creativity-in-language-teaching-2015

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 9 CREATIVITY THROUGH INQUIRY DIALOGUE Philip Chappell Introduction The concept of creativity carries with it the idea that something new and useful has emerged from some form of human endeavor (Lubart & Sternberg, 1999). Yet what constitutes “new” and “useful” and for whom, in what contexts, and how does it “emerge”? Similarly, dialogue, as opposed to merely any interac- tion, occurs when two or more people bring their unique perspectives together into a dialogic space, with new meanings emerging from those voices (Wegerif, 2013). Does it follow, then, that if we can say that those new, emerging meanings are useful in some way for the speakers, we have an example of creativity in that particular context? If so, then a remarkable opportunity presents itself to include a dialogic approach in educational contexts such as second-language classrooms. This is my intent in this chapter—first, to tease out what creativity can mean for second-language learning in the classroom, and second, to suggest how particular forms of classroom talk, especially those that are dialogic in nature, can be part of this process of emerging new meanings (creativity), and thus the learning of a second language. A Sociocultural View of Creativity in Human Development Imitation, Semiotic Mediation, and the Zone of Proximal Development Creativity is often viewed at the level of the individual creator. However, given that second-language classrooms are places where a significant amount of social interaction occurs, the view in this chapter is of creativity as a social rather than

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  131 an individual activity.The theoretical platform for this isVygotsky’s social interac- tionist view of learning and development, in which individual cognitive develop- ment is considered an outcome of interaction with others.This will be referred to as sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). An essential thread that weaves together the extensive ideas within sociocul- tural theory is imitation. To imitate is to base one’s own actions on models or examples of others. Cultural and social practices endure to a large extent through people, mainly during childhood, imitating the actions of others in their social surroundings. People keep store of these models and reproduce the actions in their own individual ways in order to adapt to current situations. We have all developed routine activities based on what we have seen from others that allow us to act in and on our world.Yet important as these habitual forms of behavior are, the human mind is capable of far more than merely reproducing past experi- ence for the present. It is capable of cognitive acts that combine and creatively rework parts of the past in order to give rise to new ideas and behaviors for the future (Vygotsky, 2004). It is this second form of imitation, cognitive activity that generates creativity, that is of current interest for the second-language classroom. A sociocultural perspective contends that cognitive acts have their roots in interactions between people. In accordance with this line of reasoning, any dis- cussion of creativity requires it to be situated as social cognitive activity (see Jones, this volume).This is not difficult for classroom language learning, since the social aspect is a given:There are students and teachers interacting together in the classroom for the purposes of teaching and learning new knowledge, skills, and understandings. The cognitive aspect can be explored through reimagining the well-known concept of the zone of proximal development (see what follows). Human learning is a profoundly social activity, mediated largely through lan- guage. This does not detract from an interest in studying how individuals learn and develop; rather, the focus is broadened to individuals systematically learning knowledge and skills through specific forms of interaction with others. Particu- larly in the classroom, this view steers clear of the notion of the learner as an indi- vidual organism acquiring knowledge in stages directly from the outside world. Rather, it foregrounds the belief that an essential part of learning is the inter- vention or mediation of an expert other (whether a teacher or fellow student) between the learner and the knowledge and skills to be learned. These socially mediated learning and teaching occasions are where language creativity occurs: the creation of new and personally relevant and meaningful forms of thinking and speaking for the future. Envisioning creativity in this way calls for an awareness of the dynamics of the interactions involving learners and the mediators of learning. This is made possible through a central concept of sociocultural theory—semiotic mediation. Semiotic, an adjective for semiosis, refers to learners interpreting the meaning- ful signs of others, which for our purposes here are mostly language-based signs.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 132  Philip Chappell Mediation refers to interventions by one person in another’s learning activity. Semiotic mediation, then, is the process whereby people meaningfully interact with others with the educational intent of intervening in each other’s learning activity. Language is the primary tool (sign system) to enable the intervention to be successful.The learner actively interprets the intervening act—the mediation—in order to make sense of the support that the other is offering.When this occurs in a second language, the sense that the learner makes of the interventions is often the result of dialogic negotiation of meaning with the mediator. Semiotic mediation promotes learning in zones of proximal development (ZPD), where there is a relationship of learning leading development. Learning activity involving semiotic mediation is a precursor for individual development. This idea is apparent in the definition of the ZPD: What we call the Zone of Proximal Development . . . is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solv- ing, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving [i.e., learning activity] under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86) This collective view of the creation of new second-language knowledge and understandings has been showcased empirically in classroom-based research (for example, Chappell, 2014b; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000), and it is now accepted that the guidance can be semiotic mediation in the hands of a teacher and her/his student(s), or in the hands of fellow students during small-group learning activ- ity (see Extracts 1 and 2 for examples).The creation of a ZPD is a social activity, which stimulates internal developmental processes that operate exclusively during meaningful interactions with others. Indeed,Vygotsky (2004, cited in Holzman, 2010, p. 30) used the phrase “a collective form of working together” to refer to the semiotic mediation that guides these processes. A ZPD opens up when an aspect of language emerges that is not fully developed and activity is directed at supporting the learner in developing greater linguistic control. These episodic learning moments constitute the engine room of the development of greater second-language proficiency. Sociocultural accounts of language learning include internalization, a process whereby the socially mediated activity is transformed into a learner’s own par- ticular way of thinking and doing. It is a transformation of activity-with-others into activity-for-self. For classroom second-language learning, this can be thought of as jointly constructed language that has emerged in classroom interaction trans- forming into new language for individual learners.This is new, personally mean- ingful language created as a result of learners saying or doing what may look like the same thing for everyone yet is unique to each individual (Newman & Holzman, 1993). Internalization thus extends the communicative potential of the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  133 learner.The important point to note is that this is goal-directed activity resulting in novelty and is qualitatively different from copying. It involves acts of imita- tion of the second kind (discussed earlier), which are fundamental for creative cognitive activity. Indeed, more than a century ago, Baldwin (1906), with striking sociocultural overtones, dubbed this persistent imitation, claiming, Imitation to the intelligent and earnest imitator is never slavish, never mere repetition; it is, on the contrary, a means for further ends, a method of absorbing what is present in others and of making it over in forms peculiar to one’s own temper and valuable to one’s own genius. (p. 22) Imitation plays a major role in instructional settings such as the language class- room. How a learner carries out a given task while interacting with peers and/ or the teacher in the present has the potential to be transformed into what s/he can do alone in a future time, unassisted. Imitation makes internalization possible. Internalization completes the creative process through “a transformation or reor- ganization of incoming information and mental structures based on the individ- ual’s characteristics and existing knowledge” (Moran & John-Steiner, 2003, p. 63). Thinking and Speaking In the second-language classroom, language is the goal of both learning and teach- ing activity, as well as the primary means for carrying it out. Semiotic mediation in ZPDs is aimed at building the communicative potential of the learners by encour- aging them to creatively internalize new language forms and uses. The unique feature of second-language classrooms is this dual role for language; it simultane- ously provokes thinking and speaking about language. Speaking and thinking can be thought of as a unitary process rather than simply viewing speech as a conduit for thought—“thought is not expressed but completed in the word” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 250).When we are talking about developing a learner’s second-language ability, we are at the same time talking about developing her or his ability to think in the second language. Language supports thinking and thinking supports lan- guage. During semiotic mediation in the classroom, when learning and teaching activity is working well to support language learning, the result is the creation of new ways of thinking and acting in that language. It stands to reason that if we can identify qualitatively superior forms of classroom talk, we should be in a position to claim that second-language creativity can be enhanced by this talk. Creativity is a function of learners’ life experiences.The richer the classroom is in developing and supporting these experiences for the learners, the greater potential there is for creativity to occur. The more a learner experiences and is stimulated through the senses, the more s/he can draw upon to ignite her or his creative imagination (Vygotsky, 2004). The language classroom is therefore a

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 134  Philip Chappell site with great potential to draw out all learners’ experiences, which align with opportunities to use language to create new language. The type of talk that can support this is discussed in a later section; first, the conditions that can enhance the creative potential of the second-language classroom are introduced in what follows. Conditions for Creativity in the Second-Language Classroom Flow Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b) is a peak state in which people are free to con- centrate on a goal-oriented task, and become fully absorbed in it, letting go of their immediate environment. Flow is crucial for creativity. It is intimately related to joy, happiness, and personal satisfaction, and the most common times when people experience flow are when they are engaged in dialogue with others (Csik- szentmihalyi, 1997a). Sawyer (2007, p. 43) extends this to group flow, indicating that for groups, “conversation leads to flow, and flow leads to creativity.” For the second-language classroom, then, it is useful to consider the conditions that can promote the type of talk that will enhance creative flow. I have drawn on and adapted the ideas of Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer to create a list of 10 conditions for creativity in the second-language classroom. These can be considered ideals to aim for and will be present to varying degrees in particular group classroom activities.   1. The learners have clear goals for the group learning task or activity.   2. Each learner’s utterances are genuine responses to others’ utterances.   3. Each learner’s attention is centered on the task, and there is a suspension of awareness of time as learners are absorbed in the here and now.   4. All learners are equally free to participate and contribute.   5. Each learner is invested with some shared control over the task.  6. There are episodes of “collective thinking” (Chappell, 2014b), when the group is co-constructing ideas and knowledge.   7. All learners and the teacher have shared responsibility to support each other’s language use.   8. Group cohesion is achieved through shared, tacit knowledge and ongoing feedback to each other.   9. Conversation during the task keeps moving forward. 10. There is a collaborative focus on transforming present understandings into new possibilities. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b; Sawyer, 2007) Classroom talk that creates conditions for group flow is clearly much more than the transactional talk of information exchanges common in second-language classrooms. It has a creative thrust, venturing into the unknown, into the world

