Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an empirical study that tests Lowenfeld's (1961) developmental model of the stages of drawing in early childhood, including the completion of the university stages but not the age at which they are achieved. 

  

Strengths 

- Topic 

- Conclusions 

  

Limitations 

- Title 

- Abstract 

- Method 

- Results 

  

Areas for improvement: 

Title and abstract: 

1. The title is excessively long and descriptive; "graphic development" could be omitted.
2. The abstract should include: a brief theoretical introduction (two lines), objectives (yes), method (sample, variables, and design), results, and conclusions. The authors have not briefly included some ideas regarding theoretical introduction or contextualization, and the other sections appear vague.

Theoretical introduction 

1. The theoretical introduction section should not be subdivided, much less within a single subsection. It can all be integrated into the same section. 2. The topic of the study must be clear: children's drawing, graphic development, or art. Although these are related topics, the authors sometimes discuss one or the other concept throughout the theoretical introduction, possibly to move from the general to the specific, but it should be explicit.
2. In the first part of the theoretical introduction, the authors address the interest in studying children's drawing, related to cognitive abilities, development, socioemotional development, and early detection of difficulties. However, some statements are taken out of context and do not provide evidence. For example, in line 59 and following, the first sentence of the paragraph does not include information on this topic, but rather studies on cognitive development, but not emotional or psychosocial development.
3. The authors should include the development of drawing from general paradigms and then specify it in the model they propose for study.
4. The objectives of the study should appear at the end of this section and not in various places, e.g., lines 88-86, lines 93-96, and then in method 179-185, but where the reader expects to find it at the end of the theoretical introduction, on lines 177 and following.
5. In fact, the model being refuted is not explicitly and thoroughly explained; that is, the enumeration of stages appears (lines 139 and following) without citation of the work. Possibly an explanatory table would help the interested reader.
6. The following investigations are highly relevant to the article, but are very briefly included and require further explanation.
7. The citations are in APA format, but do not follow the Journal guidelines.

Method 

9. This section should be reorganized, presenting the participants, evaluation instruments, procedure and design, and data analysis first. The authors created two sections: objectives (which, as already noted, should appear at the end of the theoretical introduction) and a sample section. This last section should be divided into those previously described.

Participants 

10. The research participants should be described not only by age, sex, and number, but also by sociocultural status, participating school, family information, etc.
11. The majority of students are three-year-olds, with four-year-olds being a minority, and this could influence the validity of the study, since the other age groups are not equally represented.
12. The number of participating schools is another interesting piece of information, as is the composition of the classrooms and their descriptions.

Variables or Measures 

13. The categorization of the responses is from line 207 onward, but the reader would expect to find the original authors' dimensions and the construction of the evaluation instrument here.
14. Since this is a categorization system proposed by the authors of the article, the evaluation instrument should be explained in detail. This is the article's biggest problem.
15. The evaluation model, dimensions, categories, and subcategories must be explained explicitly. Theoretical validity or expert judgment must be added to the theoretical evaluation.
16. Table 2 must be explained in detail and expanded.

Procedure 

17. The description of the evaluation process (lines 201) must be explained here in more detail.
18. The research center's ethical permission is not included, and ethical issues, such as the request for participation to the center's management and legal guardians, are also not included.

  

Design and Data Analysis 

19. The design could be included here, lines 196-200, and explained in more detail.
20. The statistical tests used must be included according to the study's objectives.

 

Results 

21. There is information not included in the article that is relevant.
22. Figure 2 is out of context; it is not known whether this classification is made by the age of the students or by the characteristics of the drawings themselves. It could be included in subsection 3.1.
23. Table 4 sometimes contains up to 16 decimal places, and usually two or four (at most) are included. This aspect should be corrected.
24. The results should be limited to the data found by the authors and should not speculate on them. That is, include a description of that category and not include evaluations (line 299) about them.
25. Table 5 is conclusive and a good contribution, but it must be explained and put into context. To do this, it was necessary to explain which drawings were excluded from the category and their motivation. This must be explicit.

