This proposal is part of research that explores the learning possibilities of creativity in literary education for teachers in initial training. This is a qualitative research that compares two didactic experiences carried out by two groups of students of Didactics of Children's and Young People's Literature, from the Primary Education degree, at the University of Barcelona during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years. From the reading of 3 works of Children's and Youth Literature and their corresponding reading seminars, one of the groups had to make a review with the assessment of each reading, while the other group had to elaborate a creative rewriting for each work. and accompany it, also, with a reading assessment. With the data collected, it was possible to establish a comparison of the reading responses between one group and the other. In this way, it was verified how, through a creative task, the participants showed more depth when constructing the meaning of the work read.
Article Details
How to Cite
Contreras-Barceló, E. (2023). Reading and creation: A study on literary reading and creativity in initial teacher training. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2023.22.2.383
Contreras-Barceló: Reading and creation. A study on literary reading and creativity in initial teacher
training
By way of introduction: reading again
According to the philosopher Gregorio Luri, “learning to read is not like learning
to ride a bike” (). People do not learn to read one day and lasts forever, but people learn to read
by reading, which lasts a lifetime. Reading means more than giving sounds to writing.
Reading means interacting with a text in order to understand it, interpret it and
construct its meaning in order to make our own assessments and reflections. Reading
is the gateway to the world of knowledge, the cornerstone of our own knowledge.
For decades, reading has been the subject of much research from different fields of
knowledge, and yet interest in it continues. With the advent of reception theories,
interest focused on the role of the reader and the processes of generating meaning
in literary works. Beyond the discussions on the limits of interpretation, which range
between preserving the author’s intention and vindicating the reader’s freedom of
interpretation, what is certain is that these theories opened up an extensive field
of study on the role of the reader and his or her ability to construct meaning.
As happened on other occasions, the new conception of the literary fact, which was
much more complex, and the different theories of reception contributed to renewing
the didactic treatment of reading education. This new approach involved analysing
the conditioning factors and factors involved in the formulation of the phases of
the reading process, and redefining the concept of reading from a passive activity
to one of interaction between reader and text ().
Literature teaching and learning of literature consequently underwent a paradigm shift.
In , Professor Mendoza stated that “literary education (education in and for literary
reading) is the preparation for knowing how to participate effectively in the process
of reception and interpretative updating of literary discourse” (p. 16), which conceives
this discourse as a complex web of linguistic, aesthetic, historical, cultural, etc.
relations. This line of research intensified after the entry into force of the competence
system, whose concept of competent reader qualified the current postulates, insisting
that reading and literary education should enable students to “understand and interpret
the literary text and value and appreciate the creations of aesthetic-literary sign”
().
For more than half a century, research has focused on the reader, on literary reception
and the reading process. However, the results of the latest PISA tests show a trend
towards superficial reading for practical purposes (), which is of concern both to the educational community and to the rest of society.
Although it is true that formats and media, social uses and reading habits have changed,
it is still important to pay attention to reading responses (), in order to improve the training of readers because “without reading there is no
literature, no education possible” ().
Based on these considerations, this article is framed within the different research
on literary education and creativity in initial teacher training (; ). This is a qualitative study comparing two didactic experiences carried out with
two groups of future primary school teachers. In both cases, an experience based on
the reading of 3 classic and/or contemporary works of Children’s and Young Adult Literature
was proposed, with the aim of developing their reading and literary training, as foreseen
in the teaching plan. However, after the readings and a literary discussion, one group
had to carry out a more conventional activity, such as a critical review with a personal
impression of the readings, while the other group had to produce a creative rewriting
for each of the readings, also accompanied by an assessment of the readings. This
study aimed at making a comparison between the reading responses of one and the other,
in order to identify similarities and differences both in the categories of reading
responses and in the level of reading depth ().
Literary reading and initial teacher education
A few years ago, several studies in literacy education found that pre-service teachers
were aware of the reading trends shown in reading test reports such as PISA (Larrañaga
& Yubero, 2005; ; ; ; ). According to in a publication updating the state of the art, the situation has not improved much
since the first investigations:
the students’ reading habits (show) a weak reading profile in relation to reading
which, moreover, once again reveals an alarming coincidence: future teachers show
their disaffection for reading and make merely instrumental use of it ().
However, the current paradigm of literary education has objectives that require teachers
to have a good knowledge of the literary fact and a solid didactic training in order
for students to be able to appreciate literature (). In order to achieve these objectives, a gradual and cumulative literary education
that allows learners to progress will be key, considering literary reading as a complex
process that requires the instruction of an expert reader who mediates learning, organises
activities, selects readings and systematises knowledge ().
