03_Dimitrijevic_et_al_JoSD_template


Original Article

An Analysis of Students’ Drawings for
the Purpose of Considering the
Efficiency of Teamwork (Programme
Content: Marine Life Community)
Jelena D. Dimitrijević1, Sanja B. Filipović2 and Jelena D. Stanisavljević1*
1University of Belgrade - Faculty of Biology, Serbia
2Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Arts in Belgrade, Serbia
*Email: jelena.stanisavljevic@bio.bg.ac.rs

Abstract
In this paper, a comparison is made between the levels of efficiency achieved when applying team teaching
vs. conventional expository teaching, in the framework of the teaching unit “Marine Life Community”, involving
the students of the sixth grade of “Dvadeseti oktobar” elementary school in Belgrade. In order to accomplish
the tasks of this paper, a model of a pedagogical experiment with parallel groups [experimental (E) and control
(C)] was applied, involving 100 students.

The aim was to identify and measure the differences and compare the efficiency of these two teaching ap-
proaches through an analysis of students’ drawings.

Group E was presented the course content through teaching instruction, which included the presentation of
an educational film, after which the students were shown printed photos. In group E the biology teacher pre-
sented the characteristics of sea-living communities, and the art teacher presented the distribution, different
shapes and colours of marine organisms. Group C was presented the same content through traditional teaching
methods: oral presentations, illustrations and demonstrations.

The results of our research show that the students who participated in team teaching demonstrated better
drawings according to the number and variety of marine organisms.

The results of our study reflect the greater productivity of the students and the higher degree of motivation
and activity.

These results are based on the application of a great number of visual teaching technologies in the didactic
model of team teaching.
Keywords: Biology/art; students’ drawings; interdisciplinarity; team teaching

Introduction
Interdisciplinarity
The interdisciplinary linkage of programme contents can contribute to the teaching pro-
cess; such an approach is holistic and allows the transfer of information from one area
to another. One problem can be seen from many different angles: visual (artistic), auditory
(musical), verbal (linguistic), kinetic (movement, physical), through natural or social sci-
ences. Including art in science classes provides a stimulus for understanding and solving
various problems in the process of learning and creative expression. Although each
school subject has a specific curriculum, integration is possible through direct correlation
(Stanisavljević & Filipović, 2015). 

Journal of Subject Didactics, 2016
Vol. 1, No. 1, 25-38, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.55472



The students that learn in the traditional ways are expected to demonstrate their un-
derstanding of natural phenomena by explaining them orally or in writing. However, when
working with students in lower grades, i.e. with children of younger ages that still do not
have sufficiently developed verbal and writing skills, the teaching method applied needs
to be updated to approach children and assist them in learning and development (Beal
& Arnold, 1990).

In the mid 1980s, many studies confirmed that the application of informal methods of
teaching led to better results in the process of learning. Some of the modernized teaching
approaches are informal discussion, concept maps, drawing and more. When drawing,
students are given the opportunity to show their mental picture display much better than
in verbal or written explanations (Dempster & Stears, 2014).

To obtain information on students’ ideas, teachers can use a large number of diag-
nostic tools, such as animated films, students’ drawings and written works. Through their
drawings students can show what they have learned and what they consider important
(Chin & Teou, 2010).

Students who usually do not want to reveal their opinion are willing to share their ideas
through drawings (Keogh & Naylor, 1998, 1999). Drawing is just a way to express things
that students cannot express verbally in the early stages of their schooling. In that way
we can effectively monitor their development (Katz al., 2014).Visual presentation is es-
pecially useful for students with literacy disabilities, and, therefore, is particularly suitable
for primary school pupils (Chin & Teou, 2010). Drawing techniques are especially valuable
in encouraging children of younger ages who have difficulty expressing themselves ver-
bally (Holliday et al. 2009).

Drawing is involved in many learning activities. When students draw in school, they
do it in the company of their peers. Socio-cultural studies in education show that children
interact with each other when drawing, for drawing and talking with peers often go hand
in hand (Hopperstad, 2008).

Karlavaris (1991) believed that games were not enough to involve a child in the com-
plex process of artistic design. Games were just a stage in the process, but information
given to students and experience were truly vital. In addition to the creative factor,
Karlavaris specified formative factors as a condition for the creative process, relating
them to perception, motor skills, intellect and emotion. Those factors were interconnected
and enabled the emergence of creative results. Karlavaris considered that each of those
factors had its own qualitative and quantitative aspect. He made a difference between
exact observations as a quantitative factor on the one hand, and sensitive observations
and sensitivity as qualitative factors on the other. In the field of motor control, he distin-
guished motor skill as a quantitative factor and motor sensitivity as a qualitative factor. In
the sphere of intellect he differentiated visual memory as a factor which collects and main-
tains data in the mind, then the quantitative factor, as well as creative visual thinking as
a qualitatively creative factor. In the sphere of emotional imagination there is a quantitative
factor that allows it to relate an image to certain emotions. (Karlavaris, 1991).