Discussion 

26. Here, the authors should begin with the objective of the study explicitly, not implicitly.
27. Here, they can include their assessments of the results, such as the possible precocity or interventions carried out on the students, or whether the model is applicable but not to the age, as they claim.

Conclusions 

28. It contains all the necessary ideas.
29. It is recommended that limitations and future lines be included in this section, not as independent headings.

  

Citations and References 

30. The citations and references are in APA format and do not comply with the journal's standards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We wish to express our most sincere gratitude to the reviewer for his attentive, rigorous and constructive reading of our manuscript. His observations, suggestions and critical comments have been of great value for the development and strengthening of the article. We believe that, thanks to his contributions, the manuscript has improved substantially in its structure, expository clarity, theoretical depth and methodological rigor. We have revised the text in detail to incorporate and respond precisely to each of the indications, with the conviction that the final work now presents a greater academic solidity. We remain attentive to any changes or modifications,

The authors

 

Title and abstract:

[Comments Title] The title is excessively long and descriptive; "graphic development" could be omitted.

[Response Title] The title has been changed following the reviewer's suggestion.

[Comments Abstract] The abstract should include: a brief theoretical introduction (two lines), objectives (yes), method (sample, variables and design), results and conclusions. The authors have not briefly included some ideas of theoretical introduction or contextualization, and the other sections are vague.

[Response Abstract] The Abstract has been modified to include the following suggestions

Theoretical introduction

The entire theoretical framework has been modified in response to the editor's suggestions. We are grateful for his explanations.

[Comments 1] The theoretical introduction should not be subdivided, much less in a single subsection. It can be integrated into a single section.

[Response 1] We agree with this comment. We have eliminated the subdivision "1.1 Theoretical framework" and restructured all the content into a single fluid introductory section, preserving the conceptual rigor and logical order, as you suggest.

[Comments 2] The subject of the study should be clear: child drawing, graphic development or art? Although these are related topics, authors sometimes talk about one or the other in the theoretical introduction, possibly trying to move from the general to the specific, but this should be explicit.

[Response 2] We agree with this comment. In the first third of the introduction we explicitly clarify that the central object of the study is the graphic development of children's drawing, understood as a progression of motor, symbolic and representational skills, and we differentiate it from art as a general discipline or graphic expression as an isolated practice. This approach is consistently maintained throughout the text.

[Comments 3] In the first part of the theoretical introduction, the authors address the interest in studying children's drawing, linked to cognitive abilities, development, socioemotional development and early detection of difficulties. However, some statements are taken out of context and do not provide evidence. For example, in line 59 and following, the first sentence of the paragraph does not include information on this topic, but on studies of cognitive development, but not emotional or psychosocial.

 [Response 3] We agree with this comment. This section has been revised, especially around the original line 59, avoiding unsupported statements. We have reorganized the contents and associated each contribution to the corresponding domain (cognitive, emotional or social), incorporating precise references in each case (Lo & Wang, 2024; Kouvou, 2016; Brajša-Žganec et al., 2017).

[Comments 4] The authors should include the development of drawing from general paradigms and then specify it in the model they propose to study.

[Response 4] We agree with this comment. We have rearranged the theoretical introduction to start with the classical paradigms of graphic development (Kellogg, Arnheim, Goodenough, Piaget, Luquet) and then present in detail Lowenfeld's model as the core of analysis. This reorganization responds to the logic of going from the general to the specific, as you indicate.

[Comments 5] The objectives of the study should appear at the end of this section and not in various places, as in lines 88-86, 93-96 and then in the method (lines 179-185), but where the reader expects to find them: at the end of the theoretical introduction, in lines 177 and following.

[Response 5] We agree with this comment. The objectives of the study have been clearly placed at the end of the introduction, eliminating its dispersion. They are now synthesized, coherent and in the place expected by the academic reader.

