View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Squiggle Game, from a Psychotherapy to an Educational Creativity Method. Drawing and Designing Together

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Squiggle Game, from a Psychotherapy to an Educational Creativity Method. Drawing and Designing Together
Language: English
Authors: Julie Chevalier (ORCID 0000-0002-3478-5729), Pascal Terrien (ORCID 0000-0002-3501-8062), Christian Bonnet (ORCID 0000-0002-4332-8044), Guy Gimenez (ORCID 0000-0002-8353-8185), Christine Poplimont (ORCID 0000-0002-6202-7124), Éric Tortochot (ORCID 0000-0002-4937-6071)
Source: International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2025 44(1):98-118.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Career and Technical Education, Psychotherapy, Art Therapy, Game Based Learning, College Students, Freehand Drawing, Cooperative Learning, Creativity, Creative Activities, Creative Thinking, Graphic Arts, Teaching Methods, Discussion (Teaching Technique), Learning Processes
Geographic Terms: France
DOI: 10.1111/jade.12527
ISSN: 1476-8062
1476-8070
Abstract: The paper presents an experiment with a squiggle game in a design class: a joint drawing activity. The squiggle game, which comes from psychoanalysis, has been adapted to a teaching-learning situation in order to observe how graphic design practices and skills develop through creativity. The hypothesis is that the game impacts the training of participants, including teachers, by developing their creativity through the co-construction that occurs between them. A qualitative methodology based on activity theory has been set up, consisting of two phases of experimentation in a vocational training class in France. The results are based on a semiotic and cognitive analysis of the drawing activity through its components and the participants' discourse about their drawings during self-confrontations. The discussion creates a dialogue between several research paradigms in educational sciences, psychology, and psychoanalysis within artistic disciplines. It leads to the identification of four creativity methods that impact the teaching-learning processes generated by the squiggle game: the game of abstract random drawing in pairs; the figurative patterns sought through combinations of strokes (complementation); opposition between very strong former and current routines of drawing or behaviours; and rebounding from the other's prompts towards new dynamics.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1460428
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHaNXhMLbMXouox1mzY3iL6AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGZu9yRKfxIN2Z9vgwIBEICBm7E9t0Li0V2_OCsf6eGZndllIPQCJBbc0h7YKIJE2UOuwBQoGQJu5ezGvIfB2t8aw7l8KeL490uLF3Ok2FoIOwzY_N82UZByXP0_d5ZKuLwzSI7SpylERbP1H4vxCGvfQmB1MDVNkcCFKYaZvh5vF0MWyagq43qyhVSxNNBpz--DlL9Ga0rzGnGzC6cE7M8mHD9ekseLqra2-Gb5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183991127;q0t01feb.25;2025Mar26.07:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183991127-1">Squiggle Game, from a Psychotherapy to an Educational Creativity Method. Drawing and Designing Together </title> <p>The paper presents an experiment with a squiggle game in a design class: a joint drawing activity. The squiggle game, which comes from psychoanalysis, has been adapted to a teaching‐learning situation in order to observe how graphic design practices and skills develop through creativity. The hypothesis is that the game impacts the training of participants, including teachers, by developing their creativity through the co‐construction that occurs between them. A qualitative methodology based on activity theory has been set up, consisting of two phases of experimentation in a vocational training class in France. The results are based on a semiotic and cognitive analysis of the drawing activity through its components and the participants' discourse about their drawings during self‐confrontations. The discussion creates a dialogue between several research paradigms in educational sciences, psychology, and psychoanalysis within artistic disciplines. It leads to the identification of four creativity methods that impact the teaching‐learning processes generated by the squiggle game: the game of abstract random drawing in pairs; the figurative patterns sought through combinations of strokes (complementation); opposition between very strong former and current routines of drawing or behaviours; and rebounding from the other's prompts towards new dynamics.</p> <p>Keywords: co‐constructed drawing activity; design learning; drawing gestures; squiggle game; creativity methods</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Today, drawing is used in the classroom more to strengthen thinking processes and develop innovation abilities than to practice drawing skills (Fava [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]). This article focuses on the creative and innovative dimension of the squiggle game originally used in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis by Winnicott ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref3">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref4">41</reflink>]/2018), and updated by Chevalier ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]). For this study, the squiggle game has been adapted to a design‐learning situation to understand its impact on design teaching and learning and on creativity through drawing activities. The squiggle became an educational game aiming to develop creativity as a method, thanks to the divergences provided by the game (through dialogues, experiences with the other, etc.). This is an attempt to enhance and improve design teaching and learning, in which students must be capable of listening, communicating and taking initiative, and of being autonomous, methodical, and creative. Because of the particular feature of the squiggle game – the joint drawing – teacher and students must work together towards dialogue and compromise.</p> <p>The paper presents a state of the literature on the use of drawing and playing to develop creativity in teaching‐learning situations, as well as on the use of the squiggle game in psychoanalysis. The main question is: when this game is adapted to a teaching‐learning situation in a design class, will a development of graphic design practices through creativity be observed? The hypothesis is that the game influences the training of the participants, including teachers, by developing their creativity through the co‐construction that is taking place between them.</p> <p>A qualitative methodology was set up consisting of two phases of experimentation in a vocational training class in France, involving a teacher, 17 students aged 15–18, and two researchers. The results are based on a semiotic and cognitive analysis of the drawing activity. The challenge is to identify the creative methods that have an impact on the learning processes generated by the squiggle game.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-3">Theoretical framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183991127-4">The squiggle game according to Winnicott</hd> <p>The initial aim of the squiggle game invented by Winnicott ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref9">41</reflink>]/2018) was to produce 'a test of therapy' that could examine how the child uses the situation. It was not intended to produce a psychiatric diagnosis in the strict sense of the word, nor even to be part of a psychological assessment. Winnicott's desire was to promote a non‐classical session of analysis, without prejudging the potential for long‐term psychotherapy. He hoped to transform a first interview – often the sole interview – into a therapeutic consultation, enabling the child to discover his or her current problem and the therapist to get in touch with the child's true 'self' (Chevalier <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>The originality of the squiggle game lies in the free and active participation of the analyst, which is contained in the rules: the therapist spontaneously draws (sometimes with eyes shut) an abstract tracing (doodle) that the patient must elaborate into a figurative drawing (squiggle); then it is the patient's turn to draw an abstract tracing and the therapist's turn to elaborate it into a figure. The analyst traces and draws, completes and figures, in the same way as the patient, to explore and potentially figure a hidden, even unconscious, formlessness within the patient's psychic reality and within the transference relationship that unites him/her with the therapist.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-5">The squiggle game according to Chevalier</hd> <p>However, Winnicott's method encounters two limits which can sometimes produce censorship or inhibition, but may also lead to a proliferation of conventional or generic figures: the speed of execution and the obligation to produce figurative drawings. To temporarily stave off the emergence of figures and encourage more spontaneity in the relationship between the drawing participants, the classic rule of the squiggle game was modified as follows: the participants may take turns making doodles for as long as they wish (Chevalier [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>]). Thus, figurative representation is no longer mandatory.</p> <p>This new rule has three consequences. First, it lengthens the time it takes to produce a squiggle, which decreases the number of squiggles made during the session, with the understanding that conscious intentionality is reduced to allow more time for abstraction. Secondly, it generates figures (often animal or bodily) that are sometimes surprising or literally interpretative, as they will only become voluntary at a later stage. Thirdly, it engages important cross identifications between the drawing pair, who imitate, oppose or complete each other in the figures, generally producing astonishment or jubilation together.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-6">The game in teaching and learning situations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183991127-7">Gaming in teaching</hd> <p>Several studies have identified games as tools for enhancing teaching. The main goal is to get pupils or students involved in physical and social interactions. Furthermore, Han ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref13">19</reflink>]) shows that games increase students' attention and interest, helping them to think from different perspectives, in part by providing clearer goals. Students can also try out different methods, including choosing the level of difficulty. They make mistakes without embarrassment because they are comfortable with the situation (Han [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]). Teaching through games is a way to relieve pressure on students, not only because they are getting help from teachers but also because they are not expected to produce accurate results or pre‐determined outcomes. Failure is an opportunity to try again. Playing games can thus facilitate creative engagement by enhancing participation and experimentation and allowing the roles of the gamers to be more fluid (Pérez Miles & Libersat [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]). Moreover, recent findings have shown that games are an integral part of art education and are best treated in a holistic manner, not merely as visual representations or as tools for learning (Valja [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref16">35</reflink>]). In other words, games can "challenge some of the orthodoxies in the current education system" by "changing structures and conceptions about ways in which we learn" (París & Hay [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>], 72).</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-8">Learning in games</hd> <p>As an enhancement activity for teachers, a game is a way for all players to acquire knowledge, know‐how and soft skills. The game activity enables participants to learn together because they play according to rules and procedures that require a gradual entry into the mechanism and social space of others and interactions with them (Brougère [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]), as mentioned above. Playing entails three types of development. The first is behavioural: skills of cooperation, communication, and human relations are deployed in intense dialogues, laughter, moments of complicity, etc. Games tend to include all voices, all points of view, and to break "traditional conversational dynamics by bringing in the element of playfulness" (Calvo & Sclater [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>], 244). The second is conative (i.e. commitment and motivation), particularly through meeting challenges or solving problems (Han [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]). For example, students are motivated by new and achievable challenges, by the community involved, and by the attractive storyline. The third is cognitive, implying co‐construction of knowledge: students investigate, wonder, make connections. Furthermore, students "try out ideas, test theories, experiment with symbol systems, explore social relations, take risks and reimagine the world" (París & Hay [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>], 73). The game in co‐design also calls upon relevant competences, skills, and dispositions (Calvo & Sclater [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]), i.e., transferable skills, which can include drawing, as an inexhaustible source of inquiry and development for learners (Sawyer & Goldstein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-9">Embodied cognition in a limited space</hd> <p>Embodied cognition refers to the body both as a 'technical object' and as a body instrumented by technique to confront the material (Leroi‐Gourhan [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]). Drawing, as a language, is an expression of complex thought that informs the relationship of the body to the object and to technique through gesture (Picard & Zarhbouch [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]). For students learning drawing as a component of their future craft, it is a form of empowerment (Riley [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]). For professionals who use drawing as a working tool, the body configures graphic space (Fraenkel [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>], 11). This individual conversation with the material is a confrontation with the self, a 'back‐talk' (Bamberger & Schön [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>]): the sketches produced do not exactly correspond to the initial intention. Moreover, they are not limited to the appearance of what they represent because they combine movement and vision through the sometimes‐playful connection at the level of hands and body. This is embodied cognition (Cooper [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-10">Co‐construction of a drawing</hd> <p>Drawing is acting and mobilising motor skills in time and space, which promotes the individual development of the child's skills in meaning‐making (Darling‐McQuistan [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]). In addition, drawing is experienced by the child as both movement (dynamic aspect) and gesture (addressed kinematic aspect) within a restricted space where he learns to orient himself. Graphic activity in a limited space contributes to the construction of the body schema. There are three categories of drawing space: horizontality (plane of the table or floor); verticality (plane of the wall or board); and oblique (plane of the desk, drawing table or easel). This oriented functional space, non‐homogeneous and limited, allows for the representation of depth as a third dimension (Lurçat [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]/2020).</p> <p>Unlike writing, which requires automatisms to simplify the gesture (Bara & Gentaz [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref32">9</reflink>]), drawing in the squiggle game can be accomplished with free and unlimited outlines and colours. Therefore, play contradicts graphic routines, including those of writing, while developing working memory, executive functions (Panesi & Morra [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]) and representational flexibility (i.e., change of position or orientation [Picard & Baldy [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]]). This instrumented activity with a symbolic focus leads to a form of creativity through the complex elaboration of cognitive procedures and the development of executive skills (Adi‐Japha <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, drawing would bring with it a fundamental intensified dialogic dimension, since it is a question of two people drawing together. It entails dialoguing together, graphically, through the gesture and the body, the material and the word. Drawing in pairs or in groups is a guarantee of creativity (Wilson & Wilson [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]; Wilson [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]; Kouvou [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>]). We can highlight some of the creative aspects of joint drawing as follows. First, "dialogue is generative and creative, involving the coming together of different voices, experiences and knowledge through which new understandings can be created", and these new understandings empower the practitioners to improve their work (París & Hay [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>], 76, 77). Moreover, creativity is not the preserve of the young individual isolated from the adult world, whose "how‐to‐draw recipes" and tips are seen as "an exhibition of draughtsmanship or mastery of an official visual language" (Kouvou [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>], 287). Finally, we have to accept that copying, or attempting to copy, is a source of creativity (Wilson [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref41">37</reflink>], 9). Whether one is copying another learner or the adult who knows 'how to do things better', relying on the other person is a guarantee of achievement (Wilson & Wilson [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, joint drawing is based on divergent thinking (Bonnardel & Didier [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]), and divergence and collaboration are not always comfortable together (Newman [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>]). In fact, co‐constructed design would also involve some self‐repair of what the other has transformed, displaced, or interrupted. Since adolescents reinforce these obstacles through avoidance, they find a way to develop skills and knowledge (Lau [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]). This reparation can favour the accentuation, marking, or recovery (Focillon [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]/2018) of the accident imposed by the other.