Learning Scenario Description

"Draw a Duck and Share Your Art" is an activity I adapted for use as an elementary substitute teacher covering one-off prep classes for 30-minute periods across grades K-7. The unpredictable and improvisatory nature of substitute teaching meant that I needed to be flexible, able to capture students’ attention, and maintain focus in a wide variety of contexts. This lesson became one I could rely on to do exactly that while keeping things playful and fun. Its open-ended structure allowed me to work with diverse student groups, energy levels, and behavioral contexts while still promoting a social and creative atmosphere.

The core purpose of the activity was not to teach art, but to frame drawing as an instructions-focused task that allowed for creative agency and shared meaning-making within a predetermined framework. Students demonstrated intentional choices as they navigated the semi-random open-ended criteria I wrote on the board, such as:

Starting the lesson with ambiguous criteria helped tap into students' imagination and their prior experiences with animals and textures, keeping them curious and invested in the task. I typically began the lesson by framing that today was as an exercise in following instructions. After greeting students and having them sit, I adopted a serious tone and explained that today's purpose was simply to follow instructions. I would ask them to stand up, sit down, switch seats, or put their hands on their heads just because I said so.

I then placed a pencil on each student’s desk and emphasized that they were not to touch it. These small theatrical choices helped build anticipation and collective focus as the lesson unfolded. Throughout this time of reiterating that today was about instructions, I would gradually add the open-ended criteria to the board, reinforcing the idea that if I asked for something with scales, wings, fur, feathers, or arms, they must follow it because that was what the activity was about.

When I felt ready, I would distribute papers face down with the explicit instructions not to flip it over or draw on it until I said so or it would be taken away. After building enough anticipation, I would finally say: “Alright, you have 10 minutes to flip over your paper and complete the criteria on the board. Good luck.” Only then did students discover they were to draw a duck and share their art.

Because I often worked with large and varied groups (20+ students) with unpredictable levels of adult support, the activity would unfold in two stages: a work period and a sharing period. Depending on the grade and behaviour, the sharing period might involve taping all drawings to the wall, a gallery walk where students were to remain following the instructions by walking in a line, or potentially shared one by one where I would presented the drawings at the front of the class and add humour where appropriate (“Oh look, another goose”).

Even though the activity was open-ended, the main goal stayed consistent each time. Students had to follow the instructions and make sense of the intentionally oddball criteria through their own creative choices.

Learning Scenario Analysis

When I reflect on my “Draw a Duck and Share Your Art” activity, what stands out most is not the drawing itself, but the way students responded to the unexpected mix of structure and play. Working as an elementary K–7 teacher moving through short 30-minute periods, my lessons would sometimes rely heavily on quickly establishing expectations, being able to reinforce those expectations, and engaging students in unpredictable classroom environments. By analyzing this activity through how children collectively think, observe one another, and negotiate understandings of the expectations by viewing the scenario through Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, Piaget’s constructivism, and Vygotsky’s sociocultural frameworks, it has become clear to me that there is deeper learning unfolding beneath this activity that is worth exploring.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: Observation, Modeling, and the Low-Stakes Environment

I see Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory happening in this learning scenario through how students observe one another’s work, interpret the rules, as well as navigate perceived mistakes and successes that take place. In this short activity, the triadic influence of behavior, personal factors, and environment come together to influence the learning atmosphere and dynamics of the class that take place, shaping what students do, how they choose to do it, as well as their individual behaviours. In turn, this then goes on to reshape the social environment that is created and how the activity is engaged in.

The strongest example of this appeared during one particular class when a seven-year-old student became stuck on the “accessory” requirement of my criteria. His hesitation marked a moment where personal cognitive factors and environmental cues collided. I watched him glance repeatedly at another student’s paper as they drew a baseball cap atop their duck’s head. In Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, it is explained that observational learning takes places through: attention, retention, production, and motivation. In this insance, the students' attention was clearly captured by the other students' drawing with the novelty of the baseball cap being influential.

Instead of copying the baseball cap directly, I observed as the student processed the underlying criteria that I had previously described, that an accessory is some sort of extra object added to the duck. This moment in particular was an instance that demonstrated what Bandura (2001) describes as abstract modeling. Moments later, this student produced their own interpretation of an accessory which ended up being a glittery crown and necklace on their duck.

In another moment, I fondly remember when another student laughed appreciatively at another students' duck by pointing out that the wings they drew made it look like the duck was flying. In this case, the social feedback acted as a motivator, aligning with Bandura’s (2012) point that self-efficacy grows when individuals see models succeed and when they receive positive reactions to their own efforts. It was clear to me that this encouragement made the students' confidence shift through how they continued to add detail to their ducks' wings without hesitation.