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  135 of possibilities and new understandings.The meaning of each conversational turn may not be complete until the next response. It involves collective speaking com- pleting collective thinking, welcoming acts of semiotic mediation. This creates opportunities for students to experiment with their own and others’ thoughts and language, to think and act in new ways using the collective language of the classroom activity. What are the features of classroom talk that allow for creative flow and semiotic mediation to occur? Types of Talk In Chappell (2014a), I introduce a variety of types of talk, summarized inTable 9.1, taken from a large corpus of second-language classroom data. The first four are well documented in the literature on classroom discourse.Their default rhetorical structure is the IRF sequence: initiation–response–feedback, often referred to as the recitation script (Lemke, 1990).They are identifiable through teacher-led sets of questions that are often unrelated and require students to respond with factual answers and known information, for which they receive teacher feedback. TABLE 9.1 Types of Second-Language Classroom Talk (adapted from Alexander, 2001, 2008; Cazden, 2001; Chappell, 2014b; Lindfors, 1999; Mehan, 1979; Mercer, 2000) Type of Talk Description Rote Recitation and Product The drilling of language items through sustained repetition Elicitation The accumulation of knowledge and understanding Process Elicitation through questions designed to test or stimulate recall Instruction/Exposition of what has been previously encountered or to cue students to work out the answer from clues in the Discussion question Inquiry Dialogue Seeking an opinion or interpretation or a reflection by the student on her or his thinking Telling the students what to do and/or imparting information, often about target-language items, and/ or explaining facts or principles about language and/ or explaining the procedure of an activity and/or modeling the talk and behaviors of an activity The exchange of ideas with a view to sharing information and/or solving problems Achieving common understanding through structured inquiry, wondering (playing with possibilities, reflecting, considering, exploring), and discussion that guide and prompt, build on each other’s contributions (cumulative talk), reduce choices, and expedite the handover of concepts and principles

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 136  Philip Chappell Discussion Discussion, involving exchanging ideas in order to share information or solve problems, is a hallmark of communicative language teaching which, in its stron- ger or weaker forms, makes extensive use of discussion activities. They are often conducted as small-group activities in which the teacher takes a less direct and more facilitative role, leaving the groups to share information and solve problems without direct intervention. It is a useful stage in a lesson that allows students to share their experiences and build field knowledge for later parts of the lesson. At the same time, it can provide opportunities for semiotic mediation through col- lective scaffolding and negotiation when breakdowns in meaning occur. An example of collective scaffolding is presented as Extract 1, where a group of three students is discussing popular tourist attractions. G indicates that he requires support in choosing the generalized noun (entertainment place). N’s response indi- cates his incomplete knowledge of this term (This is most general), and R provides the support by way of offering a noun with prepositional phrase (place for entertain- ment). G takes up this support and reformulates it as a more elaborate noun group (fantastic entertainment place). Collectively, no one student demonstrated complete knowledge of the noun phrase, yet with the mediation of R by way of her sup- plying the generalized noun entertainment and G’s creative reformulation of it to a fantastic entertainment place, a process of collective scaffolding results in more sophisticated language emerging in the group discussion. G: Phuket Fantasea the Phuket Fantasea what is called Phuket Fantasea in general? N: This is most general. G: Phuket Fantasea general in in like I don’t know what you call it for Phuket Fantasea R: place for entertainment hmm entertainment [nods] N: [nodding] Hmm Hm. Hmm Hm. Hmm Hm. G: Fanta no is a fantastic entertainment place.You have to visit it too right? Extract 1: Collective Scaffolding in Discussion Activity An example of negotiation of meaning in Discussion is presented in Extract 2. Here,T and L are discussing a scenario reported on in an audio recording where a mountain-climbing accident had occurred.They negotiate the suitability of two lexical items—experience and ability. L insists on ability being the appropriate lexical item, and T concurs twice; once when L explains the difference and again when the teacher (Tchr) confirms in the next stage of the lesson. T:   They took an unnex . . . an inexperienced climber L:    an ability T:    Er (shaking head) they didn’t have er

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  137 L:    experience T:    (shaking head) er abil er all of them took an inexperienced climber but Gary doesn’t have ability L:      Yes ability inexperience in climb mountain we not do not know he have ability or not ability but T:    er  no L:    he not have experience he’s inexperience T:    er OK (making a note on paper) . . . Tchr:     G ary had climbed mountains before but nothing as big as this so he didn’t have experience climbing really high mountains T:   Yes. No experience L:    Gary has no experience Extract 2: Negotiation of Meaning in Discussion Activity Both of the examples provide some positive evidence for semiotic mediation in collective forms of working together resulting in creative appropriation of language at the microgenetic level, or the unfolding of a single conceptual act (Wertsch, 1985). However, not all discussion activities unfold in such a positive manner; there can often be a failure to meet the criteria for creative flow.At times, there is far less engagement in the activity, with few signs of shared tacit knowl- edge. Genuine responses and feedback to each other are uncommon, and while the learners are involved in the same activity, they may well have quite different goals for their own participation. Or, in fact, expectations of patterns and rituals that develop among particular groups of students with their teacher may place pressure on the students in group activities to focus on being prepared to report their findings in the next phase of the lesson, thus constraining the activity and dampening opportunities for quality discussion. Typical turns at talk in discussion activities involve stating facts or opinions, explaining or justifying an opinion, and clarifying a statement. These turns can have a lot in common with the student responses to teachers’ initiations in reci- tation and product and process elicitation.They can appear more like an extract from a presentation of findings and less like free-flowing, creative talk. Barnes (2008) recognizes this in mainstream classrooms, describing it as more final than first draft. Often, the next anticipated phase of the lesson involves the teacher nominating each student to present his or her information or a spokesperson to do so on behalf of the group.The rhetorical staging of the talk has a dampening effect.The feedback move constrains opportunities for future-oriented discussion. There is very little evidence of thinking and speaking developing dialectically to create individually significant new forms of language. Discussion activities can run the risk of being preparation for recitation activity; although students are seated in groups, they may well be working as individuals.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 138  Philip Chappell Consider the following extract from a discussion between two students after listening to an audio recording from a radio play based on the famous H. G.Wells science fiction novel The War of the Worlds. L and R exchange their opinions. Each student has a quite different interpretation than the other, yet there is no recognition or elaboration of this. In the first stage, R and L use a typical IRF pattern, with R intervening to correct word form in between, in an evanescent episode of semiotic mediation. In the second stage, the IRF pattern is repeated. Notice that the Feed- back phase of each stage is a simple minor clause uhu, with no follow-up discussion about the ideas of earth being invaded by aliens, the authenticity of the “hoax,” and its historical significance.While this fulfills the criteria for discussion, it fails against criteria for creative flow and displays striking similarities to recitation.The responses seem to close off opportunities for further talk rather than opening up possibilities for more inquiry. Both L and R have produced responses that are final draft and ready to be presented to the class; further discussion is therefore unnecessary. And indeed, the next stage of the lesson had selected students to do just that and report to the class, with the teacher writing the responses on the whiteboard. It is notable that the conditions for creative flow are not met, especially the lack of collective thinking, the stalling rather than driving forward of the conversation, and absence of genuine, constructive responses to each other’s contributions. R:     And what was the topic about? L:    I think I think it sounds like it make a lot of people er people thought that the earth was being invade R:    invaded L:    invaded by aliens R:    Uhu L:     What do you think? R:    I think it’s two reasons one because of the broadcast because of the sound of the broadcast it seemed real L:    (nodding head) hm hm R:    the story the drama that was played was very short L:    Uhu R:     and the second, at the time world politic the Europeans was starting to join World War 2 . . . so the people seems insecurity L:    (nodding head) Hm. Hmm. Tchr:    O  K. Let’s have some answers. Uuh. D.What . . . ? Extract 3: Constrained Discussion Activity Inquiry Dialogue Inquiry dialogue is characterized by the development of common understandings through talk in structured inquiry, acts of wondering (playing with possibilities,

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  139 reflecting, considering, exploring) and discussion. In these interaction episodes, there is mutual guiding and prompting, where each builds on the others’ contributions (cumulative talk), reducing choices, and ultimately expediting the handover of con- cepts and principles. While discussion activities are primarily transacting informa- tion and opinions, inquiry dialogue moves beyond this and has greater potential to enhance creativity through talk in the second-language classroom. It does this by opening up possibilities to explore, share, and enquire about things that matter to students in their lifeworlds. It draws out learners’ life experiences, thus creating more fertile contexts for creativity. New meanings and new language emerge from the talk in which speaking and thinking coexist as collective thinking/speaking, with waves of episodes when one student’s words complete another student’s thoughts. Semiotic mediation occurs when ZPDs spontaneously open up as the spoken text unfolds. In the analysis of Extract 4, I have focused on the rhetorical staging of the inquiry dialogue—how the acts of inquiry function differently to create an unfold- ing inquiry dialogue.These stages include initiating, proposing, accepting, extend- ing, and narrowing topics for inquiry. This highlights the ways the participants’ talk moves the conversation forward and opens up possibilities for inquiry. Con- versely, analysis of Extract 5 highlights how the use of closed (limited-response) questions using the IRF speech genre closes down any possibilities for genuine inquiry. I have dealt with the qualitative linguistic differences in detail elsewhere (Chappell 2014a, 2014b). Briefly, first, there is a preponderance of inquiry acts, which function to engage fellow learners in one’s efforts to more fully understand something; second, the use of incongruent grammatical forms to realize these inquiry acts, which is not the usual turn sequence of interrogatives followed by declaratives as in Extract 2, and Extract 5. Rather, there are more sequences of declaratives functioning to wonder—to keep the topic open, to ponder and play with possibilities, and to keep the conversation moving forward. A further difference that I want to explore here is the shift in speech genre and rhetorical structure together with a change in register of the classroom talk. If the conventional pattern of talk in the language classroom is realized in IRF sequences, then inquiry dialogue has a subverting function. The goal of the talk and the stages through which the classroom text moves are focused on opening up the field to the unexpected, rather than IRF, which often closes off possibili- ties for genuine inquiry.When inquiry dialogue starts, it privileges the unknown future and the new. It initiates acts of creativity by altering the field (the topic of the talk) and the tenor of the discourse (the roles and relations of the speakers). The topic becomes more free flowing, opening up to wondering and pondering over ideas.The students become co-explorers of new ideas, respectfully support- ing each other’s contributions by building upon them.They work constructively with the teacher to keep the conversation moving forward.They do this by con- structing meaning out of each other’s contributions, building upon those mean- ings with their own contributions. This is far from the exchange of linguistic