Art is not just a show of external images but is also the result of internal operations,
the notion of external objects, so it is important to analyze these processes through the
stages of child development, especially in art (Lowenfeld & Lambert, 1975).

There are numerous advantages in applying drawing methods during schooling.
Firstly, many scientists believe that this is a powerful instrument that reflects the way of
thinking, emotions, internal representation and perception of students. Secondly, the in-
troduction of this method provides a more pleasant working environment for students,

J. Dimitrijević et al.26



and drawings make it possible for students to communicate with each other. Thirdly, in
the early stages of schooling, this is a convenient way to overcome fear related to verbal
difficulties. Fourthly, the process of drawing as a multidimensional factor, expresses stu-
dents’ views, understanding and attitudes. Drawing confirms objectivity in the projection
of individual beliefs. Also, the method of drawing is more objective and easier for the pur-
poses of quantitative analysis than the majority of others (Kubiatko et al., 2012).
The aim of the analysis of students’ drawings
In her book “Children’s Drawings”, Cox (1992) talks about the characteristics of children’s
drawings and the possibilities of analysis and observation of children’s work. She indi-
cates that children, in their artistic expression, dedicate a lot of attention to the symbolism
of their drawings, as a way of communication with the outside world.

The application of drawing can be analyzed in two ways. First of all, there is the anal-
ysis of objects as characters that should carry a meaning, and then the analysis of what
students consider to be relevant to show (Hopperstad, 2008).

One of the challenges in interpreting students’ understanding is to explain how the
process of applying the acquired knowledge goes. Drawing is useful for students’ under-
standing of different contexts and phenomena (Dempster & Stears, 2014).

During the experimental work with children, in addition to being asked to make a draw-
ing, they were asked to write a short comment, in order to achieve a holistic approach.
(MacDonald, 2009). Drawing is an even more relevant tool in assessing students’ under-
standing if it is accompanied by a written commentary (Chin & Teou, 2010).

It is important to mention that there are no ideal criteria for the interpretation of chil-
dren’s artwork; these criteria are diverse and depend on what is seen in their artwork. As
regards the analysis, assessment, and evaluation of children’s artwork in the educational
process, the most important task of teachers and educators is to understand the great
diversity of and develop sensitivity to children’s art expression. Children’s drawings are
a mirror of their development and reflect their inner world (Malchiodi, 2012). Through
drawings children reconstruct their opinion and express their own ideas (Salmon & Lucas,
2011).

There are numerous studies that analyze the notions that appear in children’s draw-
ings, where children want to show their understanding of nature and social phenomena.
A wide range of drawings reveal the essential aspects of their conceptual development.
Drawings representing plants often also contain atmospheric elements (rain, clouds and
the sun) and land. This is associated with conceptual development, i.e. with their under-
standing that these elements are very important for the life of plants. Based on this we
can conclude that children’s drawings are very useful as a resource in the evaluation of
their conceptual development in childhood, or that they express the connection between
the processes of thinking and drawing (Villarroel & Infante, 2014).

Drawing is considered a very successful method in monitoring students’ understand-
ing. In this respect, drawings offer a “window” to their conceptual knowledge. A great way
to describe an object is to draw it (Göçmençelebi & Tappan, 2010).
Team teaching
Team teaching is described as a didactic model in which two qualified teachers of different
subjects work together on the planning, implementation and evaluation of students’ ac-
tivities. There are two major categories of team teaching: category A - two or more teach-
ers teach the same students at the same time in the same classroom, and category B -

Students’ Drawings in the Function of Consideration the Efficiency of Teamwork 27



teachers work together but do not have to teach the same group of students, nor are
these students necessarily taught at the same time.

In this categorization there appears a subtype in category A - cooperative teaching.
This means working with smaller groups of students, developing a discussion among the
students, and encouraging their cooperation, coordinated by both teachers. In these
classes teachers plan together their teaching time and prepare materials. Teachers do
not have a monologue in class; they rather develop a dialogue, involving the students in
the discussion and polemics (Goetz, 2000). In this research we have applied cooperative
education (within category A).

