Symbolism, Learning and Creativity

KAYSTYNA NOWAK-FA8AYKOWSKI Symbolism, Learning and Creativity In this paper we attempt to elaborate the link between the process of creativity, symbolization and learning. Creativity is rooted in symbolization and is part of the learning process. Symbols playa creative function in the child's process ofleaming. Researchers such as DeLoche (1991), Flese (1990), lePage & Mills (1990), Travtck-Smith (1990), and Weininger & Fitzgerald (1988) stressed the importance of analyzing symbolic abilities and activities. For example Travick·Smith (1990) found that the capacity for symbolic play increases the-creative potential of children and their capacity to deal-with novel situations and stimuli. The importance of symbols in the human life was emphasized by the American philosopher·logician Charles Sanders Peirce (1982), who explained the nature of the human as a symbol-using and siqn-usinq organism. The same opinion we find in the theory of Cassirer (1944) who insisted that abilities of symbolization belong just to a human whom he defined as an "animal symbolicum". The interdependence of the two processes: creativity and symbolization is strong because one cannot exist without of the other. Deri (1982) stressed that creation is not possible without using symbols. Language, pictures, all forms of art are based on symbol. A person's capacity to symbolize defines his creativity simply because the process of thinking is based on symbolization. INTAODUalON Learning at school demands from the child the integration and creation of symbols. The child must use symbols in six categories: language, mathematics, music, art (drawing and painting), cultural symbols associated with the celebration of traditional holidays and events, and symbolism of being a student. Each of those categories requires the child to use symbolic thinking, which includes reflective abstraction. Rosenberg (1968) stressed that the level of abstraction with which the learner can manage information in a problem solving context is dependent of his/her level of symbolic ability. Consequently a student's level of symbolization determines his/her learning styles. Students who use language at highly abstract level are exhibiting a creative style of learning (p.25). According to Bruner (1977), learning at school is based on the use of symbolically coded information such as words, maps, etc. Creative activity builds upon the process of learning and requires abilities of independent and critical thinking. Learning also requires transformation of reality in novel Ways and incorporation of cultural symbols and conventional knowledge into personal world. During the learning process a child is creating personal symbols on the base of the symbols to which the child is exposed. SCHOOlING AND SYMBOlIZATION 268 Volume 26 rtumber4 FOUIfh ~ 1992 Joumal of CreatiYe BehavIor In analyzing the process of leaming, we assume that symbolization is a functional dimension of the child's cognitive development and DEVelOPMENT reflects his/her cultural background. We agree with Vygotsky (1962) that the most important factor in cognitive development is the role and pressure of social groups in the community. Human cognitive development is possible only in society where children interact with symbolic systems. Children cannot escape from cultural influence in the home community. A child learns from society and interprets its personal symbols for himself/herself. Markey (1978) emphasized that the symbolic beginning in a child must necessarily be centered in himself, but his symbols are dependent upon his social experience THE ROlEOF SVMBOlS INCHIlD (p.l51). Some authors such as Piaget, Gardner emphasize the fact that symbols express the child's feelings, desires or needs. A child can describe his/her magic world, thought, anxiety and dreams using metaphors and poetry as a figurative language according to Gardner (1983). Creation of symbols is dMded into stages in the child's process of development (Piaget 1960). Symbols are created when a child is able to imitate an object or behavior that is not seen. That imitation leads to symbolic thoughts. From the time, when language appears (about two years old) to the age of four, the child generalizes responses according to "imaginal symbols". Between four and seven years of age, the child creates representative symbols. Symbolic activities such as rehearsing, categorizing and generalizing stimulate leaming. Piaget (1962) emphasized that symbols appearing in the symbolic play very often are substitutes for an object or action that the child cannot reach or that is forbidden. Deri (1982) assumed that symbol formation is the specific human way to create order. She describes the organizing function of symbolization as a "matching" between the intemal and extemal world. In the given example an artist is the person who creates new matching and can thus teach the public to see in a new way. On the other hand, according to Deri's theory, human creation of order is the final aim of symbolization. According to Spradley (1979) we are creating order out of the complexity of experience. Rosenberg (1968) has identified the typical pattem of information utilized by creative leamers. Creative leamers are flexible and open in their receptivity to interpersonal and extrapersonal information. They use language on a very high level of abstraction (p.56). In our previous research (Nowak·Fabrykowski 1991 ), we found the existence ofthree types of symbols: personal symbols, cultural symbols and the archetype. In Rosenberg's analysis of leaming styles, he stressed that there are two dimensions: locus of information and level of symboliza· tion. We argue that the first dimension pointed by Rosenberg includes symbolism since his interpersonal and extrapersonal information include all personal information, feelings, beliefs and thoughts that in our understanding are symbolically grounded. According to our assumptions, there are few conditions that determine the process of creativity using information for the thinking process. Those conditions can be determined by an investigation of semantic relationships between the symbol and references. As Spradley (1979) showed, all symbols involve three elements: the ~I CREATIVE BEHAVIOA AND CREATIVE lEAANEAS 269 itself, one or more referent(s) and a relationship between the symbol and referent Referring to Spradley (1979) and