It should also be noted that a considerable number of studies show a direct link between
teachers’ personal reading experiences and their subsequent teaching practice (; ). If future teachers do not previously receive enough literary education, training
in the didactics of Children’s and Young Adult Literature during the degree will not
be effective (). Therefore, without wishing to be discouraged, it seems that we are in a circular
situation of impoverishment of reading and literary education () and it is urgent to start asking ourselves how this circle could be broken. To that
end, suggest offering students a direct encounter with literary works and promoting spaces
for socialising around these works, so that future teachers have a starting point
on which to build their future teaching practices.
Creativity and education
One of these spaces of encounter with literary works can be promoted through creativity.
Creativity is in fashion. According to Cropley (2011), it is a polysemous concept
that has evolved throughout history, always linked to terms such as originality, novelty,
success and transformation. It is not so much a concept linked to aesthetics and discovery,
but rather to novelty, relevance, effectiveness and even ethics in order to achieve
the objectives pursued.
We have recently witnessed an increase in creativity in different educational contexts.
Many researchers (Piaget, 1969; Cropley, 2011; Padget, 2013) claim that the use of
creativity is a learning opportunity, through which higher forms of knowledge can
be achieved (Piaget, 1969). Creative activities stimulate curiosity, the ability to
reflect, connect, create and innovate, as well as foster higher order cognitive skills
and abilities related to creative thinking: originality, flexibility, fluency, imagination,
associative thinking, metaphorical thinking and attributional hierarchies (Cropley,
2011).
Padget (2013) states that when a creative activity is proposed, with clear objectives,
learners must think critically, especially before starting the creative process and
at the end, when they reflect on whether they have achieved what they set out to do
with their work.
This way, creative teaching and learning experiences allow for more effective learning
outcomes, knowledge construction and the development of thinking skills (Padget, 2013).
In fact, in the case of literary education, several creative experiences have recently
been collected, be it the writing of short stories, poems or hybrid genres, which
in turn allow us to show a broader and more transversal vision of literature (; ). These studies confirm their effectiveness in the development of skills, attitudes
and competences inherent to literary learning, both in reception and production: reading,
interpretative and writing skills, attitudes such as a taste for reading or the reading
habit, the stimulation of the imagination and the development of the reading intertext;
as well as other issues inherent to linguistic, artistic and personal growth learning
(; Almeida et al., 2020). But to what extent are such creative experiences really more
beneficial for literacy learning?
Method
Based on all these considerations, this article proposes a comparative study of reading
responses in two groups of students who developed different didactic proposals, within
the framework of the subject Didactics of Children's and Young Adult Literature in
the Primary Education degree course at Universitat de Barcelona. 96 students aged
between 19 and 25 took part: 52 (43 women and 9 men) during the academic year 2020-2021,
and 44 (33 women and 11 men) during the academic year 2021-2022.
In both cases, the experience took place over 3 months. At the beginning of the course,
the proposal was presented, which consisted of the reading of 3 works of Children’s
and Young Adult Literature to be chosen from a selection, their corresponding reading
seminars and the completion of a different individual activity for each group. In
both cases, the activities were designed on the basis of the learning objectives set
out in the teaching plan, but one was more conventional in nature and the other more
creative.
Below you can see the selection of classics and contemporaries from which the participants
had to choose 3 works (table 1). These works were selected for their suitability to the subject matter.
Table 1.Selection of books Source: Prepared by the authors.
Titles
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by L. Carroll
Peter Pan, by J.M. Barrie
The Little Prince, by A. de Saint-Exupéry
L’illa de la Paidonèsia, by O. Canosa
Pippi Longstocking, by A. Lindgren
Anne of Green Gables, by L.M. Montgomery
Duna: diari d’un estiu, by M. Villanueva
The Secret Garden, by F.H. Burnett
The Wonderful Wizard of OZ, by F. Baum
The Impossible Boy, by B. Brooks
The Beast of Buckingham Palace, by D. Walliams
Arriba el senyor Flat, by J. Copons and L. Fortuny
Charlotte’s Web, by E.B. White
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Six weeks after our proposal was presented, four reading seminar sessions were held
in a format similar to a literary gathering, with the aim of creating a space for
socialising around the literary works that had been read, sharing impressions and
accompanying the participants in the process of the didactic proposal.