Team teaching means that two or more teachers are involved in the implementation
of the teaching process. Since only one teacher can speak at a time, there can be small
differences in the time required for each team member. Specific topics and tasks are di-
vided between teachers, according to their particular individual abilities and the contents
within the scope of their competence. For this reason, it is best to have teachers who
can complement each other with regard to their areas of expertise. If two or more teachers
have the same strengths and weaknesses in the subject area, team teaching cannot be
effective; it would, therefore, be useful for the teachers to complement each other. Some
advocates of teamwork believe that these teachers should be completely equal, none of
them being the leader (Wadkins et al., 2004).

Comprehensive studies on the success of cooperative teaching have come to the
conclusion that this method of teaching improves cognitive and socio-emotional climate
in the classroom (Espey, 2008).

Team teaching increases commitment to students and enables working with small
groups of students (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008).

Team teaching manages to overcome the problem which arises when teachers are
limited by programme contents. In this way, holes in the learning process are filled. Stu-
dents create a clearer picture of some phenomena and processes. When the curriculum
is rationally organized, it enables time saving, as teachers of different subjects comple-
ment each other. Team teaching boosts students’ motivation and awakens further interest
in specific areas (Doebler & Smith, 1996).
The significance of integrating the teaching contents of art and biology, and
methodological approaches 
Exploring the natural and social environment depends significantly on the level of the vi-
sualization process and the level of art, because in that area there is an extensive use of
the method of presentation and representation. Art education has an impact on the de-
velopment of students’ visual perception, as well as on the development of their ability of
observation and their experience of the world surrounding them. Organized observation
encourages thinking and boosts the creative impulse. It is known that students’ drawings
visualize different contents from their conscious mind, activating and reflecting their per-
ception, concepts and thinking, imagination, emotions, socio-emotional attitudes and
motor skills. For example, learning about flora and fauna will be one-sided if no aesthetic
features are presented (like colours, shapes, etc.) to initiate a powerful impulse to create.
When drawing, students express their artistic experience of nature and social relations.
Artistic activity encourages students’ interest in a specific phenomenon. Students’ artwork
represents various known, seen or experienced phenomena in nature and social rela-
tions. In a word –students acquire a rich life experience. In fact, they show their attitude
and feelings towards the world that surrounds them. (Stanisavljević & Filipović, 2015).

J. Dimitrijević et al.28



Teaching biology includes a wide range of teaching approaches, methods and teaching
aids, in accordance with the programme contents, objectives and tasks of teaching
(Stanisavljević & Stanisavljević, 2014). There is the possibility of implementing various
visual techniques to master the content of biology.

Interdisciplinarity concerning art and biology is achieved by developing creativity in
students. The higher level of motivation encourages children’s interest in science contents
in the field of biology. Applying lessons learned through artistic creativity is encouraged
in order to develop skills that deepen the knowledge and make it more fundamental and
less abstract (Gurnon et al., 2013).
Examples of team teaching
Clemens and McElroy (2011) conducted a study that included the uses of the didactic
model of team teaching, integrating the contents of the English language, history and bi-
ology. The English language was used for the interpretation of the roots of technical
terms, thus facilitating the students to master historical and biological terms. The inter-
disciplinary approach involving biology and history turned out to be very useful. The stu-
dents were explained the connection between the occurrence of certain diseases on the
one hand, and economic, agricultural and trade development on the other. It was a good
starting point for integrating the two elements. (Clemens & McElroy, 2011).

Helikar et al. (2015) conducted a project in which the authors combined the realization
of biological contents and the development of computer skills, and showed how that re-
flected on the students’ knowledge. The interaction between the teacher of biology and
the computer science enabled the students to visualize biological phenomena and pro-
cesses, assisted by computer techniques. Thus, the problem of two-dimensional images
of textbooks was overcome; furthermore, the simulation of biological processes showed
dynamic systems that functioned over time (Helikar et al., 2015).

Team teaching which included biology and mathematics teachers was aimed at inte-
grating the curriculum and overcoming barriers to the realistic presentation of information,
conducting biological research, and enabling students to translate their knowledge of
mathematics into practice (Feser et al., 2013).

Methods
The main task of this study was to experimentally determine the efficacy of the didactic
models of team teaching, reflected in the interaction of a biology teacher and an art
teacher in the implementation of the program content “Marine Life Community”, intended
for sixth grade students. The survey was conducted in “Dvadeseti oktobar” elementary
school in Belgrade. The outcome of the applied experiment was monitored through the
analysis of students’ drawings on the theme “How do I see Marine Life?”. The main ques-
tion to be considered was: “Can an interdisciplinary approach improve the quality and ef-
ficiency of acquiring new knowledge?”.