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 140  Philip Chappell tokens or superficial facts or opinions of discussion and other forms of talk. It is making others’ ideas over for oneself—a profound form of creativity. Extracts 4 and 5 provide a contrast of the genre of dialogic inquiry with that of the recitation script involving product elicitation. First, the rhetorical stages are presented of a short inquiry dialogue episode for a seemingly mundane activ- ity whose aim is to create life histories for people based on their portraits. The episode is in two parts—first, the teacher works together with the whole class on one portrait, modeling the activity. Especially notable is the way that he models inquiry acts.The second part is the talk of one small group of three students. Note in both parts the main stage where most of the talk occurs is the extend topic of inquiry stage. TABLE 9.2  Inquiry Dialogue Inquiry Dialogue Rhetorical Structure Initiate inquiry T: What do you think about these people and their Propose topic for inquiry life? Accept and extend topic of inquiry Extend topic of inquiry S1:  I think they falling in love Ss:  (Group laughter) Narrow focus of inquiry T:       F alling in love. OK. So maybe what, not married Extend topic of inquiry yet? Ss:      No. Not yet (in unison) T:       So I  wonder.They still love each other.They’re not fighting yet. Ss:  (Group laughter) S6:  Maybe fighting already S5:  A nd the guy that man asks for maybe asks for one more chance. S4:  Forgive me.      (Group laughter) T:    I’m sorry. I won’t do it again.     (Group laughs loudly) S1:  Maybe they are not a couple S2:  Det det T:    Det S3:  signals circles with hand S2: Deting T:    D ating.They’re dating. OK. Do you think they’re working or students? S2: University. T:    University. S5:  How about lady is a student and man is a teacher?     (Group laughs loudly) T:    I don’t I don’t think so because usually the S5:  Yeah she looks young (group laughter) T:    y eah but the problem is that usually the teachers are more handsome than this      (Group laughter and groans)

Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  141 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Inquiry Dialogue Rhetorical Structure Initiate new Inquiry activity (in T:    O K.Take a minute. Look at the next three pictures.What can you tell about picture B, C and small groups) D.Anything you can guess. Initiate topic for inquiry Group of three students Accept and extend topic of inquiry Extend topic of inquiry A:   I think it could be about some wine S:     uhu uhu wine Initiate topic for inquiry B:   Y  es and maybe he’s the owner wine shop Extend topic of inquiry S:     N o I think not the owner because he look he looks too young B:    Er Ok employee employee A:     Y es he looks about 30 years old so maybe he’s full time working S:     I think number A and number B is like teenager lifestyle and when they grow up they like maybe housewife and B:    Housewife? (all three laugh) A:   Y  es housewife B:    Yes S:     And C is like professor in university A:   Y  es and I wonder if he enjoy life more now S:    Y  es I think so because look at him smile right now B:    Hm. I want to know why smile smiling Now compare the stages of the inquiry dialogue with the recitation script using product elicitation, which is ostensibly an activity with similar aims to Extract 4.The teacher with the whole class is discussing a football match they had watched the day before.This is but a short episode of a much longer transcript of classroom talk in which IRF dominates throughout. Of the 11 questions asked, 8 are closed, requiring a limited response (usually yes or no). Of the three open questions, in which a wide range of answers is possible, all are quickly shut down by the teacher, closing off any possibilities for expanding topics. Given this is an episode exploring word meaning in the context of students’ real-world experi- ences, one might expect some more opening up of the topics. The intention is not to place value judgments on the pedagogical usefulness of using the IRF sequence but to show through contrast how a teacher’s strategic use of instructional talk can create classroom contexts in which students are exploring ideas together and creating possibilities for the future, even in a seemingly unre- markable language-learning activity such as Extract 4.Through their talk, teachers can engender the conditions for creative flow, thus establishing conditions condu- cive to second-language classroom creativity. Inquiry dialogue is a natural partner for creative flow. In creative group flow, collective insights emerge through the dialectic of thinking and speaking, creating multiple opportunities for ZPDs to open up when the need for semiotic mediation arises.

TABLE 9.3  IRF Sequences in Whole-Class Discussion Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 T:   Now, was it a close match last night? IRF Turns Open (O) or closed Ss:  No. No. No. (C) question T:   It wasn’t a close match? I S1:   W  hat you mean by close? What do you mean? R C T:   Right. F C       W  hat do I mean by close match? R O S2:   O ne good team ah and the other team ah is very F O I bad R C T:     No S3:  No it’s not F C T:     A  h.We’re going to the Old Town railway station F I O soon. Is it close? C S3:   Y  es.Yes it’s close. It’s near the school. R T:    Y   eah. It’s near the school. F C Ss:    Y  es F(s) T:   It’s close, yeah? F C    Now last night, was it a close match? I S4:  But, er, I think that the meaning will change. R S2:   Y  eah R T:     W  as it a close match? I S3:  W  hat do you mean by close? R T:     W  hat do I mean by close? F    I’m trying to find out if you know the meaning I of a close match, yeah? R S1:   T  he teams are both good. F T:     A  h! Very good.Very good.Yeah.The teams are I both good. R      What was the score? R S5:  1–1. F/I S4:   2–1 R T:   What was the score last night? F Ss:    2–1 T:  2–1 yeah? Er, if the score had been 6–1, it I R wouldn’t have been a close match. But if it’s 1–1 F or 2–1, then that’s a close match. R S4:  T  he teams are the same. FC T:   OK. I      V ery good. R S4:  W  e talk about the score. F T:   Right!    So was it a close match? Ss:   Yes.Yeah.Yes. T:   It was a close match.Alright. Now let’s go on . . .

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  143 Implications for Classroom Teaching Classroom talk can be taken for granted by language teachers despite its unques- tionable importance for learning and teaching. Indeed, a sociocultural account of second-language learning assigns a profound status to language as the primary source of cognition (see Jones, this volume). It deserves not to be taken for granted but to be strategically managed by the classroom teacher.This is no mean feat, but I hope readers have seen how rich the rewards can be.As a first step, teachers would be wise to reflect on the types of talk that occur in the classrooms in which they work with language students.Table 9.1 provides a summary of these types and can be the source of a variety of informal or formal classroom research activities in which teachers can analyze their classroom talk.There are endless opportunities to align discussion and inquiry dialogue with tasks and activities in which the condi- tions for creative group flow are present. Extract 4 provides an example of how teachers can model the inquiry dialogue for students. Indeed, I observed each day of this teacher and his class over a 6-week period and can say that by building inquiry dialogue into each lesson, both in the teacher talk with the whole class and student talk in small groups, the opportunities for spontaneous inquiry dialogue grow.Yet it does need to be strategically managed, for as mentioned earlier, inquiry dialogue has a subverting role and can interfere with classroom routines and rituals as much as it can enhance the opportunities for genuine language learning to take place. Questions for Discussion 1. Generally, creativity is often viewed on the individual level, when such peo- ple as artists, songwriters, and storytellers come to mind. Do you tend to view creativity as an individual process or more of a social one? Have the ideas in this chapter changed how you might think about creativity in the second-language classroom? In what way? 2. For many language teachers, there is a role for copying, another for repetition, and another for imitation. How do you view these three terms in light of how imitation has been presented in this chapter? 3. How does semiotic mediation as a theory for classroom teaching and learning compare to other constructs, such as negotiation of meaning or scaffolding? 4. A Piagetian view of development is that an individual will only learn when s/he is at the appropriate stage of development. Conversely, the view pro- posed in this chapter is that learning leads development.The Piagetian view is attractive in language programs that are streamed by proficiency level. How might the position of learning leading development be applied in structured programs such as these? 5. Is it possible for a classroom activity to meet all 10 conditions for creative flow? Use this list to analyze a recent classroom activity that you have set up and reflect on the usefulness of the list for classroom planning.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 144  Philip Chappell 6. How useful for classroom teachers is Table 9.1: Types of Second-Language Classroom Talk? Are there other types that could be included in the table? 7. Inquiry dialogue is concerned with expanding the topics and talk of an activ- ity. It assumes that language learning needs will emerge through the talk. What opportunities, if any, does this offer you in your learning and teaching context? 8. What kind of research issues does this chapter raise, and how could some of these issues be researched? Suggestions for Further Research 1. Improving the talk of the language classroom can have clear potential ben- efits for language learners.A possible action research project could start with the issue of identifying the types of talk that occur in a teacher’s classroom and then make successive changes to introduce more inquiry dialogue. 2. Inquiry dialogue has the potential to support second-language learning in a variety of ways. More longitudinal studies are required that investigate what aspects of language benefit the most from dialogic approaches to classroom teaching.There are several possibilities for a mixed-methods research design that can weave quantitative and qualitative data analysis together to describe and explain classroom language development over time. References Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Malden, MA:Wiley. Alexander, R. J. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge. Baldwin, J. M. (1906). Mental development in the child and the race. New York: Macmillan. Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–15). London: Sage. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse:The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Ports- mouth, NH: Heinemann. Chappell, P. J. (2014a). Engaging learners: Conversation or dialogic driven pedagogy? ELT Journal, 68(1), 1–11. Chappell, P. J. (2014b). Group work in the English language curriculum: Sociocultural and ecological perspectives on second language classroom learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997a). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997b). Finding flow. New York: Basic Books. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In G. Appel & J. P. Lantolf (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Holzman, L. (2010). Without creating ZPDs there is no creativity. In M. C. Connery, V. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural-historical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts (pp. 27–40). New York: Peter Lang.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity Through Inquiry Dialogue  145 Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language develop- ment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ:Ablex. Lindfors, J.W  . (1999). Children’s inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world. New York: Teachers College Press. Lubart,T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1999).The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge. Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contribution to the dialectic of creativity and development. In R. Keith Sawyer,V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Cre- ativity and development (pp. 61–90). New York: Oxford University Press. Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). LevVygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. NewYork: Routledge. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius:The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). M. Cole, S. Scribner,V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S.Vygotsky (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the digital age. New York: Routledge. Wertsch, J.V . (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 10 CREATIVE CRITICALITY IN MULTILINGUAL TEXTS Julie Choi Background In the summer of 2012, I taught on a three-week intensive language and cultural exchange program at a university in Sydney that consisted of 29 undergraduate Japanese students from various Japanese universities and three Chinese students who were studying as international students in different Japanese universities.The subject was called Experiencing Australian Language and Culture.As part of their final task, I asked students in groups of six or seven to decide on one message related to the intersections of language, culture, and identity they would like to communicate to their friends, relatives, or teachers when they are back in Japan. Over our three weeks together, the students made it clear to me that they regarded visual imagery, including silence, as important types of language, so for this final task, I instructed the students to illustrate their message using media other than language, not using written language. Once the illustrations were complete, stu- dents were asked to write short captions in any language(s) they preferred and draw on any linguistic resource they felt would be useful in describing their art- works. Prior to this task, students were exposed to several everyday examples of written texts that portrayed the use of multiple languages by multilingual speakers. I specifically mentioned that I was interested in seeing what their own multilin- gual texts would look like. Figures 10.1 through 10.5 are their illustrations and captions.1 As students embarked on the task, I noticed they were most comfortable speaking in Japanese when making big decisions (e.g., negotiating a theme, set- ting individual responsibilities) for the project. English was used to communicate the new terms they learned in class such as “fixity,” “fluidity,” “flux,” “agency,”