From this point on, the students could begin to carry out the assigned activity, which
was different for each group. In the first group (hereinafter, the “control group”
), the proposal was to write three critical reviews -one for each work-, in which
their personal reading assessments were to emerge; in the second group (hereinafter,
the “experimental group”), the proposal was to rewrite each of the works in three
different formats: a visual poem, an object poem and a micro-story, also accompanied
by a personal assessment of the books. Therefore, while one group carried out a more
academic activity, the other did a more creative exercise.
The research follows a qualitative design () whereby data were collected from a single instrument: personal reading ratings,
with the following objectives:
1) To analyse reading responses in both the control group and the experimental group.
2) To compare the reading responses of the two groups.
3) To explore whether or not, through creativity, participants’ reading responses
show greater depth in the construction of meaning.
The qualitative data collected were processed using the software. Categories were created on the basis of an inductive-deductive process
in order to analyse them. On the one hand, we used ) proposal for categorising children’s responses to literary texts, which considers
four categories of reading responses: referential, compositional, intertextual and
intercultural and personal, with two levels of reading (literal and inferential) each.
On the other hand, a further level was added: the reflective level, in order to categorise
those reading responses in which, based on some referential, compositional, intertextual
and intercultural or personal element, the participant addressed the reflection on
some topic beyond the personal or literary, normally of a social, cultural or educational
nature. The categories of analysis were as follows (table 2):
Table 2.Categories of analysis of reading responses. Source: Fittipaldi, 2012; Prepared by the authors.
Levels
Categories
Literal Identification, description and establishment of simple connections.
Inferential Speculation, prediction, inference, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and
critical awareness. Proposal for interpretation.
Reflective Based on the interpretation proposal, reflection on different social, educational
or cultural issues.
Referential (on the narrative).
Identification of elements such as characters, actions or environments.
Interpretation of the elements of narrative construction.
Reflection on a social, cultural or educational issue based on narrative elements.
Compositional (about the book as an object).
Identification and description of the book as an object, visual or paratextual elements,
the communicative situation and the concept of reading.
Interpretation of the various visual and situational elements of the communicative
situation. Awareness of the author’s artistic intention and the implicit role of the
reader.
Reflection on a social, cultural or educational topic based on visual elements specific
to the communicative situation, the book or the reader.
Intertextual and intercultural (connections between texts and cultures).
Identification and mention of intertextual, metaphorical, symbolic, cultural and representational
references.
Establishment of intertextual relationships. Use of intertextual knowledge to interpret
the text.
Reflection on a social, cultural or educational theme based on intertextual elements
(metaphors, symbols, types of characters, etc.).
Personal (on one’s own experience).
Making simple connections between the text and the readers’ life experience.
Making complex connections between the text and the readers’ life experience.
Reflection on a social, cultural or educational issue by establishing elaborated connections
between the text and life experience.
Source: ; Prepared by the authors.
Results
The results of the research were constructed from the qualitative data collected from
the three personal reading assessments made by the 96 participants, with the result
that 288 reading responses were analysed. The data were categorised and analysed using
the software.
Categorisation of reading responses
When analysing the different types of reading response developed by the participants
in their personal assessments of reading, it can be seen how four categories are present: referential, compositional, intertextual and intercultural,
and personal.
In both the control group and the experimental group, the most common type of reading
response was referential: 90.20% in the control group and 83.21% in the experimental
group. From here, we find personal responses in 5.23% of the cases in the control
group and 8.40% in the experimental group; intertextual and intercultural responses
with 3.92% in the control group and 3.82% in the experimental group; and, finally,
compositional responses in 0.65% in the control group and 4.58% in the experimental
group. See the graph (Figure 1) which summarises the different categories of reading responses in both the control
and experimental groups.
Figure 1Categories of reading responses. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Levels of reading
As far as the different levels of reading are concerned, in the control group a literal
level of reading is found in 50.32% of the cases, compared to 24.03% in the experimental
group. In turn, 41.29% of the ratings show an inferential level of reading in the
control group, compared to 50.39% of the cases in the experimental group. In 6.45%
of the reading responses of the control group, a reflective level is found, while
in the experimental group, this level rises to 24.03% of the cases. Finally, in the
control group, 1.94% of the assessments explicitly stated that the literary work in
question was not understood, compared to 1.55% in the case of the experimental group
(figure 2).
Figure 2Levels of reading Source: Prepared by the authors.
Triangulation of reading response categories and levels of reading
If we triangulate the variables referring to the categorisation of reading responses
with the different levels of reading, we obtain a broader and more complex view of
the under study, from which we have excluded those cases in which it was explicitly
stated that the work in question had not been understood because they did not contain
any kind of reading response.