The null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the
drawings of the experimental and the control group after the introduction of experimental
factors (team teaching with the use of additional visual aids in the form of pictures and
short educational films) in the experimental group.

The alternative hypothesis is that there is a statistically significant difference, based
on the analysis of children’s drawings, after the introduction of experimental factors in
the experimental group. According to the alternative hypothesis, it is expected that the

Students’ Drawings in the Function of Consideration the Efficiency of Teamwork 29



observed differences in the quantity and quality of the displayed content between the
control and experimental groups, show a greater achievement of the experimental group.
The aim of the research was to detect and measure the differences in the results ob-
tained, in order to compare the efficiency of these two models of teaching.

The research included 100 students of the sixth grade of “Dvadeseti oktobar” elemen-
tary school, Belgrade. For the purposes of this research we applied the model of the ped-
agogical experiment with parallel groups [experimental (E) and control (K) groups],
according to the given scheme (Appendix 1).

The students were divided into group E and group K (Killermann, 1998). Before the
introduction of the experimental factors, the groups were equalized with respect to the
number, gender and achievement. The uniformity of the groups regarding the number
and gender was confirmed by the Chisquare test (Fisher, 1922).

In group E, the presentation of the programmes contents “Marine Life Community”
started with short instructional films showing the way of life and the relationships of or-
ganisms under the sea. These were short five-minute films. The students rearranged
their benches in such a way that everyone could see the projection screen equally well.
This facilitated an interaction among the students, but also between the students and the
teachers. The next step was sharing photos of some typical animal and plant species liv-
ing at the bottom of the sea. The biology teacher explained the life forms, lifestyle and
diet of marine organisms, followed by the art teacher’s presentation of different shapes
and contours of the body, and by a discussion with students about the sea areas and the
layout and range of colours that appeared.

As for group K, the same contents were presented in the traditional way. A textbook,
containing texts and images, was used. Frontal teaching dominated. The unit was pre-
sented only by the biology teacher, without using any additional visual teaching aids or
applying an interdisciplinary approach. 

In order to avoid any parasitic factors, the students from groups K and E were sepa-
rated in two different classrooms and divided into two shifts- the morning and the after-
noon shift.

Finally, the students of both groups were told to bring crayons to class in a week’s
time.

After a week, at the next meeting, the following was written on the blackboard: “How
do you imagine the marine world?”. Each student received an A4 drawing paper and was
told to use the crayons to draw. At the same time the students were given the following
instructions:

“We would like each of you to draw how you imagine the marine world. This is not a
test, so do not look at each other’s papers. You can draw as much as you want, but we
believe that 15- 20 minutes should be enough. This is a part of a research project, which
involves many children of your age. In the end, write a brief comment on the back of the
paper on what you displayed in your drawing”.

Teachers were prepared to answer the student’s questions about what to draw by re-
plying: “It is up to you, you have all the freedom, you cannot go wrong” (Dempster

& Stears, 2014).
The data and the results were analyzed using standard statistical methods (sum, per-

cent- age distribution, average, standard deviation, coefficient of variation and a Student’s
t- test (Student, 1908). To obtain data, we used the statistical software package Statistics
6 (StatSoft, 2001).

J. Dimitrijević et al.30



Results 
The results from the representation of different categories of animals are presented in
Table 1 and Graph 1.

Table 2 enables us to monitor if there is a statistical difference concerning the inci-
dence rates of animals in the drawings of the experimental and the control group. The
results were obtained with the help of a Student’s t-test (Student, 1908).

The results obtained by analyzing students’ drawings for the experimental and control

Students’ Drawings in the Function of Consideration the Efficiency of Teamwork 31

Table 1. Overview of the relevant categories for the analysis of students’ drawings.

Graph 1. The frequencies of certain categories of the students’ drawings – 
groups K and E.



groups, based on the statistical methods of a t-test, were as follows: proceeding from the
significant level р = 0.05 and the critical value t =1.96, we concluded that there was a
statistically significant difference between groups E and C concerning the number of rep-
resented organisms on the drawings (t = 3.54> 1.96)

Discussion
The results of our research show that the students who participated in team teaching
demonstrated better drawings according to the number and variety of marine organisms,
related to the topic “How do you imagine the marine world?”. Their drawings were char-
acterized by a better set of colours, greater attention paid to spatial distribution and a
greater diversity of organisms. (Appendix 2). Data were analyzed and presented in the
framework of six categories described in Table 1. Furthermore, the results obtained by
the analysis of the students’ drawings were displayed in Graph 1. As shown in Table 2,
based on the application of a Student’s t-test, the difference in the number of animals
drawn by the students in the experimental and control groups is statistically significant.
The statistical significance proves that the students of the experimental group yielded
better results, primarily reflected in the number and variety of marine animals displayed
in the drawings. The most frequently drawn animals were fishes; the students most fre-
quently saw them as marine organisms. All the aforementioned results of this research
correspond to the results of other studies that considered students’ productivity, higher
motivation and a greater degree of activity. The effectiveness of this approach is con-
firmed by the many works that will be discussed below.

