Vygotsky비고츠키’s Theory of Creativity: On Figurative and Literal Thinking
Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity: on Figurative and Literal Thinking
1
*For citations in formal writing refer to the published copy of this paper in Contemporary Perspectives on
Research in Creativity in Early Childhood Education (O. Saracho Editor, Information Age Publishing,
2012, pp. 63-88)
Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity: on Figurative and Literal Thinking
Authors: Larry Smolucha and Francine Smolucha, 2012
___________________________________________________________
“Three of us afloat in the meadow by the swing,
Three of us aboard in the basket on the lea.
Winds are in the air, they are blowing in the spring.
And waves are in the meadow, like the waves there are at sea.”
--Pirate Story by Robert Louis Stevenson (1885/1905)
The fanciful images conveyed by the Scottish poet Robert Louis Stevenson
embody the charm of children’s pretend play. Using a laundry basket as if it were a boat,
the children pretend to be pirates in a ship at sea while the tall grass, blowing in the
meadow, becomes rolling sea waves. The children’s imagination takes them to a far away
place and time. As a writer, the adult Robert Louis Stevenson used his mature literary
skills to compose poetry inspired by his own childhood reminiscences.
The connection between children’s pretend play and adult creativity has been
noted by many writers. The use of object substitutions (i.e., basket as boat) and the
perception of a visual isomorphism (the waving grass seen as waves) are examples of
figurative thinking. Metaphors and similes become the linguistic ｅxpressions of this
imaginary experience. Whereas the child is just beginning to create play scenarios based
2
on these perceived isomorphic resemblances, an adult is capable of consciously directing
imagination, along with other thought processes such as logical thinking, to create works
of art, science, and technology.
In Vygotskian terms, imagination and creativity begin just like any other thought
process as spontaneous lower psychological functions (such as dreaming, or trial-anderror
problem solving). Then, as children interact with more knowledgeable play partners
they learn further pretend play skills, such as using object substitutions and visual
isomorphisms to create or extend pretend play scenarios. Children also learn how to
direct play activities by renaming the objects (calling the laundry basket a ‘boat’) and by
framing the activities as pretense (“Let’s pretend we’re pirates”). Gradually, the
verbalizations and the sensory/motor templates that accompany the object substitutions,
are internalized as imaginative figurative thinking.
According to Vygotsky, spontaneous lower psychological functions become
consciously directed higher psychological functions as the learner internalizes the verbal
guidance of a more knowledgeable person. Silent inner speech enables the child to guide
him-/herself as if guided by another person. Using self-guiding inner speech, the child
will eventually then be able to consciously direct figurative thinking along with the other
higher psychological functions such as consciously directed logic, memory, and emotion.
Famous neuroscientist Alexander Luria, Vygotsky’s friend and colleague, pioneered the
study of how the prefrontal cortical areas of the brain mature during childhood to enable
the conscious self-regulation of behavior, thoughts, and emotions (Christensen, Goldberg,
and Bougakov, 2009).
3
Vygotsky gave pretend play a position of unique importance. He stated that
pretend play created the zone of proximal development for the preschooler. Vygotsky
described the zone of proximal development as the difference between what you can do
alone unassisted and what you are capable of doing under adult guidance or in
collaboration with a more capable peer (1933/1978a, p.86). In other words, a higher
level of performance can be achieved when working with a more knowledgeable person
as for example, when fidgeting preschoolers and, can wait if the teacher says “let’s
pretend we are soldiers getting ready to march in a parade.”
Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity was reconstructed by Francine Smolucha and
Larry Smolucha through a careful exegesis of the original Russian texts translated by
Francine Smolucha during 1984-1986. Prior to this no one had recognized that
Vygotsky’s three papers on the development of imagination and creativity actually
constituted a theory of creativity (Vygotsky 1930/1990, 1931/1991, 1932/1960).
The Smoluchas first presented “Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity” in 1986 at the
94th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Washington D.C. .
That conference paper was subsequently published in 1986 both in West Germany in the
Siegener Periodicum zur Internationalen Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft and as an
ERIC Document by the U.S. Department of Education (Smolucha & Smolucha 1986a).
In 1992, Francine Smolucha published another paper titled “Vygotsky’s Theory of
Creativity” in the Creativity Research Journal (F. Smolucha, 1992a).
Interest in Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity, and in its implications for using
pretend play in early childhood education, has grown over the last 25 years. Section one
of this paper surveys Reasearch and Educational Programs inspired by Vygotsky’s
4
writings on creativity. In Section Two, the Importance of Figurative Thinking for
Creativity will be discussed further.
SECTION onE
Survey of Research and Educational Programs
The following survey of research and educational programs inspired by
Vygotsky’s writings provides critiques of several different approaches to Vygotsky’s
theory. Readers seeking new ideas for their own purposes, might not care how accurate
their interpretation of Vygotsky’s theory is, but the scientific validity of the theory
depends upon a systematic analysis of Vygotsky’s writings, and the research and
educational programs inspired by Vygotsky’s writings. This requires a clear delineation
of concepts taken from primary sources and how these concepts are being used by current
writers.
The survey of research and educational programs that directly relate to our
reconstruction of Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity, as presented in the introduction to
this chapter, is followed by a survey of other approaches that differ significantly from
our own.
Showing Children How to Use Object Substitutions in Pretend Play is Important in the
Development of Creative Imagination
For Vygotsky, pretend play is the activity that leads to the highest levels of
preschool learning (Vygotsky. 1978b). Pretend play creates the zone of proximal
5
development when a preschooler functions as though a head taller than him-/herself
behaving as if older than his/her actual age (Vygotsky. 1933/1978, p. 102). Notice that
Vygotsky did not claim that academic instruction, or arts and crafts activities, were the
leading edge of preschool development. Vygotsky also specified that object substitutions,
such as pretending that a stick is a horse, play a key role in the development of abstract
thinking, imagination, and literacy (Vygotsky, 1978c). Vygotsky introduced the example
of using a stick as a horse in 1928 in The Prehistory of Written Language, when he
described his own research on how preschoolers respond to object substitutions during
play. Later, in1932 Vygotsky began to collaborate in play research with Daniel El’Konin
who went on to become a leader in Soviet preschool teacher education during the
subsequent forty years.
