Painting writing, writing painting: Thinking, seeing, and problem solving through story

Martens, P., Martens, R., Doyle, M.H., Loomis, J., Fuhrman, L., Stout, R., Soper, E. (2017). Painting writing, writing painting: Thinking, seeing, and problem solving through story. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 669-679.

Martens et al clearly show how reading and composing texts can be multimodal. Here, a study of picture books is done with first graders in several schools. Written text and the art in these books are studied seamlessly; the idea behind this approach is that in picture books for children, the words and the art function as a seamless whole to create meaning.

The authors of this study do a particularly good job of showing us how composing written language and composing art are parallel modes of making meaning. I especially found helpful their discussion of how each of the cueing systems of written language has a counterpart in the graphic cues artists employ. For example, in written language, graphophonic cues are used when information about sounds and the letters they represent is processed. In art, the parallel to graphophonic cues is the various elements of art, including color, dot, line, shape, space, and texture. In written language, syntactic cues are used when information about grammatical structure is processed. In art, the parallel to syntactic cues is the principles of design, including balance, contrast, harmony, movement, pattern, rhythm, unity, and variety (see p. 671 for this discussion, including a helpful table).

We are treated to detailed discussions of how five different first grade classes and their teachers engaged in the study of multimodal texts in picture books using a structure called “Storying Studio” (p. 672). First, the children heard a read-aloud of a picture book. The book was then discussed with the children. First, the topic or theme of the story was discussed, but discussion moved to a focus on craft, both writer’s craft and artist’s craft (note that the word “artist” was used instead of “illustrator” in these craft discussions). Craft lessons typically focused on an aspect of craft that was used in composing the text. For example, one minilesson looked at the different kinds of lines an artist might use to convey different feelings. In another, the ways that an artist and a writer might show contrast in both written text and art are explored. The texts then became mentor texts for the children as they composed their own picture books using the craft elements they had studied.

One thing that deeply struck me was the depth and rigor of these book discussions as well as the children’s responses. Clearly, the language of art was used with these first graders, and they showed they understood that language in the responses they gave in discussions and in the texts they composed that applied what they had learned. This makes a strong case for not shying away from academic vocabulary with young children. Many of the concepts within these lessons might be classified as specialized content vocabulary, but the children were clearly able to work with that within the supportive, age-appropriate learning structures described here.

This article focuses mainly on how the art mode was approached with the children, “because it tends to be less familiar” (p. 672) to teachers than the cueing systems of written language. That thought also occurred to me as I read about these multimodal minilessons. We do a pretty good job helping teachers learn to address the cueing systems of written language, but in the typical teacher education program, we do much less with helping them learn about art, beyond some discussions of art styles and media in children’s literature courses.

As a teacher educator, I felt some conflicting feelings as I read about these minilessons. On the one hand, the potential of this approach excited me, and I resolved to do more with art elements and principles of design in my professional education courses. On the other hand, I realized that I will need to do a good amount of learning about these elements and principles myself before I can share that learning with the elementary teacher candidates I work with. Martens et al recognize that these kinds of feelings may indeed be felt by teachers and teacher educators: “We realize that classroom teachers (including us!) may not have an art background and may feel intimidated by talking about art in picturebooks” (p. 677). A table and two sidebars on the article’s concluding pages provide a handful; of resources, but I was left wanting more. How can I learn more about elements of art and principles of design? How could we provide more background on this content in the typical overstuffed professional curriculum?

I also wanted to know more about what other potential roadblocks might challenge the implementation of this sort of approach. For example, the five different teaching-learning environments described here were clearly supportive of this kind of multimodal approach. It was clear that strong partnerships existed between the two first authors (Martens and Martens) and the five first grade teachers described here (Doyle, Loomis, Fuhrman, Stout and Soper). How was this supportive environment achieved? What kinds of partnerships need to be constructed to make sure an approach like this can be successfully implemented? What if a teacher is working in a district like many of the districts in my area, that is still very much focused on test scores and quantifiable outcomes? How would one make a strong case for an approach like this in that kind of environment?