In his study, Teixeira (2000) explored the way in which students developed their knowl-
edge of biology. The author argues that children up to ten years of age have an intuitive
knowledge, stemming from intuitive psychology. In later stages of development, there is
a socio-cultural context in which children critically examine new facts and acquire more
advanced ideas of biological concepts. In the earlier stages of development, personal
experience is crucial, and it is only later that the logic of verbal arguments is analyzed.
In response to the focus question of the research, which was “What happens to the food
you eat?”, children most frequently drew the digestive, respiratory and skeletal systems,
rarely showing any other system. The frequent occurrence of the three mentioned sys-
tems is the result of children’s experimental knowledge; they come across the stories
about these organs in everyday life, and thus are more familiar with their structure and
functioning (Teixeira, 2000). In view of the above, it is advisable that the lecture should
start with more familiar and continue with less known systems (Dempster & Stears, 2014).

Numerous studies have discussed the way in which outdoor teaching in a botanical
garden and ecological classrooms (the green classroom) reflected in students’ drawings

J. Dimitrijević et al.32

Table 2. Main statistical indicators of the groups according to the present number of
animals (basic statistical indicators of success - mean number of displayed animals;

S- standard deviation; V-coefficient of variation).



on natural habitats (forests, lakes). The results of this study show that this type of teaching
results in a large number of biological species presented on the drawings, primarily small
and large animals. In the drawings, students who had not had the opportunity to attend
outdoor classes, presented a significantly smaller number of species, mainly large animal
species, rarely invertebrates (insects, worms) and other species that are important for
maintaining ecological balance (Drissner et al., 2014). However, both girls and boys who
had had the opportunity to visit some natural habitats within biology classes, expressed
more emotions, reflected in their drawings in terms of the number of the drawn animals
and the diversity of the colours used (Reiss et al., 2002, 2007).

Similar results were obtained in another segment of the research, in which the stu-
dents spent some time in a botanical garden in order to better understand the vegetable
world. Scientists have noticed that the knowledge of the plant world is at a much lower
level as compared to that of the animal world. One of the reasons for this is the absence
of any obvious dynamics of plant organisms, as well as the lack of systematic monitoring
and observation of these organisms. When visiting botanical gardens, students are able
to notice the described biological phenomena and processes in the natural environment.
The results of the research showed the usefulness of visiting botanical gardens and the
connection with the programme content concerning the living environment. The analysis
of students’ drawings showed that children who had had the opportunity to visit a botan-
ical garden presented more plant species. Students showed the adaptation of carnivorous
plants, and almost all of them drew the ginkgo because of its characteristic aroma. Among
others, two assumptions were confirmed – that aesthetic visual impressions leave a deep
mark upon the memory, and that smell leaves the most durable impression. In their com-
ments, the students explained that they had presented other plants in their drawings be-
cause they had been delighted by the variety of colours. The initial idea of this research,
suggesting that activating more senses in children helps to form more durable memory,
was confirmed (Nyberg & Sanders, 2014). What these two scientists point out, is that
after attending this type of class, children speak about plants more often and develop
the habit of taking care of their plants at home.

Villarroel and Infante (2014) came to very productive conclusions about students’ mis-
conceptions of what makes up the living world through the analysis of children’s drawings.
Given that the focus of the presentation was the world of plants, in addition of drawing
the anatomy of plants, many children inevitably depicted atmospheric factors, such as
rain and the sun, or land. This suggests that children understood plants as living systems,
whose survival is possible only in the presence of water and the sun. Since trees were
mostly portrayed as individual and isolated entities, it would be difficult to conclude that
the children saw trees as a part of the living world. The analysis of children’s drawings is
the original method and procedure for considering children’s understanding of biological
concepts. This serves as a basis for further expansion of knowledge in this field, for com-
bating misconceptions and making knowledge more constructive (Villarroel & Infante,
2014).