An important aspect to this activity is the low-stakes nature the drawing provided which also parallels Bandura’s emphasis on environments that support student agency. Since the criteria that I required of the students were so broad and open-ended, there really was no “right way” to draw the duck, and because of which, students experienced minimal fear of judgment. In their work, Powell and Kalina (2010) note that constructivist-oriented tasks tend to create safer emotional climates where students feel empowered to explore. In Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, he would argue that the emotional safety this creates allows for high-yielding grounds for experimentation and self-regulated learning within each indivudal student's own abilities.

Needless to say, that while just being a minimalistic drawing on the outside, the activity that this drawing creates is a playful exercise that reveals a deeper cycle of modeling, confidence-building, and social reinforcement that aligns closely with Bandura’s conception of learning as socially situated, observational, and self-directed.

Piaget’s Constructivist Theory: Schema, Assimilation, and Creative Adaptation

While Bandura had helped me to explain what I observed on a social level, looking to Piaget helped me to illuminate the cognitive processes I witnessed unfolding as students made sense of the odd criteria I had asked for. Constructivist theory emphasizes that children construct knowledge by actively organizing information into cognitive structures (or schemas) that adapt through processes of assimilation and accommodation (Lourenço & Machado, 1996).

The moment the students flipped over their papers, I could almost see their schemas activate. Every child entered the task with a prior mental representation of a duck. The instructions on the board disrupted these existing schemas. “Your duck must have fur, wings, arms, feathers, or scales” intentionally destabilized their assumptions. No real duck has fur or scales, yet students were required to make sense of the contradiction.

Piaget argues that when new information does not neatly fit existing schemas, learners attempt to assimilate it — to fit the new requirement into what they already understand (Lourenço & Machado, 1996). Chloe’s response offered an example of this. Her initial duck had a simple bowtie. Once she saw Liam’s creative interpretation, she re-examined the criteria with fresh eyes. She erased her bowtie and drew a fishing lure instead, adding fluorescent green details to meet the “three colours” rule.

Piaget emphasizes that meaningful learning happens when learners reorganize relationships between concepts, not just reproduce what they see. In this activity, the tension between the familiar (a duck) and the unfamiliar (strange criteria) created a state of disequilibrium — a productive cognitive imbalance that invites restructuring.

The task also required logico-mathematical reasoning: coordinating the criteria, deciding what counts as an accessory, and integrating those ideas into a coherent drawing. These decisions reveal the constructive work Piaget saw as central to cognitive development.

Thus, from a Piagetian perspective, the “Draw a Duck” task becomes a moment of active meaning-making, where students reshape their cognitive structures to resolve contradictions and meet the demands of an ill-defined problem.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory: Mediation, Language, and the ZPD

Where Piaget focuses on individual cognitive reorganization, Vygotsky emphasizes that learning is fundamentally social. According to John-Steiner and Mahn (1996), learning begins on the interpsychological plane — between people — before becoming intrapsychological — internalized within the individual.

This was unmistakable in the peer interactions I observed. Liam’s question — “Can a crown count as an accessory?” — triggered a moment of social mediation. Sofia’s explanation transformed an abstract requirement into a concrete, shared meaning. Her language served as a psychological tool, mediating Liam’s conceptual understanding (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996).

Glassman (1994) argues that Vygotsky’s theory centers on the idea that knowledge develops through socially embedded interactions, where tools — including symbolic ones like language — shape how children think. In this activity, the criteria on the board functioned as cultural tools, and the students’ dialogue became the bridge between those tools and their internal understanding.

The exchange between Sofia and Liam also reflects the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Liam understood what a duck was but struggled to interpret the instruction within the task’s constraints. Sofia’s explanation nudged him through that gap, providing just enough assistance for him to proceed.

These interactions extended beyond pairs. Once Liam’s beach-themed duck appeared, the social environment collectively shifted. Students began comparing their ducks, walking across the room, and gradually aligning their interpretations of the criteria. Powell and Kalina (2010) note that Vygotsky views collaboration as central to learning itself. My classroom that day was a perfect embodiment of this principle.

The sharing phase — whether a gallery walk or collective reveal — further amplified this. Students learned new possibilities by observing one another’s interpretations. The social norms of the group became part of the learning environment. As Glassman (1994) explains, Vygotsky locates change in social relations rather than individual structures. This was clearly visible as students adapted their strategies after engaging with others’ ideas.

Conclusion

Analyzing this short activity through Bandura, Piaget, and Vygotsky reveals how multidimensional even a simple drawing task can be. Bandura helps me see how students’ confidence grew through modeling and social feedback. Piaget helps me understand the internal cognitive shifts as students reshaped their schemas. Vygotsky illuminates the social negotiation and meaning-making that occurred through dialogue.

In this 30-minute lesson, learning unfolded simultaneously through observation, internal construction, and collaborative negotiation. The activity’s playful ambiguity created a fertile environment where students felt safe to explore, revise, and laugh together. What began as a trick instruction to “follow all criteria” evolved into a rich illustration of how children learn — socially, cognitively, and culturally — all at once.