our theory, the way of analyzing the creative functions of the symbol would be as follows: Function of Symbol t Semantic Relationship t Referent(s) t Symbol When a child is asking questions, it is an attempt to solve a problem of names, cause, result or the way to do something (Piaget 1960). Searching for the attributes, functions of things or aspects, children find possible explanations for their problems. By creating in their own way, children discover and create their symbolic world. Children asking questions are looking for meanings that often are interpreted in a special, personal way. In the process, the child's mind finds it easy to use one event to represent another; that is to have a symbolic attitude toward the events. (Kagan, 1971) stressed that symbols, which do much of the work of the mind are used to construct the concept As a child gets older she/he comes to realize that drawn lines can be used to represent visual edges - or the physical boundaries of objects (Gardner & Wolf, 1983). A similar argument is given by Lark·Horowitz et al (1973), who stress that when the child discovers that simple forms can symbolize objects, she/he begins collecting a specific vocabulary combining shapes and lines to represent what they want Russell (1956) and Gardner and Wolf (1983) found that creation involves evocation (imaginative behavior) and includes spoken fantasy and imagination ofa fictional world. For Deri (1982), creativity is a discovery of a new way to do things and a new matching between the extemal and intemal worlds. She showed that creativity is the process of looking at the attributes or references that are novel. In the art of young children, Lark·Horowitz et al. (1973) pointed out, that in drawing, children use their symbols. They create graphic language and use it their own way. This gives rise to the assumption that each child creating a picture attaches a special meaning to its lines and shapes. The symbolic. picture expresses inner vision and evokes shapes, often meaningful only for the author. The review of creativity is focused on symbolism which is also a study of meanings. As Vygotsky (1962) stated, everybody is reacting according to his/her own symbolic conception of reality. According to Kagan (1984) creative people search for original solutions, however unpopular or unconventional. CONClUSIONS 270 Learning skills include the ability to use and create symbols. Being able to create is to fulfill some of the following relationships between the symbol and referent: find a way to do some action, find an attribute of an object or event, evoke an image or an idea, discover representations for an object or behavior, discover new meaning(s) and new referent(s). Novel behavior demonstrated in the transformation of reality, funding relationships and new arrangement of words and meaning play creative functions in the learning process. Fantasy, imagination and freedom given to the children enhances their abilities to create and to use intrapersonal and extrapersonal information in developing their symbolic abilities that are crucial in learning. An understanding of symbolization and the creative function that symbols play in the child's process of thinking is the major factor that may help teachers in understanding the process of learning in children. Moreover socialization of the child is dependent on his/her integration of the different symbols: language, music, mathematics, grasping the meaning of celebrating customs and events.Teachers may help more effectively ifthey better understand the child's world; in terms of the child's vocabulary, ideas symbolically expressed, and his/her own way of creation. In the case of children with different cultural backgrounds it is important that teachers by to understand the symbols of the culture where the learning occurred. BRUNER, J. s OLSOLN, D. (1977·78). Symbols and Texts as Tools of Intellect. Interchange Vol.8No.4. CASSIRER, E. (1944). An Essay on Man. New Haven: Yale University Press. DeLOCHE, J. (1991).SymbolicFunctioningin veryYoungchildren:Understanding of Pictures andModels. In Child Development No. 62, pp. 736-752. DERJ, S. (1982). Symbolismand creativity. NewYork:Intemational University Press. FlESE,B.(1990).Playful relationships: A contextual analysis of mother-toddlerinteractionandsymbolicplay. In Child development Vol.61, No 5, pp. 1648-1656. GARDNER, H. £, WOLF,D.(1983).Waves andStreamsof Symbolization. In Rogers, D.and SlobodaI, A The Acquisition ofSymbolic Skills. London: Plenum Press. KAGAN,J. (1984). TheNatureof Child. NewYork: Basic Books. KAGAN, J. (1871). Understanding Children, Behavior, Motives, and Thought New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanowich. lARK·HOROVITZ, B. Lewis, H. and Luca, M. (1973). Understanding Children's Art for Better Teaching. (Secondedition),Columbus,OH:A Bell £, Howell. lePAGE, P. £, M1Ll.S, J. (1990).The effect of picture symbol prereadingprogram on preschoolchildren's attitudestowardreading. In Child StudyJournal Vol.20 no.1, pp. 55-65. MARKEY, F. (1978). The Symbolic Process and its Integration in Children. Illinois: University of Chicago REFERENCES Press. NOWAK·FABRYKOWSKI, K.(1991).A Child'sSymbolicWorld.In EarlyChildhoodEducation.Vol.24,no. I, pp.23-25. PEIRCE, C.S.(1982). Writing of Charles S.Peirce. A Chronological Edition.Vol.1(1857·1866). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. PlACEr J. (1962). Play, Dreamsand Imitation in Childhood. NewYork: Norton. PlACEr J. (1960). Thelanguage and thought ofthe child. New York:Meridian. ROSENBERG, M. B. (1968) DiagnosticTeaching. Seattle: SpecialChild Publications. RUSSELl.; D. (1956). Children's Thinking. Boston:GINN Company. SPRADLEY, J. P.(1979). TheEthnographicInterview. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. s 271 SymboIsm, LeamIng. and CreatMty TRAVlCK·SMITH, J. (I 990). The Elfects of Realistic versusNon-realistic PlayMaterials on YoungChildren's SymbolicTransformation of objects.In Journal ofResearch in Childhood Education. Vol.5, No.1i 1990, pp. 27·36. WEININGER, O. & FTTZGERALD, D.(1988) Symbolic Play and Interhemispheric Integration: Somethoughts on a Neuropsychological model of play.in Journal of Research and Development in Education. Vol.21, no. 4, pp.2340. WGOTSKY,L S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Krystyna Nowak-Fabrykowski, Univ.ofManitoba, Facultyof Education,Winnipeg, ManitobaCanada R3T2N2. 272