When Stalin banned Vygotsky’s writings, Vygotsky’s colleagues discreetly
continued the lines of research they had begun in collaboration with Vygotsky.
Daniel El’Konin and his colleagues continued to research pretend play and its
role in preschool education. Even in the post-Stalinist Soviet era, there was no research
on using pretend play to teach children how to be creative and innovative thinkers.
This aspect of Vygotsky’s theory can now be investigated in a systematic
scientific way; all that is needed is to show preschool teachers (and/or parents) how to
teach children to use object substitutions in pretend play, then do a follow-up assessment
of creativity. Simple enough, when one knows how to do it.
Working to this end, the Tools of the Mind preschool program in the United
States has done some preliminary work that is very promising. The program’s cofounder,
Russian psychologist Elena Bodrova had been a senior researcher at the Institute
6
for Preschool Education before coming to the United States. Bodrova and her American
colleague Deborah Leong initiated the Tools of the Mind preschool program in 1995,
which now enrolls over 28,000 preschoolers.
The Tools of the Mind program has been recognized for its success in developing
preschool literacy and self-regulation skills (Diamond et al., 2007; Barnett et al., 2008;
Bronson & Merryman, 2010). Teachers are shown how to model the use of object
substitutions in pretend play, engaging the children in brainstorming activities to find
multiple uses for common objects like a wooden block. In play, a block can be used as a
car, a bed, or even a play character. Gradually, child-initiated object substitutions become
a regular feature of the pretend play scenarios. Tools of the Mind is unique in its
emphasis on using objects in more than one way, while limiting the availability of
‘replica toys.’
Consider how non-replica objects, such as blocks can be used in different ways to
support two totally different play scenarios. The child can play with wooden blocks
pretending that the blocks are cars parking inside a garage for instance, that is actually a
box that has been opened along one side. Or, the same blocks can be used as furniture
inside a ‘doll house’ (placed flat as a bed, upright as a refrigerator, sideways as a kitchen
counter) with the box now a house.
It is important to note that not all preschool programs that encourage dramatic
play, value the ability to use one object as if it were another. For example, Marie
Montessori only encouraged realistic activities with child-sized replica objects, such as a
table, chairs, a broom for sweeping the floor, and gardening tools.
7
While Tools of the Mind was not designed to teach creativity, Bodrova and Leong
have done preliminary investigations in this area. A preliminary study of ten children,
using a conventional assessment of creativity, the Torrance Tests of Divergent Thinking,
yielded equivocal results (Personal communication). Since the Torrance Tests assess how
many different verbal responses are given, Torrance Tests might not be an ageappropriate
measurement tool for an emerging ability in the preschool years. A more ageappropriate
assessment of creativity for preschoolers would involve the hands-on
manipulation of objects. For example, given an object the preschooler would be asked,
“Can you show me how many ways you could use this, if you were playing house?”
Another way of assessing creativity in a preschooler would be to give the child a small
number of blocks and ask, “Can you show me how many things you can make out of
these blocks?” Such hands-on assessments of creativity can be scored for divergent
thinking and then correlated with established assessment instruments like the Torrance
Tests.
In 1983 the Smoluchas presented a preliminary study of a creativity test that they
had designed consisting of four blocks (circle, semi-circle, square, and triangle) each in
two sizes (Smolucha & Smolucha 1983, 1984, 1985a,b). Children as young as two and a
half years of age were able to make a variety of things out of the blocks, for example,
the circle became a birthday cake and the other blocks became the children at the
birthday party.
From a Vygotskian perspective, divergent thinking can operate as a higher
psychological function when consciously directed by inner speech. This inner speech is
the internalized of the verbal guidance of a more knowledgeable person acquired during
8
activities that required a variety of novel responses. In other words, consciously directed
divergent thinking can be taught moreover, it can be used in collaboration with other
consciously directed higher psychological functions, such as figurative and logical
thinking to produce a creative works in art or science. While tests of divergent thinking
measure an important aspect of creativity, creative thinking also involves these other
skills.
In addition to quantitative assessments of creativity (such as tests of divergent
thinking), qualitative observational research can also be done in a systematic way.
Preliminary observations of preschoolers in the Tools of the Mind program shows a trend
toward more imaginative and self-initiated play scenarios. For example, three year olds
typically played mother/baby role play, or played with trains. By kindergarten, the
children began playing “Magic Tree House” (inspired by Mary Pope Osborne’s books in
which the tree house transports children to different lands and historical periods.) The
kindergarten children had to use the furnishings and objects in their classrooms in new
ways to recreate a foreign land or another time (Personal communication, with Deborah
Leong.).
Tools of the Mind preschools enroll children from 3.5 to 5 years of age, but this
prompts questions about the skill levels of younger children. Do younger children
engage in object-substitution play? Do toddlers perform object substitutions? What about
infants, can they participate in social pretend play involving make-believe object
substitutions? If so, would such infant play lay the neurological foundation for language
development, literacy, and creative imagination?
9
Not so long ago the mere suggestion that toddlers might be capable of cooperative
play was thought ludicrous. Not until the early 1980’s did Western researchers begin to
question Piaget’s claim that pretend play begins as a solitary activity at approximately
18-months of age (1933/1978, pp. 99-100). The ability of toddlers to engage in pretend
play interactions, however, gained credibility as research evidence accumulated (see
Smolucha & Smolucha, 1998).
Concerning infants, their first experience with pretend play object substitutions
depends upon their caregiver’s cultural background and personal style of play. For
example, a 3-month old infant might be placed sitting upon (or straddling) an adult’s
knee while the adult very gently moves the knee up-and-down, saying, “going for a
horsey ride.” Or, a bouncy chair might be jiggled as the young Space Ranger’s rocketship
blasts-off. At first, the infant’s experience is sensori-motor; linguistic and imaginary
associations come later.
