Schlagworte
secondary school
plurilingualism
foreign language classroom
Zitationsvorschlag
Abstract
In an era marked by rapid change, educators face a persistent call to nurture creativity in students, prompting them to explore innovative solutions. This study investigates the role of students’ plurilingual resources in fostering creativity within a foreign language classroom at secondary school level. Students collaboratively produced literary writings (songs, poems, and short stories) in which they applied their plurilingual resources (all of languages they knew). This case study employs a bottom-up approach to analyse students’ texts to determine whether facilitating the use of their diverse linguistic resources, including the blending of codes and modes, acts as a catalyst for creativity. The research results indicate that the foreign language classroom can indeed serve as a platform for students to engage in various forms of language creativity. The findings also suggest that encouraging students to utilize their diverse linguistic resources enhances language creativity. Additionally, the analysis highlights that the collaborative nature of the task supports the notion that exploring multiple solutions, rather than adhering to a single correct answer, fosters creativity. Furthermore, evidence indicates that creating a safe environment for learners is crucial for encouraging playful and unconventional language use for creative purposes.
Literaturhinweise
Armstrong P. (2010), Bloom´s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Centre for Teaching. Online: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/ [Accessed 29.05.2023].
Bialystok E., Craik F.I.M., Luk G. (2012), Bilingualism: Consequences for Mind and Brain. “Trends in Cognitive Sciences”, No 16, pp. 240–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001
Campbell A., Groundwater-Smith S. (eds.) (2009), Connecting Inquiry and Professional Learning in Education. London: Routledge.
Cachia R. et al. (2010), Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching: Final Report on the Study on Creativity and Innovation in Education in EU Member States. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Canagarajah S. (2012), Toward a dialogical cosmopolitanism, (in:) Canagarajah S. (ed.), Translingual Practice Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 193–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203073889
Charmaz K. (2007), Coding in Grounded Theory Practice, (in:) Charmaz K. (ed.), Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications, pp. 42–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927.n14
Carter R. (2004), Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.
Cho H., Kim H.K. (2018), Promoting Creativity through Language Play in EFL Classrooms. “TESOL Journal”, No 9, e00416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.416
Choi J. (2016), Creative Criticality in Multilingual Texts, (in:) Jones R.H., Richards J.C. (eds.), Creativity in Language Teaching. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730936-10
Costa P.T., McCrae R.R. (1992), The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Its Relevance to Personality Disorders. “Journal of Personality Disorders”, No 6, pp. 343–359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
Council of the European Union. (2008), Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, Meeting within the Council of 21 November 2008 on Preparing Young People for the 21st Century: An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools. “Official Journal of the European Union”, No C 319/320.
Council of Europe. (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Council of Europe. (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Dijk M. et al. (2019), Bilingualism and Creativity: Towards a Situated Cognition Approach. “The Journal of Creative Behaviour”, No 53, pp. 178–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.238
European Commission. (2010), Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM(2010) 2020.
European Council. (2008), Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 13/14 March 2008. Online: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/99410.pdf [accessed 24.09.2023]
Ellis R. (2016), Creativity and Language Learning, (in:) Rodney J.H., Richards J.C. (eds.), Creativity in Language Teaching. Perspectives from Research and Practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 32–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730936-3
Kharkhurin A.V. (2017), Language Mediated Concept Activation in Bilingual Memory Facilitates Cognitive Flexibility. “Frontiers in Psychology”, No 8, pp. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01067
Kruszynska K., Dooly M. (2023), Thinking allowed: linguistic landscapes-based projects for higher-order and critical thinking skills, (in:) Melo-Pfeifer S. (ed.), Linguistic landscapes and teacher education. Cham: Springer, pp. 75–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22867-4_5
Kruszynska K. (2024), “I have learned a lot of things about other neighbourhood”: Secondary Students as Linguistic Landscapes Ethnographers. “Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Languages & Literature”, No 17(1), pp. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.1265
Landry R., Bourhis R.Y. (1997), Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality. “Journal of Language and Social Psychology”, No 16(1), pp. 23–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002
Leikin M., Tovli E., Woldo A. (2020), The Interplay of Bilingualism, Executive Functions and Creativity in Problem Solving among Male University Students. “Creativity Studies”, No 13, pp. 308–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.10397
Li L. (2016), Thinking skills and creativity in second language education: Where are we now? (Editorial). “Thinking Skills and Creativity”, No 22, pp. 267–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.005
Maley A. (2015), Overview: Creativity – the What, the Why and the How, (in:) Maley A., Peachey N. (eds.), Creativity in the English Language Classroom. London: British Council, pp. 6–13.
