodenough revised and invented tests for children. Studying exceptional children, child psychology in general, and anger and fear specifically were all points of experimentation for Goodenough's career, resulting in10 texts, and 26 research articles. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Honors 1942 – President of the National Counsel of Women Psychologists
– President of the Society for Research in Child Development Listed in the Watson Directory of Outstanding Contributors to Psychology #1 – Goodenough was never comfortable in this position and at one point refused to pay her dues and resigned saying, “I am a psychologist, not a woman psychologist.” Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Contributions Minnesota Preschool Scale Developed time sampling
Studying a participant’s behavior for a set period of time Developed event sampling Studying a participant’s particular behavior and counting its occurrence First psychologist to critique ratio I.Q. Instructed Ruth Howard, who was the first African-American female to receive a Ph.D. in psychology Draw-a-Man/Draw-a-Woman Test #1 – She revised the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test which resulted in the Minnesota Preschool Scale. It had both verbal and non-verbal scores. #2 – Time sampling simply means studying a subjects behaviors over time. #3 – Event sampling simply means observing a certain behavior and counting how often it occurs. #2 & #3 – She suggested that both methods would be useful in studying the natural behavior of humans and animals. Both are still used today in behavioral studies. #4 – She argued that the concept of mental age didn't have the same meaning for all children and that psychologists should use percentages in representing results. This would allow for comparison of children of the same chronological age. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Draw-a-Man Test “The nature and content of children’s drawings are dependent primarily upon intellectual development.” Florence L. Goodenough Goodenough said that the spontaneous drawings of children shed light on their level of psychological and mental development. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Draw-a-Man Test: Findings of Others
In the drawings of young children, a close relationship exists between concept development and general intelligence. To the child, drawing is a form of expression rather than a representation of beauty. A child draws what he knows, not what he sees. The child exaggerates the size of objects which seem interesting or important. Marked sex differences, usually in favor of the girls, are frequently observed. In Goodenough’s book, Measurement, there is a section on Historical Survey that discusses other psychologists’ and theorist’ work. #2 and #3 – These drawings were looked at as a window to see mental processes and organization playing off the concept that children draw what they know–not what they see Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Development of the Goodenough Scale
Chronological age and school grade were used in establishing norms. Every effort was made to reduce the problem of subjectivity. Standard subject matter and instruction were developed. Through trial and error, she developed the scale that is still in use today. After trying a variety and number of ways to score the drawings, in 1926 she finally come up with the current scale. The scale has 51 items or criteria on judging the drawings with two different classes. Class A – the drawing cannot be recognized as the human figure. Class B – Can be recognized as the human form. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Simple and Complicated Universal Interest
Why a Man? Familiarity Consistency Simple and Complicated Universal Interest #1 – The subject must be something that is equally familiar to all children. #2 – The subject must present as little variability in its essential characteristics as possible. #3 – The subject must be both simple and complicated at the same time in order to accommodate both younger and older children. It must be simple so that the younger children can attempt to represent it, and complicated so that enough detail can be applied to tax the abilities of an adult. #4 – The subject must present universal appeal and interest in order that the child maintain a good attitude while completing the task. All of these reasons led to the conclusion that a man would be the best possible subject for this test. Also, as we saw from the work of earlier theorists, the human form is the most popular form of spontaneous drawings in children. The man was chosen over the woman originally because a man’s clothing is more universal than a woman’s. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Dale B. Harris “Of the many tests of intelligence, the Goodenough Draw-a-Man Test is perhaps the most unusual in basic conception, brevity, and general convenience.” - Harris Not much is known about him, or at least I couldn’t find anything on him. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Dale B. Harris Harris worked with Goodenough on the completion of his book: Children’s Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity. His purpose was to revise, not change, Goodenough’s scale, put certain uncompleted aspects of Goodenough’s research in order, and extend the knowledge of the psychology of children’s drawings. Born in 1914. Dedicates the book to Goodenough. She worked with him extensively on completing the book, but she unfortunately died before he finished it. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Harris’ Extension of Goodenough’s Scale