Traditional infant games, such as peek-a-boo, pat-a-cake, and creepy-crawly
introduce the infant to cooperative pretend play (F. Smolucha, 1998). From a Piagetian
perspective, the game of peek-a-boo is not really a game at all but rather a simple
demonstration of the infant’s lack of object permanence; but from a Vygotskian
perspective, peek-a-boo introduces the infant to social pretend play as the infant comes to
realize that the play partner is only pretending to disappear.
The pantomimic game of pat-a-cake simulates the making of a flat cake with the
hands, an example of pretend play involving an imaginary substance instead of an object
substitution. Commonly encountered examples of pretend play involving imaginary
10
substances include pretending to feed someone with imaginary food from an empty bowl,
or drinking from an empty cup or bottle.
In the Creepy-crawly game, someone’s hand moves like a spider crawling slowly
up the baby’s arm or chest, then suddenly jumps up to the baby’s neck for a tickle. Like
many of the Old World fairy tales, Creepy-crawly has a slightly sinister “Gotcha” subtext.
The shape of the hand, and especially the crawling motions of its fingers, mimics a
spider as an object substitution.
In one variation of Creepy-crawly, the index and middle fingers are moved as if
tiny legs running in a circle on the baby’s hand and then quickly up the baby’s arm. This
is accompanied by singing (to the tune of Frere Jacques) “Teddy Bearkin, Teddy
Bearkin, Running ‘round, Running ‘round; Is he going to get you? Now he wants to kiss
you (here ‘Teddy Bear’ jumps up and touches the baby’s cheek as he makes a kissing
sound, exclaiming: “Oh, a kiss!”), Run and play, Laugh all day!”
Interestingly enough, cats can also be engaged in Creep-crawly play. Small
objects moving in certain provocative ways, such as a gloved “crawling” hand or
wriggling string “snake” will elicit a playful attack from a cat—provided the cat is in a
playful mood. The cat seems to sense this is play (a cat owner can tell you that a playful
cat can quickly switch to real attack mode if over-stimulated). For both the cat and the
human infant, the crawling hand or wriggling string would be considered a proto-object
substitution, because the object and its referent are not clearly distinguished, so closely
do its crawling or wriggling motions mimic the real thing.
A longitudinal study of toddlers from 14-months of age to 28-months showed
how some mothers introduce and support/scaffold pretend play involving object
11
substitutions. Initially, toddlers imitate the object substitutions their mothers introduced
them to, but gradually the toddlers begin to initiate novel object substitutions of their own
making. By 28- months of age, children performed as many objects substitutions as their
mothers had done (F. Smolucha, 1991; Smolucha & Smolucha,
Play scenarios that the toddlers participated in involved mother/baby role-play
and playing-house. The toddler was placed in a playroom that contained
1:6 scale doll-sized table-and-chairs, refrigerator, kitchen stove, sink, and a 3-doll family
(mother, father, and baby doll). These replica toys constituted the primary play props, but
replica toys were not provided for the secondary props (such as pots and dishes, baby’s
bottle, baby’s bed, and blanket). Instead, a variety of non-replica toys were supplied such
as plastic lids, stacking cups, empty boxes, wooden blocks, and a cloth handkerchief.
The idea that games such as peek-a-boo, and more particularly pat-a-cake and
creepy-crawly are, in fact, examples of pretend play involving object substitutions is a
new and unique concept. Play research has demonstrated that by 3-months of age infants
are capable of engaging in pretend play with object substitutions. Toddlers as young as
14-months of age are capable, moreover, of participating in more complex pretend play
scenarios involving object substitutions like mother/baby role-play and playing-house.
Future research will determine if object substitution pretend play during infancy leads to
the development of later metaphoric thinking, divergent thinking, and creativity.
The three types of figurative thinking: using object substitutions, recognizing
visual isomorphs, and metaphoric speech and their relationship to creativity will be
discussed further in the second half of this chapter. Now, let us consider other
12
approaches to the study of creativity inspired by Vygotsky’s writings, but not focused on
object substitutions in pretend play.
Other Vygotskian Approaches to Creativity
Several preschool programs focus on socio-dramatic role-play with minimal or no
attention paid to the use of object substitutions in pretend play scenarios. In these
programs the dramatic role-play of children may be considered evidence of children’s
creativity, but that creativity is not actually assessed in any systematic way.
In the Golden Key Schools’ curriculum, developed by Vygotsky’s granddaughter
Elena Kravtsova, object substitutions are considered an important part of pretend play
(Kamen & Murphy, 2011), however, there is no mention in their literature concerning the
origins of object substitutions. Since the Golden Key Schools use mixed-age groups, the
use of object substitutions might be introduced by the more experienced play partners. At
each preschool age specific types of pretend play scenarios are used to build literacy as
well as math and science skills (Kravtsova, 2005). The development of creative thinking
has not been addressed as a specific measurable outcome of the Golden Key Schools
curriculum.
In Sweden, Gunilla Lindqvist’s Playworlds preschool curriculum similarly uses
adult-guided dramatic role-play to lay a foundation for future academic skills, but does
not assess creativity per se (Lindqvist, 1995). In Columbia, Zayda Sierra has also used a
Vygotskian framework for adult-guided dramatic role-play for preschoolers (Sierra,
1998). In Italy, Reggio Emilia preschools have used guided pretend play techniques,
derived in part from Vygotsky’s theory, to develop preschoolers’ artistic abilities; the
13
imaginative stories, plays, and artworks produced by the children have been indeed
remarkable, however, it is important to note that professional artists-in-residence also
work with these children as well.
Proponents of cultural-historical/activity theory have recently taken an interest in
Vygotsky’s writings on play, creativity, and the psychology of art. During Vygotsky’s
own lifetime his theory was known as Cultural-Historical Psychology. In our own
contemporary times, however, the key phrase cultural-historical approach has also come
to be applied to Alexander Leontiev’s post-Vygotskian Activity Theory as well as to its
various permutations. A colleague of Vygotsky, Leontiev formulated his Activity Theory
during the Stalinist suppression of Vygotsky’s works after Vygotsky’s death in 1934.
