2004
Volume 58, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0165-8204
  • E-ISSN: 2667-1573

Abstract

Abstract

In many classrooms pupils are not encouraged to develop their own interpretations of literary texts. I developed an educational design to address this problem. My design is based on the principles of creativity, the highest order of thinking according to the taxonomy of Bloom/Krathwohl. Pupils are asked to fill a lacuna in a poem of Sappho () and to discuss their supplements with classmates. My expectation is that these discussions include many forms of interpretation, since the entirety of the poem has to be understood to create a valid supplement. This design was put into practice to teach three groups of pupils (Dutch vwo 4 and 5). The data used for analysis are the audiotapes of the group discussions and interviews with pupils after completing the task. The design appears to have multiple outcomes. Two groups developed a rich interpretation of the poem, whereas one group limited their thoughts about the poem to the lines directly preceding the lacuna.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2025.1.002.UUM
2025-02-01
2025-04-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Algemeen Letterkundig Lexicon. n.d. ‘Interpretatie’, bit.ly/3P09xpQ (geraadpleegd op 13januari2025).
  2. Baarda, B., E.Bakker, A.Boullart, T.Fischer, M.Julsing, V.Peters en T.van der Velden. 2018. Basisboek kwalitatief onderzoek. Handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek, Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brillenburg Wurth, K. en A.Rigney. 2009. Het leven van teksten. Een inleiding tot de literatuurwetenschap, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chi, M.T.H.1997. ‘Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data. A practical guide’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences6, 271-315.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Forde, S.2019. ‘Using classical reception studies to develop students’ engagement with classical literature in translation’, The Journal of Classics Teaching20, 14-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Göttsching, V. en S.Marino. 2017. Interpretieren im Lateinunterricht. Ein Handbuch, Göttingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Harvey, S. en C.Y.Kou. 2013. ‘Collective engagement in creative tasks. The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups’, Administrative Science Quarterly58, 346-386.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jans, E. en C.Hupperts. 2014. Palladion. Griekse literatuur en cultuur, Leeuwarden.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Janssen, T.2009. Literatuur leren lezen in dialoog. Lezersvragen als hulpmiddel bij het leren interpreteren van korte verhalen, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Krathwohl, D.R.2002. ‘A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. An overview’, Theory Into Practice41, 212-218.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kreij, M. de en B.van de Ven. 2022. ‘Homerus in de papyri’, Lampas55, 28-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kuhlmann, P.2016. ‘Modelle und Methoden’, in P.Kuhlmann, B.Eickhoff, H.Horstmann en M.Rühl (eds), Lateinische Literaturdidaktik, Bamberg, 8-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Oosterheert, I.E. en P.C.Meijer. 2017. ‘Wat creativiteitsontwikkeling in het onderwijs behoeft’, Pedagogische Studiën94, 196-210.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Plomp, T.2013. ‘Educational design research. An introduction’, in T.Plomp en N.Nieveen (eds), Educational design research. Part A: an introduction, Enschede, 10-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Rayor, D. en A.Lardinois. 2014. Sappho. A new translation of the complete works, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Starko, A.J.2010. Creativity in the classroom. Schools of curious delight, New York/Londen.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2025.1.002.UUM
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2025.1.002.UUM
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error