</p> <p>Teaching the activity of co‐constructed drawing to adolescents who want to become designers could enhance their creativity by enabling them to incorporate past and current experiences or embodied automatisms (Lurçat [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]/2020). Yet, in the design education milieu, little consideration is given to the place and function of the body (Tortochot [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>]). Interactions between learners are also poorly documented, even though they are constant (Terrien & Tortochot [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]). This is why the aim of this study is to observe students and teachers taking part in an educational activity in which the learning body will enable the development of graphic know‐how and creativity in design.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-11">Constructivism and activity theory</hd> <p>This study uses two approaches to account for what the participants learn. The first is the Cultural‐Historical Activity Theory (Calvo & Sclater [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]), which determined the design of the experimental set‐up with the group of participants. The aim is to produce both data (the digitised and filmed squiggles) and discourse about the data (the self‐confrontations) (Terrien <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]). This is a first step with a cultural‐historical purpose (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref52">36</reflink>]): to ensure that the experimentation falls within the "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) of these participants. As Kouvou says ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>], 276): "The ZPD is understood as the distance between the level of competency determined by the child's independent work and the developmental level he achieves under adult or more capable peer guidance". In this case, the guidance is mutual and the level of competency depends on the two participants, whether they are teacher (adult), researcher (adult) or students (teenagers). The drawing game with a child is not based on rules of dialogue such as those established by Winnicott and developed by Chevalier. Wilson & Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref54">38</reflink>]) mainly thought of their method as a way of learning to draw in the Vygotskian ZPD, also taken up by Kouvou ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The second approach is complementary to Chevalier's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]) French structuralist approach. It is interested, after the fact, in the traces of the co‐constructed drawing activity and in what is said about it, to understand the mechanisms of knowledge construction at stake in this balancing process (Lebahar [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref57">22</reflink>]). The semiotic and cognitive analysis is a so‐called constructivist approach based on indicators of the strategies developed by the participants.</p> <p>All these references lead to a main question. Do graphic design practices used in the squiggle game help to develop creative skills?</p> <p>There are some secondary questions: (i) Is design teaching enhanced because of this game? How is the teaching transformed and modified? (ii) Does the change taking place help to improve learning? (iii) How do designing and drawing skills evolve and why?</p> <p>Our hypothesis is that the game influences the training of all participants by developing their creativity through the co‐construction that takes place between them.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-12">Action research project and methods</hd> <p>This qualitative research is an experiment carried out within a dialogue between two disciplines: psychoanalysis and the science of education. First, as a therapy, the squiggle game is well‐established (Winnicott, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref58">41</reflink>]–2018; Chevalier, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>]). Second, the squiggle game could be an interesting alternative to traditional teaching methods. This means that there is a teacher who is willing to turn his/her class into an experiment for a couple of hours, in an attempt to increase students' attention and interest and enable them think from different perspectives, practice with different methods, and make mistakes without embarrassment (Han [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>The experiment took place in an actual classroom, following with the new squiggle game rules: these affect the length of time spent on joint‐drawings and the production of bodily and/or animal figures, and can lead to significant enjoyment because of cross identifications between the people drawing.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-13">The participants and the material</hd> <p>All the participants' contributions are presented anonymously, as are the participants themselves: a graphic design teacher (B1) and her 17 students aged 15–18, 7 of whom were girls, and two researchers (C1 and E1). One of the students involved in the self‐confrontations, C2, was not completely fluent in French. D2, who was paired with the researcher B1 during the second phase, was unable to take part in the self‐confrontations.</p> <p>Each participant received a code at the beginning of the session that he/she had to write on the back of each drawing to ensure anonymity: A1/2, B2, C2 were filmed, whereas D1/2, E2 and H1/2 until M1/2 were not. All the participants were volunteers who had consented to be filmed and recorded.</p> <p>The experiment took place during a design course. The main skills required in this course are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) a complementary set of artistic and technical skills (design, execution, and management), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) in‐depth knowledge of the processes and procedures involved in design, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>) the ability to carry out professional activities independently, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>) the ability to take responsibility for product development and technical specifications, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>) the ability to lead and coordinate a team. In other words, as part of a team, students must be able to listen, take initiative, be autonomous, methodical, creative and able to communicate in an appropriate technical language (MEN [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref67">25</reflink>], 5). The test was carried out over three 1‐hour class periods (Figure 1) during the 3 weeks leading up to the 2021 end‐of‐year holidays. There was a pre‐testing phase to make sure that the squiggle game, with its new features, could be carried out with these students and their teacher. All of them drew during this pre‐testing phase, which enabled the researchers to ensure the experimental conditions could be maintained in the classroom for the length of the course, and that audio and video recordings could be made of the pairs of drawing partners. The testing phase took place a week after the pre‐test and in the same conditions. Finally, the self‐confrontation session followed 1 week later, after participants had been given time to collect the videos, watch them and choose the extracts to discuss.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 ccstripThe Experimental Classroom." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Due to the COVID 19 regulations at the time, all the participants wore masks and used hand sanitiser. They had at their disposal size A3 white layout sheets and a large range of multi‐coloured markers with fine and chisel tips.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-15">Filming the drawings and self‐confrontations</hd> <p>The test session was divided into two 25‐minute periods, with the pairs being rotated. Two pairs were filmed each time. One of the cameras faced the pair to record their interactions, dialogues and gestures, whereas he second camera was positioned above the participants' shoulders to record their arm and hand movements as they drew (at the right of Figure 1).</p> <p>A Zoom microphone recorded the dialogue during the activity. The A3 sheet of paper was not glued to the table, so it could be moved, but a tape outline indicated where the sheet of paper needed to be placed to remain in the frame of the cameras. The footage from the two cameras was synchronised and assembled in a split screen to provide a simultaneous view of the drawing (Figure 2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 ccstripThe Video Shown to the Participants with Split Screen." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The participants had to choose one or more excerpts from one or more of the edited videos. This led to a series of simple self‐confrontations. Each researcher gave the floor to each participant in an interview, with the discussion starting with the reasons for the choice of the extract and stopping when the participant had nothing more to say. The videos were then assembled with the drawings on the same screen (Figure 3).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 ccstripFinal Editing Before Transcription of Dialogues." /> </p> <p></p> <p>After this first simple self‐confrontation, the other participant of the pair watched the same excerpt from the video. However, only two students from the same pair commented on the same excerpt (cross self‐confrontation). All these recorded interviews were transcribed for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-18">Analysis and processing of the data</hd> <p>The method of recording the activity (images and sounds) was chosen as one of the means of documenting the process (making), interactions (dialoguing) and products (understanding) of the drawing activity. For this purpose, a semiotic and cognitive analysis of the drawing activity (Lebahar [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref68">22</reflink>]) was carried out to highlight descriptors of the functions and procedures of drawing, based on two kinds of data. The first pertains to the drawing components: planes, dots, curves, spirals, cycloids, full and loose lines (Lurçat [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>]/2020). Secondly, linguistic analysis unveils the meaning of the discourse participants engage in about their drawings during self‐confrontations (segmentation into sentences and then elementary propositions: isolation of descriptors, such as technical or general vocabulary, grammar, syntax). These crossed descriptors outline the academic knowledge in play, the beliefs, the individual knowledge, the personal development of the activity, and the professional framework of the training.</p> <p>In addition, semiotic and cognitive analysis of the recorded gestures and movements reveals the goals of the activities (Terrien <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]) through the way in which they were performed (gesture, tool, support, relationships between all three, etc.). The self‐confrontation interviews help towards an understanding of the reasons that led participants to draw the way they did. Indicators of graphic and plastic creation were outlined: (i) the body involved with the gestures produced; (ii) the instruments used; (iii) the relationship to the material, to the surface, and to the drawing support; (iv) the enunciative, explanatory, and dialogical dimensions at the heart of the interactions; (v) the cross‐planning, negotiations, compromises, and strategies in the processes; (vi) and the methods engendered by the confrontation with the other.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-19">Outcomes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183991127-20">Data from the activity: 54 squiggles</hd> <p>The first step of the testing session led to 27 squiggles (Figure 4) and the second to 27 (Figure 5). Eight drawings were made in front of the cameras during the first phase and seven during the second. Researcher C1 took part in both phases, whereas the teacher only took part in the second.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 ccstripAll the Squiggles Drawn During the First 25 Minutes (in grey: the squiggles filmed during co‐drawing activity and commented on by their authors; in bold: the filmed squiggles; TM, time marker; TME, time marker of extract with comments by the squiggles' authors)." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 ccstripAll Squiggles Drawn During the Second Phase (in grey: the squiggles filmed during co‐drawing activity and commented on by their authors; in bold: the filmed squiggles; TM, time marker; TME, time marker of extract with comments by the squiggles' authors)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Two pairs (E and O) achieved a single squiggle in 25 minutes. The first pair involved student C2 who took part in pair C with the researcher in the second phase. The second involved the teacher, B1, who partnered with student B2 to form pair B in the second phase. These two single squiggles suggest what will be at stake in the next phase. All the other pairs took advantage of the time available to multiply their experiments (between three and four drawings in 5–6 or 7 minutes per drawing). The pairs mark the series of squiggles with figures, patterns and colours, which vary systematically from one to the next. Drawings in each series reveal recurring constructions, surfaces and motifs. However, one pair (I) seems to have chosen to experiment with varied and contradictory effects, even changing colours in the last squiggle and challenging everything, as if to obtain new results. Finally, pair Q evolved from "simple" squiggles to intricate drawing. This kind of transformation is not observed in the other series.</p> <p>The second phase led to more production, as if the designers had taken advantage of the first phase to develop a form of creativity with other people (pair J is a relevant case). It should be noted that no pairs were repeated, apart from the one filmed in phase 1, pair A, who seem to have decided to continue the experiment to the end. We shall see in the analysis of the videos of their drawings and their speeches that this pair's awareness of the power of the squiggle game led them to repeat the experiment multiple times, varying one parameter or another (scales, surfaces, inside and around drawings) to the point of exhaustion (they produced only three drawings). Pair L changed instruments halfway through the exercise: the felt pens were thicker, the lines more confident and the squiggles more determined. Pair F involved the second researcher (E1) and the student D2 who had formed a first pair with the first researcher, B1. They produced two squiggles made up of highly sophisticated and all‐encompassing interlacing patterns.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-23">Three pairs and 15 drawings</hd> <p>Based on these initial observations, an analysis of the videos, the individual drawings, and the participants' discourse about the drawings and videos should enable us to gain a deeper understanding of the joint drawing activity. While the videos only provide access to 15 drawings of the 54 squiggles, the cases studied give an idea of the richness of the processes observed.</p> <p>The filmed pairs A and B drew together during the first 25‐minute phase (Figure 4); Pair C played the game during the second phase. Different situations were observed in the different pairs. Pair A, consisting of two students (A1 and A2), performed four squiggles: a1, a2, a3 and a4 (Figure 6). Squiggle a3 is the subject of two simple self‐confrontations (a3a, a3b) and of a cross self‐confrontation with the two designers (a3c). A1 and A2 engaged in a lot of dialogue, especially about instruments, tracings and shapes. The colours do not change much; the markers are passed from hand to hand whenever one participant or the other feels the need for one and asks for it.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 ccstripExample of Pair A Data Collection." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Pair B, the teacher (B1) and a student (B2), is the most productive: five squiggles (b1, b2, b3, b4 and b5). The colours change a little and are sometimes reversed but remain within the range of shades of red, burgundy or carmine. B1 comments once on drawing b1 and twice on b3. As for B2, she is interested in b2 and b4. Neither says anything about b5.</p> <p>The researcher (C1) and a student (C2) who make up Pair C take more time on each drawing (c1, 11′00; c2, 13′30). The student of this pair, C2, comments only on drawing c2 and provides information about the purposes of his activity as a draughtsman, whereas the researcher comments on both drawings.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-25">Semiotic and cognitive analysis of squiggles: process and discourse</hd> <p>Is any creative activity connected with the learning activity during the squiggle game? The double analysis aims to highlight the following: differences in playing time within and between pairs; tools one or both of the pair preferred; diversity in falsifications and in ways of circumventing the rules of the game, and in adherence to the rules; intentions, experiences, feelings, obstacles, and perhaps some kind of "unthinking".</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-26">Results of the analysis of the processes</hd> <p>The postures assumed by pair A during the four squiggles indicate their relationship to the instruments they use to perform gestures in the shared drawing space, whether it be the shared space or the support (Figure 7).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 ccstripExample of a Summary of the Indicators from the Pair A Videos." /> </p> <p></p> <p>A1 is right‐handed and is seated to the right of left‐handed A2. When they draw, they need to extend their arms so that the drawing instrument, a felt‐tip pen, reaches all parts of the A3 paper surface. This obstacle is immediately overcome by A1, who draws on the left side of the paper, encouraging A2 to use the same space.</p> <p>They learn to optimise the instruments and the rules of articulation and sequencing to minimise the effort they have to put into gestures (Bril [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]), using routines (variations of cycloids, more or less truncated spirals) that they will exhaust one after the other after making observations: reproduction, enlargement, extension, opening, return, reinforcement and exclusion. Consequently, they gain in graphic vocabulary and in technical precision. The tracings are more and more efficient and become routine for the new cycloids, undulations, curves, various and varied spirals, whose directions change constantly.</p> <p>In pair B, the teacher, B1, is right‐handed and is seated on the left of left‐handed student B2. They may therefore be hindered in their movements by each other's bodies, although B1 develops strategies to deal with this, moving the paper before returning it to its place or not. These strategies are noticeable in squiggles b2 (2′20) and b3 (2′15). They do not consider changing places.</p> <p>The first squiggle demonstrates how the pair builds routines. Invited by B1, B2 draws the first line of the first squiggle (b1) without hesitation: a wavy curve executed with a chisel tip, stretching across the width of the paper from left to right. This single line crosses the support and prompts B1 to make one in the same horizontal space, in the opposite direction and in symmetry with the first. The body of a fish immediately appears, and is confirmed by the addition of a fin (B2) and then gills (B1). In less than 40 seconds, the game of 'switching between the abstract and the figurative' has been established and it will never leave this pair. Which of the two establishes this game, that is to say, the rule of articulation and that of the sequence of alternating gestures? B1 does not draw a fish when she draws the symmetrical stretched curve: she articulates her gesture with that of B2, which was a graphic prompt. On the other hand, B2 draws the fin in one gesture (a cycloid without a loop with a straight rise to the left and a descending curve), rather than linking it with another curve. B1 nods and continues. The dialogue of gestures has been established.</p> <p>Two right‐handed people make up pair C: C2 (student) and C1 (researcher). They use the entirety of the sheet's space. Most of the time, it is C1 who takes over C2's space. C1 starts the game and takes over the whole sheet. C2 remains in the background, even seeming detached, with his left arm folded against himself, until an octopus figure appears (1′20). Concentrating, he unfolds his arm, uses his left hand to hold the sheet and develops his gestures more fully. His drawing then becomes meticulous, neat, and well defined. From this moment on, the sheet will serve as a support which the two authors will cover with a lavish shared landscape.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-28">Results of the discourse analysis</hd> <p>During the self‐confrontation interviews, A1 and A2 focus on squiggles a2 and a4. They were especially interested in squiggle a3, which led to the suggestion of a cross‐self‐confrontation. When asked to describe the gestures they performed or to explain their graphic productions, each independently evokes lived experience without using a technical vocabulary (Figure 8).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01feb25/jade12527-fig-0008.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12527-fig-0008.jpg" title="8 Summary of Indicators from the Pair A Self‐Confrontations." /> </p> <p></p> <p>A1 makes a value judgement about the result, rather than expressing her views about the process. Describing more than explaining, she manages to put into words what it is that makes the game interesting. For his part, A2 speaks of being 'amazed'. Between amazement, surprise, laughter and pleasure, both A2 and A1 express their interest in the squiggles, a game that 'minimises consequences' (Brougère [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>]) of accidents and of some 'back‐talk' (Bamberger & Schön [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Like pair A, B1 and B2 use a non‐technical vocabulary to talk about the experience and say nothing about the discomfort caused by their seating arrangement. B2 is more preoccupied by the result of the squiggle and makes the comparison between their usual drawing activity, with its 'specifications' and this new situation that is interesting because it allows them to see 'new things'. B1 (teacher) describes her drawing gestures in precise terms, saying that she thinks it 'induces figuration'.</p> <p>B2 does not remember the moment when what he calls B1's 'squiggles' gave him the idea of the factory, which B1 immediately transforms into a character smoking a cigarette. Starting with the second squiggle (b2), B1 makes her mark, in her space, through an accumulation of random, nervous cycloids and intertwined spirals going in changing directions. When B2 focuses on the results, he reveals the strategy that led to them. In the self‐confrontation, B1 says she is interested in the process, whereas B2 points out the drawing methods that led to the revelation of the figures: no more than two successive drawings for squiggles b1 (a fish), b2 (a factory/person smoking), b3 (a rabbit running away) or three for b4 (a face topped by a hat). This tense, uninterrupted tracing lasts 11 long seconds. By comparison, the tracings of pair A's random forms last only from one to 2 seconds and their shared reflection time is often filled with dialogues and deictic gestures to read the contours of the forms.</p> <p>C2, the student, chooses to talk only about squiggle c1, in two parts, in two different excerpts. The first one is quite short: 20 seconds in the middle of the video. The second is very long: 4 minutes when the drawing ends. The handicap of the language difference does not facilitate C2's exchanges with C1 (researcher), who is trying to understand C2's choices. The lack of verbal dialogue makes her uncomfortable; she says she does not know what to do to respond to C2's graphic proposals. Paradoxically, the drawings are very long and the results produced are among the most complete of the 54 squiggles. The landscapes fill the whole sheet as if the end of the task had only been tacitly considered once the drawing surface began to run out.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-30">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183991127-31">Negotiations</hd> <p>The results show how creativity and learning are closely associated through the interactions between the designers. During the self‐confrontations, the participants report on the moments when they saw figurative patterns emerge in the drawings that were meaningful, or at least recognisable, to them. They say that their partner did not see the same thing or did not see it at the same time. Their dialogue is not just verbal, but also graphic, though they do not use the same graphic vocabulary to express their figuration. These discrepancies are an indication of the types of compromises each pair must make. Indeed, according to B2, dialogues with the other are necessarily established when 'new things' emerge. This is a far cry from the usual 'solitude' of the draughtsman (A1) and the 'concentration' that it gives rise to. Moreover, two distinct projects coexist in pair C, leading to the production of elaborate landscapes.</p> <p>The squiggles have not affected the participants' activities. On the contrary, they perceived, experienced and exploited accidents as possibilities or accentuations and not as constraints (Focillon [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref74">17</reflink>]/2018). Graphic dialogues are built on a vocabulary of great variety, involving gesture and body. Here, bodies configure graphic space (Fraenkel [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref75">18</reflink>]) because there is an individual confrontation with the material as well as a confrontation with the self (Schön [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>]) or the other. The students and the design teacher think spatially about their creations from the moment they feel and have access to a physical connection with what they are designing, as do design professionals (Cooper [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]). Students and teacher both enter into the game, making it possible to place them in a different social position, enhancing the effects produced by the co‐constructed squiggles. In other words, the game activity reinforces teaching‐learning situations. All participants demonstrate this in their gestures and in what they say about those gestures, including C1, who is not a graphic designer.