Activity Theory became the leading psychological theory in the Soviet Union, and
remains, arguably, a major theory in international psychology. Much disagreement exists,
however, between some Vygotskians and the proponents of Activity Theory as to
whether the latter can actually be considered a logical and true extension of Vygotsky’s
work.
At the core of this disagreement lies Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal
development—specifically, how this concept is defined and how it is understood to
operate. Some Vygotskians continue to emphasize the ZPD as interaction with—and
subsequent internalization of—the verbal guidance of a more knowledgeable person. In
contrast, advocates of Activity Theory have focused on “social activities” that do not
necessarily involve another person; as for example, an infant handling a toy rattle (i.e., a
social artifact) who discovers alone how to shake it, without having ever seen someone
else perform the action. The rattle itself, being a social artifact, conveys important
14
cultural meanings and possesses its own historical legacy. Was the rattle handmade made
from a tortoise shell filled with tiny pebbles? Or, was it a commercially manufactured
commodity? Does it look like Mickey Mouse? Was it made in a sweatshop factory in a
Third World country, thus making it a product of economic imperialist oppression?
Activity Theory considers the political and socio-economic contexts within which actions
are performed (unlike Piagetian theory which focused solely on actions in the physical
world). It should be emphasized, however, that Vygotsky’s original definition of the zone
of proximal development does not preclude such instances of independent discovery;
rather, interactions with a more knowledgeable person advance learning to an even higher
level that that attainable when working alone (Vygotsky, 1933/1078a, p. 86).
The Cultural-historical activity theory (Leontiev’s approach) is represented in
Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural-historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and
the Arts (Connery, John-Steiner, & Marjanovic-Shane, 2010). In the introductory and the
concluding chapters, the editors M. Cathrene Connery, Vera John-Steiner, & Ana
Marjanovic-Shane changed the definition of the zone of proximal development so that it
no longer required interaction with a more knowledgeable person. Instead, they view the
“ZPD as multi-directional” and as an “evolving process that facilitates both evolution and
revolution in the course of individual and social transformations” (pp.221-222). As a
multi-directional process, learning takes place between peers at the same level and
teachers can learn from their students. Solitary (sic) social activities, such as the infant’s
exploration of a rattle, demonstrate learning through an individual’s own Perezhivanie
(i.e., Russian for “lived emotional experience”). To Connery, John-Steiner, and
15
Marjanovic-Shane these processes can bring about evolution and revolution in the course
of individual development and societal transformations.
This interpretation clearly contradicts the conventional view of the zone of
proximal development, defined by Vygotsky as interactions with a more knowledgeable
person. The conventional view, to reiterate, does not exclude opportunities for
independent learning. David Wood’s research on scaffolding in the zone of proximal
development found that the most effective teachers knew when to increase their level of
assistance and when to decrease their involvement, so that learners could exercise
occasional autonomy (Wood, 1988/1998). But the verbal guidance of the more
knowledgeable person remains the model for the formation of one’s self-regulatory inner
speech.
Vygotsky and Creativity focuses on some of Vygotsky’s earliest writings,
specifically his book The Psychology of Art (1924/1971). The contributing authors
describe a variety of artistic activities (dance, music, visual art, story telling) that give
children the opportunity to explore and communicate their own lived experience and to
formulate new personal and social frameworks in which to operate. Emotional catharsis
(release) is seen as central to this process. This form of “creative education” is advocated
as the basis for a revolutionary new way of teaching whose success can “only be
measured by its social, emotional, and transformative impact on our individual and
collective growth”( p.229).
It is important to disabuse the misapprehension that Vygotsky’s theory arose from
one book, as claimed by Connery, John-Steiner, and Marjanovic-Shane (2010, p. 5). At
time that he was writing The Psychology of Ar,t Vygotsky held a faculty appointment at
16
the Teacher’s College in Gomel, instructing future teachers how to educate the deaf. This
experience, in turn, became the basis for Vygotsky’s paper (1924), presented at the 2nd
Psychoneurological Conference in Leningrad, on Pavlov’s second-signal system as
mediated learning (the memory of the smell of the dogfood functioned as a cognitive
stimulus for the dog’s salivation response). This presentation so impressed Alexander
Luria that it led to Vygotsky’s appointment as a researcher at the Moscow Institute of
Psychology (Kozulin, 1986, p, xvii). Subsequently, Vygotsky’s publication,
“Consciousness as a Problem in the Psychology of Behavior” (1925) introduced his basic
theory of how the internalized verbal guidance of a more knowledgeable person enables
an individual to direct one’s own self as if he/she were directing someone else (Vygotsky,
1979). Thus, speech actually has two functions: one function is communication with
others, the other is self-guiding inner speech. According to Vygotsky, hearing impaired
persons should be taught how to use sign language as much to direct their own thoughts
and behaviors, as to communicate with others.
Vera John-Steiner, one of the editors of Vygotsky and Creativity (2010),
pioneered the study of creativity as a collaborative process in Notebooks of the Mind
(1985/1997). Creative partnerships have been important in the arts and sciences
throughout history (for example, Pierre and Marie Curie). Friendships have helped
sustain and inspire creative thinkers such as C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien. Even the
solitary creative genius Beethoven utilized musical instruments and establishedsymbol
systems, a cultural legacy to which he was heir. Even working alone one utilizes
internalized higher psychological functions that have social origins.
Vygotsky points out that individual creativity is an example of combinatory
17
imagination, because the individual builds something new from the accumulated
knowledge and inventions of past generations. Vygotsky distinguished between the
combinatory imagination that characterizes creativity and reproductive imagination
which figures prominently in memory (Vygotsky, 1930/1967, p.3).