Adolescents New items Extended scale forms Projective uses #1 – Harris expanded the scoring scale to include the adolescent years. Harris’ scale ranges from 3-15 year old children. #2 – Harris added new items to the test to include the drawings of a female figure and the drawing of the self to be accomplished in that order with the man coming first. He did so to increase the reliability and validity of the scale by sampling three drawings to gain further knowledge of each child’s cognitive ability. #3 – Harris developed extended or alternate forms of the scale. For instance, there are tables that relates the raw score and chronological age to a standard score for the Draw-a-Man and Draw-a-Woman tests given, with different scales assigned to the boys and the girls. Harris also includes a table that equates the standard score to an appropriate percentile. This scale gives the scorer a much more qualitative view of each child’s ability as there are more scores to process and compare. Harris’ new scale has 73 elements that must be scored instead of the previous 51. #4 – Since Harris’ addition of new items to the test and development of more advance scoring scales, there has been new interest with this test. Now, there are more uses for the test other than to test a child’s cognitive ability. These will be discussed on the next slide. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Drawing Test’s Uses Personality Sensory Deviates
Intellectual Development Learning Differences #1 – The test has been and is being used to detect personality differences in children. #2 – The test has also been given to those individuals who have lost one of their senses to determine the effect that that loss has had on their other senses that were retained. #4 – Goodenough’s experimental basis for the test relies upon the belief that the child’s intellectual development determines the nature and content of their drawings. #3 – The test is now given to children with learning differences and those who do not to compare their differences and similarities. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Universal Positives of the Test
Versatility Simplicity Age Artistic Ability Time These are universal positives to the test, not specifically to my experiment. #1 – Everyone can take this test. People who are illiterate, deaf, mute, have learning disabilities and/or exceptional intelligence can take this test with the same ease that a person with out any “limitations.” The only group that the test discriminates against is the blind because it is a visual test and a visual representation. #2 – The test is very simple in taking and administering. Anyone can administer the test. Teacher, parent, professional, student, anyone can administer this test and learn how to score them. The only difficult thing about the test is scoring, but after time and experience it can be mastered. #4 – Very young children to children in their early adolescence (up to 15 for Harris’ scale) can take the test. The test is non age discriminatory and can be taken the same by younger as well as older children. #5 – Artistic ability is not needed nor does it effect the outcome of the test. So, any child, talent or no talent, can take the test and get a reliable and valid score. Goodenough reported several studies that were conducted to determine whether children with artistic talent or training made higher scores on the test than children of equal general ability. The answer to this question is simply, no. It has been shown, by Goodenough and others, that artistic talent does not effect the child’s score. #6 – Time is both a positive and a negative in this experiment. It is a positive because the test does not take a lot of time to administer. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Unequal number of students Racial differences Time
Personal Limitations Unequal number of students Racial differences Time Copying, Talking, Distractions These are limitations of my personal experiment, not with the test. #1 – The two classes had drastically different numbers of students. Shelton with seven and Townsell with nineteen. #2 – The students in both classes varied greatly in their racial makeup. There is no problem with this, but, according to Goodenough’s findings, racial differences make a difference in a child’s mental development. #3 – This can be an advantage or a disadvantage according on how you look at it. The test itself takes very little time to administer which is a positive aspect to the test. But, I did not get a chance to get to know the children and/or ask them what their drawings represented to them. So, the test becomes even more subjective as I have to not only score all the drawings the same, but interpret what the child was trying to represent. Another time issue is the time it takes to score the tests. It takes a lot of time after the test is administered. #4 – These three issues are to due with the children during the testing period. There was a risk of copying because they were talking to each other despite what I told them to be quiet. Some of them were also kind of distracted while drawing, and that could have effected their drawings. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Key Terms Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
