Abstract
Using the frameworks of complex dynamic systems and network analysis, this chapter seeks to show how the 62 papers reviewed in Chap. 13 are interrelated. This is done by examining the relationships among the references they cite, including citations to each other. This information is then run through Gephi, a network analysis software, to create a visual representation of the network and to identify ‘communities’ and significant papers. These revealed the six papers most central to creativity research as indicated by the references and their position across communities. Important facts to emerge were the relatively little inter-reference, the preponderance of quantitative studies, the focus on Person creativity and the poor research design of half of the most connected papers. Clearly the research is fragmented and researchers appear not to read each other’s work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 54, 227–310.
Albert, A .(2006). Learner creativity as a potentially important individual variable: Examining the relationships between learner creativity, language aptitude and level of proficiency. In M. Nikolov & J. Horváth (Eds.), University of Pécs roundtable 2006: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp. 77–98). Pécs, Hungary: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ball, O. E., & Torrance, E. P. (1984). Streamlined scoring workbook: Figural A, TTCT. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Barabasi, A.-L. (2002). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means. New York: Plume Editors.
Barkóczi, I., & Zétényi, T. (1981). A kreativitás vizsgálata [The examination of creativity]. Budapest, Hungary: Országos Pedagógiai Intézet.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Devlin, H. (2016, September 21). Cut-throat academia leads to ‘natural selection of bad science’, claims study. Guardian.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learners: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: The making of a new science. New York: Viking Penguin Books.
Grainger, T., Goouch, K., & Lambirth, A. (2005). Creativity and writing (developing voice and verse in the classroom). London: Routledge.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.
Houtz, J. C. (Ed.). (2003). The educational psychology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PloS One, 9(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098679.
Jones, R. H., & Richards, J. (Eds.). (2016). Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Lopez, E. C. (2003). Creativity issues concerning linguistically and culturally diverse children. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 107–127). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Maley, A. (2016). ‘More research is needed’ – A mantra too far. Humanizing Language Teaching, 18(3).
Meera, K., & Remya, P. (2010). Effect of extensive reading and creativity on achievement in English language. E-journal of All India Association for Educational Research, 22(1), 16–22.
Newman, M. E. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577–8582.
Otto, I. (1998). The relationship between individual differences in learner creativity and language learning success. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 763–773.
Özcan, D. (2010). Contributions of English teachers’ behaviours on students’ creative thinking abilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5850–5854.
Pishghadam, R., Ghorbani Nezhad, T., & Shayesteh, S. (2012). Creativity and its relationship with teacher success. Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal, 3(2), 204–216.
Runco, M. A. (2003). Creativity, cognition, and their educational implications. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 25–56). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tin, B. T., Manara, C., & Ragawanti, D. (2009). Views on creativity from an Indonesian perspective. ELT Journal, 64(1), 75–84.
Tarone, E. (2002). Frequency effects, noticing and creativity (factors in a variationist interlanguage framework). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 287–296.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maley, A., Kiss, T. (2018). Network Analysis of Research Papers on Creativity in ELT. In: Creativity and English Language Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46729-4_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46729-4_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-46728-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-46729-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)