Cultural differences in the ultimate value and in the very definition of creativity
deserve consideration, as well as cultural differences in play activities. In her book Early
Learning and Development: Cultural-historical Concepts in Play (2010) Marilyn Fleer
does not address the development of creativity, but does raise the issue of Euro-centrism
in some Vygotskian studies of children’s play. Cross-cultural research has shown that
dramatic play using object substitutions is not characteristic of every culture (Gaskins,
Haight, Lancy, 2007). Using object substitutions in pretend play might represent a more
European style of play. Vygotsky, himself, spent his childhood in European Russia of the
late 19th and very early 20th centuries, thus, the emphasis that Vygotsky placed on pretend
play as the leading activity of the preschool years, gives us an insight into his own
kinderkultur.
But all this begs the question: was Vygotsky correct when he said that object
substitutions, like using a stick as a horse in pretend play, help to develop literacy skills
and other forms of abstract thinking? The success of Tools of the Mind and the Golden
Key Schools provide supporting evidence that he was correct in this assertion.
Does the use of object substitutions in pretend play help to develop creativity?
The time has come for systematic studies to answer this question. Marilyn Fleer’s book
Early Learning and Development: Cultural-historical Concepts in Play (2010) ends with
the assertion that old theories of child development are no longer viable now that
18
education has become multi-cultural. The solution, according to Marilyn Fleer, is to
formulate a new culturally sensitive play-based curriculum in lieu of imposing an
academic curriculum upon preschool children.
This proposed solution, however, remains problematic since the current global
economy still demands the possession of basic academic skills sets for employment.
Advanced literacy, knowledge of mathematics and science, as well as technological skills
remain the pre-requisites for economic prosperity. Preschoolers need a curriculum that
prepares them for viable adult roles by laying the foundation for academic skills during
the preschool years while simultaneously developing a healthy personality, interpersonal
communication skills, and creativity.
Currently no preschool curriculum model exists that addresses the development
of creativity in any formal way involving the actual assessment of creative activity over
time. Such assessments ought not be structured as invidious comparisons of who is more
creative; rather, any such assessment could be based upon an individual’s own
performance record over time.
Newsweek magazine recently (July, 2010) contained an article on “The Creativity
Crisis” in which journalists Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman voiced concern over an
apparent decline in American creativity evidenced by lowered test scores of divergent
thinking. Since such tests have only been used since the 1950s, it remains unclear how
earlier generations of Americans would have fared in this area. Yet, a growing concern is
felt among Americans that, as a nation, the U.S.A. has lapsed both academically and
creatively, due to lowered academic standards and poorer discipline in schools. Too much
idle time spent watching television, text messaging, and playing videogames.
19
The next section of this paper explores the importance of creativity, especially
figurative thinking in the arts, in the sciences, and in everyday life, with an eye toward its
role as a possible solution to these pressing problems.
SECTION TWO
Figurative Thinking Examined More Closely
Creativity appears to fluctuate over time in any given culture. At certain times the
general public may seem particularly resourceful, demonstrating a knack for creative
problem-solving—the early American pioneers leap to mind---while, at other times, only
iconoclasts dared to challenge the status quo by introducing new ideas. Moreover,
creativity has not always been held in high cultural esteem; the French court of Louis
XIV, for example, regarded creativity as frivolous and uncouth, and derided any
manifestation of it.
The rapid rise of technology, beginning with the Industrial Revolution and
continuing throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, has significantly affected the
development of the sciences and, in turn, the global economy. Advances in medicine,
particularly the introduction of new pharmacopeia: antibiotics, insulin, statin drugs, and
anti-depressants, have greatly enhanced the quality of life and, and along with minimallyinvasive
laser and micro-surgerical techniques, have greatly extended the human lifespan.
Similarly, advancements in genetics and the introduction of proactive birth control
measures have brought certain aspects of human reproduction under unprecedented levels
of control, often raising non-trivial moral questions in the process. Not unexpectedly,
20
most of these important discoveries or inventions have emerged from the highly
industrialized countries of Europe, the United States, and Russia. In the face of this
unprecedented technological progress, non-industrialized agricultural societies have been
challenged to find ways to maintain their traditional life-styles and cultural traditions.
These new technologies, as we have seen, often come at a high price causing secondary
effects that have impacted the environment and human life in negative, often destructive
ways; the rise of pollution and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant virus strains are only
two examples. Progress brings not only solutions, but poses new problems as well. From
where will the new solutions to the world’s problems come?
The invention of new tools, machines, and technologies represents only one type
of creativity. Vygotsky’s great insight into the role of tools in culture contained the
realization that language is perhaps the greatest cultural tool. Language both transmits
cultural knowledge to the next generation, as well as introduces new ideas to the culture.
Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1967) awakened
philosophers and scientists to the importance of figurative thinking in science. The use of
visual isomorphisms, and their accompanying linguistic metaphors, are deeply imbedded
in scientific thinking and discourse (Mashhadi, 1997). Charles Darwin’s use of the
bifurcating branches of a tree to illustrate and organize sequences of evolutionary
development holds a revered place, along with Kekule’s self-devouring serpent, as one of
the most evocative uses of imagery in science. The tree is one of many bifurcating
models; a river also has branches, as does the circulatory system. Both are shaped by the
forces exerted upon them by the fluids they contain. The Kabala, too, organizes the
21
metaphysical levels of existence as a “tree of knowledge.” The family tree, used to trace
one’s genealogy, follows this same pattern, so rich in meaning and varied in application.
Figurative thinking provides a means of finding the patterns that give meaning to
experience. Figurative thinking is not just a matter of linguistics, nor is it simply a matter
of verbalizing metaphors. Figural thinking involves the visual process of seeing
correspondences of shape or function, a completely different dynamic altogether from the
processes operating in the linguistic modality. Vygotsky’s reconstructed theory of
creativity, put forth at the beginning of this chapter, proposes a developmental
progression from learning how to use object substitutions in play, to learning how to
recognize and use visual isomorphisms, to using metaphoric language to express holistic
meanings.
Consider the following situation:
[EDITOR: INSERT FIGURE-IN-BOAT IMAGE HERE]
A traveler wearing a large, loosely tied robe, steps into a boat just as a gust of wind
suddenly rises; the garment billows, driving the boat across the water (see Figure N). A
person who witnesses this event (though not necessarily the same person in the boat to
whom it has actually happened) notes the effect the wind has produced and, realizing the
effect can be duplicated, modified and controlled, invents a device (i.e., a mast and sail)
that harnesses the motive power of the wind. This represents a creative leap of
imagination (in fact, it has been speculated that nautical sails originated in this way).
