Creative Expressive Writing: A Situated Pedagogy for Confidence, Skill, and Negotiated Meaning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation seeks to coin a term and theorize creative expressive writing (CEW) as a situated, negotiated, and distributed mode of writing that serves to support, not replace, other types of writing instruction at all levels of education including second language writing. Using the work of Elbow (1973) and Allen (2000, 2002) as pedagogical approaches, along with Fulkerson’s (1990, 2005) framework for a full theory of writing, this thesis offers a reassertion of expressive writing as a pedagogical opportunity that empowers writers and works against traditions of dominance in the writing classroom. Creative expressive writing is a democratic mode of writing seeking to decolonize writing instruction by honouring and exercising voice. Expressivism, a mode of writing about personal experience that was popular in the 1970’s, has been denigrated as being solipsistic and careless; however, it has not left the landscape of writing instruction despite it being “seriously undertheorized” (Hyland, 2016, p. 13). With the framework provided by bioecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), this dissertation argues that creative expressive writing is socially situated and has both cognitive and affective benefits for students that can be transferred to their academic work. This is a three-article dissertation that includes one chapter of personal narrative and two grounded theory research studies. The first of the two studies took place in a middle school English class where students attended creative expressive writing workshops that were designed around their novel study. Findings reveal that creative expressive writing (CEW) as new literacy practice supports meaningful engagement, confidence, critical thinking, and empathy among peers. The second study took place in a second language English for Academic Purposes (EAP) context. Findings revealed that learners benefitted from the community of practice that formed. Engagement and enjoyment of writing activities led to both affective and cognitive gains similar to those found in the middle school classroom study. Ultimately, the argument is made that creative expressive writing has multiple benefits, but articulated, consolidated, and deliberate conversation about the possibilities and limitations needs finally to occur for the benefit of teachers and students alike. This dissertation endeavours to begin this conversation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».