Drawing improves conceptual understanding. While drawing, focus must be main-
tained regardless of whether it is just simple memorizing of data or complex understand-
ing. The credibility of such drawings is supported by a written commentary attached.
Drawing helps the student to have a better perception of the essential content that is con-
sidered (Göçmençelebi & Tappan, 2010).

Studies have shown that if a scientific text is supported by a drawing or a visual pre-
sentation of the essence of the text, students exhibit greater knowledge in their final tests.

Students’ Drawings in the Function of Consideration the Efficiency of Teamwork 33



It was proved that the students who drew while considering a text acquired greater knowl-
edge than those who considered the same text without drawing. This proved the thesis
that students’ self-activity, personal engagement and a high degree of motivation, in-
evitably led to positive results, reflected in the high degree of autonomy, better quality of
knowledge and a more systematic knowledge (Schmeck et al., 2014).

Wadkins et al (2004) presented the results of their research, noting the positive as-
pects of team teaching: (1) students have the opportunity to learn about different styles
of teaching, (2) students can deepen their knowledge in certain areas, and (3) teachers
can learn useful information from each other in terms of programme contents and teach-
ing styles. The biggest advantage of this model is being able to show students how to
work as a team and how to deal with their differences in order to achieve a common goal.
In addition, students’ knowledge is expanded when the same contents are presented
from several different angles. (Wadkins et al., 2004).

Over the past four decades, researchers (Anderson, 1989; Doebler & Smith, 1996)
have indicated that team teaching is valuable and should more often be an alternative to
traditional teaching, involving only one teacher.

Upon completing the model of team teaching, Clemens and McElroy (2011) presented
the results which were very good. The students of the three subjects (English, biology
and history) achieved the results that were much better than their previous results in
these areas. Particularly noteworthy was the development of scientific literacy, critical
thinking and the global awareness of various phenomena in human society. Students
were willing to engage in debates and discussions, defending their views on a particular
phenomenon or process (Clemens & McElroy, 2011).

Goetz (2000) points out the benefits of team teaching on the basis of literary data,
the experience of teachers and students’ results. These advantages are reflected in the
cooperation of teachers, their joint time planning and detailed consideration of certain
areas, thus avoiding any blank segments. Students develop skills and knowledge which
cannot be developed when teachers lead their classes individually. Different views on
one and the same idea contribute to the durability and quality of students’ knowledge,
which is possible only through team teaching (Goetz, 2000).

The advantages of combining art and science do not arise from the mentioned coop-
eration itself, but from the success as a product of that cooperation, which has the po-
tential to inspire new styles of learning. It is necessary to find creative ways for students
to evolve and keep a lasting sense of curiosity concerning scientific discoveries. Employ-
ing several senses in children contributes to acquiring greater knowledge both in terms
of quantity and quality. Art Culture offers extensive knowledge of different techniques
which help children in psychomotor development. It also creates the potential to combine
biology and art. In this way, students develop skills that are permanent and that become
more complex over time (Gurnon et al., 2013).

Cooperative teaching of mathematics, computer science and biology is achieved by
erasing the boundaries between teaching and research. The results obtained from the
research which was based on teamwork and which included these three subjects,
showed that in this way children developed critical thinking, pioneering spirit and the qual-
ity of the long-term retention of data. Students developed independence in their work,
resulting in their ability to perform computer experiments relating to different biological
processes and phenomena that change over time. Students were trained to indepen-
dently conduct the entire research process. The implementation of such a project and
the innovative approach are achieved by systematically expanding children’s knowledge
(Helikar et al., 2015).

J. Dimitrijević et al.34



The conclusion of this study, within which the students attended a class simultane-
ously held by a biology teacher and a mathematics teacher, is that this type of teaching
has an impact on students’ performance in learning. The students involved in the study
stated that after being taught simultaneously by two teachers of different subjects, math-
ematical methods and formulas became meaningful and easier to learn. The programme
contents of biology had helped them understand how biological systems were variable
and subject to change, and that there was a need for constant monitoring of develop-
ments in nature and for continuously conducting research. Finally, the students compre-
hended the meaning of an interdisciplinary approach when the two subjects are in
question. When asked how they perceived biology, the students who were involved in
the conducted study agreed that they no longer saw biology as a set of definitions or a
content that could only be learned by heart, but as a meaningful content that you know
how to interpret (Feser et al., 2013). Students often have expert knowledge in different
areas that is separated, and do not have the ability to integrate and improve this knowl-
edge; it was proved that this deficiency could be overcome through this approach.
(Marsteller, 2010).