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 FIGURE 10.1  Group 1—tangram and chain Note: A tangram is a Chinese geometric puzzle consisting of a square cut into seven pieces that can be arranged to make various other shapes.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 FIGURE 10.2  Group 2—cooking identity

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 FIGURE 10.3  Group 3—Ferris wheel of culture

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 FIGURE 10.4  Group 4—harmony of identity

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 (Continued)

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 FIGURE 10.5  Group 5—encounter

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creative Criticality in Multilingual Texts  153 “hybridity”—words they didn’t know the equivalent to in Japanese. Sometimes their conversations would drift off into unrelated topics where I could hear stu- dents singing K-pop songs and mimicking the voices of their favorite K-pop stars in Korean. I saw Chinese students looking up their electronic Chinese-Japanese dictionaries to convey to their Japanese peers certain concepts in Chinese (such as 七巧板: a tangram) that they thought might be interesting for the project.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 154  Julie Choi Often just showing the characters was enough for Japanese students to get the gist of what the concept meant or what the equivalent was in Japanese. The written part of the task consisted of multiple drafts in which students translated the texts from Japanese to English. The use of electronic dictionaries, transla- tion apps, and search engines was essential, but I was never asked whether cer- tain words, expressions or grammatical constructions were correct or native-like. Where they had to choose from a list of synonyms, the students often went with their intuitions of the words that sounded closest to what they wanted to express. Where there was ambivalence, they engaged with others, asking if their usage and meaning was “なんとなく [somewhat] understood.”They would exchange thoughts on what the shape and sounds of words felt like in the other languages they had knowledge of (see Kramsch, 2009, for similar examples from her stu- dents). A high tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity (see Jones, this volume), moments of silence while thinking and feeling words, ease in switching into and drawing on other languages, and eagerness for collaboration are how they got the job done.2 Although at first glance their final products may not seem like “multilingual” texts because they are written solely in English, I regard them as such because their very conception is based on the use of different aspects of their linguistic repertoire, knowledge, resources, and intuitive understandings. In other words, different forms of communication, languages, including the ones that the students regard as equally important types of languages such as images and silence, are what make up and lie between and behind the texts.The surface use of English here may merely be a way of demonstrating that they can do the work solely in English. It is through these understandings of students’ linguistic capabilities and the identity of their texts that Li’s (2011) notion of “creativity” began to interest me. The students’ mixing of linguistic resources affords them the ability to choose between following and flouting the rules and norms of behaviour, including the use of language. It is about pushing and break- ing the boundaries between the old and the new, the conventional and the original, and the acceptable and the challenging. (p. 1223) For Li, there is an intrinsic link between creativity and criticality that “one cannot push or break boundaries without being critical; and the best expression of one’s criticality is one’s creativity” (ibid.). As I return to the students’ creative artworks, I realize this set of texts is a prime example of his notion of creativity in multi- lingual performances and simultaneously my own lack of “critical visual literacy” (see Falihi & Wason-Ellam, 2009) as a multilingual teacher. Learning to read multilingual texts is a skill that requires education, experi- ence, imagination, and a willingness to engage with the familiar and unfamiliar,

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creative Criticality in Multilingual Texts  155 a valuable skill for educators teaching in increasingly heterogeneous and multi- modal times. In this chapter, using Li’s (2011) definition of “creativity” as a starting point, I present my own reading of their artworks as one way of illuminating the dimensions of “criticality” that lie in their texts, which I now think of as “creative criticality.”The aim here is two-fold; I hope to bring awareness of the importance of being able and willing to step out of our own ways of knowing when visiting the creative language acts by multilingual authors and, in doing so, provoke lan- guage teachers and other interested readers to (a) critically reflect on what sits at the core of their own understandings of “multilingualism” and “language” more generally and (b) invite others to offer their own scholarly interpretations to these and their own learners’ creative texts. Reading Breaking boundaries is a strong feature in many of the students’ works, as clearly stated by students in Figure 10.1:“a piece of paper expresses breaking stereo-type that we just draw a picture;” Figure 10.3: “it is important to break the stereo- types;” and Figure 10.5: “we broke the stereotype which we took for granted. The teared paper represents breaking stereotype.” Boundary-breaking work may also be seen visually in the playful image of the salmon door and avocado wheels on a public Sydney bus heading to the beach (see waves on the windscreen) in Figure 10.3. The artist depicts the ubiquity of salmon avocado sushi rolls avail- able in Sydney, a combination of particular ingredients that may be thought to have originated in Japan. Here, I am reminded of Pennycook’s (2007) statement on the notion of “creativity as recontextualized performance” that “repetition always entails difference, since no two moments, events, words can be the same” (p. 585). In this recontextualization or repetition of the familiar, the combination of salmon and avocado is no longer a type of food that one may only expect to see in Japan but is reconstructed as images that are built into the public, social fabric of the daily lives of Sydney residents as part of Australia’s cultural artifact. For this artist, she has learned that salmon and avocado means something differ- ent in Japan and Australia. Such blendings are not a matter of separating what is “ours” versus “theirs” but is perhaps better understood as a sense of “shar- ing” and “combining” cultures, artifacts, and identities as seen in the theme of Figure 10.2—“sharing identity.” Recontextualization of stereotypical cultural elements may also be portrayed as things that “both are and are not” (Pennycook, 2007, p. 593) simultaneously. Sameness and difference may be two sides of the same coin as seen in the illustra- tion of the juxtaposition of Japanese and Australian cultural practices and objects in Figure 10.3. Japan has monkeys that eat bananas; Australia has kangaroos and koalas that eat eucalyptus leaves. People riding trains in Japan are quiet; in Austra- lian trains, the term “OMG” (oh my god) can be heard frequently. Japanese meals