[Comments 6] In fact, the model being questioned is neither explicitly nor fully explained; the stages are listed (lines 139 and following) without citing the work. Possibly an explanatory table would help the interested reader.

[Response 6] We agree with this comment. We have incorporated a more detailed explanation of the six developmental stages of Lowenfeld and Brittain's model, accompanied by explicit reference to their work Creative and Mental Growth (1961). We believe that the narrative exposition we offer allows a clear and contextualized understanding of the model within the theoretical framework of the article, so the inclusion of a visual table is not considered strictly necessary to achieve that purpose.

[Comments 7] The following research is very relevant to the article, but is very briefly included and requires further explanation.

[Response 7] We agree with this comment. Recent research supporting or questioning the model has been substantially expanded. For example, the contributions of Alter-Muri & Vazzano (2014), Ülger (2023), Permatasari & Zulkarnaen (2022) and Moerdisuroso (2022) are further developed, clearly stating their positions regarding the validity, updating or critique of the classical model.

[Comments 8] Citations are in APA format, but do not follow the journal's standards.

[Response 8] I accept the suggestion but I can't find where it doesn't comply since the bracketing issue that MDPI requires in other journals doesn't seem necessary in this one. I am waiting for more details

Method

[Comments 9] This section should be reorganized, presenting first participants, assessment instruments, procedure and design, and data analysis. The authors created two sections: objectives (which, as indicated, should go at the end of the theoretical introduction) and sample. The latter should be divided according to the previously mentioned categories.

[Response 1] We agree with this comment. The methodology has been reorganized as suggested with the proposed sections (participants, instruments, procedure, data analysis). The evaluation instruments section has been linked to the DB, which is in the Zenodo public repository, as a commitment to open science and to ensure methodological traceability by allowing independent verification of the data and procedures used.

Participants

[Comments 10] Study participants should be described not only by age, sex, and number, but also by sociocultural status, participating school, family information, etc.

[Comments 12] . The number of participating schools is another interesting fact, as is the composition of the classrooms and their description.

[Response 10 and 12] We appreciate the observation about the absence of detailed data on sociocultural status, number of participating schools, and classroom composition in our manuscript. We respectfully consider that the inclusion of these data was not essential to the aims of the study for the following reasons. First, the 218 drawings in the sample were collected by undergraduate students in Early Childhood Education during their internships in schools in the city of Madrid, all of them with a homogeneous educational and institutional profile since they are subsidized schools in a European capital. This homogeneity of context guarantees similar conditions for all students, so that variables such as specific socio-cultural background or differences between schools do not introduce significant variability in the results. Secondly, our study focuses on the evolutionary graphic analysis of the drawings in relation to the chronological age of the children, and not on contextual variables; therefore, detailing the sociocultural status of the families, the number of schools or the composition of the classrooms would not provide relevant information for the hypotheses or for the main analysis. Finally, it should be noted that the sample is of descriptive and exploratory nature and is not intended to be representative of all populations, but illustrative of an evolving phenomenon in a relatively uniform urban educational context. Consequently, including very specific sociodemographic or institutional information would have exceeded the methodological scope of the article without offering substantial benefits for the interpretation of the findings. We hope that this explanation adequately clarifies our methodological decision and, again, we thank the reviewer for his commentary, which has allowed us to explicitly state these considerations.

[Comments 11] The majority of the students are three-year olds, with four-year olds being a minority, which could influence the validity of the study, as the age groups are not equally represented.

[Response 11] In relation to the reviewer's observation about the imbalance in the sample by age (111 3-year-olds, 35 4-year-olds and 72 5-year-olds), we would like to point out that our study is exploratory in nature and focuses on the identification of developmental graphic patterns according to Lowenfeld's model, not on establishing robust statistical comparisons between age groups. We believe that the 3- and 5-year age groups, which do have sufficient sample representation, allow us to capture the variability of children's graphic development and provide an adequate framework for observing progression through the developmental stages. Therefore, although we recognize the disparity in the distribution of participants by age, we consider that this difference does not compromise the achievement of the main objectives of the study, given its exploratory nature and the sufficient representation of the 3- and 5-year-old groups.