Through this analysis, we find that a large majority of the reading responses in the
control group are of a referential nature: 45.39% with a literal level, 38.82% with
an inferential level, and 5.92% of responses show a reflective level. Likewise, in
the experimental group there is also a majority of referential responses, but with
a different distribution of levels of reading: 22.83% literal, 46.46% inferential
and 14.96% reflective.
Other categories of reading responses with different levels of reading are also found,
both in the control group and in the experimental group: in the control group, 3.29%
of intertextual and intercultural responses at the literal level, 2.63% of literal
personal responses and 2.63% of inferential personal responses. In the second group,
7.09% of personal reflective responses, 1.57% of personal inferential and 1.57% of
intertextual and intercultural reflective responses stand out.
Figures 3 and 4 summarise the triangulation of reading response categories with their corresponding
level of reading.
Figure 3Triangulation of categories and levels of the control group Source: Prepared by the authors.
Figure 4Triangulation of categories and levels of the experimental group Source: Prepared by the authors.
Discussion and conclusions
On the basis of the results obtained, it has been possible to establish a comparison
between the reading responses of two groups of students of the subject Didactics of
Children’s and Young Adult Literature of the Primary Education degree. Although the
results are not statistically significant due to the number of participants, they
can be considered exploratory and can contribute to reflecting on one's own teaching
practice.
In both groups, a direct encounter between the participants and the literary works
was encouraged and a space for socialising after the reading was also established,
as proposed by , so that their reading experiences, at the same time as their training in literary
didactics, would be meaningful and beneficial. However, there are some important differences
between the results of the control group and the experimental group.
Firstly, if we analyse the results (objective 1), we find that the categorisation
of the participants’ reading responses does not vary much between the control group
and the experimental group. In both cases, most are referential in nature, that is,
they focus their reading assessments on aspects of the narrative itself, such as the
characters, the environments or the actions (). Almost anecdotally, compositional, intertextual, intercultural and personal responses
were found. Although these are hardly significant, they do appear more frequently
in the experimental group.
However, when looking at the depth levels of these reading responses, a greater difference
can be seen between the control group and the experimental group. For students in
the first group, most of the answers remain at the literal level, i.e. they “identify,
describe, list elements and establish simple relations with other texts” (). Less frequent are inferential level responses, i.e. those who analyse, hypothesise
and “make interpretative connections that lead them to construct (...) the meanings
for the text”. (). Reading responses with a reflective level are practically anecdotal in this group.
In the experimental group, on the other hand, it is found that more than half of the
answers show an inferential level of reading, and the other half of the answers are
almost equally divided between literal and reflective reading.
On the other hand, the triangulation of the data referring to the categories and levels
of reading shows that in the control group most of the reading responses are referential
and literal, which means that most of the participants make a superficial reading
and their assessment is basically descriptive. Next, there are the referential and
inferential ones, i.e., those that approximate an interpretation from the narrative
elements. Meanwhile, in the experimental group, the situation is reversed and the
reflective referential responses acquire greater relevance, that is, those responses
that, starting from an element of the narrative and its interpretation, develop a
reflection on a social, cultural or educational topic.
Therefore, the research data show that, in the control group, which performed a more
traditional activity, most of the reading responses are referential and at a literal
level, which would be in line with the results of the PISA tests and other studies
on the reading profile of future teachers (; ). However, in the experimental group, which performed a more creative activity, the
results show an increase in the depth of the level of reading, as most of the reading
responses are referential and inferential, and the reflective level responses also
increased significantly (objective 2).
The two groups had to choose 3 works from the same selection of books and had the
opportunity to share their reading impressions in the seminars. However, those who
were part of the experimental group showed a deeper level of reading in their reading
responses, so although the results are not statistically significant, we can think
that it was the use of creativity that made it possible to achieve this (objective
3). According to Piaget (1969), Cropley (2011) and Padget (2013), the proposal of
a creative activity would stimulate curiosity and the ability to reflect, and would
also foster higher order cognitive skills. In this case, the results suggest that
the challenge of producing a creative rewriting of the play forced them to go deeper
into the reading of the play, to associate ideas, to create metaphors, symbols and
to be original and imaginative.
Although it would be interesting to replicate the experience with a larger number
of participants, it seems that through creativity, learning objectives related to
literary reading could be achieved in a more effective and meaningful way, as suggested
by previous studies (; ).
Everything thus suggests that creative didactic proposals can contribute to improving
the reading and literary training of future teachers, making their reading experiences
prior to their professional practice more beneficial and their future role as mediators
more meaningful for their students (; ). It may even be that creative activities such as the one presented here can help
to reverse the situation of impoverishment of literary education in which we seem
to find ourselves ().