22
Another witness to the very same event may arrive at an entirely different insight,
and proclaim: “What sort of vessel is a man, adrift upon the Sea of Fate, subject to its
currents and eddies!” Although present in both situations, figurative thinking has
enriched the experience, whether in the practical manner as it inspired the nautical
architect, or in the poetical manner as it prompted the utterance of the poet, philosopher,
visual artist, or psychologist.
The three types of figurative thinking: object substitutions, visual isomorphisms,
and metaphoric speech, operate across three different functional domains: using tools,
recognizing patterns in nature, and/or expressing depth-psychological meanings. These
three domains are not separate and discrete because, as Freud observed, symbols are over
determined and may have more than one simultaneous meaning. Literal language usage is
actually an exercise in restricting word meaning to a single definition based on context
and sentence structure. Figurative thinking works in the opposite direction, so to speak.
Tool-usage, the first functional domain of figurative thinking, includes the sort of
object substitutions in pretend play (i.e., basket as boat), but would also include the
literal/physical use of one object as if it were something else, as happens when a shoe is
used as if it were a hammer. Visual isomorphisms are sometimes used as tools to
communicate; the hand gesture that resembles a telephone means, call me. Vygotsky
pointed-out that language is a tool and, as a linguistic tool, metaphors have the power to
transmit cultural legacies or stimulate cultural transformation. Puritan John Winthrop’s
immortal phrase, “Shining City on the Hill”, borrowed by both John F. Kennedy and
Ronald Reagan to evoke a positive image of the United States, presents one example.
23
The second functional domain, recognizing patterns in nature, involves the realm of
object substitutions typically made when natural objects are introduced into a play
scenario. Stones become potatoes or meatballs, grass turns to spaghetti, and tree branches
become forks. Visual isomorphisms abound in nature. Trees in autumn take on the
appearance of gaunt skeletons. And the sort of pattern recognition that led to the
organization and naming of the star constellations provides another example. The
coincidental resemblance between certain flowering plants and their namesakes, such as
the Bleeding Heart plant, the Dutchman’s Pipe, and the Bird-of-Paradise are well known.
The enchanted gardens and forests of fairytales are filled with such visual isomorphisms.
Metaphors based on the recognition of patterns in nature can produce vivid poetic
images, the road as a ribbon of moonlight, or incisive scientific models, as in MichelsonMorley’s
experiment on the propagation of electrons as light-waves. Gregory Bateson
(1991) proposed that such metaphoric thinking provided another way of understanding
the universe that could yield valuable insights. But, some literal statements are false, and
likewise, all metaphors do not necessarily ring true.
The third functional domain of figurative thinking, to convey depth-psychological
meanings, evokes the rich language of symbolism. Freud (1901) described how primary
process though creates symbols based on analogies and shape resemblances (i.e., visual
isomorphisms). Figurative thinking, in the form of an unconscious and spontaneous lower
psychological function, appears as a process in the dreamwork. Fetish objects, as well as
the many transitional objects to which people become emotionally attached (teddy bears,
cars, jewelry, figurines) are often based on an unconscious association to a real ‘love
object., a fact well understood and exploited by consumer advertising.
24
Multiple levels of depth-psychological meaning produce “thick texts” rich in
interpretive possibility. It is the nature of such thick texts that they can be revisited time
and again always yielding new insights. This accounts, in part, for the compelling nature
of some films and videogames which incorporate thick texts rich in metaphoric meaning
similar to those found in fairy-tales and heroic/romantic myths (Mackey, 2009).
Some creative events have far reaching cultural implications while others are
more intimate, remaining a personal part of our everyday lives. The former type is
sometimes referred to as Creativity with a capital ‘C’, while everyday creativity is
relegated to the lower case. Using the analogy of electricity, Vygotsky contrasted the
great Creativity of the famous inventors, scientists, and artists like Beethoven as
analogous to lightning unleashed by an electrical storm, while average everyday
creativity is more like the modest light of a lamp (1930/1990).
There is more to this analogy than meets the eye; it is actually quite rich in
meaning, like a Russian fable. Electrical storms are awesome events, but such Creativity
often strains the Creative individual sometimes beyond their psychological limits. The
night light that burns in the nursery may be dim, yet it consistently provides just the right
amount of light to sustain a child through the night as does the improvised lullaby or
bedtime story.
Conclusion
New directions for research as well as practical current applications have been
offered in this chapter. Research has supported Vygotsky’s description of how the
internalized speech of a more knowledgeable person can be used as silent self-guiding
25
speech directing one’s thoughts, behaviors, memories, emotions, perception, attention,
imagination, and creativity (Winsler, Ferryhough, & Montero, 2009).
Martha Daugherty’s research has shown a connection between creativity and
private speech, the intermediary stage between external and inner speech when one talks
aloud to one’s self. (White & Daugherty, 2009). Similarly, Julia Matuga (2003) found
that children use private speech more during make-believe drawings than during realistic
drawings. Other studies have demonstrated that pretending with object substitutions
promotes the development of self-regulation (Carlson & Beck, 2009; Bodrova & Leong,
2007). Self-regulatory neural networks have been identified that operate from the
prefrontal areas of the brain, and research has shown how the development of this
executive function is related to language acquisition due to the legacy of Alexander
Luria’s research.
At approximately the age of 7-years, children no longer need to talk aloud to
themselves to guide their creative imaginations. Their memory recall, analytic and logical
problem-solving skills, as well as other higher psychological functions become selfregulating
through the use of inner speech. According to Vygotsky, the adolescent can
coordinate several different consciously-directed higher psychological functions to
produce a creative work (1931, 1991). This means that the adolescent also has a newly
emergent ability to co-ordinate the internalized verbal guidance of several different
mentors. Thus, a new mature creative voice emerges at this point.
