Developing Creative Thinking through Constructivist Approach in an English Language Course for Grade 11 Students
Main Article Content
Abstract
This classroom action research aimed to: (1) develop linguistic creativity in the Fundamental English course using a Constructivist approach, with at least 70% of Grade 11 students achieving a minimum score of 70%; (2) investigate students’ linguistic creativity and academic achievement after instruction through the Constructivist approach; and (3) examine students’ satisfaction with this learning management model. The participants were 35 Grade 11 students from Class 5/1 at the Demonstration School of Khon Kaen University (Mo Din Daeng) during the second semester of the 2024 academic year. Research instruments included lesson plans based on the Constructivist approach, a linguistic creativity assessment, a learning achievement test (pre- and post-test), and a student satisfaction questionnaire. Data were analyzed using percentage, mean, and standard deviation. The findings showed that students’ linguistic creativity—fluency, flexibility, and originality—consistently increased across three action research cycles, with 71.43% of students meeting the set criterion in the final cycle. Academic achievement also improved, with mean scores increasing from 64.00% on the pre-test to 77.05% on the post-test. Additionally, students reported high overall satisfaction with the Constructivist learning approach. The results indicate that Constructivist-based learning management effectively enhances linguistic creativity, academic achievement, and student engagement in English language learning.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
References
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London, England: Kogan Page.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). Macmillan.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
Jones, R. H. (Ed.). (2016). Creativity and English language teaching: From description to practice. Routledge.
Kwaengmuang, P. (2018). Results of using learning innovation according to constructivist theory to promote knowledge construction and 21st-century creative thinking for university students. Panyapiwat Journal, 10(1), 175.
Ministry of Education. (2003). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and its amendments (No. 2) B.E. 2545 (2002). Express Transportation Organization of
Thailand Publishing.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (2008). Ministry of Education.
Neo, M. (2005). Engaging students in learning: A constructivist approach. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 161–171.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. Grossman.
Pimthaisong, J. (2019). The development of English reading comprehension learning management based on constructivist theory for Mathayom 3 students [Master’s thesis, Mahasarakham University].
Richards, J. C. (2013). Creativity in language teaching. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 19–43.
Sonkhunthod, N., & Prommuang, P. (2023). The development of English reading comprehension based on constructivism of Grade 3 students. Academic Journal of Mahamakut Buddhist University Roi Et Campus, 12(2), 97–109. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/AJMBU/article/view/259829
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Personnel Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