Variables or measurement instruments

[Comments 13] . The categorization of the responses appears from line 207 onwards, but the reader would expect to find here the dimensions of the original authors and the construction of the evaluation instrument.

[Comments 14] . Since this is a categorization system proposed by the authors of the article, the evaluation instrument should be explained in detail. This is the major problem of the article.

[Comments 16] Table 2 should be explained in detail and expanded.

[Response 13,14,16]

The complete instrument used to categorize the drawings has been archived and shared publicly in open access through the Zenodo repository (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15078567). This archive contains not only the database of the 218 graphic productions analyzed, but also the operational descriptions and specific criteria that guided the assignment of each drawing to its corresponding evolutionary stage. We consider that, by providing this complete resource, transparency, traceability and replicability of the analytical process is guaranteed, without overloading the body of the article with redundant content. However, we are open to include an explanatory note or refer explicitly to the repository in the foot of the table if deemed necessary for the readability of the text. We have also included a Table explaining the analysis matrix for the classification of the drawings.

[Comments 15] The evaluation model, dimensions, categories and subcategories should be explicitly explained. Theoretical validity or expert judgment should be added to the theoretical evaluation.

[Response 15] Theoretical validity is added under Assessment tools in the "assessment tools" section.

Procedure

[Comments 17]. The description of the evaluation process (line 201) should be explained in more detail here.

[Response 17] This is explained in the Procedure and Design section.

[Comments 18]. It does not include the ethical permission of the research center, nor does it address ethical issues such as the request for participation to the center's management and legal guardians.

[Response 18] Ethical clearances are included in Procedure and Design.

Data design and analysis

[Comments 19]. The design could be included here, lines 196-200, and explained in more detail.

[Response 19] Procedure and design has been included in the proposed section. The lines have changed with the restructuring of the work.

[Comments 20]. The statistical tests used should be included according to the objectives of the study.

[Response 20] We appreciate the comment regarding the need to include statistical tests that respond directly to the objectives of the study. Accordingly, we have expanded the data analysis section to incorporate a chi-square test and a Spearman correlation, since both procedures allow us to objectively assess the relationship between chronological age and graphic stage, as stated in the second objective of this research. Both can be found in the data analysis section

Results

[Comments 21]... There is information not included in the article that is relevant.

[Response 21] Regarding the comment on information not included, the results section has been expanded to include the classification criteria used at each stage, as well as the cases outside the theoretical range (see Table 5). In addition, the methodological decisions taken in relation to the evaluation instrument and the data available in Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15078567) are made explicit, so we consider that the relevant information has already been incorporated.

[Comments 22]. Figure 2 is out of context; it is not known whether this classification is made by age of the students or by characteristics of the drawings. It could be included in subsection 3.1.

[Response 22] It has been kept in place but the explanation has been improved by mentioning that the classification is according to the line (characteristics of the drawings) and not by age.

[Comments 23]. Table 4 sometimes includes up to 16 decimal places, and normally two or four (at most) are included. This aspect should be corrected.

[Response 23] Thanks and sorry for the error. Fixed

[Comments 24]. The results should be limited to the data found by the authors and not speculate about them. That is, include a description of that category and not evaluations (line 299) about them.

[Response 24] Personal evaluations have been removed.

[Comments 25]. Table 5 is conclusive and a good contribution, but it should be explained and contextualized. For this, it was necessary to explain which drawings were excluded from the category and their justification. This should be explicit.

[Response 25] Table 5 is explained. This table includes only those drawings whose final classification was considered valid after the process of double analysis and research consensus. Those productions that, due to formal ambiguity, low graphic quality, or absence of minimum evaluation indicators (e.g., insufficient traces or deterioration of the support), did not allow a reliable classification, were excluded from the comparative analysis because they did not meet the established minimum criteria.

