Dance, play and creativity

It is generally agreed that play makes a positive contribution to children’s

development and creativity (for example. Craft, 2000; Howard-Jones, Taylor and Sutton, 2002; Russ, 2003,2004). Swedish education researcher Gunilla Lindqvist (2001) and American dance educator Diane Lynch Fraser (1991) similarly emphasise the relationship between play and dance. Both Lindqvist’s study and Lynch Fraser’s book, Playdancing, focus on children up to age 8, making them particularly pertinent to this study.

Lynch Fraser observes that movement is the foremost means by which children communicate feelings to others (p.2). Both Lindqvist and Lynch Fraser consider that dramatic play is important in children’s dance. Drawing on Vygotsky, Lindqvist says,

“Play is imagination in action,” adding that, as in dance, “thought and imagination come into being through the expressive acts o f the body in play” (p. 50). While noting Laban’s (1948, 32) view that dramatic elements should be used sparingly in dance for young children, and that the “experience of movement imagination and memory of movement is a stimulus strong enough to make longer combinations o f themes,” she rather considers that play and dance should be linked, and that dance for children

should start in and emphasise the dramatic in their play, only later differentiating from it(p.51).

According to Lynch Fraser (p.47), linking dramatic play and dance can help children differentiate between reality and fantasy, without having to reject make-believe. She specifically sees a value in it developing each child’s notions o f self-constancy, the self is permanent; self-differentiation, one’s ideas can be different to others; self- identity or uniqueness; and self-esteem. While other creative dance texts for teachers include dramatic strategies and imply similar outcomes, they are rarely so explicitly stated. Life Pulse teacher manuals at the Cloud Gate Dance School similarly suggest the use o f drama and role-play in many early years lessons; a strategy followed by teachers.

Although Hanna (1999,134) observes that children can often be found dancing as part o f playground activities, and that play has implications for dance teaching and

learning, she restricts herself to viewing play as a diagnostic tool. She notes that by observing children’s dance at play, teachers can learn how a child thinks, feels and moves, and adapt teaching strategies accordingly. She further states that because children learners construct their own knowledge, and fundamental learning takes place in the absence of formal teaching, children’s play evidences their natural movement competencies (p. 135).

The act of play should be distinguished from the idea o f playfulness, often cited as a trait of creative individuals. According to Rubin, Fein, and Vandenburg (1983), play has three dimensions; behaviour, context and disposition. Behavioural characteristics focus primarily on the cognitive or social level. Context is important, since while an activity may have the behavioural characteristics o f play, the same activity at a different time or in a different place may take a different meaning, although that does not mean a sense o f playfulness may not be retained. The dispositional dimension equates to playfulness, and reflects how the player feels about the activity. It is an internalised construct, albeit evidenced by external actions, comprising qualities brought to the activity by the player, including physical spontaneity, social spontaneity, cognitive spontaneity, a sense o f humour and joy (Lieberman, 1977).

While certain activities may appear play-like, it is never possible to be certain the individual is feeling playful, although engaging in play is likely to encourage participants to be playful (Howard, Beilin and Rees, 2002),

Although most studies of play and playfulness are located in the West, a study by Li, Bundy and Beer (1995) found that American and Taiwanese attitudes and values towards the constructs were broadly similar. The main difference was that the Taiwanese place less emphasis on cognitive spontaneity, physical spontaneity, and sense o f humour, although still attribute importance to social spontaneity and outward joy

Playfulness, in the sense o f exploration, letting go or openness to playing with new ideas and possibilities, features in many conceptualisations of the creative process. In a study of 6 to 7 year olds in the UK, Howard-Jones, Taylor and Sutton (2002) found that the less structured an immediately preceding task or activity, the more creative are children’s outcomes in that which follows. It was uncertain, however, whether the effects were due to a more relaxed mental state, or the transfer of a playful mind set, or the intrinsic motivation they were experiencing in free play. The nature o f that play, dramatic or rough and tumble, is unclear. Craft (2000, 50-1) draws on a number of earlier empirical studies to similarly conclude that although play is not the same as creativity, there is evidence that it facilitates it, that social play is more conducive to creativity than solitary play, and that a predisposition to fantasy in particular may contribute to a child’s future creative abilities. Russ (2003) disputes this final point, arguing that, while there is a relationship between play processes and creativity, there is no evidence that play facilitates increased levels o f divergent thinking over time.

This discussion raises questions about the role teachers at the Cloud Gate Dance School see for play, both as a precursor to creative activity and within activities themselves; the extent to which that play is dramatic or rough and tumble; and the effect it has on creativity in subsequent activities.