Children have a natural love of art making, but should practitioners intervene to introduce new skills? Kristen Ali Eglinton offers ways to support a child's creativity
As early years practitioners, we have a vital role to play in developing children's creativity. But how best to support their artistic endeavours raises important questions, among them the question of intervention. If we want children to operate at the height of their creativity and, at the same time, reap all the educational benefits that sound art experiences can potentially offer, should we intervene or not?
The debate for and against intervention has been going on for decades and continues today. The non-interventionist approach, often termed the 'laissez-faire' approach, has its roots in early 20th century art education practice, when the writings and practice of various celebrated art educators and philosophers gave rise to the widespread, and still sound, belief that the child should have freedom to create, investigate and explore (Leeds, 1989).
These ideas, however, were soon interpreted and re-interpreted, and came to mean something quite different - that intervention into the creative experiences of children is potentially harmful to creative expression (Eisner and Ecker, 1966). The non-interventionist approach gained momentum in the second half of the century when studies in artistic growth revealed that children progress sequentially through stages of artistic development. Intervention, it was now thought, was possibly not only detrimental to expression but also quite pointless as artistic expression would unfold organically anyway (Kindler, 1996).
As a result of this belief, training in the creative arts diminished and the non-interventionist approach emerged as the most prevalent art education practice in today's nurseries and schools (Kindler, 1996; Szyba, 1999).
In practice, non-intervention is quite straightforward: set up an area of the nursery for 'art making'; make materials readily available; refrain from interfering with questions and dialogue; offer little in the way of constructive advice, and simply praise any work that is produced.
Interventionist practice, on the other hand, is a fairly new approach to early childhood art and has grown from the belief that the natural progression of artistic development is only a baseline from which to develop children's artistic experiences.
Proponents of the approach view artistic stages not as limitations, nor as the apex of ability and expression, but perhaps more accurately, as the beginning, the foundation upon which we can build and encourage further creative growth in children.
Interventionists consider art much more than a mere exercise in art media manipulation, or as a time to vent frustrations or feelings. While those are compelling objectives, the interventionist regards artistic experience as, among other things, vital to overall development, a time to problem-solve, learn skills and a symbolic language, experience culture, a time to truly 'see', experience, and learn through the senses.
To the interventionist, the expressive and developmental possibilities of artistic experience are too educationally indispensable to be left to chance. The interventionist asks: Would we leave learning maths up to children? Why should artistic and creative development be any different?
So, is the non-interventionist approach in need of updating? A five-year observational study by Brittian (1979) found that the more an adult talks to a child during art making, the longer the child will spend on the project. It concluded that appropriate adult interaction drives and supports a child's engagement in art making, and leads to further artistic experiences.
Kolbe (1993) then concluded in a study that a teacher's interactions with children in the form of both verbal and non-verbal communication can greatly enhance artistic and creative growth. Educators, Kolbe revealed, can play an essential role in the creative endeavours of children.
Sensitive and appropriate adult intervention may, therefore, be a necessary ingredient in helping children learn how to express themselves, to grasp the skills necessary in that expression, and to learn both through and, as a result of, art experiences.
In practice, appropriate intervention is based on two major principles. First, any intervention must be developmentally appropriate. For example, intervening and prompting a child still in the 'scribbling stage' to try to draw, say, a dog would be entirely developmentally inappropriate. On the other hand, engaging that same child in dialogue about the way their arm swings back and forth when they draw or about the light and dark marks left on the paper would be both enriching - as it would emphasise the process - and developmentally sound. Second, intervention starts with the child. Briefly, but importantly, this means that intervention stems from the child's needs, which are usually revealed through observation of and dialogue with the child. These needs could be the desire to learn a new skill for artistic expression. They could stem from an interest in a particular subject or concept, such as shape, in which case, the need would be to see the artistic possibilities in that interest or concept. Or a need could be as simple as wanting someone to work alongside them as they create. Intervention should not be thrust on the child, but sensitively bestowed on them when their needs warrant it.
Equipped with the knowledge that intervention is essential to artistic growth, and remaining mindful of the fundamental principles, staff can begin to intervene both sensitively and appropriately in children's art experiences. To continue standing back in the hope that children will stumble upon art's educational treasures is the same as forfeiting opportunities to nurture, support, and promote children's artistic and creative development. NW
Kristen Ali Eglinton has an MA in Art Education, is an arts education consultant and author of Art in the Early Years (RoutledgeFalmer), due out in July 2003.
