ABSTRACT
So, a new connection – for example, Evie’s idea that the chair is now a car
– does not need to be original to anyone other than oneself. Likewise, the
idea (such as the one of winding the windows down on the journey) needs
to be of value, but if it is of value only to Evie and yet rejected by the
other children, it would still, according to NACCCE, Craft and Feldman,
be deemed creative. Similarly, as Jacob clapped out the syllables in his
own name, and those in the names of the children sitting near him, he was
making the connections for himself. So, it seems that ‘creativity’ and
‘learning’ in education are not distinguishable if we take a constructivist
approach to learning, unless we take a harder line on what counts as
‘original’ and ‘of value’. If, on the other hand, we were to adopt another approach to learning,
such as behaviourism, then we may be able to see learning (which we would
see as occurring through conditioning) and creativity (which is concerned
with breaking out of conditioned responses) as quite opposite to one
another. In the Jacob example, we see how behaviourism, or conditioning,
may play a part in creativity: Jacob mimicked his teacher initially as she
modelled the clapping out of the syllables; however, Jacob then went beyond
this to creative activity in constructing his own understanding, in large part
through experimentation. Thus, Jacob was ultimately constructing; making
sense through engagement rather than conditioning. So, although we can
acknowledge a possible behaviourist element to this vignette, ultimately the
frame is a constructivist one.