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 156  Julie Choi consist of rice, miso soup, and fish;Australian meals are portrayed with sandwiches. Japan has pagodas; Australia has the Sydney Opera House. It is cloudy and rainy in Japan but sunny in Australia. In this illustration, Japanese and Australian cultural practices, objects, and characteristics are complementary—one enables us to see the other.They do not occur across boundaries but are entangled together in the same space such as in Figure 10.4, where objects do not appear in neatly orga- nized or systematized manners but exist chaotically entangled around, behind, and on top of each other without a central focus. A clearer representation of entanglements is seen in Figure 10.1. Each stu- dent illustrates objects of interest, memories of experiences, and moments they have enjoyed in Sydney. Fragments of the past and present are complicatedly and fluidly entangled together through the concept of a tangram. However, the chain is more than a tool to link their individual worlds together.The final shape represents a particular world they have created together. This new world they have co-created may be indicative of Kramsch’s (1993) notion of “third place,” that is, [students] learn to have a different relation to place—not only places on the map, but a third place in between grammars, styles and categories of thought.The world they engage with . . . [are] voyages of self-discovery and explorations into the very boundaries of meaning. (Kramsch, 2011, p. 6) In more recent literature, researchers use the term “translanguaging space” to emphasize that this is “not a space where different identities, values and practices simply co-exist, but combine together to generate new identities, values and practices” (Li, 2011, p. 1223). It is a space created “for the multilingual language user by bringing together different dimensions of their personal history, experi- ence, and environment, their attitude, belief and ideology, their cognitive and physical capacity into one coordinated and meaningful performance, and making it into a lived experience” (ibid.). “Third places” or “translanguaging spaces” are their own “site of renewal of diversity” (Pennycook, 2006, p. 114), a site where “dominant understandings do no longer work” (Blommaert, 2005, p. 106), where old hegemonies are in the process of breaking apart, as shown explicitly through pieces of blocks still currently in motion falling away from the Japanese flag in Figure 10.3. There is a powerful sense of agency in the renewing or refashioning of the self, group, or society in the majority of the groups’ works, a sense of renewal that is currently taking place in the present in statements such as,“We affect each other and we think, change, and do then we make a society” (Figure 10.1), “we choose others’ culture, combine them and make our own identity” (Figure 10.2), “first of all we showed our own identities that painted what we wanted to paint.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creative Criticality in Multilingual Texts  157 Then, the unique identity influenced each other, finally it became this unique culture of Group 4” (Figure 10.4), “now, we have our own thoughts on [what language, culture, identity and the relationship between them is] . . . we create our own new world, identity and idea” (Figure 10.5). The multilingual participants in Li’s study on translanguaging spaces also call for a renewal in thinking about how one’s multilinguality may be performed. That is, multilingual speakers are not interested in “know[ing] all the languages fully and separately.They want to be able to pick and mix amongst the languages they know at various levels.They want to do translanguaging” (Li, 2011, p. 1228; see also Blackledge & Creese, 2009). If language as a noun is being transformed into a verb as languaging to denote an ongoing process, it may also be possible to make a similar inference in Figure 10.4, where students title their work “Cooking Identity” as a way of sug- gesting things actively “in the making” or an ongoing sense of becoming rather than a fixed and finished identity as a cook. There was one incident that occurred as I was monitoring the groups that is worth mentioning here. I noticed that a student was using written language in her artwork at the stage where I specifically asked the students not to use this form of language.When I exclaimed,“Fran, you’re not supposed to use written language, remember?!” She simply looked up at me and replied,“I know. But you said rules are always being broken when it comes to language.” Such acts of “criticality,” the “ability to use available evidence appropriately, systematically and insightfully to inform considered views of cultural, social and linguistic phenomena, to ques- tion and problematize received wisdom, and to express views adequately through reasoned responses to situations” (Li, 2011, p. 1223), as I see it now, underlie all of the students’ creative work included here. As a preliminary understanding based on my reading and memories, break- ing boundaries, recontextualization, an ongoing sense of becoming and renewal, unexpectedness, uncertainty, and criticality are some out of the many possible inherent qualities that can be found in multilingual students’ creative acts of lan- guage.The use of English for these multilingual speakers, as I understand it, is no longer a simple “tool kit,” a mere tool to communicate or a language they need in order to survive and be successful in an increasingly globalized world. For these learners, it is in English that they “[realize] how words come to shape our expres- sion of self, as well as their influence on relationships we have with others and the world around us” (Cross, 2012, p. 436). Hanauer (2012) also points out in his second-language classrooms, using other forms of artistic expressions such as ESL poetry writing, “the English language becomes a personal, emotive and expres- sive resource” (p. 114) for his learners. Language education in modern times must facilitate various forms of skills and knowledge, one of which will be to find more meaningful and imaginative ways to productively channel and leverage learners’ capabilities and sense of agency.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 158  Julie Choi Self-Reflection I have come to see these multilingual texts as “poetic constructions” (Blom- maert, 2005), and in doing so, I move away from ideas of language that view languages as separate, discrete, and isolated systems/codes, from monolingual- ist to translingualist assumptions (see Canagarajah, 2013). In making learners’ personal life trajectories a part of their language-learning journey, I value the ideas that are embedded in an “ecological-semiotic perspective on self.” Such a view “considers not only a person’s past history, but also her present action and struggles and her future projections” (van Lier, 2007, p. 57). In a fast-paced, flex- ible, and demanding multimodal world, the use of various “modes of representa- tion” (see Kress, 2003) is critical for both teachers and learners. Not only must those involved in language education be able to engage with different modes of learning, but skills to be able to capture the process and read the products that are produced through those modes are necessary for both teachers and learners. Creativity is ripe and lurks in the interstices of our designs for learning.To what degree our designs, approaches, and ideals allow for creativity to be able to flow in, and whether we are able or willing to recognize certain works as creative, depend on the level of understanding, interest, and skill of those involved in language education. In Local Knowledge, Geertz states that in dealing with others’ imaginations, we do not “[look] behind the interfering glosses that connect us to others’ texts but through them” (1983, p. 44). In the context of reading texts created by multilingual language learners, I take this to mean that one needs to set aside one’s own lenses and look directly into the “wider social and historical patterns that direct the hands, gaze, mouths, ears of those who communicate” (Blommaert, 2005, p. 123). As Pennycook (2007) also suggests,“in order to understand creative language acts we have to engage with the textual worlds of others rather than remain only in our own” (p. 593). Such moments of looking are opportunities to critically reflect on our own ideologies and assumptions of what counts as meaningful language teaching and learning for language learners living in a world characterized by fluidity.We need to find ways of looking through the interfering glosses, reading between the lines, and questioning what lies behind. As I read the drawing of me embracing Australia and Japan in the farewell card given to me (see Figure 10.6) by the students, I realize the multiplicity of identi- ties and positions that multilingual learners make possible for their teachers also. One can be a Korean-American teacher, teaching Japanese and Chinese students about experiencing Australian language and culture, not by following some pre- conceived or prepackaged themes and others’ rules but by creatively and critically tapping into the unique resources available to those who are in the teaching and learning environment to co-create alternative and expanding intertextual worlds that starts with the knowledge of difference as the norm.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creative Criticality in Multilingual Texts  159 FIGURE 10.6  Farewell message given to me by a student Questions for Discussion 1. What do you regard as multilingual texts? Must there be several different languages present in order for a text to be counted as a multilingual text? 2. What ideas of language, texts, and resources guide your own ways of reading semiotic texts created by language learners? 3. How do you feel about the use of technological devices in the language classroom? 4. How do you make decisions on what the best approaches and tasks are for language learning and teaching? 5. What kinds of classroom tasks might facilitate personally meaningful expres- sion for language learners? 6. What is your opinion on teachers using memories, anecdotes, observations, and students’ works in doing academic work? What issues do these ways of making sense of their teaching practices raise?

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 160  Julie Choi 7. What methods and forms of analysis might be suitable in reading creative documents? 8. Should assessments only be in the form of written texts? Could artworks such as the ones included here be acceptable for assessment purposes? If so, how might they be assessed? Are assessments necessary? Suggestions for Further Research 1. Think about how you might use students’ works, your memories, stories, and reflective notes from your own classrooms for professional development. What possible approaches and methods are there for teachers interested in learning from critical self-reflections? 2. As I contact students for their consent in using their artworks, I am discover- ing how meaningful this act of getting their work published is to them, as it validates their experience and the interesting work they produced. Many of them have made the comment that they didn’t realize they were being creative or that these were creative. They are learning from their own texts and through my interpretations. If you take the position that involving our learners in the process of doing research is a meaningful activity and a learn- ing opportunity for all those involved, think about a viable research design that would allow researchers and participants to coproduce the final text. Notes 1 I am grateful to my students for giving me permission to use their artworks and help- ing me decipher some of the images. Many students were happy for their names to be included, but in taking precautionary measures, I have decided not to make their identi- ties identifiable, and in some cases I have used pseudonyms.The only regret some of the students expressed to me personally was at the fact that the images would not be in color, as they felt the vibrancy of their artwork would be lost. I have assured them that I would point this out. 2 These collaborative conversations and interactions were not recorded. References Blackledge,A., & Creese,A. (2009). Multilingualism:A critical perspective. London: Continuum. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Oxford: Routledge. Cross, R. (2012). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second lan- guage classroom. Australian Educational Researcher, 39, 431–445. Falihi,A., &Wason-Ellam, L. (2009). Critical visuality: On the development of critical visual literacy for learners’ empowerment. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 409–417.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creative Criticality in Multilingual Texts  161 Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. NewYork: Basic. Hanauer, D. (2012). Meaningful literacy: Writing poetry in the language classroom. Lan- guage Teaching, 45(1), 105–115. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject:What foreign language learners say about their expe- rience and why it matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2011).The multilingual subject. Townsend Newsletter, 5–6. Berkeley:Townsend Center for the Humanities, University of California. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Li,W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of iden- tities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222–1235. Pennycook, A. (2006). Language education as translingual activism. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 26(1), 111–114. Pennycook,A. (2007).“The rotation gets thick.The constraints get thin”: Creativity, recon- textualization, and difference. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 579–596. van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity, innovation in language learning and teaching. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 This page intentionally left blank

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 SECTION III Creativity in the Curriculum

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 This page intentionally left blank

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 11 CREATIVITY IN THE CURRICULUM Kathleen Graves In this chapter, I will write about curriculum as a conceptual space. Being cre- ative within a conceptual space involves exploring it, experimenting with dif- ferent aspects of the space, making changes within it, and possibly transforming it. In exploring the space, one can discover new possibilities—things that hadn’t been noticed before. Or one can come up against the limitations of the space and discover points at which changes can be made.This suggests that what drives creativity is the potential for discovering new possibilities in the domain, on the one hand. On the other hand, it is the limitations within the domain that motivate ways to overcome or bend them (see Jones, this volume). In curriculum practice, I would say that the two intertwine. Curriculum is here defined as a complex set of interrelated processes whose aim is student learning. Curriculum design addresses the question of what should be taught in a course or program and how what is taught should be organized. Curric- ulum design should not be seen as separate from curriculum enactment, the teach- ing and learning experiences in the classroom (Graves, 2008).A design can only be considered successful if it supports teachers and students in the classroom so they can learn and flourish.Thus, to understand creativity in a language curriculum, we need to understand the relationship between design and enactment and to define what might constitute creativity within the system.The first part of the chapter will define creativity and how it can be understood in terms of curriculum.The second part of the chapter will explore the role of creativity in four examples of practice. Defining Creativity In order to define creativity, I will draw on the work of Margaret Boden, the com- putational psychologist and philosopher, who looks at creativity as a generative

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 166  Kathleen Graves system within a domain of thinking. This definition fits well with the view of curriculum as a complex system. Boden (2009) defines creativity as “the ability to come up with ideas that are new, surprising and valuable” (p. 237). By ideas, she means anything from a scientific theory to a style of painting, a recipe, or a way of building a bridge.The judgment of what is new, surprising, and valuable is made in relation to a domain of thinking. Put another way, ideas are considered original and valuable within a given domain such as chemistry, dance, engineering, and, in this case, curriculum. Boden uses the metaphor of a conceptual space to describe the relationship between creativity and a domain of thinking. The dimensions of a conceptual space are the organizing principles that unify and give structure to a given domain of thinking. In other words, it is the gen- erative system that underlies that domain and defines a certain range of pos- sibilities: chess moves, or molecular structures, or jazz melodies. (1994, p. 79) Each domain of thinking is defined by a set of organizing principles, rules, or con- straints.These constraints both unify the system and structure the way it operates. She describes the domain of jazz, for example: “it is the constraints—governing harmony, melody, and tempo—that make the jazz performance possible in the first place. Without them, we would have a mere random cacophony” (1994, p. 93). The constraints or rules are what give shape to the particular domain or constitute what Boden calls “a generative system that defines the range of possibilities of the domain” (1994, p. 79).The constraints are what make creativity possible. Within a conceptual space, there are two kinds of creativity, exploratory and transformational (Boden, 1994). Exploratory creativity involves discovering or uncovering aspects of the conceptual space that weren’t noticed before or show- ing limits of the space and thus pointing to areas of possible change. If we were to look at a series of European portrait paintings through history, we could see examples of exploratory creativity—where different artists, over time, change cer- tain aspects of the genre such as position of face in relation to viewer, idealizing the subject, or the use of light and shade. Transformational creativity involves dropping or adding a constraint or given of the system and thus transforming it in some way. To continue with the example of portrait paintings, cubism is an example of transformative creativity, where the constraint of depicting the subject on a single plane, from one viewpoint, was dropped in favor of intersecting planes representing several viewpoints. In this way, new structures can be generated that change our way of understanding or experiencing the domain. According to Boden,“The resulting change is so marked that the new idea may be difficult to accept or even understand” (2009, p. 243). In order to understand curriculum as a conceptual space, we need to define the organizing principles that unify and give structure to the system. If, for example, jazz composition is organized around governing harmony, melody, and tempo, what is curriculum thinking organized around? What are the constraints that govern

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity in the Curriculum  167 curriculum and thus determine possible expressions of curriculum? I suggest that there are five organizing principles for curriculum:conceptual,contextual,construc- tional, interactional, and assessment.These principles were generated by considering a model developed by Barlex (2004) for the design of technology in educational settings. I was initially drawn to his model because technology design is concerned with user interface—its construction, aesthetics, and operation are designed with the user in mind. Similarly, the success of a curriculum design is not only in the coherence of the design itself but in its effectiveness in shaping and supporting class- room learning. In Barlex’s model (2004, p. 106), there are five key areas of design decision: conceptual, technical, aesthetic, constructional, and marketing. The five areas don’t map neatly onto curriculum; nevertheless, they provide a heuristic for thinking about the dimensions of curriculum and raise some provocative questions. For example, in considering the purpose of technology, Barlex poses the question “What sort of product will it be?”When we think of curriculum, do we think in terms of products? What are curriculum products? Are they physical or conceptual? In the technical area, the question is “How will the design work?” Can we ever know how a curriculum design will work? There is a marketing element in tech- nology so it reaches its intended users. Is there a marketing element to curriculum? These questions are among those explored in the description of each dimension. Conceptual Dimension: What Is the Overall Purpose of the Curriculum? In a language curriculum, decisions about its overall purpose are shaped by the tacit or explicit beliefs and assumptions of the designers: how they understand language and the purposes of language; how they understand the processes and means by which people learn languages; and how they understand the learners who will learn the language. The conceptual dimension is the foundation for a curriculum. Changes in any one of these conceptual understandings are likely to have an impact on the system as a whole, as we shall see in the examples of cur- riculum practice that follow. Constructional Dimension: How Will the Curriculum Be Put Together? Constructing the language curriculum includes deciding on the source of lan- guage in the classroom, the ways in which learners will encounter, develop, and use the language through speaking, listening, viewing, reading, and writing, the kinds of materials they will use, and the types of activities they will engage in. It also includes deciding how the materials and activities will be organized and the order in which they will or might be used.The design takes shape in frameworks, syllabuses, materials, and lesson plans that outline or support what, why, and how students will learn.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 168  Kathleen Graves Interactional Dimension: How Might the Curriculum Design or Product(s) Be Used in the Classroom? How Might It Influence Classroom Interactions? This dimension is based on the technical dimension in Barlex’s model, which addresses decisions about how the design will work.The workability of a design is problematic in education in the sense that we cannot predict or replicate how a syllabus, framework, materials, or lesson plan will work in practice because each group of learners and teachers will use them differently depending on who they are, what they know, where they are, the resources available, and so on. Rather, how a design works (or doesn’t) depends on participants interacting with each other and with the design in order to learn. Contextual Dimension: Who Is the Curriculum For? Where Will It Be Used? How Will It Be Received and Interpreted? This dimension asks us to consider who the learners and teacher are, the context in which the design will be used, and how it might be understood and received by par- ticipants. In Barlex’s model, this is called “marketing” the technology.Although mar- keting as a dimension of curriculum may seem inappropriate, the questions to be asked in considering how to market a design are quite appropriate: who the design is for, where it will be used, and how it will be sold in the sense of how the users will be convinced that this design serves their purposes or will work in the classroom. Assessment Dimension: What Are the Hoped-For Learning Outcomes? What Counts as Learning? We could say that the intended product of curriculum design is learning. Put another way, learning is the intended result of all the other dimensions—the con- ceptual, contextual, constructional, and interactional.Through assessment, we find out what kind of learning has occurred, or hasn’t. What is assessed makes explicit what counts as learning in the curriculum. The five areas depicted in Table 11.1, the conceptual, contextual, construc- tional, interactional, and assessment, comprise the dimensions of the conceptual space of the curriculum and are the organizing principles that unify and give structure to this domain of thinking. Each of these represents a constraint, which can be explored and experimented with or transformed and radically altered. Altering one will impact the others. An important question that hasn’t been addressed thus far is what motivates creativity in curriculum. Why be creative? One could say that we are naturally motivated as human beings to be creative and to use our imaginations to experi- ment,to take risks,to try new ways of understanding or doing things (Fisher,2004).

Creativity in the Curriculum  169 TABLE 11.1  Five Dimensions of the Conceptual Space of Language Curriculum Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Curriculum Dimension Questions to be Addressed Conceptual What is the overall purpose of the curriculum? Contextual What are the understandings of language, learning, and Constructional learners that shape what and how learners will learn? Interactional Who is the curriculum for? Assessment Where will it be used? How will it be received and interpreted? How will the curriculum be put together and organized? What materials and activities will be used? How might the curriculum design be used in the classroom? How might it influence classroom interactions? What are the hoped-for learning outcomes? What counts as learning? This is the case when a curriculum designer uses innovative theories and con- ceptions of the content and process of learning to alter or enhance the curricu- lum. Another motivation for creativity arises from the challenges generated by the complexity of learning a language in the classroom.There may be particular challenges of a context that inhibit student learning. A designer may identify a constellation of challenges to student learning, such as lack of meaningful con- tent, time constraints, class size, and low student motivation, and design the cur- riculum in such a way that it addresses those challenges in innovative ways. Or the designer may identify a significant gap in the curriculum and generate novel ways to address the gap. In each case, the designer is exploring the possibilities, constraints, and gaps in the conceptual space of curriculum. Four Examples of Curriculum Creativity In this part of the chapter, we will explore four examples of creativity in curricu- lum practice in terms of the dimensions of the underlying system of curriculum depicted in Table 11.1. Example #1: Literature in a Hong Kong Secondary School Background This example is based on Mok, Chow, and Wong (2006), teacher educators in Hong Kong. They explore ways language arts activities can be infused into the primary and secondary English language curriculum. According to the authors, language arts are generally understood as activities aimed at increasing learners’ confidence in responding to experiences represented in literary texts.They adopt

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 170  Kathleen Graves a broader definition, “one that includes a wide range of activities that promote creativity and language awareness in learners” (p. 62). The authors designed a curriculum framework to guide a literature-based cur- riculum. The center of the framework is a literary text such as a story or a play that is the focus of classroom activities. Students engage with the text in a variety of integrated skills activities that involve critical and creative thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and communication. These may include text interpreta- tion, role playing, dramatic readings, and multimedia viewing and listening. In this particular example, English teachers in a secondary school prepared and taught a unit based on an adapted version (Gray, 2001) of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.The unit lasted 5 weeks, with two 50-minute weekly lessons devoted to it.The teachers rewrote the story into a dramatic script.The text was read aloud by the teachers, and students read the text in pairs and groups.They investigated the characters, explored the subtext, and expressed their thoughts and feelings about the story. Students worked in groups on particular scenes.They created play scripts to be read dramatically by them in various roles.The unit culminated in a dramatic reading of the story by the students. In What Ways Does Creativity Play a Role in This Curriculum? Conceptually, the secondary school curriculum was supposed to address three dimensions of language: interpersonal, knowledge, and experience.The interper- sonal dimension was aimed at using English to maintain relationships and the knowledge dimension at finding out, interpreting, and using information. The experience dimension focused on “students’ ability to give expression to real and imaginative experiences” (Mok et al., 2006, p. 65). Published curriculum materials were largely aimed at the first two.Teachers perceived the experience dimension as being neglected.The gap they identified opened up the possibility for explor- atory creativity, that is, by identifying a specific limitation or gap in the conceptual space, they could find ways to overcome or change it. In this case, the designers conceptualized language learning as a creative, meaning-making process. The curriculum framework they designed (the constructional dimension) was directly aimed at the interactional dimension to “enable children to develop active, interactive, and reflective responses to experiences, and to give expressions that have significant personal and interpersonal collective meanings” (p. 63).The construction of the framework provided the resource that guided the classroom activities and learning experiences. This curriculum could be seen to be transformational in Boden’s terms. The unit involved risk taking and experimentation on the part of the teachers and the learners. However, it did not generate a lasting change in the system.The reasons for this can be traced to the contextual dimension and the assessment dimen- sion.The contextual dimension is concerned with who will use the curriculum

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity in the Curriculum  171 and how they will understand and interpret it. A survey administered to teachers revealed that the two factors inhibiting them from incorporating language arts activities into their curriculum were confidence and time. Teachers lacked con- fidence in knowing how to design and teach language arts as part of the regular curriculum. Because they were “textbook bound” and adhered closely to the existing curriculum, they also felt they did not have the time to add in language arts activities. The assessment dimension also appeared to inhibit the adoption of a literature-based approach. The authors describe the Hong Kong context as a “competitive and exam-oriented education system” in which “teaching methods are mostly expository, sharply focused on preparation for external examinations” (p. 60). Language arts activities are not perceived as contributing to the kind of learning outcomes that count on exams. After the drama unit, the students completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to comment on the level of difficulty, interest, and relevance of the drama activities as well as their effective- ness in helping them learn English.A majority of students found the unit of value in terms of interest and enjoyment. However, they were divided as to whether the activities improved their English. The authors point out that with only one experience of the literature-based approach, it is difficult for the learners to assess its effectiveness in terms of how it helps them improve their language abilities. This example raises questions about the difficulty in instantiating something truly creative in a curriculum and reminds us of Boden’s assertion that trans- forming a conceptual space “breaks the commonly accepted rules, and challenges other people to adopt new values in accepting the novel idea” (2009, p. 247).The authors were able to do this on a limited basis. Example #2: CLIL in an Italian Primary School Background This example is taken from Lopriore (2009). CLIL (content and language inte- grated learning) was introduced into Italy at the end of the 1990s in the form of pilot projects supported by local educational authorities and as projects initiated by individual teachers and schools. In this particular case, a unit on dental health that is part of the regular primary school curriculum and would normally be taught in Italian is taught in English. The unit identifies both content objectives, such as learning that humans have different types of teeth, as well as language objec- tives, like the use of “have got” and tooth-related vocabulary to describe a dental problem. Students learn about dental health through the four skills, for example keeping a record of teeth cleaning and writing an “at the dentist” script, reading about animal teeth, and role playing dentist and patient.They also use and develop thinking and problem-solving skills and communication and collaboration skills,

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 172  Kathleen Graves for example, when they create a mouth model, conduct a scientific investigation, and identify the role of baby and permanent teeth. In these respects, the unit is similar to the Hong Kong unit.The main difference is that it is a permanent part of the school curriculum. In What Ways Does Creativity Play a Role in This Curriculum? Conceptually, CLIL is a fundamental departure from a more traditional approach to language learning in classrooms. In a traditional approach, language is con- ceived and taught as systems of different types of knowledge: grammatical, lexi- cal, sociolinguistic, and so on. These systems are to be combined and applied once outside the classroom. Alternatively, the classroom is used as a rehearsal for eventual language use outside the classroom. CLIL is different. According to Sophie Iannou-Georgiou, “CLIL creates a situation where the students use the language as they learn it rather than spending years ‘rehearsing’ in a lan- guage class for a possible opportunity to use the language some time in the future” (2012, p. 496). In CLIL, content drives the language in the sense that the language resources (at the word, syntax, and text levels) are determined by the content. To call this a fundamental shift may seem paradoxical, as content is the stuff of classrooms. However, by taking advantage of the classroom as an environment for learning content, the CLIL curriculum can be seen to “fuse new concepts out of existing ideas” (Fisher, 2004, p. 9), which is a hallmark of transformational creativity. Transformational creativity involves dropping or adding a constraint or given of the system and thus transforming it in some way.The constraint that has been added is the learning of content. Language is no longer the sole object of study but is acquired in the process of learning the content. This shift in conception of the role of language in the classroom affects all the other dimensions of cur- riculum. It affects the constructional dimension in that the materials used are not specially produced language materials or materials that focus on language but the materials needed to learn the content, of which language is intrinsically a part. There are both content-learning objectives and language-learning objectives, but the former determine the latter. Thus language is still attended to—this is what makes it different from a normal content class. The interactional dimension is also affected in that the kinds of activities the learners engage in are those that are appropriate for the content. Rather than practicing dialogues in which grammar points are embedded or learning lexical sets such as food vocabulary, learners use cognitive learning tools that are appro- priate for the content. For example, according to one Italian teacher, typical CLIL activities use “pictures, graphic organizers to gather information on a topic. For example . . . we used a food pyramid to understand how food can be classified for a healthy diet” (Lopriore, 2009, p. 187).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity in the Curriculum  173 Assessment is also affected by the conceptual dimension. In a classroom where language is the object of study, learners are assessed on the extent to which they have understood or mastered the language targets, however they are defined. In the CLIL curriculum, learners are assessed on the extent to which they have understood the content targets, which they use the language to demonstrate. In the “at the dentist” unit, one content objective is for students to demonstrate proper brushing technique. For this, they need to know prepositions of place as well as teeth-related words such as toothbrush, toothpaste, rinse. Whereas in a traditional curriculum, the product of learning is understanding grammar, lexi- con, functions, and so on, in the CLIL curriculum, the product of learning is language-plus-content. The contextual dimension is both affected by and critical to the success of CLIL in the curriculum. CLIL can only be successful if teacher, students, admin- istration, and parents see it as feasible within the regular school curriculum.With- out teachers who are prepared to teach in this way and educational authorities and parents who see the value of this curriculum, the curriculum would not be successful. Unlike the Hong Kong unit, the CLIL unit could be called an example of transformational creativity. Example #3: A Functional Language Approach in a Japanese University Background This case study is taken from McAndrew (2007), who describes his use of a func- tional, text-based approach to teaching and learning in an oral English class for Japanese university first-year students.The university norm was to use a textbook based on principles of communicative language teaching. He chose not to use the textbook.As he explains it, The textbook was useful for encouraging learners to talk, but it seemed not to address the learners’ specific language needs in a strategic way, nor did it raise awareness of how social relationships affect the language chosen by speakers. Gradually, I had come to feel that the learners were missing opportunities to learn, that they were not using language meaningfully, and that they were not aware of what constituted appropriate language use in social contexts. In order to address this problem, I decided to discontinue the use of the textbook with the goal of becoming more responsive to the learners’ language needs. I attempted this shift by looking at the discourse the learn- ers were producing in learner-to-learner conversations and using this as a starting point from which to build a course. (pp. 189–190)

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 174  Kathleen Graves He constructed an initial conversation to be used as a model text, indicat- ing who the interlocutors were, the nature of their relationship, and where the conversation occurred.The students explored the text from a systemic functional linguistic point of view.They identified the discourse moves in the text and the kind of language that signaled transition between moves, the ways in which par- ticipants expressed feelings, and the appropriateness of what they said in terms of topic and language. They then jointly constructed a similar text, which, in turn, became the basis for further analysis.They subsequently engaged in role plays in which they tried to use the understandings they had gained from the previous analyses.This cycle was repeated throughout the course. In What Way Does Creativity Play a Role in This Curriculum? At the conceptual level, the overall purpose of the curriculum, for students to develop oral fluency, did not change relative to other sections of the same course. However, McAndrew’s view of language as always occurring in a particular social context, and his belief that a text-based approach was the most effective way for learners to learn to produce socially appropriate language had a profound effect on how the curriculum was constructed, on the interactions among learners, and on the learning outcomes. In terms of the constructional dimension, there was a radical shift in how the curriculum was organized and which materials were used.The decision not to use a textbook but instead to build the course around learner-to-learner conversa- tions meant that the constructional and interactional dimensions became inter- twined. The curriculum was constructed from and organized around discourse produced in classroom interactions. Rather than choosing materials and then using them in the classroom, the curriculum was organized around a text-based approach, in which a model text is deconstructed, students then jointly construct a similar text, followed by independent construction of their own text. However, the organization could only be “operationalized” through interactions in which the texts were produced. The contextual dimension played an important role in allowing the changes to the course organization and enactment.As a university lecturer, the author had autonomy with respect to the syllabus and to assessment. Because use of a text- book was the norm, he explained the reasons for his decision to the department head and outlined how students would be assessed. In this sense, one could say he was “marketing” the curriculum so that it would be acceptable to the administra- tion.As regards the students, in the first session, he explained what they would be doing and why. In the Japanese context, teachers are considered authority figures, and students are not likely to question a teacher’s decisions. The assessment dimension was also affected by the contextual dimension. As McAndrew explains, “The fact that I had control of learner assessment was a

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity in the Curriculum  175 crucial element in allowing me the freedom to innovate without the pressure of the washback from an examination” (p. 196).Assessments took a variety of forms including a portfolio, written materials, and attendance and participation records. The end-of-term examination involved observing and assessing six students at a time, talking in pairs for 20 minutes on a range of topics provided on cue cards. How did the author experiment with or radically alter one or more curricu- lum dimensions? And how did these alterations impact the others? The first alter- ation was in the conceptual dimension—using a theory of language and language acquisition that was different from the prevailing view. The second, which grew from the first, was an alteration of the constructional dimension—eschewing use of the textbook.These two changes transformed the way in which the curriculum was organized and experienced by the learners. An important difference from the first two examples is the self-contained nature of this curriculum system.The Italian primary and Hong Kong secondary teachers’ work must fit within a larger school curriculum. McAndrew had a great deal of latitude in every dimension. This suggests that the scale of the system affects the scope for creativity. Example #4: A Project-Based Approach for Adults in the United States Background This example is taken from Akyil (2006). She describes the evolution of a course for adult immigrants in the United States from one that had little unity and “medi- ocre interest from the students” (p. 243) to one based on modules that culminated in a published booklet of student essays.As is typical in English language programs for adult immigrants in the United States, the course had open enrollment, which meant that each week could bring new students. Students often had little in com- mon with each other, as they came from a variety of countries and had dispa- rate educational and professional backgrounds.The course was expected to meet vaguely defined state competencies that would be measured by a standardized posttest.Themes from the competencies such as shopping, health, and job hunt- ing were recycled throughout the six levels of courses, which produced theme fatigue.There were few materials available, and students could not be required to purchase materials. Akyil was driven to find ways to provide unity to the course, kindle interest in classroom topics, and provide purposeful opportunities for lan- guage development.After some trial and error, she was able to do this by creating a modular, theme-based, project-driven course. The modular format accommo- dated students who entered at different points during the term. Each week, she introduced a new theme that allowed students to draw on their experience.These included themes such as childhood memories, advice they would give to new immigrants, and the products grown, produced, and/or exported by their home

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 176  Kathleen Graves countries.The culmination of each week was a student essay about the theme.At the end of the term, each student contributed two essays for a booklet titled “ESL Students Bring You the World.” The author applied for and received university funding to publish the booklet and distribute it campus-wide at a “book launch.” After the first three semesters of this project-based approach, a new ESL program director asked that the booklet become program-wide, with students from other classes also contributing essays. In What Way Does Creativity Play a Role in This Curriculum? Conceptually, the overall purpose of the course was ill defined.The program com- petencies for adult learners provided broad parameters that did not give clear direction for how to construct and organize the course. Nevertheless, teachers were still constrained by the competencies and a need to address them, however vaguely they were defined.As Akyil puts it, the evolution of her course took place “within a bare-bones program curriculum, nonpermanent statewide competen- cies, and assessments that were continually in transition” (p. 243). The contextual dimension, or who the curriculum is for, was pivotal in help- ing Akyil conceptualize and organize the curriculum. Adult immigrants are, by nature, a diverse population. Although they may have similar reasons for learning English, they study it out of necessity, not necessarily out of desire. Maintain- ing student interest and documenting student progress in such a program is a challenge. One uniting feature was her students’ eagerness to share their stories. Specific aspects of students’ experience that could be discussed and written up in the form of essays thus became the content around which language elements would coalesce. The constructional dimension of the course, how the curriculum was put together and organized, was influenced by contextual features: the students, the open enrollment, theme fatigue, and lack of materials.The choice of themes based on student experience allowed the author to “modify the subject matter accord- ing to student and instructor needs, abilities and preferences” (p. 249).The modu- lar nature of the course—a different theme each week—accommodated open enrollment.The themes were not cumulative, but self-contained.The booklet of essays linked the themes, and all students could contribute, even if they enrolled late.The personal nature of the themes and the project-based nature of the book- let kindled students’ interest. The interactional dimension, how the curriculum plays out in the classroom, depended on the particular group of learners and the choice of themes. The author designed what she called a “curriculum shell” that outlined a cycle of weekly activities.The content of the readings, listening material, grammar activi- ties, and so on was determined by the theme.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity in the Curriculum  177 The assessment dimension of the overall curriculum included standardized tests as data for funding organizations and to promote students to higher levels. In Akyil’s course, the learners had weekly evidence of their learning in the form of the essay. She gave them individual feedback on their writing, which they incorporated into revisions. As she puts it, the tests are “an external measure of performance level; in contrast, the assignments that lead up to the student book provide students with more tangible evidence of their accomplishments” (p. 259). As with the Japanese example, the author had latitude within the system to innovate. She identified a constellation of challenges and found ways to address them in innovative and effective ways. She engaged in a process of continual experimentation with the constructional and interactional dimensions of the cur- riculum in response to the students, the core of the contextual dimension. For example, the themes evolved to include both personal and less personal themes because some students were not interested in disclosing personal information. They became less specific to allow for more student creativity. The value of the project approach was appreciated not only by the students but also by the direc- tor, who chose to adopt it for other classes. In this sense, it could be viewed as transformational not only for the course but for the program. Conclusion The kind of creativity described in this chapter involves exploring the conceptual space of curriculum, experimenting with its constraints, identifying gaps, and dis- covering new possibilities and potentially transforming it. This kind of systemic creativity requires a solid knowledge base. In writing about language teachers, Richards points out that they “know their subject—English, teaching English, and learning English—and they draw on their subject matter knowledge in build- ing creative lessons. A knowledge base is important because without knowledge, imagination cannot be productive” (2013, p. 5). This makes sense in terms of curriculum as a conceptual space—one must have a strong understanding of the relationships among the dimensions in order to make changes within or to the system.This suggests that, at the person level, creativity has a developmental ele- ment, the more one knows about the dimensions, and understands how they function and interrelate, the better able one is to challenge the rules, change them or transform them. The potential for transformation depends not only on the knowledge base of those involved in it but also the scale of the curriculum. When creativity is exercised at the individual level and the individual has the kind of latitude that the teachers in the Japanese and American examples had, the potential for experi- mentation and transformation is likely to be greater. However, there is also a ques- tion of sustainability. When the scope of curriculum is limited to the individual

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 178  Kathleen Graves classroom, can we say that a true transformation has occurred? Or does the transformation need to have an impact on the domain of thinking in a larger sense—somewhat analogous to the effect that cubism had on depicting people? While curriculum creativity at the level of a school system operates with and within the same operating principles as an individual classroom, the scale of the conceptual space is different and the complexity magnified. In Hong Kong, the literature-based curriculum was viewed as ancillary to the regular curriculum. While the approach was highly creative, the activities did not produce learning as understood in the larger system, and so teachers were not, at that point, prepared to adopt it. In the Italian example, CLIL could take hold because it was part of the regular curriculum and because the teacher had the autonomy to design the unit in ways that made sense to her.The transformation was sustainable because all dimensions of the system aligned. Questions for Discussion 1. How had you thought of creativity in the curriculum before reading the chapter? Has your thinking changed? 2. Curriculum has been described as a generative system whose organizing principles define the range of possibilities for creativity. How is this view useful in understanding different kinds of creativity in the curriculum? 3. What are instances of creativity in curriculum that you have participated in? Which dimension of the framework depicted in Table 11.1 did the creativity spring from? 4. What is missing or what would you change in the five dimensions of the conceptual space of curriculum depicted in Table 11.1? 5. Can creativity in curriculum spring from something other than dissatisfac- tion with the status quo? 6. CLIL has been given as an example of transformational creativity in curricu- lum design. Do you agree with this? What, for you, are examples of transfor- mational creativity in curriculum design and practice? 7. In your experience, how does the scale of the curriculum affect creativity? Suggestions for Further Research 1. Distinctions have been made between creativity as residing in a person, as a process, and as a product (Fisher, 2004; Jones 2012). How do these dis- tinctions map onto curriculum—does creativity in curriculum reside in the people who generate creative ideas, in the processes of experimentation, and/ or in the products of the experimentation? 2. How can the concepts of scale and sustainability be applied to creativity in curriculum? 3. What other research issues does the chapter raise, and how could some of these issues be researched?

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 16:02 12 March 2017 Creativity in the Curriculum  179 References Akyil, S. E. (2006). ESL students bring you the world: Creating a project-driven course for adult immigrant ESL students. In M. A. Snow & L. Kamhi-Stein (Eds.), Developing a new course for adult learners (pp. 243–259). Alexandria,VA:Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Barlex, D. (2004). Creative design and technology. In R. Fisher & M. Williams (Eds.), Unlocking creativity:Teaching across the curriculum (pp. 103–116). New York: Routledge. Boden,M.(1994).What is creativity? In M.Boden (Ed.),Dimensions of creativity (pp. 75–117). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boden, M. (2009). Creativity: How does it work? In M. Krausz, D. Dutton, & K. Bardsley (Eds.), The idea of creativity (pp. 237–250). Boston, MA: Brill. Fisher, R. (2004).What is creativity? In R. Fisher & M.Williams (Eds.), Unlocking creativity: Teaching across the curriculum (pp. 6–20). New York: Routledge. Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41(2), 149–183. Gray, E. (2001). Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Hong Kong: Express. Iannou-Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495–504. Jones, R. (Ed.). (2012). Introduction: Discourse and creativity. In R. Jones (Ed.), Discourse and creativity (pp. 3–12). Harlow: Pearson. Lopriore, L. (2009). Content learning in English: Issues and perspectives. In K. Graves & L. Lopriore (Eds.), Developing a new curriculum for school-age learners (pp. 173–196). Alexan- dria,VA:Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. McAndrew, J. (2007). Responding to learners’ language needs in an oral EFL class. In A. Burns & H. de Silva Joyce, Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for adult learners (pp. 189–204). Alexandria,VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Mok, A., Chow, A., & Wong, W. (2006). Strengthening language arts in English language teaching in Hong Kong. In P. McKay (Ed.), Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for school-age learners (pp. 59–79). Alexandria,VA:Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Richards, J. C. (2013, June 5). Creativity in language teaching. Plenary address given at the Summer Institute for English Teacher of Creativity and Discovery in Teaching Univer- sity Writing, City University of Hong Kong.