Future researchers have an opportunity to identify how different higher
psychological functions are used in specific areas of the arts and the sciences. one of
these higher psychological functions is figurative thinking
26
Figurative thinking is a higher cortical function. The prefrontal cortex of the right
hemisphere likely directs most figurative thinking. This would explain how creative
insights emerge suddenly, often unexpectedly, after a period of incubation.
Readers interested in the latest neuroscience research on the role of left and right
prefrontal cortexes in different types of creative thinking are referred to Joaquin Fuster’s
book The Prefrontal Cortex (2009). In pages 369-371 on “Creative Intelligence”, Fuster
discusses the contributions of Vygotsky and Luria to the study of language as a tool for
self-regulation, and its relationship to the prefrontal cortical supervision of creative
intelligence.
In the more than seventy-five years since Vygotsky’s death, his writings continue
to inspire new theories, new educational programs, and new lines of research. Vygotsky,
like other psychologists, used metaphors to express concepts whose meaning would be
diminished by literal treatises (Blake, 2011; Leary, 1994).
Bibliography
Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Slechuk, R.,
et al. (2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum:
A randomized trial. Early Childhood Quaterly 23(3), 299-313.
Bateson, G. (1991). A sacred unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind.
New York: Harper Collins.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (2007). Tools of the mind. 2nd Ed.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson – Prentice Hall.
27
Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (July 2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek.
Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. ( 2009). Nurture Shock New York: Hachette.
Carlson, S.M. & Beck, D. (2009). Symbols as tools in the development of executive
function. In Winsler, A., Fernyhough, C. & I. Montero. (2009). Private speech,
executive functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation. Cambridge
University Press
Christensen, A.L., Goldberg, E., & Bougakov, D. (2009). Luria’s legacy in the 21st
century. Oxford University Press.
Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., & Munroe, S. (2007). Preschool program
improves cognitive control. Science 318, 1387-1388.
Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development. Cambridge University Press.
Freud, S. (1901/ 2010) The interpretation of dreams. New York: Basic Books.
Fuster, J. (2009). The prefrontal cortex. New York: Elsevier
Gaskins, S., Haight, W. & Lancy, D.F. (2007). The cultural construction of play.
In A. Goncu and S. Gaskins (eds), Play and development: Evolutionary,
sociocultural, and functional perspectives. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
John-Steiner, V. (1997). Notebooks of the mind. Oxford University Press.
Kamen, M. & Murphy, C. (2011).Science education at the Golden Key Schools.
In D.F. Berlin & A. L. White (Eds.), Book Title TBD. International Consortium
for Research in Science and Mathematics Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio
State University.
Kravtsova, E.(2005). Psikologichesky osnovy doshkolnova vospitaniya: Lectures 4-5.
Moscow: Pedagogichesky Universitet.
28
Kozulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in context. In L.S. Vygotsky, Thought and language.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lake, R. (2011). Vygotsky on education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Leary, D. (1990). Metaphor in the history of psychology. Cambridge University Press
Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of play and culture
in preschoolers. Stochholm, Sweden: Uppsala Studies in Education 62.
Mackey, M. (2009). Exciting yet safe: The appeal of thick play and big worlds.
In Willet, R. Robinson, M. and J. Marsh. ( 2009). Play, creativity, and
digital cultures. New York: Routledge.
Mashhadi, A. (1997). Figurative thinking and the nature of physics.
Eric Document: ED414206. A paper presented at the Annual Conference
on Thinking, Singapore, June 1-6, 1997.
Matuga, J.M. (2003). Children’s private speech during algorithmic and heuristic
drawing tasks, Contemporary Educational Psychology 28, 552-572
Osborne, M.P. (1992 to 2010). Magic tree house books. New York: Random House.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Smolucha, F. (1991). The origins of object substitutions in social pretend play.
Doctoral dissertation..University of Chicago.
Smolucha, F. (1992a).A reconstruction of Vygotsky’s theory of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal. 5(1), 49-67.
Smolucha, F. (1992b). The relevance of Vygotsky’s theory of creative imagination
for contemporary research on play. Creativity Research Journal, 5(1), 69-76.
Smolucha, F. (1992c). The social origins of private speech during pretend play.
29
In R. Diaz and L. Berk (Eds.). Private speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smolucha, F. (1998). A synergistic approach to infant education.
A paper presented at the Symposium on Early Childhood Education,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November 10, 1997.
Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. (1983). The creative process in art: An
interdisciplinary perspective by an artist and a psychologist.
ERIC Document No. ED 260 008 . Paper presented in Cardiff, Wales at
the British Psychological Society’s Conference on Psychology and Art.
Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. (1984). Creativity as a maturation of symbolic
play. The Journal of Aesthetic Education , 18 (4).
Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. (1985a). A fifth piagetian stage:
The collaboration between logical and analogical thinking in artistic
creativity. Visual Arts Research , Vol. 11, 2 (Issue 22)
Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. (1985b). A fifth Piagetian stage: The collaboration
between imagination and logical thought in artistic creativity.
POETICS: International Review for the Theory of Literature, 15, (4-6)
North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. (1986). L.S. Vygotsky's theory of Creative
imagination. SPIEL: Siegener Periodicum zur Internationalen Empirischen
Literaturwissenschaft 5(2) Also ERIC Document No. ED 274 919.
Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. (1998). The social origin of mind: Post-Piagetian
perspectives on pretend play. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.). Multiple
perspectives on play in early childhood education. State University of New
30
York Press.
Stevenson, R. L. (1905). A children’s garden of verses.
New York: Dodge Publishing Company. (Original work 1885).
Vygotsky, L.S. (1960). Imagination and its development in childhood.
((F. Smolucha, unpublished Trans.) Russian publication in Razvitie vysshikh
psikhicheskikh funkstii. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademi Pedagogicheskikh Nauk
RSFSR. (Original lecture 1932).
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978a). The interaction between learning and development. In M.
Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work 1933-1934).
Vygotsky, L.S.(1978b). The role of play in development. In M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner,
S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. (Original work 1933).
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978c). The prehistory of written language. In M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner,
S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior.