Nussbaum L. (2017), Investigating with Teachers, (in:) Moore E., Dooly M. (eds.), Qualitative Approaches to Research on Plurilingual Education. Dublin/Voillans: Research-publishing.net, pp. 23–45.
Runco M.A., Jaeger G.J. (2012), The Standard Definition of Creativity. “Creativity Research Journal”, No 24, pp. 92–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Silbey S. (2021), Qualitative Research Methods: Data Coding and Analysis. Retrieved from edX MITx 21A.819.2x online course: www.edx.org
Suter N.W. (2012), Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach. Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384443
Tavory I., Timmermans S. (2014), Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226180458.001.0001
Tin T.B. (2022), Unpacking Creativity for Language Teaching. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003225393
Torrance E.P., Shaughnessy M.F. (1998), An Interview with E. Paul Torrance: About Creativity. “Educational Psychology Review”, No 10 (4), pp. 441–452. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23359472 [Accessed 02.07.2023]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022849603713
UNESCO. (2021), Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. Online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707 [Accessed 02.07.2023].
Verde V. (2022), Creativity in Second Language Learning and Use: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Implications. A Literature Review. “Anglica, An International Journal of English Studies”, No 31(2), pp. 133–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7311/0860-5734.31.2.07
Vygotsky L.S. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zabihi R., Rezazadeh M., Dastjerdi H.V. (2013), Creativity and Narrative Writing in L2 Classrooms: Comparing Individual and Paired Task Performance. “Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature”, No 6, pp. 29–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.481
Lizenz
Copyright (c) 2024 Klaudia A. Kruszyńska
Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International.
Autoren:
Die Autoren der zur Veröffentlichung in der Zeitschrift Neofilolog angenommenen Texte sind verpflichtet, den Vertrag über die Erteilung einer kostenlosen Lizenz für die Werke mit der Verpflichtung zur Erteilung einer Sublizenz CC auszufüllen, zu unterzeichnen und an die Adresse der Redaktion zurückzusenden.
Gemäß Vertrag erteilen die Autoren auf die in der Zeitschrift Neofilolog veröffentlichten Texte der Adam-Mickiewicz-Universität in Poznań eine nicht exklusive und kostenlose Lizenz und erlauben die Verwendung der Sublizenz Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Die Autoren behalten das Recht zur weiteren freien Verfügung über das Werk.
Benutzer:
Interessierte Onlinebenutzer dürfen die seit 2017 veröffentlichten Werke unter folgenden Bedingungen nutzen:
- Anerkennung der Urheberschaft - die Verpflichtung, zusammen mit dem verbreiteten Werk Informationen über die Urheberschaft, den Titel, die Quelle (Links zum Originalwerk, DOI) und die Lizenz selbst bereitzustellen;
- ohne Schaffung abgeleiteter Werke - das Werk muss in seiner ursprünglichen Form erhalten bleiben, ohne Zustimmung des Autors dürfen keine Studien, beispielsweise Übersetzungen, verbreitet werden.
Die Urheberrechte aller veröffentlichen Texte sind vorbehalten.
Sonstige:
Die Adam-Mickiewicz-Universität in Poznań behält das Recht auf die Zeitschrift als Gesamtheit (Layout, Grafik, Titel, Umschlagsprojekt, Logo usw.).