Discussion

[Comments 26]. Here the authors should start with the objective of the study explicitly, not implicitly.

[Response 26] We appreciate the comment. To address this suggestion, an initial sentence has been added in the Discussion section where the objective of the study is clearly and directly stated. Specifically, the following formulation has been incorporated: "The present study aimed to analyze the contemporary validity of Lowenfeld and Brittain's (1961) developmental model in the 3-5 age group, assessing whether the proposed stages correspond to the actual graphic production of boys and girls in the current educational context". This incorporation does not alter the structure or tone of the section, but adequately responds to the need to make the purpose of the work explicit from the beginning of the discussion, as suggested.

[Comments 27]. Here they may include assessments of outcomes, such as possible precocity or interventions made with students, or whether the model is applicable but not by age, as they claim.

[Response 27] We appreciate this observation, which we consider pertinent. In closing the discussion we have incorporated an analysis that extends precisely this interpretive dimension of the results, contrasting the applicability of Lowenfeld's model with contemporary approaches. Specifically, we address how graphic development may not strictly conform to chronological age, reinforcing the need for a more flexible reading of the evolutionary model. We also highlight the influence of contextual, cultural and emotional factors on graphic manifestations, which allows us to understand the apparent precocity or delay in certain productions. In this way, a critical reflection on the empirical results and their fit with current theoretical frameworks is integrated.

Conclusions

[Comments 28]. Contains all the necessary ideas.
[Comments 29]. It is recommended to include the limitations and future lines of work in this section, not as independent headings.

[Response 29] Accepted the proposal

Quotations and references

[Comments 30]. Citations and references are in APA format, but do not comply with journal standards.

[Response 30] I accept the suggestion but I can't find where it doesn't comply since the bracketing issue that MDPI requires in other journals, doesn't seem necessary in this one. I am waiting for more details

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Hope you are all well.

 

I feel your paper is a good quality innovative paper that makes a valid contribution to the literature on child development. It requires little in the form of minor revision.

The use of descriptive-comparative approach to assess differences in child development is quite novel, especially when you factor in the effect exposure to social media might be having on nursery school aged children.

As someone very happy with the paper, please explain in the revised text how/why you chose the methodological orientation proposed by Gil Ruiz and Garcia (2024).

Best wishes

Kind regards

A peer reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive comments and for your interest in the methodological foundations of our study. We truly appreciate your thoughtful reading of the article and your encouraging feedback.

The authors

---------

[Comments methodological orientation proposed] As someone very happy with the paper, please explain in the revised text how/why you chose the methodological orientation proposed by Gil Ruiz and Garcia (2024).

[Response methodological orientation proposed]

Thank you very much for your positive comments and for your interest in the methodological foundations of our study. We truly appreciate your thoughtful reading of the article and your encouraging feedback.

In the revised version of the manuscript, we have expanded our explanation regarding the choice of the methodological orientation proposed by Gil Ruiz and García (2024). Their mixed, reflective and critically grounded approach served as a key reference due to its adaptability to educational contexts and its integration of artistic, emotional and cognitive dimensions. Their methodology-combining quantitative tools with qualitative reflection through drawing and self-evaluation-aligns with our research goal of understanding children's graphic development not only as a technical process but also as a symbolic and expressive one.

We were particularly inspired by their emphasis on the creative process as situated and relational, recognizing how individual experiences, cultural context, and technological mediation shape expression. Their design offered a flexible yet rigorous framework, which we adapted to evaluate the artistic production of children aged 3 to 5. Thus, our use of structured observation combined with contextual interpretation aims to mirror that same balance between systematization and pedagogical sensitivity. This alignment allows our study to be both empirically grounded and educationally meaningful.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

The authors have improved the manuscript and addressed the reviewer's suggestions.

Regards