Soviet Psychology, 17(4), 3-25. (Original work 1925)
Vygotsky, L.S. (1990) Imagination and creativity in childhood (trans. Francine
Smolucha) Soviet Psychology 28(1), 84-96 (Original work 1930).
Vygotsky, L.S. (1991). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent
(trans. F. Smolucha) Soviet Psychology, 29(1) (Original work 1931).
Winsler, A., Fernyhough, C., & Montero, I. (2009). Private speech, executive
31
functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation. Cambirdge University
Press.
White, C.S. and M. Daugherty. (2009). Creativity and private speech in young
children. In Winsler, A., Fernyhough, C. and I. Montero. (2009).
Private speech, executive functioning, and the development of verbal selfregulation.
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Vygotsky_Figurative-Literal-Thinking.pdf
Vygotsky Figurative and Literal Thinking
Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Creativity in Early ...
IAP || Book || Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Creativity in ...
Rethinking Creativity: Contributions from Social and Cultural Psychology
Theories of Creativity - Geniuses
Vygotsky's theory of creativity: Figurative thinking allied with literal ...
Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech
Creativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abstract
- The connection between children's pretend play and adult creativity has been noted by many writers. The use of object substitutions (i.e., the basket as a boat) and the perception of a visual isomorphism (the waving grass seen as waves) are examples of figurative thinking. Metaphors and similes become the linguistic ｅxpressions of this imaginary experience. Whereas the child is just beginning to create play scenarios based on these perceived isomorphic resemblances, an adult is capable of consciously directing imagination, along with other thought processes such as logical thinking, to create works of art, science, and technology. As children interact with more knowledgeable play-partners they learn pretend play skills, such as using object substitutions and visual isomorphisms to create or extend pretend play scenarios. Children also learn how to direct play activities by renaming the objects (calling the laundry basket "boat") and by framing the activities as pretense ("Let's pretend we're pirates"). Gradually over time, the verbalizations and the sensory/motor templates that accompany the object substitutions are internalized and function as the imaginative thought process that generates analogies and metaphor. This chapter explores L.S. Vygotsky's theory of creativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
2012, English, Book, Illustrated edition:Contemporary perspectives on research in creativity in early childhood education / edited by Olivia N. Saracho.
- Bookmark: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/176296112
- Physical Description
- ix, 426 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
- Published
- Charlotte, N.C. Information Age Pub., [2012]
- Language
- English
- View all editions
- Prev
- Next
- edition 2 of 2
Edition details
- Title
- Contemporary perspectives on research in creativity in early childhood education / edited by Olivia N. Saracho.
- Other Authors
- Saracho, Olivia N.
- Published
- Charlotte, N.C. Information Age Pub., [2012]
- Copyright
- ©2012
- Content Types
- still image
- text
- Carrier Types
- volume
- Physical Description
- ix, 426 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
- Series
- Subjects
- Summary
- Recently, a new understanding of creative thought and creative performance has surfaced. In addition, an interest has emerged in professional organizations especially those in early childhood education. In addition, current creativity researchers have initiated a far more sophisticated understanding of young children's creative thinking, ways to assess creativity, strategies to promote creativity, and research methodologies. The purpose of this volume is to present a wide range of different theories and areas in the study of creativity to help researchers and theorists work toward the development of different perspectives on creativity with young children. It focuses on critical analyses and reviews of the literature on topics related to creativity research, development, theories, and practices. It will serve as a reference for early childhood education researchers, scholars, academics, general educators, teacher educators, teachers, graduate students, and scientists to stimulate further "dialogue" on ways to enhance creativity. The chapters are of high quality and provide scholarly analyses of research studies that capture the full range of approaches to the study of creativity --- behavioral, clinical, cognitive, cross-cultural, developmental, educational, genetic, organizational, psychoanalytic, psychometric, and social. Interdisciplinary research is also included, as is research within specific domains such as art and science, as well as on critical issues (e.g., aesthetics, genius, imagery, imagination, insight, intuition, metaphor, play, problem finding and solving). Thus, it offers critical analyses on reviews of research in a form that are useful to early childhood researchers, scholars, educators, and graduate students. It also places the current research in its historical context. The volume is also of interest to the general readers who are interested in the young children's creativity. The chapters are authored by established scholars in the field of young children's creativity.
- Contents
- Machine generated contents note: pt. I INTRODUCTION
- 1.Young Children's Creativity in Different Contexts / Olivia N. Saracho
- pt. II THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CREATIVITY
- 2.The Theory of Personal Creativity and Implications for the Fulfillment of Children's Potentials / Nur Cayirdag
- 3.Domain Specificity of Creativity: Implications for Early Childhood Education / John Baer
- 4.Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity: Figurative Thinking Allied With Literal Thinking / Francine Smolucha
- pt. III CHILDREN'S CREATIVE PROCESSES
- 5.Reconceptualizing Creative Thought Processes in Young Children: An Integrative Review of the Research / Rae Ann Hirsh
- 6.The Creative Process in Early Childhood Education / Olivia N. Saracho
- 7.The Creativity Dis-Ease / Susan Grieshaber
- pt. IV CHILDREN'S ARTISTIC AND CREATIVE EXPERIENCES
- 8.Acknowledging the Role of Motor Domain in Creativity in Early Childhood Education / Evridiki Zachopoulou
- Contents note continued: 9.Movement, Embodiment, and Creativity: Perspectives on the Value of Dance in Early Childhood Education / Adrienne Sansom
- 10.Reconsidering the Educative Potential of the Arts in Early Schooling / Jolyn Blank
- 11.Significant Moments: The Development of Private Speech and Drawing as it Relates to Creative Activity in Early Childhood / Julia M. Matuga
- 11 More...
- Notes
- Part of the QUT Authors Collection.
- Includes bibliographical references.
- Language
- English
- ISBN
- 9781617357404 (pbk.)
- 9781617357411 (hardcover)
- 9781617357428 (ebook)
- Dewey Number
- 372/.0118
- Libraries Australia ID
- Contributed by
- Libraries Australia