</p> <p>Verbal dialogues within the squiggles reinforce the place of negotiation and clarification by mobilising a rhetoric and a more precise vocabulary about gestures, in keeping with professional skills. In this way, learning takes place. A1 and A2 invent and develop a common working method and explore its potential, using their diverging processes, methods, and commitment. While co‐constructing the squiggles with routinised and complex cognitive procedures, pairs jointly develop creativity through executive skills comprised of rules of articulation and sequencing (Adi‐Japha <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-32">Four emerging creativity methods</hd> <p>As many divergent methods of creativity (Bonnardel & Didier [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>]) are detected as there are situations of instrumented activities.</p> <p>The first is that of random abstract tracing used by the two students in pair A, whose interchangeable postures and instruments level their roles. The situation is 'cool', according to them and, in any case, more 'relaxed' than when they draw alone: the articulation and sequencing gestures that should minimise effort are less numerous than those that optimise functional efficiency (Bril [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]). Pair A created the rules of the game for themselves. These are the rules they can allow themselves together, and only together. In some ways, teachers are not involved in this creative process (the ZPD is settled inside the pair), but they can encourage it.</p> <p>The second method is based on figurative patterns sought in combinations of strokes (complementation) by B1 and B2. Here, the graphic technique actually determined the apparently random combinations. For example, the choice of the chisel tip produces a controlled, well‐executed and well‐defined line. Broad lines and hairlines placed in a certain way create a shape, give volume, make a space, through the variation of the line's thickness. Teachers can emphasise this instrumented pedagogical method within their educational design: from the one pair's abstract shapes to the other's elaborate figurative ones, or both.</p> <p>The third method is the opposition between very strong routines: those from before, but also new ones. The resistance generated by these routines can slow down the process but can also enhance it, even when one is faced with the kind of 'back‐talk' that occurs with accidents (Bamberger & Schön [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref81">8</reflink>]). This is also a pedagogical way of motivating the students, one which makes the most of their attempts, routines, and habits, including those that lead them to erase early sketches they consider to be bad, wrong or inaccurate.</p> <p>Finally, the fourth method could be called 'rebound'. C1 and C2 alternate gestures and tracings, fillings, and shapes from a distance, in a non‐verbal and non‐graphical way. Their worlds are constantly juxtaposed but do not understand each other: in the self‐confrontation, C1 finds the 'randomness' of C2's drawings amusing, whereas C2 does not speak of the effects C1's drawings may have had on his own tracings. Each one rebounds from the other's graphic prompts. This fourth method enhances the joint drawing activity: the co‐construction is a shared responsibility of the effects, the results. In keeping with the goal of building team‐leading skills, an objective of the design course in which the test took place, this method develops both design skills and soft skills, such as cooperation, communication, and human relations (Calvo & Sclater [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref82">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-33">Learning embodied by others</hd> <p>Participants learn from their experience of playing with co‐constructed drawing as they have learned about drawing before (Lurçat [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]/2020). They are familiar with the instruments, supports and drawing space in and with which they orient themselves perfectly. They have mastered the gestures necessary to obtain different effects, thanks to their undeniable motor skills and the fact that they are in graphic design training or, like C1, have experience of graphic play [conative development (Lau [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref84">21</reflink>])]. Here they learn by picking up each other's gestures, playing with 'accidents', interacting with each other (París & Hay [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref85">28</reflink>]; Calvo & Sclater [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]). They play, and they do it in pairs (Winnicott [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref87">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref88">40</reflink>]), drawing and gesturing with another person. Moreover, by combining movement and vision, which means looking at what they draw as much as at what the other draws, they embody what the other does. This embodiment applies as much to movement, to motor skills, as to the kinematics of the gesture that draws and produces a skillful effect, thanks to the rules of articulation and sequencing they established together through the trial and error of the game. They embody knowledge through the other (Cooper [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]), because they accept the accidents imposed by the other: they repair what the other has transformed from what they thought of the drawing being constructed.</p> <p>If the self‐confrontations suggest that all participants really enjoyed drawing together, we can go further and assert, by looking at the co‐constructed drawing processes, that the squiggle activity allowed them to learn together effectively in a "zone of proximal development" (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref90">36</reflink>]; Kouvou [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref91">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-34">Conclusion</hd> <p>As a graphic design practice, the squiggle game helps to develop creative skills. It resolves several problems for participants, either step by step or simultaneously (the shared and restricted space; the shared drawing and instruments; the meaning of the activity).</p> <p>Students produce or reproduce automatisms that relieve them of difficulties or help them overcome obstacles. At all times, the learning activity may be read as having to do with relations between peers. From the point of view of learning, the drawing activity itself is documented on gestures, on mimicry or graphic rejection, and on the drawing support. Indeed, the experience of the squiggle game in class sheds light on the method of pedagogical creativity, as well as on some other issues, such as:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> ‐ the learning body (postural/spatial relation between bodies);</item> <p></p> <item> ‐ work strategies in co‐construction, both from the point of view of the implicit domination/top‐down effect or implicit directionality of the teacher over the students and over the shared spaces (graphic intermingling, graphic complicity, personalised rules for a two‐player game);</item> <p></p> <item> ‐ rarely‐encountered personalised spaces (weak graphic interaction).</item> </ulist> <p>While the squiggle game is therapeutic, this study shows that it is also pedagogical in that it establishes a teaching‐learning situation between peers where the teacher as well as the students is a participant in the game. Design teaching is enhanced because the game relies on students' confidence, interest, and commitment. The teacher does not need to act because students naturally interact with and learn from each other within dialogues, negotiations, and playing: they try out ideas; they test and experiment; they explore, take risks and, in a way, rebuild the world (París & Hay [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>]), all while developing professional skills. This educational game encourages learning about others, through the others who are close to oneself. Moreover, the squiggle game helps show the learning of four specific creative methods: the game of abstract random drawing in pairs; the figurative patterns sought through combinations of strokes (complementation); opposition between very strong former and current routines of drawing or behaviours; the rebound from the other's promptings towards new dynamics. Those four creative methods could be used to enhance education in design and drawing skills in a number of pedagogical situations, for instance, when learning meets with resistance from students' strong routines.</p> <hd id="AN0183991127-35">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The project leading to this publication received funding from the Excellence Initiative of Aix‐Marseille University – A*MIDEX, a French « Investissements d'Avenir » program AMX‐19‐IET‐005.</p> <ref id="AN0183991127-36"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref35" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adi‐Japha, E., Berberich‐Artzi, J. & Libnawi, A. (2010) Cognitive flexibility in drawings of bilingual children, Child Development, Vol. 81, No. 5, pp. 1356 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Chevalier, J. (2020) Le double et le jeu en psychanalyse. Fonctions et enjeux transférentiels [The double and the play in psychoanalysis: Transferential functions and issues] (Thèse de doctorat inédite). Aix‐Marseille Université.