It turned out that when you presented biology in the form of specific data and exam-
ples, rather than as an encyclopaedic science, it enabled children to begin building their
knowledge based on some key biological concepts. In this way, teachers promote the
scientific approach and interest in science (Duncan et al., 2011). The interpretation of
data is essential for any biological researchers. Students who were demonstrated how
data should be interpreted, showed the ability of critical thinking and analyzing visual and
quantitative information as a tool for building and clarifying specific terms (Barsoum et
al., 2013).

Conclusion
On the basis of the obtained results, it can be concluded that modernizing the teaching
technology encourages greater students’ involvement. When adequately implemented,
different types of visual aids, such as photos, as well as audio-visual aids, such as specific
educational films, result in the higher motivation of students, and consequently- in the
greater efficiency of teaching time. Thus, the introduction of visual and audio-visual teach-
ing aids provides better results concerning the content of students’ drawings.

In this study, team teaching is considered as a didactic model, and the results should
encourage other teachers to cooperate, and to plan and organize their classes jointly. 

According to the analyzed students’ drawings, we can notice that, as compared to the
control group, the students in the experimental group showed much better spatial orien-
tation. Different forms of marine organisms, their flock organization and diversity, were
more prevalent in the drawings of the students whose lectures were organized through
teamwork. The drawings of the students of the control group were less creative, had a
narrower range of colours and contained a small number of marine organisms, while the
distribution of the species was incorrect.

The final conclusion is that if we at the same time motivate students to work and en-
gage them intellectually, that will directly affect their creativity in terms of their ability to
represent living beings and the organizations of such beings in a drawing.

In view of the above, we can conclude that students’ creativity should be encouraged
in the future through drawing within teamwork, not only in the context of biology and art,
but also in the context of other subjects.

Students’ Drawings in the Function of Consideration the Efficiency of Teamwork 35



Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the
Republic of Serbia (Project No. 173038).

Reference
Anderson, R. H. (1989). A second wave of interest in team teaching. Educational Digest, 18-21.
Beal, C. R. & Arnold, D. S. (1990). The Effect of Instruction on View Specifity in Young Children’s

Drawings and Picture Selection. British Journal of Development Psychology, 18, 393-400.
Barsoum, M., Sellers, P.J., Campbell, A.M., Heyer, L.J. & Paradise, C.J. (2013). Implementing rec-

ommendations for introductory biology by writing a new textbook. Life Science Education, 12,
106–116.

Chin, Ch. & Teou, L. Т. (2010). Formative assessment: Using concept cartoon, pupils’ drawings,
and group discussions to tackle children’s ideas about biological inheritance. Educational Re-
search, 44(3), 110-117.

Clemens, B. J. & McElroy, H. (2011). Team Teaching History, English and Biology: An Integrative
Approach. OAH Magazine of History, 25(4), 49-50. 

Cox, M.V. (1992). Children’s drawings. Pennsylvania: Penguin Books.
Dempster, E. & Stears, M. (2014). An Analysis of children’s drawings of what they think is inside

their bodies: a South African regional study. Journal of Biological Education, 48(2), 71-79. 
Doebler, L. & Smith, C. (1996). Enriching a survey course in educational psychology through a

team teaching format. Education, 117, 85-88.
Drissner, J. R., Haase, H.M., Wittig, S. & Hille, K. (2014). Short-term environmental education:

long-term effectiveness? Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 9-15.
Duncan, D.B., Lubman, A. & Hoskins, S.G. (2011). Introductory biology textbooks under-represent

scientific process. Journal of Biological Education, 12, 143–151.
Espey, M. (2008). Does Space Matter? Classroom Design and Team-Based Learning. Review of

agricultural Economics, 30(4), 764-775.
Feser, J., Vasaly, H. & Herrera, J. (2013). On the Edge of Mathematics and Biology Integration:

Improving Quantitative Skills in Undergraduate Biology Education. Life Sciences Education,
12, 124–128.

Fisher, R. A. (1922). On the interpretation of Chi-square from contingency tables, and the calcula-
tion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 85, 87-94.

Göçmençelebi, Ş. I. & Tapan, M. S. (2010). Analyzing students’ conceptualization through their
drawings. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2681-2684.

Goetz, К. (2000). Perspectives on Team Teaching- A Semester I Independent Inquiry A Peer. Re-
viewed Journal, 1(4), 1-5.

Gurnon, D., Voss-Andreae, Ј. & Stanley,Ј. (2013) Integrating Art and Science in Undergraduate
Education. PLoS Biol, 11(2): e1001491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.100149.1.

Helikar, T., Cutucache, E.C., Dahlquist, M.L., Herek, A.T., Larson, J.J. & Rogers, A.J. (2015). Inte-
grating Interactive Computational Modeling in Biology Curricula. PLoS Comput Biol, 11(3):
e1004131. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004131.