Beyond this experience, it would also have been interesting to collect data of a more
attitudinal nature in order to analyse whether or not the creative proposal also improved
attitudes towards reading and literature. It would even be interesting to replicate
the experience at other educational levels to corroborate the effectiveness of the
creative proposal to improve the reading and literary education of students of other
ages.
Finally, the results of the research lead us to make a positive assessment of the
experience, as they show that the participants have achieved the learning objectives
related to the literary reading of works of Children’s and Young Adult Literature
foreseen in the teaching plan, although in a more efficient way in the experimental
group than in the control group.
References
1
Aguilar-Ródenas, C. (2020). La necesidad de la educación literaria en LIJ en la formación
inicial de maestras y maestros. Lenguaje y Textos, 51, 29-40. https://doi.org/10.4995/lyt.2020.12315
2
Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH (2002-2022)
3
Ballester-Roca, J., & Ibarra-Rius, N. (2020). Cartografía crítica de la educación
literaria contemporánea. In Entre la lectura, la escritura y la educación. Narcea.
4
Bordons, G., & Cavalli, D. (2012). Mecanismes de percepció de la poesia visual: Brossa
i Viladot, 1970. Catalan Review, 26, 85-106. https://doi.org/10.3828/CATR.26.1.85
5
Ben-Amram, S., Aharony, N., & Bar Ilan, J. (2021). Information literacy education
in primary schools: A case study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(2), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620938132
6
Colomer, T., & Munita, F. (2013). La experiencia lectora de los alumnos de magisterio:
nuevos desafíos para la formación docente. Lenguaje y Textos, 38, 37-46. http://www.sedll.org/es/lenguaje-y-textos/consulta
7
Contreras-Barceló, E. (2021). Los mediadores literarios de los futuros maestros. Exploración
de relatos de vida literaria. Álabe. Revista de investigación sobre lectura y escritura, 24, 1-19. http://doi.org/10.15645/Alabe2021.24.5
8
Contreras-Barceló, E., & Torrents-Sunyol, J. (2020). Reciclant Brossa: una experiència
didàctica de poesia experimental en la formació inicial de mestres. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 13(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.802
9
Contreras, E., & Prats, M. (2015). ¿La educación literaria de los futuros maestros
es suficiente para ejercer de mediadores de las nuevas generaciones? Via Atlantica, 28, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.11606/va.i38.154524
10
Dueñas, J., Tabernero, R., Calvo, V., & Consejo, E. (2014). La lectura literaria ante
nuevos retos: canon y mediación en la trayectoria de los futuros profesores. Ocnos, 11, 21-43. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2014.11.02
11
Fittipaldi, M. (2012). La categorización de las respuestas infantiles ante los textos
literarios. Análisis de algunos modelos y propuesta de clasificación. In T. Colomer,
& M. Fitipaldi (Ed.), La literatura que acoge: Inmigración y lectura de álbumes (pp. 69-86). Banco del Libro-Gretel.
12
Granado, C., & Puig, M. (2015). La identidad lectora de los maestros en formación
como componente de su identidad docente. Un estudio de sus autobiografías como lectores.
Ocnos, 13, 43-63. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2015.13.03
13
Luri, G. (2019). Sobre el arte de leer. Plataforma Editorial.
14
Mendoza, A. (1998). Tú, lector. Aspectos de la interacción texto-lector en el proceso de lectura. Octaedro.
15
Mendoza, A. (2004). La educación literaria. Bases para la formación de la competencia lecto-literaria. Ediciones Aljibe.
Munita, F. (2014). El mediador escolar de lectura literaria. Un estudio del espacio de encuentro entre
prácticas didácticas, sistemas de creencias y prácticas personales de lectura. (Dissertation). TDX, Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa: https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/313451#page=1
19
Munita, F., & Manresa, M. (2012). La mediación en la discusión literaria. In T. Colomer,
& M. Fittipaldi (Coords.), La literatura que acoge: Inmigración y lectura de álbumes (pp. 19-143). Banco del Libro-Gretel.
Todorov, T. (2009). La literatura en peligro. Galaxia Gutenberg.
23
Trotman, J., & Kerr, T. (2001). Making the Personal Professional: Pre-service teacher
education and personal histories. Teachers and Teaching. Theory and Practice, 7(2), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600120054955
24
Sandín, M. P. (2003). Investigación cualitativa en educación: fundamentos y tradiciones. McGraw-Hill.