A number arrived at by means of intelligence tests, intended to express the degree of intelligence of an individual in relation to the average for the age-group Mental age A child’s level of mental maturity, different from their chronological age and behavioral maturity Cognitive Development The process that includes perception, conceptualizing, knowing, judging, and reasoning Intellectual Maturity Intellectual state of maturity as separate from behavioral maturity Raw score The number of points each child receives for their drawing Standard score “Attempts to represent the measurement theory that intelligence is a mosaic of abilities” #1 – In Goodenough’s scale, she established her scale on a point score basis by using the customary method of dividing mental age by chronological age. Mental age is their level of intellectual maturity equated to their chronological age. But, this method of depicting mental level presents certain statistical problems due to the variability from score to score. The intelligence quotient has increasingly come under criticism for that particular reason. #5 – In 1939, Wechsler developed his Adult Intelligence Scale and abandoned the IQ in favor of a deviation or “standard score” method. This scale is different than the IQ, but in appearance the two scales seem to be the same and represent the same thing. The standard score departs from the monolithic concept of intelligence and attempts to represent the measurement theory that intelligence is a mosaic of abilities. There are ten sub-tests, five conforming to the general principle of “verbal” materials, and five to “performance” and “manipulative” items. Wechsler devised a system for combining all of these scores into a standard score, which has the APPEARANCE of IQ, but is not equivalent to it. Wechsler set his average at 100 for the standard score. This standard score method has been adopted in the revision of the Goodenough Draw-a-Man Test. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Hypothesis In comparing the two groups of drawings, the children at The Shelton School will display a higher level of cognitive development due to their school situation and social standing. Although the children at Townsell Elementary presumably have not been diagnosed with any learning differences and are the same age as the children tested at Shelton, their level of development will be lower due to their school and social situation. Furthermore, the drawings will possibly lead to questions regarding undiagnosed learning differences in the children at Townsell. SAY THIS BEFORE THE SLIDE Shelton is a private school in Dallas in which the children are rigorously tested before they are accepted to attend. Tuition is very, very high. The children receive much personal attention and help based on their specific needs. In the classroom I attended, there were only nine students total (two were absent). Townsell is a public school in the Irving School District. The Irving District is on the poor side. The children do not get the same amount of personal attention. There were 19 students (that day) in the class I tested and some were absent. My hypothesis states that the children at Shelton will score higher on the Draw-a-Man test than the children at Townsell. My reasons are as follows: Shelton - private, a lot of personal attention, rigorous testing, must be accepted, very high tuition, their learning differences are diagnosed. Townsell – public, big class, a lot less personal attention, poor school district, undiagnosed learning disabilities. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Websites The Shelton School Irving Independent School District
Florence Goodenough Human Intelligence Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Scoring Excel Spreadsheet Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Discussion of Results Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Cayley Highest score at Shelton Age: 5 years, 2 months Raw Score: 27
Standard Score:127 Percentile: 96 Highest score at Shelton Cayley – Female – Age – 5 years and 2 months. She obtained the highest score at Shelton (even though her drawing is not of an entire man) and is also the youngest student out of all the students I tested. I have to wonder what her score might have been if she HAD completed the entire man. While I was giving the test, I walked around and saw her drawing. I thought about telling her to stop and start over, but I decided against it when I remembered Piaget. He said that we, in education, concentrate too much on a child’s wrong answers. So, I decided to let her “wrongly” complete the test because that is how she wanted her picture to look. During the testing (as well as the entire time I observed her class at Shelton) she sang to herself and would dance across the room when she left her seat. Raw Score – 27 Standard Score – 127 Percentile – 96 Rarities – She is the only student at Shelton to score on all the ear and finger detail requirements. She is also the only one at Shelton to display “Arms at side or engaged in activity.” Unfortunately, since she did not complete her drawing, she could not be given credit for any of the leg or lower body requirements because she did not show them in her drawing. Imagine what her score would have been if she had. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Ruthie Age: 6 years, 5 months Raw Score: 27 Standard Score: 116
