بازی بی خطر: دیدگاه معلمان درباره خلاقیت در نوشتن شعر
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32119||2013||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Thinking Skills and Creativity, Volume 10, December 2013, Pages 101–111
Discourses of creativity in education vary from the highly theoretical to more pragmatic views, based on observations of ‘what works’ in practice. This is especially true in the current global economic climate, where, in Anglophone countries, there is both a premium placed on creativity at the same time as there is a tendency towards high-stakes accountability. This has resulted in a discourse of ‘barriers’ to creativity (Sahlberg, 2011) in our schools. Unsurprisingly, teachers’ views of creativity are concomitantly variable (Kampylis, Berki, & Saariluoma, 2009). In this context it is interesting to study the views of teachers who teach subjects, such as poetry, with an established tradition of creative endeavour, but which are nevertheless marginalised (Ofsted, 2007 and Locke, 2010). This paper reports on the beliefs, attitudes and values revealed by a large scale study of English teachers in England. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with lesson observations, teacher interviews and student interviews in the form of writing conversations. Underpinned by a socio-constructivist model of play as a vital precursor to creativity and mastery of language (Vygotsky, 1962) this paper finds that, while these teachers are enthusiastic about teaching poetry, their conceptualisations of creativity are not fully theorised. This is especially true of their views of about poetry as freedom from the constraints of ‘normal’ writing. This includes a stated reluctance towards evaluating the poetry written by pupils. We argue that these teachers are inculcating their pupils in a schooled version of creative language use, one which is divorced from the model of creativity as theorised by writers and creative writing practitioners alike.
Internationally, there is a tendency towards a common consensus in western educational jurisdictions that a curriculum which encourages creativity is ‘a good thing’ (Gibson, 2005 and NESTA, 2002); and increasingly the same discourse is being taken up in eastern jurisdictions (Dello-Iacovo, 2009 and Vong, 2008). In England, public and professional debate about creativity was re-ignited by the Robinson Report (All Our Futures: NACCCE, 1999). The emphasis in the report on the benefits of the cultural sector in terms of ‘economic prosperity’ (NACCCE, p. 4) was not lost on commentators (Banaji et al., 2007; Craft, 2003 and Maisuria, 2005). Craft (2003) traces the development of the discourse of creativity in education to the ‘globalisation of economic activity’ and increased competition in the same. As Seltzer and Bentley argue (1999), small countries such as the UK, with finite natural resources, will increasingly depend in this globalised context on ‘weightless’ economic activity (e.g. service industries, e-commerce and communications). It follows that a ‘well-educated’ workforce will be judged on its ability to respond quickly to global market needs, for example creating new products which are both innovative and not at risk of obsolescence ( Craft, 2003). It would be wrong, however, to categorise the Robinson Report as utilitarian in its view of creativity and of culture. Maisuria (2005) has argued that it is critical of a National Curriculum which serves children poorly in respect of developing their creativity and instead promotes a ‘system that is in favour of conformity and standardisation’ ( Maisuria, 2005, p. 146). Standardisation, which Maisuria (2005) is both anxious about and critical of, is now synonymous with the subject of English and the field of literacy in post-industrial English speaking nations (DfEE, 1998; No Child Left Behind NCLB, 2002 and NAPLAN, 2011). Furthermore, and in spite of critiques which range from statistical examinations of data for reading improvement (Loveless, 2012 and Tymms and Merrell, 2007) to critiques of testing as a limited and negative agent of change (Dulfer et al., 2012, Polesel et al., 2012, Ravitch, 2011 and Reese, 2013), many jurisdictions are increasing the testing of literacy (Common Core States Standards Initiative, 2012, Department for Education, 2013a, Department for Education, 2013b and NAPLAN, 2011). The explicit rationales behind these interventions are increased public accountability on state funded education, and the need for an educated workforce who can respond to the pressures of a globalised economy (NAPLAN, 2011). Yet at the same time, literacy (also English or the Language Arts) is often also seen as a subject which provides a creative space in which learners can find their ‘voice’ (Dymoke and Hughes, 2009, Fraser, 2006 and Misson and Sumara, 2006Morgan, 2006, Obied, 2007, Schwalb, 2006 and Sumara and Davis, 2006). Within this the writing of poetry is seen as a ‘natural’ activity for learners (Koch, 1970, Skelton, 2006 and Styles, 1992), affording it an almost totemic position as a creative enterprise. Drawing on a large national study, this paper seeks to illustrate how, when considering the writing of poetry, teachers describe poetry writing as a creative endeavour but nevertheless promote it as a ‘schooled’ and therefore safe version of the real thing.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
For Vygotsky (1962) the ability to play with language was crucial to the development of inner speech, through which the individual gains mastery of the world. This has much in common with the Aristotelian idea of mimesis, through which the reader and writer discover what is ‘out there’ ‘in here’. As Vygotsky would have it, the tool of language gives life to the symbols we encounter, in the world, in literature and in learning. Reflecting on how this happens in the sphere of poetry, Heaney has stated that poetry's first obedience is to ‘its joy in being a process of language as well as a representation of things in the world’ ( Heaney, 1995, p. 5, our italics): ‘The movement is from delight to wisdom and not vice versa’ (1995, p. 5). What Heaney asserts in prose, W.H. Auden declares in a poem. In ‘New Year Letter’ he depicts the tension between poetry as mimesis, which delights in itself, and claims made upon it to have a social responsibility: