The Creative Construction of the Past: ‘Treasure Texts’ in Tibetan-English Novels

Activities utilising online tools are an increasingly visible part of our everyday lives, providing new subjects, objects and relationships – essentially new landscapes – for research, as well as new conceptual and methodological challenges for researchers. In parallel, calls for collaborative interdisciplinary, even transdisciplinary, research are increasing. Yet practical guidance and critical reflection on the challenges and opportunities of conducting collaborative research online, particularly in emergent areas, is limited. In response, this paper details what we term the ‘creative construction’ involved in a collaborative project building an exploratory database of more than 4000 food sharing activities in 100 cities that utilise internet and digital technologies in some way (ICT mediated for brevity) to pursue their goals. The research was undertaken by an international team of researchers, including geographers, which utilised a combination of reflexive coding and online collaboration to develop a system for exploring the practice and performance of ICT‐mediated food sharing in cities. This paper will unpack the black box of using the internet as a source of data about emergent practices and provide critical reflection on that highly negotiated and essentially handcrafted process. While the substance of the paper focuses on the under‐determined realm of food sharing, a site where it is claimed that ICT is transforming practices, the issues raised have resonance far beyond the specificities of this particular endeavour. While challenging, we argue that handcrafting systems for navigating emergent online data is vital, not least to render visible the complexities and contestations around definition, categorisation and translation.

The purpose of this experimental study was to examine the creative constructs of students enrolled in Differential Calculus at the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. This study was composed of 132 engineering and mathematics education students enrolled in two different semesters. The experimental group was chosen randomly, exposed to the problem-based HALP model teaching approach and problem posing while the control group was taught using Polya’s problem-solving heuristics. Multiple Solution Tasks (MST) test in Calculus was administered to determine their creative constructs which can be measured in terms of their level of mathematical fluency, flexibility and novelty of solutions before and after the experiment. Results indicated that the experimental group exhibited a remarkable improvement of their mathematical fluency and flexibility but still in the developing level when they are required to posit novel solutions to problems as influenced by the problem-based HALP and problem posing activities. Hence, it is recommended that mathematics teachers may utilize these methods to successfully develop students’ mathematical creativity and future research may also be explored on integrating technology and how it can influence developing student’s mathematical creativeness as well as the mediating role of their affective domains and IQ (intelligent quotient).

Three Entities to Maximize Creative Construction Quality

There is an emerging awareness in the field of L2 acquisition regarding the contributions made by both Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Creative Construction (CC) theories of L2 acquisition. CA theories indicate that the L1 experience is important in L2 acquisition, and CC theories indicate that principles of acquisition independent of this experience are also integral to L2 learning. Reconciliation of these two aspects within a principled, empirically‐based theory of L2 acquisition has been difficult (cf. Eckman 1977, 1984; Zobl 1980; Andersen 1983, 1984; Gundel and Tarone 1983; Liceras 1983; Rutherford 1983, 1984; White 1985).This paper argues that the parameter‐setting model of Universal Grammar (UG) (proposed by Flynn 1983a, b, 1987) for L2 acquisition provides the scaffolding necessary for an integration of these two components within one explanatory account. Consistent with CC, L2 learners within this model use principles of UG isolated in L1 acquisition in the construction of the L2 grammar; however, when values of parameters associated with these principles differ between the L1 and the L2, learners assign a new value to cohere with the values for the new target language. The L1 experience counts in determining whether such a new assignment of a parametric value is necessary. This aspect of the model is consistent with a traditional CA theory of L2 learning.Empirical support for this model is provided by a study that investigates the role of the head‐initial/head‐final parameter (Stowell 1981) in adult L2 acquisition of pronoun anaphora. Two groups of adults — L1 speakers of Spanish, a head‐initial language and L1 speakers of Japanese, a head‐final language — were studied in their elicited production of English, a head‐initial language. Results indicate that both groups of learners use the head‐initial/head‐final parameter as a source of structural organization for the L2. Results also indicate that Japanese speakers (L1 ≠ L2) are sensitive, from early stages of acquisition, to the mismatch in head‐direction in English and Japanese, and that they assign new values to this parameter to cohere with the target L2 value. These speakers are thus argued to have the head‐initial/head‐final parameter set in two different ways.Parameters of acquisition in the two cases correspond to those isolated for L1 acquisition of English; however, the point at which this similarity is observed depends upon the degree of correspondence between the two languages.

There has been a recent expansion of school curricula and extra-curricular activities emphasizing musical creativity and collaboration. Parents have a crucial role in providing children with access to such experiences; their views on music and the nature of creativity influence the types of musical engagement their children will access. Teachers also have an important role, yet can have difficulties when supporting children in open-ended tasks. A qualitative study investigated parents’ and teachers’ constructions of creativity and music. Interviews were held with 11 parents and 4 teachers of preschool children who took part in improvisation workshops. Data were analyzed with thematic analysis, resulting in identification of three themes. Creativity and musicality were described as fundamental to children’s “human nature” but positioned as a non-fundamental part of their own adult identities. “Values” explored conceptualizations of creativity through artistic products; musicality was appreciated demonstration of technical skill. “Frames for engaging” identified adults engaging with their children in creative tasks mainly through child-led narratives; in contrast, parents took on the role of “teacher” in musical tasks. Understanding these influential views offers insight into the types of activities and guidance offered to pre-schoolers and how they can be built on to foster children’s musical creativity.

This chapter explores how teachers in three secondary schools construct creativity, individually and within the context of shared practice in their own institutions. The particular focus is on how constructions of creativity are shaped by national frameworks of curriculum, assessment and accountability, and how these vary from school to school. This is situated in a period of political transition in the English school curriculum (2010–2015), during which the National Curriculum (which had previously contained ‘creativity’ as one of its four key concepts) was replaced by a curriculum that made no mention of creativity. The chapter examines the role of policy in the construction of creativity in classrooms, analysing how teachers might resist official policy in the interests of their vision for their subject, and questioning the role policy can play in the implementation of ‘exhortative’ policies about difficult to measure concepts such as creativity, compared to ‘imperative’ policies that relate directly to accountability in schools. The chapter constructs creativity itself as a material resource central to the teaching of language and literature, with its relative levels of distribution within different schools and to different students a matter of social justice and equity.

P02-94 - Creativity construct and its links to alexithymia and depression

coined the term "creative destruction" to characterize the process by which entrepreneurial entrants displaced stagnant incumbents, resulting in "industrial mutation that continuously revolutionizes the economic structure from within (emphasis added), incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."Schumpeter's insights regarding economic structures apply not only at the industry and country levels but also at a global level.Over the last century, the emergence of many economies from "third world status" by leveraging the twin engines of entrepreneurship and innovation in global markets for resources, products, and ser-

202LANGUAGE, VOLUME 68, NUMBER 1 (1992) to another discussion in Aitchison's chapter on psycholinguistics. The chapter on sociolinguistics by James Milroy & Leslie Milroy does not cross-reference the chapter by Martin Durrell on dialectology, and vice versa. These are minor flaws, though, in a very useful and welcome contribution to the basic reference literature. REFERENCES Bright, William (ed.) 1992. Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics. 4 vols. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hanks, William F. 1989. Texts and textuality. Annual Review of Anthropology 18.95— 127. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.) 1988. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. I, Linguistic theory: Foundations; vol. II, Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications ; vol. IH, Language: Psychological and biological aspects; vol. IV, Language: The sociocultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ogden, C. K., and I. A. Richards. 1956. The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Department of Anthropology[Received 24 January 1991 ; University of Arizonarevision received 12 March 1991.] Tucson, AZ 85721 Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Edited by Suzanne Flynn and Wayne O'Neil. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988. Pp. xii, 443. Cloth $79.00. Reviewed by Sara Thomas Rosen, University of Kansas Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (LTSLA) contains papers presented at the Conference on Linguistic Theory and Second Language Acquisition held at MIT in the Fall of 1985. The purpose of the conference, and of the book, was to relate the principles and parameters view of the representation of language to the representation and acquisition of a second language. The value of the book lies in placing the field of second language acquisition within theoretical linguistics. On a strong theory of the innateness of the principles of grammar (as espoused in, e.g., Chomsky 1986), much knowledge of language is not, and indeed cannot be, learned: because the core universal principles of grammar are part of our biological endowment, they need not be learned and cannot be broken or violated. Further, what is learned includes the settings ofa limited number ofparameters. Thus, a major portion oflearning a first language consists of determining the correct values of innately defined parameters. The main questions addressed in LTSLA concern the availability of this innate universal core to an adult second language learner. Is universal grammar (UG) available in any form to the second language learner, or must the learner resort to nonlinguistic cognitive mechanisms in order to learn a second language? The reader quickly finds that the answers to these questions are quite subtle and complex, and the evidence does not resoundingly favor one view or the other. REVIEWS203 In the introductory chapters to the book, Flynn & O'Neil, Ken Hale, and Frederick J. Newmeyer & Steven H. Weinberger outline the main questions the field of second language acquisition has faced and place them within a UG framework. The two prominent theories for addressing these questions are (i) contrastive analysis, which posits the transfer offeatures or parametric settings from the speaker's first language (Ll) to the second language (L2), and (ii) creative construction, which holds that the L2 learner reverts to UG and creates from scratch the features or parameter settings of the second language. Most chapters in LTSLA examine these two hypotheses (e.g. the papers by Flynn, Harald Clahsen, Irene Mazurkewich, Lydia White, Michael Sharwood Smith, Juana M. Liceras, J. W. Gair, Liliane Haegeman, Sascha W. Felix, Ellen Broselow, and Barbara Lust). The general approach is to choose a parameter P of UG for which the setting differs in speakers' Ll and L2, and to examine the L2 acquisition of constructions affected by P. With respect to the two prevailing theories of L2 acquisition, the various authors consider whether the L2 acquirer copies the setting of P from Ll to L2 (contrastive learning, or transfer), or whether the acquirer reverts to the unmarked setting of P, and proceeds from there (creative construction). In studying the availability of UG to the L2 learner, Flynn examines the acquisition of the values of the head parameter and of anaphora, Mazurkewich and White each argue for a markedness hierarchy in L2 acquisition similar to that in Ll acquisition. Clahsen presents evidence from word order in German...

Computational Thinking (CT) and creativity are considered two vital skills for the 21st century that should be incorporated into future curricula around the world. We studied the relationship between these two constructs while focusing on learners’ personal characteristics. Two types of creativity were examined: creative thinking and computational creativity. The research was conducted among 174 middle school students from Spain. Data collected using a standardized creativity test (Torrance's TTCT) were triangulated with data drawn from students' log files that documented their activity in a game-based learning environment for CT (Kodetu). We found some interesting associations between CT and the two constructs of creativity. These associations shed light on positive associations between each of the two creativity constructs and CT acquisition, as well as between the two creativity constructs themselves. Additionally, we highlight differences between boys and girls, as girls were found to be more creative on both creativity measures. Other differences associated with school affiliation, prior coding knowledge, and technology affinity are also discussed.

Chapter 2 concluded that neither a Contrastive Analysis (CA) nor a Creative Construction (CC) theory adequately explains the L2 acquisition task. Each captures the sense of an important component of this learning process but neither provides a full account of it. Thus, if one were to investigate empirically, for example, the L2 acquisition of anaphora in complex sentence formations by two groups of language learners whose L1s were varied along some structural parameter, it is unlikely that either a CA or a CC theory would fully determine the results. Each theory might account for some aspect of the findings, but neither would provide an explanation for the complete set.

As briefly outlined in Chapter 1, the field of L2 acquisition has traditionally been dominated by two major theories: Contrastive Analysis (CA) (Fries, 1945, 1957; Lado, 1957) and Creative Construction (CC) (Dulay & Burt, 1972, 1974a, 1974b). Each of these theories provides a distinct perspective on the L2 learning process, CA focusing on the role of the L1 experience while CC emphasizes the role of processes independent of the L1. Neither of these theories as we now know them provides a full account of this learning task. In this chapter I reveal in detail how each fails as a complete theory of the L2 acquisition process. Identification of these inadequacies is helpful in formulating ideas about the type of theory necessary to explain adult L2 learning. Within that context, a parameter-setting model of UG can be shown to have certain critical advantages that allow us to use it as the basis of a principled account of adult L2 learning.1

Despite substantial interest in developing theoretical models and technology for creativity enhancement, existing creativity research across various fields lacks a user-centered definition of creativity that can be operationalized in today’s digital spaces. To address this, we conducted a mixed-methods longitudinal research on a study website mirroring content from Bēhance, a popular online platform for creatives. Specifically, we examined how content creators and consumers explored and reflected on online creative content through textual, visual, quantitative, and behavioral data. Analyzing and triangulating these multiple data streams, we conceptualize creativity from the perspectives of its genuine “users,” the viewers. Collectively, we highlight (1) constructs of creativity that have not been emphasized in the existing literature, (2) the impact of users’ roles on content exploration and conception of creativity, and (3) the difference between machine and human users’ perception of creative content. We discuss theoretical and practical implications accordingly.

Inquiry learning pedagogies have not only been proposed as a successful teaching methodology to draw students into science, they are also rich with possibilities for creativity. The particular focus on investigations and problem‐solving provides opportunity for educators to embrace this. The primary curriculum explicitly values creativity in this regard, linking with inquiry, and problem‐solving. In recent years, science outreach carried out by universities in the Republic of Ireland has played a significant role in the formal classroom as a support to primary science (KS1). This article explores the perceptions of these two educators in the primary classroom, teachers (N = 31), and science outreach practitioners (N = 30), with respect to their theoretical stance on the construct of creativity and secondly their application of creativity in practice. The interview method used engaged research participants in a dialectical analysis of conceptual and pedagogical dilemmas. This unique, primarily qualitative methodology, provides evidence to differentiate perspectives of these two groups. Results indicate that participants generate new understandings by engaging in dialectical reflection and critical analysis of the two binaries. They also reveal that although outreach practitioners and teachers align in their perception of the theoretical model, that outreach practitioners are more favourable towards promoting a more creative environment for science in practice.

This paper proposes a new concept of creativity, the Tripartite Thinking Model of Creativity (TTMC), which defines creativity as an interaction between three modes of thinking: logical, critical, and lateral. The TTMC Test is an experimental measure comprising three subtests collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. Inter-rater reliability results were mixed. Construct validity was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis, which showed overall goodness of fit. However, some factor loadings were low, indicating room for improvement in item design. Discriminant validity was evaluated through covariance structure analysis with the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA). The correlation was low, implying that the TTMC Test and ATTA measure different constructs of creativity.