Holliday, E. L., Harrison, L. Ј. & Sharynne, М. L. (2009). Listening to Children with Communication
Impairment Talking through Their Drawing. Journal of Early Childhood Resarch, 7(3), 244-
263.

Hopperstad, М. Н. (2008). Relationships between children’s drawing and accompanying peer in-
teraction in teacher-initiated drawing sessions. International Journal of Early Years Education,
16(2), 133-150.

Karlavaris, B. (1991). Arts teaching methodology 1 and 2. Rijeka: Hofbauer [orig. in Croatian:
Metodika likovnog odgoja]. 

Katz, C., Barnetz, Z. & Hershkowitz, I. (2014). The effect of drawing on children’s experiences of
investigations following alleged child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 858-867.

Keogh, B. & Naylor, S. (1998). Teaching and learning in science using concept cartoons. Primary
Science Review, 51, 14-16.

Keogh, B. & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation.

J. Dimitrijević et al.36



International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446.
Killermann, W. (1998). Research into biology teaching methods. Journal of Biological Education,

33(1), 4-9.
Kubiatko, M., Yilmaz, H. & Topal, Z. (2012). Czech Children’s Drawing of Nature. Educational sci-

ences: Theory & Practice, 3111-3119.
Lowenfeld, V. & Lambert, B. W. (1975). Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan.
MacDonald, А. (2009). Drawing stories: The power of children’s drawings to communicate the lived

experience of starting school. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(2), 40-48. 
Malchiod, C. A. (2012). Understanding children’s Drawing. New York: Guilford Press.
Marsteller, P. (2010). Beyond BIO2010: integrating biology and mathematics: collaborations, chal-

lenges, and opportunities. Life Science Education, 9, 141–142.
Michaelsen, L. K. & Sweet, M. (2008). The Essential Elements of Team-Based Learning. New Di-

rection for Teaching and learning, 116, 7-25.
Nyberg, E. & Sanders, D. (2014). Drawing attention to the ‘green side of life’. Journal of Biological

Education, 48(3), 142-153.
Reiss, M. J., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Andersen, A. M., Bartoszeck, A., Carvalho, G. S., Chen, S. Y., Jar-

man, R., Jónsson, S., Manokore, V., Marchenko, N., Mulemwa, J., Novikova, T., Otuka, J.,
Teppa, S. & Rooy, W. V. (2002). An international study of young peoples’ drawings of what is
inside themselves. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 58 – 64.

Reiss, M. J., Boulter, С. & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Seeing the Natural World: A Tension Between
Pupils’ Diverse Conceptions as Revealed by Their Visual Representation and Monolithic
Scence Lesson. Visual Communication, 6(1), 99-114.

Salmon, A.K. & Lucas, T. (2011). Exploring Young Children’s Conceptions about Thinking. Journal
of Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 364-375.

Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V. & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures
during learning from scientific text: testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic
drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 275-286.

Stanisavljević, J. & Filipović, S. (2015). Analysis of children’s drawings in the function of considering
and understanding of biological phenomena and processes [In Serbian], Art and theory, Re-
view of the faculty of fine arts, 1(1), 58-63. 

Stanisavljević, J. & Stanisavljević, L. (2014). The Application of Concept Maps in Teaching Inver-
tebrate Zoology. In: D. Krüger & M. Ekborg (Eds.). Powerful Tools for Learning in Biology,
Berlin: Freie Univerzität Berlin, Chapter 13, 197-211. 

StatSoft, Inc. (2001). Statistica for Windows (version 6) [data analysis software system]. Available
online at: www.statsoft.com

Student (Gosset, W. S.) (1908). The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 6, 1-25.
Teixeira, F. M. (2000). What happens to the food we eat? Children’s conceptions of the structure

and function of the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 507–
520. doi:10.1080/095006900289750

Villarroel, J. D. & Infante, G. (2014). Early understanding of the concept of living things: an exam-
ination of young children’s drawings of plant life. Journal of Biological Education, 48(3), 119-
126. 

Wadkins, Т., Wozniak, W. & Miller, R. L. (2004). Team Teaching Models. UNK/CTE compendium
of teaching resources and ideas, 77-87.

Students’ Drawings in the Function of Consideration the Efficiency of Teamwork 37



Appendices
Appendix 1: Scheme of research methodology.

Appendix 2: Drawing of student from the experimental group.

Received: July 13, 2015
Accepted: October 6, 2015

J. Dimitrijević et al.38