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Chevalier, J. (2021) La consultation thérapeutique et l'adolescent: variations dans la méthode du Squiggle [Therapeutic consultation and adolescents: Variations in the Squiggle method], Topique, Vol. 151, No. 1, pp. 91 – 103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Chevalier, J., Bonnet, C., Vollon, C. & Gimenez, G. (2020) Le squiggle et les groupes internes: un jeu polyphonique d'élaboration imaginaire du corps [The squiggle and internal groups: a polyphonic game of imaginary elaboration of the body], Revue de Psychothérapie Psychanalytique de Groupe, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 147 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref48" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Tortochot, É. (2022) L'élève, la table et le dessin: postures, gestes, instruments, in H. Duval & C. Charbonneau [Eds] Le corps apprenant. UQAM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref49" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Tortochot, É. & Terrien, P. (2023) L'impact d'un geste créatif en pédagogie, in N. Bonnardel, F. Girandola & É. Bonetto [Eds] La créativité en situations. Dunod.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref51" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Terrien, P., Güsewell, A. & Vivien, R. (2018) The legacy of Veda Reynolds' violin pedagogy: Myth or reality? International Journal for Cross‐Disciplinary Subjects in Education, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3986 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref28" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bamberger, J. & Schön, D. A. (1983) Learning as reflective conversation with materials: notes from work in progress, Art Education, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 68 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref32" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bara, F. & Gentaz, E. (2010) Apprendre à tracer les lettres: une revue critique, Psychologie Française, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 129 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonnardel, N. & Didier, J. (2016) Enhancing creativity in the educational design context: an exploration of the effects of design project‐oriented methods on students' evocation processes and creative output, Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 80 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bril, B. (2010) Description du geste technique: Quelles méthodes? [Description of the technical gesture: Which methods?], Techniques & Culture, Vol. 54‐55, pp. 242 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brougère, G. (2012) Can game be serious? Revisiting playing/learning in serious game times, Australian Journal of French Studies, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 117 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calvo, M. & Sclater, M. (2021) Creating spaces for collaboration in community co‐design, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 232 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, D. (2018) Imagination's hand: The role of gesture in design drawing, Design Studies, Vol. 54, pp. 120 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐McQuistan, K. (2017) Beyond representation: exploring drawing as part of children's meaning‐making, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 281 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fava, M. (2020) A decline in drawing ability? International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 319 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Focillon, H. (1934 /2018) In praise of hands (V. Charles, Trans.). New York : Parkstone International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraenkel, B. (2018) Actes graphiques. Gestes, espaces, postures [Graphic acts: Gestures, spaces, postures], L'Homme, Vol. 227–228, No. 3, pp. 7 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, H.‐C. (2015) Gamified pedagogy: from gaming theory to creating a self‐motivated learning environment in studio art, Studies in Art Education, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 257 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kouvou, O. (2016) Drawing with children: an experiment in assisted creativity, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 275 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lau, C.‐Y. (2020) A cognitive learning account of the avoidance, omission and exaggerated phenomena and expressions in young adolescents' fdrawings of the human figure in the visual culture art education context, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 686 – 703.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lebahar, J.‐C. (2009) L'analyse de l'activité de conception: situations professionnelles, situations didactiques, perspectives [Analysis of design activity: professional situations, didactic situations, perspectives], Skholê, Vol. 15, pp. 53 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leroi‐Gourhan, A. (1993) Gesture and speech (A. Bostock Berger, Trans.). Boston : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lurçat, L. (1974 /2020) Études de l'acte graphique [ Studies of the graphic act ], 2nd edn. Berlin : De Gruyter Mouton.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale (MEN) (2011) Arrêté du 26 avril 2011 portant création de la spécialité « artisanat et métiers d'art », option « communication visuelle plurimédia », du baccalauréat professionnel et fixant ses modalités de délivrance [ Decree of 26 April 2011 creating the "multimedia visual communication" option within the "craftsmanship and artistic careers" specialty of the vocational baccalaureate degree and establishing its requirements ]. (MEN1111361A).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman, T. (2020) Collaboration is uncomfortable, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 788 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panesi, S. & Morra, S. (2016) Drawing a dog: the role of working memory and executive function, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 152, pp. 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> París, G. & Hay, P. (2020) 5 × 5 × 5 = creativity: art as a transformative practice, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 69 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez Miles, A. & Libersat, J. U. (2016) ROAM: walking, mapping, and play: wanderings in art and art education, Studies in Art Education, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 341 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Picard, D. & Baldy, R. (2012) Le dessin de l'enfant et son usage dans la pratique psychologique [The child's drawing and its use in psychological practice], Développements, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 45 – 60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Picard, D. & Zarhbouch, B. (2014) Le dessin comme langage graphique [Drawing as a graphic language], Approches, Revue des Sciences Humaines, Vol. 14, pp. 28 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riley, H. (2002) Mapping the domain of drawing, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 258 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, J. E. & Goldstein, T. (2019) Can guided play and storybook reading promote children's drawing development? Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 32 – 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schön, D. A. (1992) Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation, Knowledge‐Based Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valja, H. (2022) Games in the Finnish art teachers' curriculum, International Journal of education through art, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 191 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (2004) Imagination & creativity in childhood, Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 7 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, B. (2007) Art, visual culture, and child/adult collaborative images: recognizing the other‐than, Visual Arts Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 6 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, M. & Wilson, B. (1981) I Draw –you draw: the graphic dialogue, School Arts, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 50 – 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winnicott, D. W. (1971a) Playing and reality. London : Tavistock Publisher.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winnicott, D. W. (1971b) Therapeutic consultations in child psychiatry. London : Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho‐Analysis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winnicott, D. W. (1984 ‐2018) The squiggle game, in C. Winnicott, R. Shepherd & M. Davis [Eds] Psycho‐analytic explorations. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, pp. 299 – 317.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Julie Chevalier; Pascal Terrien; Christian Bonnet; Guy Gimenez; Christine Poplimont and Éric Tortochot</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Julie Chevalier is a clinical psychologist, doctor in clinical psychology and psychopathology and post‐doctoral researcher at the InCIAM (Creativity and Innovations Institute of Aix‐Marseille), in partnership with the LPCPP (Laboratory of Clinical Psychology, Psychopathology and Psychoanalysis) and the laboratory ADEF (Learning, Didactic, Evaluation, Training). Her research focuses on play, creativity and transference in individual psychoanalytic psychotherapies, the Squiggle Game method, metamorphoses of the body, the self, adolescent processes, as well as psychoanalytic metapsychology from a Winnicottian perspective. Her recent publications analyse the role of hatred in a false self organisation, the therapeutic scope of the squiggle game with regard to the metamorphoses of the adolescent body, as well as the collective expressions of the antisocial tendency (business and destruction of nature) among adolescents. /.</p> <p>Pascal Terrien is a university professor of arts didactics at Aix‐Marseille University (AMU) and a professor at the Conservatoire national supérieur de musique et de danse de Paris (C.N.S.M.D.P.). He is director of the federative structure of studies and research in education SFERE‐Provence, FED 4238. He is a permanent researcher of the UR 4671‐ADEF, where he leads the research programme "Le geste créatif et l'activité formative" (GCAF). He is associated with the Observatoire Interdisciplinaire de Création et de Recherche en Musique (OICRM), Canada. His research in didactic musicology focuses on music education (theoretical, instrumental and vocal). He is invited as a professor or lecturer in foreign universities and music colleges..</p> <p>Christian Bonnet is a psychoanalyst, doctor of psychopathology, psychologist; currently MCF‐HDR (authorised to supervise research) at Aix‐Marseille University (AMU). He is a member of InCIAM (the creativity and innovations institute of Aix Marseille) and LPCPP (Laboratory of Clinical Psychology, Psychopathology and Psychoanalysis), co‐director of the PPHIG master's degree (individual and group psychoanalytic psychotherapies). He works on creativity in adolescence and the modes of construction of gender and sex. He also works on the transfer of the analyst in its difference with the countertransference. He develops original methodological research of structural analysis of narratives applied to thematic projective methods (TAT, CAT, PN), as well as free drawing proofs..</p> <p>Guy Gimenez is a group psychoanalyst, professor of psychopathology, psychologist; PR at Aix‐Marseille University (AMU). He is a member of InCIAM (the creativity and innovations institute of Aix Marseille) and LPCPP (Laboratory of Clinical Psychology, Psychopathology and Psychoanalysis), co‐director of the PPHIG master's degree (individual and group psychoanalytic psychotherapies). He works on groups‐analytics, the group creative process, psychosis, and hallucinations..</p> <p>Christine Poplimont is full professor at Aix Marseille University. She is delegated Vice President of Aix Marseille University, Director of the Laboratory Apprenticeships, Learning, Didactics, Evaluation, Training (Apprentissages, Didactique, Évaluation, Formation [ADEF UR 4671]), Director of « Revue Questions Vives » ("Vital Questions" journal) and member of InCIAM (the creativity and innovations institute of Aix Marseille)..</p> <p>Éric Tortochot holds a PhD in Education Sciences. He is Senior Lecturer and co‐leader of the research programme "Creative gesture and formative activity" within the laboratory "Learning, Didactics, Evaluation, Training" of Aix‐Marseille University (AMU). His research interests include artistic, design and technological education, professional training of design, teaching and learning of applied arts. He contributes to the training of design teachers at the School of Teaching and Education of AMU..</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref76"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1460428
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Squiggle Game, from a Psychotherapy to an Educational Creativity Method. Drawing and Designing Together
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Julie+Chevalier%22">Julie Chevalier</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3478-5729">0000-0002-3478-5729</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pascal+Terrien%22">Pascal Terrien</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3501-8062">0000-0002-3501-8062</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christian+Bonnet%22">Christian Bonnet</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4332-8044">0000-0002-4332-8044</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Guy+Gimenez%22">Guy Gimenez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8353-8185">0000-0002-8353-8185</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christine+Poplimont%22">Christine Poplimont</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6202-7124">0000-0002-6202-7124</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Éric+Tortochot%22">Éric Tortochot</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4937-6071">0000-0002-4937-6071</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Art+%26+Design+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Art & Design Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(1):98-118.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+and+Technical+Education%22">Career and Technical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychotherapy%22">Psychotherapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Therapy%22">Art Therapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Game+Based+Learning%22">Game Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Freehand+Drawing%22">Freehand Drawing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Activities%22">Creative Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graphic+Arts%22">Graphic Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discussion+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Discussion (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22France%22">France</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/jade.12527
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1476-8062<br />1476-8070
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The paper presents an experiment with a squiggle game in a design class: a joint drawing activity. The squiggle game, which comes from psychoanalysis, has been adapted to a teaching-learning situation in order to observe how graphic design practices and skills develop through creativity. The hypothesis is that the game impacts the training of participants, including teachers, by developing their creativity through the co-construction that occurs between them. A qualitative methodology based on activity theory has been set up, consisting of two phases of experimentation in a vocational training class in France. The results are based on a semiotic and cognitive analysis of the drawing activity through its components and the participants' discourse about their drawings during self-confrontations. The discussion creates a dialogue between several research paradigms in educational sciences, psychology, and psychoanalysis within artistic disciplines. It leads to the identification of four creativity methods that impact the teaching-learning processes generated by the squiggle game: the game of abstract random drawing in pairs; the figurative patterns sought through combinations of strokes (complementation); opposition between very strong former and current routines of drawing or behaviours; and rebounding from the other's prompts towards new dynamics.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1460428
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1460428
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/jade.12527
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 98
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career and Technical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychotherapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Art Therapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Game Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Freehand Drawing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graphic Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discussion (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: France
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Squiggle Game, from a Psychotherapy to an Educational Creativity Method. Drawing and Designing Together
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Julie Chevalier
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pascal Terrien
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christian Bonnet
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Guy Gimenez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christine Poplimont
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Éric Tortochot
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1476-8062
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1476-8070
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Art & Design Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1