Percentile: 86 Second highest score at Shelton Ruthie – Female – Age 6 years 5 months. Ruthie only spoke once during the entire time I was at Shelton to curtly tell the teacher she was done with her drawing yet. She took the longest out of all the students I tested at completing her test – 20 minutes. You can see the somewhat unusual detail she put into her drawing. The upside down flowers and encasement of her person are very different from all the drawings I’ve collected (and seen in different books). The oddest thing about Ruthie’s drawing is that it is of a woman. The only reason I know this is because she named her “Anna” which can seen at the top of the page. Again, I thought of having her do the drawing over again, but I did not. I scored the drawing according to the Draw-a-Man scale because the name was the only distinctly “feminine” feature about the drawing. Raw Score – 27 Standard Score – 116 Percentile – 86 Ruthie’s Raw Score is the same as Cayley’s, but, due to their age difference, the rest of Ruthie’s scores are lower than Cayley’s. Rarities – The name. She is the only one at Shelton to display the neck in her person and the only one to score for proportioning the legs correctly. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Jake Age: 7 years, 2 months Raw Score: 14 Standard Score: 81
Percentile: 10 Lowest score at Shelton Here we have Jake. Male, 7 years 2 months. Jake scored the lowest out of all the children at Shelton, even though all the boys scored low compared to the girls at Shelton. Raw Score – 14 Standard Score – 81 Percentile – 10 Rarities – The only real rarity with Jake is that he was only one of two boys NOT to display Motor Coordination in Lines in his drawing. This means that his lines do not seem to be controlled and firmly placed – they are wavy and varying. Another interesting thing is that Jake drew an object next to his man. Another boy in the test group from Shelton drew a door and a box in front of it and told me that his man was a pizza man. Jake did not tell me what this other object means in his picture. All of the boys at Shelton did poorly compared to the girls, but Jake did the poorest. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Joshalyn Age: 6 years Raw Score: 7 Standard Score: 67 Percentile: 1
Lowest score of all the children I tested Joshalyn Joshalyn – Female – Age 6 years. Joshalyn had the lowest score out of all the children in the tested groups. She is from Townsell. Raw Score – 7 Standard Score – 67 Percentile – 1 The only rarities present in Joshalyn’s is that she only scored in 7 categories. Another interesting thing about this drawing is that she drew representations of eyes and a mouth and then erased them. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Menal Age: 6 years Raw Score: 32 Standard Score: 130 Percentile: 98
Second highest at Townsell, highest of Townsell girls Menal – Female – 6 years old. Menal had the second highest score at Townsell. But, she had the highest score out of all the girls at Townsell. Raw Score – 32 Standard Score – 130 Percentile – 98 Rarities – Menal was only one of two overall (the other was Mark – both from Townsell) that scored on the Shoulders I category. This is described as a change in the direction of the outline of the upper part of the trunk which gives an effect of concavity rather than convexity. She was also only one of four (all from Townsell) to score under the Feet: Proportion and Feet: Heel categories. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Mark Age: 7 years Raw Score: 41 Standard Score: 141 Percentile: 99
Highest score of all the children I tested Mark – Male – Age 7 years. Mark had the highest score at Townsell, and the highest score of all the children I tested. Raw Score – 41 Standard Score – 141 Percentile – 99 Mark is only one of three that scored in almost of the facial features categories. For example, he has eye detail in brows, glance, and pupil and has the nose in two dimensions. There were only five children out of all the children I tested that scored in the category. He was also only one of two to score under the Bridge of Nose category. The most interesting thing is that he was the only one to score in the upper level clothing categories, Clothing IV and Clothing V: at least four articles of clothing and costume complete. I like his drawing because he has a speech bubble that says, “Man.” Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

What does it all mean?? Averages Excel Spreadsheet
My hypothesis in this experiment was to prove that because the children at Shelton had more opportunity, presumably came from more affluent families, and had their learning differences diagnosed (and were at a school specifically meant for children with learning differences) that their score would be higher than the children at Townsell, because it is a public school with big classes and less money and less diagnoses. Presumably the parents in the district are not as wealthy as well. Let’s look at the averages. As you can see, the averages are very close. There is only a one or two point difference in each score. Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Conclusion I was wrong! Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04
Well, my hypothesis was wrong. When you compare the average score for each group, the children at Shelton scored exactly the same as the children at Townsell. In conclusion this means that the learning disabilities of the children at Shelton do not effect their intelligence, or cognitive development, which is what the test measures. Also, the school and social status issue did not seem to effect the results. The last factor, which I did not Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Inspiration Top Down Tree
Mallory Jaryga 11/12/04

Florence L. Goodenough and Dale B. Harris Draw-A-Man Test

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Florence L. Goodenough and Dale B. Harris Draw-A-Man Test"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Florence L. Goodenough and Dale B. Harris Draw-A-Man Test

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Florence L. Goodenough and Dale B. Harris Draw-A-Man Test"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback