In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity

Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 1529

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journa l homepage: ht tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / tsc

In-service and prospective teachers conceptions of creativity

Panagiotis Kampylisa,, Eleni Berkib, Pertti Saariluomaa

a University of Jyvskyl, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Agora Center, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40014 Jyvskyl, Finlandb University of Tampere, Department of Computer Sciences, Kanslerinrinne 1, Pinni B, FIN-33014 Tampere, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 June 2008Received in revised form26 September 2008Accepted 16 October 2008Available online 1 November 2008

Keywords:Conceptions of creativityImplicit theories of creativityPrimary educationIn-service teachersProspective teachers

a b s t r a c t

Teachersplayacrucial role in thedevelopmentofprimary school students creativepotentialin either a positive or a negative way. This paper aims to draw attention to in-service andprospective teachers conceptions of creativity and answer three main research questions:What are the teachers conceptions and implicit theories of creativity in general?, Whatare the teachers conceptions and implicit theories of creativity in the context of primaryeducation?, and How well-trained and equipped do teachers feel to play their key rolein the development of students creative potential? A self-report questionnaire was usedas an instrument to gather qualitative and quantitative data from 132 Greek in-serviceand prospective teachers. According to the selected quantitative data we present in thisstudy, the majority of the participants reported that the facilitation of students creativity isincluded in the teachers role, but they (teachers themselves) do not feel well-trained andcondent enough to realise this particular expectation. The authors conclude that furtherresearch is needed in order to: (i) reveal more on teachers conceptions on creativity and(ii) understand and classify teachers particular needs to facilitate the creative potential ofprimary school students.

2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background

We live in the creative age of information, communication and collaboration; creativity is considered key for personal andsocial prosperity (Florida, 2002; Florida & Tinagli, 2004; Valtanen, Berki, Kampylis, & Theodorakopoulou, 2008). The knowl-edge triangle research, education, and innovation is a core factor in European Union efforts to meet the ambitious Lisbongoals (Davies, 2006). The road map to a knowledge-centred society is based on innovation processes to create intelligenteconomies in European countries (Florida & Tinagli, 2004; Sawyer, 2006a). The importance of schooling in the developmentof students creativity is well-documented (e.g. Cropley, 2001; Starko, 2005) and the concern for creativity in the primaryeducation milieu has increased in recent years (Craft, 2006; Sawyer, 2006a).

Teachers role in the development of primary school students creativity is very important, because they act as rolemodelsandmentors andspendaconsiderable amountof timewith students.Gardner (1993) stressed the important role that teachersand mentors have played in the lives of high-creative individuals and, according to Berki (2005), mentoring is associatedwith individual and organizational development. If wewant to achieve the organizational development of education towardscreative schools, we need teachers who can engage in the complex expression of creative agency (Kowalski, 1997). However,there are several ethical, cultural, social, and educational dilemmas that teachers face in real classroom settings (Craft, 2003;Valtanen et al., 2008). Moreover, Westby and Dawson (1995) pointed out the contradiction between teachers self-reports,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +35 8504070096; fax: +35 8142603011.E-mail addresses: panagiotis.g.kampylis@jyu., [email protected] (P. Kampylis), [email protected]. (E. Berki), psa@jyu. (P. Saariluoma).

1871-1871/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.10.001

16 P. Kampylis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 1529

according to which they value creativity, and the research ndings that revealed teachers dislike personality traits associatedwith creativitysuch as risk taking, impulsivity, and independence. According to Westby and Dawson (1995), this is becauseteachers main effort remains to maintain order and discipline in the classroom. In addition, Torrance and Safter (1986)reported that teachers are in fact ill-equipped to facilitate students creative potential most likely because, as Mack (1987)pointed out, little knowledge about the concepts of creativity is passed on to student teachers by the professors of educationalcourses.

The word creativity, on the other hand, is frequently used in educational contents and contexts as well as in everydaydiscourse with vague denitions. Therefore, there is a fundamental need to expose what teachers really mean and whatare their implicit theories when they make use of the word creativity and its various cognates. This is vital if we want tocertify that teachers (i) know how and (ii) want to facilitate students creative potential (Runco, 2003). Thus, one should rstunderstand the teachers conceptions and implicit theories of creativity.

Implicit theories and teachers conceptions of creativity gained the interest of researchers (Runco & Bahleda, 1986;Sternberg, 1985, 1988) in the mid-1980s. The pioneering researchers (Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Sternberg, 1985, 1988) con-cluded that individuals use these latent but existing theories in identifying and describing creativity both in themselves andin others. According to Sternberg (1985), implicit theories within and across cultures have a great theoretical as well aspractical meaning because they contribute to the formulation of the common cultural views on creativity and they disclosewhat people in a given time and place mean when referring to creativity. The basic weakness of implicit theories is that theydescribe rather than explain behaviours (Sternberg, 1985) and must, therefore, be supplemented with and related to explicitones.

Within the framework of education, the implicit theories of teachers have been regarded as extremely important (e.g.Kowalski, 1997). According to Runco, Johnson, and Bear (1993), teachers idiosyncratic implicit theories act intentionallyor unintentionally as prototypes against which students creative behaviour and performance are judged. Teachers con-ceptions and implicit theories may facilitate or inhibit students creative behaviour because the ways in which teachersorganise the classroom practices are primarily inuenced by what they know and believe (Beghetto, 2006). Thus, teachersimplicit theories should be taken into consideration in any educational program and initiative that aims to develop studentscreativity (Kowalski, 1997). Moreover, teachers implicit theories reect the type of valuable tacit knowledge that is gainedfrom real classroom settings (Runco, 1999).

There is, however, a need for further research on teachers conceptions and implicit theories of creativity and their role instudents creative thinking development. A literature review indicates the shortage of studies regarding this research topic.Table 1 summarises the scientic studies related to ours, which have been carried out worldwide since 1991.

According to Table 1, the only large-scale research on teachers conceptions of creativity is that of Fryer and Collings(1991), conducted almost 20 years ago. Furthermore, it is visible that we have research results from a limited number ofcountries (Austria, Canada, China-Hong Kong, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Romania, Singapore, UK, USA) andonly three cross-cultural studies (Runco & Johnson, 2002; Seng, Keung, & Cheng, 2008; Spiel & Korff, 1998). Moreover, wehave research results on prospective teachers implicit theories of creativity only from Cyprus (Diakidoy & Kanari, 1999) andGreece (the present study).

The gap in research and literature on in-service and prospective teachers implicit theories of creativity forms a notabledeciency because it iswell-documented that teachers play a vital role in the facilitation of students creativity (e.g. Kowalski,1997; Nickerson, 1999). After a study involving 1028 teachers and further education lecturers from England and Wales, Fryerand Collings (1991) stated that teachers have diverse perceptions of creativity and suggested further research on this. Runcoand Johnson (2002) have also stressed the importance of studying teachers implicit theories about creativity.

Furthermore, a number of researchers (Beghetto, 2006; Fasko, 2001; Runco, 2003; Westby & Dawson, 1995) report thatteachers hold negative attitudes and little tolerance for behaviours and attributes associated with creativity, although theygenerally value it. Therefore, some teachers may follow inhibiting practices (Alencar, 2002, p. 15) for the expression ofstudents creativity and the realisation of their creative potential. According to Alencar (2002, pp. 1517), the term inhibitingpractices incorporates the following: (i) emphasis on the correct response, reinforcing the fear of failure, (ii) exaggeratedemphasis on reproduction of knowledge, (iii) low expectations about the students creative potential, (iv) emphasis on thestudents obedience and passivity, and (v) little emphasis on fantasy and imagination as important aspects to be takeninto account. A number of studies (e.g. Diakidoy & Phtiaka, 2001) also reveal conicts between teachers and researchersconceptions of creativity. Furthermore, Davies, Howe, Fasciato, and Rogers (2004) specically mention that teachers have anarrow and stereotypic view of creativity and stress the lack of attention to creativity in teachers education.

This paper aims at drawing attention to in-service andprospective teachers conceptions of creativity.Wewill also provideour own working denition of creativity within the framework of primary education.

1.1. Dening creativity within the primary education framework

There is a consensus among researchers that creativity is a widely used but vague term and we face difculties whenrequired to put itsmeaning intowords (e.g. Sawyer, 2006a). The term creativity as used in everyday life and in academic eldsrefers to the process, person, product, or context, or several of these factors, and has many even contradictory denitions(Taylor, 1988). However, creativity researchers (e.g. Ryhammar & Brolin, 1999) generally agree that creativity is a processthat leads to an outcome that is novel/original/unconventional and is accepted by experts as appropriate/valuable/useful.

P.Kam

pyliset

al./ThinkingSkills

andCreativity

4(2009)

152917

Table 1Studies on in-service and prospective teachers conceptions of creativity since 1991.

Researcher(s)/title Year of publication Countries Instrument(s) Participants Number of participants

Fryer and Collings: Teachers views about creativity 1991 UK Questionnaire and 31follow-up interviews

Teachers and furthereducation lecturersfrom England andWales

1028

Runco, Johnson, and Bear: Parents and teachers implicittheories on childrens creativity

1993 USA Check list anddemographicquestionnaire

American teachers andparents

85 (42 teachers, study#1)

Westby and Dawson: Creativity: Asset or burden in theclassroom?

1995 USA Check lists American primaryschool teachers

16

Karrow: Science teachers views of creativity 1997 Canada Interviews Science teachers 3Kowalski: Toward a vision of creative schools: Teachers

beliefs about creativity and public creative identity1997 USA Questionnaire,

interviews, on-siteobservations

Primary and secondaryschool teachers

81

Craft: Educators perspectives on creativity: An Englishstudy

1998 UK Participantobservations, informaldiscussions, 2questionnaires,interviews

Educators form avariety of educationcontexts

18

Spiel and von Korff: Implicit theories of creativity: Theconceptions of politicians, scientists, artists and schoolteachers

1998 Austria and Germany Questionnaire Politicians, scientists,artists, and teachersfrom Austria andGermany

145 (17 teachers fromAustria and 25 fromGerman)

Chan and Chan: Implicit theories of creativity: Teachersperception of student characteristics in Hong Kong

1999 Hong Kong, China Questionnaire Hong Kong primaryand secondary schoolteachers

204

Diakidoy and Kanari: Student teachers beliefs aboutcreativity

1999 Cyprus Questionnaire Cypriot studentteachers

49

Dinca: Creative children in Romanian society 1999 Romania Interviews Romanian teachers andadolescents

90 (30 teachers)

Saarilahti, Cramond, and Sieppi: Is creativity nurtured inFinnish classrooms?

1999 Finland Reective narratives Two Finnish primaryschool teachers andone Americanteacher-educator

3

Fleith: Teacher and student perceptions of creativity inthe classroom environment

2000 USA Semi-structuredinterviews

American primaryschool teachers,students and experts increativity

7+31+7

Diakidoy and Phtiaka: Teachers beliefs about creativity 2001 Cyprus Preliminary interviewsand questionnaire

Cypriot primary schoolteachers

16+98

Runco and Johnson: Parents and teachers implicittheories of childrens creativity: A cross-culturalperspective

2002 USA and India Demographicquestionnaire andcheck list

Parents and teachersfrom USA and India

150 (30 teachers fromUSA and 41 from India)

Sak: About creativity, giftedness and teaching thecreatively gifted in the classroom

2004 USA Semi-structuredinterviews andclassroom observations

American primaryschool teacher of giftedstudents

1

Aljughaiman and Mower-Reynolds: Teachersconceptions of creativity and creative students

2005 USA Questionnaire American primaryschool teachers

36

Seng, Keung, and Cheng: Implicit theories of creativity: Acomparison of student-teachers in Hong Kong andSingapore

2008 Hong Kong and Singapore Questionnaire Trainee-teachers fromHong Kong andSingapore

315 (188 from HongKong and 127 fromSingapore)


Dineen, Samuel, and Livesey (2005) point out that creativity requires both divergent/productive thinking, to ensure novelty,and convergent/reproductive thinking, to ensure appropriateness. For instance, Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) denecreativity as the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a percep-tible product that is both novel and useful as dened within a social context (p. 90). In the same framework, Sawyer (2006b)provides a more general denition of creativity as the emergence of something novel and appropriate, from a person, agroup, or a society (p. 34).

Even though the term creativity has strongly positive connotations, it may be used for both constructive and destructiveends (Nickerson, 1999). Therefore, creativity requires also critical and reective thinking (Valtanen et al., 2008) and asCraft (2006) pointed out we should ask ourselves as adults and encourage children to ask, what ends their (and our)creativity serves; and thus to foster creativity with wisdom (p. 347). In other words, the purpose of fostering creativityshould be the promotion of the common good (Cropley & Urban, 2000). Nevertheless, Gibson (2005) stresses that theethical dimension of creativity is missing from current educational discourses, and Craft (2003) argues that before teachingchildren, through creativity, to adapt to constant and rapid change, we should question the desirability of that change.Furthermore, in their research, Valtanen et al. (2008) coined the term manifold thinking, supporting the idea that creativethinking in an educational context, and in educators in particular, should be combined with critical, reective, and caringthinking.

Accordingly, the authors of this paper propose a comprehensive and comprehensible denition of creativity within theframework of primary education:

We call creativity the activity (both mental and physical) that occurs in a specic time-space, social and culturalframework and leads to a tangible or intangible outcome(s) that is original, useful, ethical and desirable, at least to thecreator(s).

In our denition, the term ethical refers to the aspiration of creativity for constructive ends (Clark & James, 1999; Craft,2006; Cropley & Urban, 2000), whereas the term desirable pertains to the purposeful action that characterises the creativeendeavours. Furthermore, we call creative not only the individual(s) and the activity(ies), but also the outcome(s) and theframework(s).

But is creativity an all-or-none entity (Nickerson, 1999) that you express or not? A number of scholars (e.g. Kowalski,1997; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999) assume that creativity is an innate potential in all people, although it is not expressed tothe same degree or in the same way, and it utilizes ordinary cognitive processes even in its most remarkable expressions.Therefore,weneed somethingmore than an explicit and comprehensive denition of creativitywithin the primary educationframework; we should specify the types and levels of creativity to which our students can aspire. The following sectionclaries and denes the latter.

1.2. Types and levels of creativity

Scholars in the eld of human creativity (see Table 2) have formulated explicit distinctions between two main types ofcreativity. The rst type of creativity (special-talent and so forth) is ascribed to people who contribute to a eld and whosecontributions are recognised by the society. This conceptualisation of creativity stresses the value of the creative personand creative products; it has limited implication in the primary school context. In contrast, the second type of creativity(self-actualizing and so forth) is collaborative, improvised, depends on shared cultural knowledge and stresses the process(Sawyer, 2006b). This type of creativity could be widely applied in the primary school context because it is regarded as aninnate potential in all people.

On the other hand, Taylor (1959) asserted that creativity is amultifaceted concept, ranging from the spontaneous drawingsof children to the scientic theories of Einstein. Therefore, for research purposes, he suggested ve distinctive developmentallevels of creativity that involve diverse psychological and cognitive processes:

Table 2Types of creativity.

Author(s) Year Types of creativity

Maslow 1962 Special-talent Self-actualizingGhiselin 1963 Primary SecondaryElliott 1971 Traditional NewNicholls 1972 Eminent EverydayMumford and Gustafson 1988 Major MinorRipple 1989 Extraordinary OrdinaryBoden 1991 Historical PsychologicalGardner 1993 Big C Creativity Little c creativityRichards 1993 Eminent EverydayNACCCE 1999 Elite DemocraticCropley 2001 Sublime Everyday

P. Kampylis et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 1529 19

Expressive creativity: as in the spontaneous drawings of a child. Involves instinct and impulsiveness; does not require anyparticular skill or originality.

Technical creativity: as in the performance of a virtuoso musician. Comprises knowledge, skills and expertise. Implementsideas, methods or techniques that are new to the individual but not necessarily to the others.

Inventive creativity: as in the printing press of Gutenberg. Consists of the use of existing ideas, materials, methods andtechniques in new or unusual ways.

Innovative creativity: as in thework of Copernicuswhomodied earlier theories and formulated his heliocentric cosmology.Involves conceptualizing skills and the extension of existing ideas, methods, principles, and techniques.

Emergentive creativity: as in the work of Freud. Includes the most abstract theories or assumptions around which newschools of thought, movements and the like can ourish.

Wedonot consider Taylors levels as strict and distinctive developmental stages of creativity but as a useful representationof its multiplicity and as a framework of reference to investigate teachers conceptions on creativity. Taylor (1959) remarkedthat most people, when referring to creativity in general, have the emergentive level in mind, although only few individualscould aim to this uppermost level. Therefore, a question arises: Do primary school teachers refer to creativity as an all-or-none entity or as something that could be expressed in different levels by all? The answer to this specic question is vitalbecause teachers act in the classroom according to their implicit theories and those teachers who believe that creativity isan all-or-none entity might not try to facilitate all students creative potential.

Ourpast andrecent studies (Kampylis, 2006,2008;Kampylis&Berki, 2005;Kampylis, Berki,&Saariluoma,2006;Kampylis,Fokides, & Theodorakopoulou, 2007; Lambropoulos et al., 2008; Valtanen et al., 2008) are primarily concerned with thelatter type of creativity as expressed in the primary school framework. Claxton, Edwards, and Scale-Constantinou (2006)addressed the question whether it is possible to organise the classrooms in such a way that students not only have theopportunity to express their creativity but also to become systematically more creative. In our view, all learners are capableof creative achievements if they are given the opportunity and the means. We strongly believe that a democratic educationalenvironment should offer opportunities and means for everyone to express their creative potential irrespective of race, age,sex, and cultural or educational background. We consider that above all, creativity is a situationally dependent activity (Loi& Dillon, 2006, p. 367); facilitating creativity in primary school students requires an unconventional learning environment(Tan, 2001, p. 50) that can stimulate students to learn and explore through active and wholehearted participation (Kampyliset al., 2006; Tan, 2001).

The rest of the paper presents the environment of our research context, study methodology, ndings and conclusions.

1.3. The research environment: creativity in Greek primary education

The development of Greek primary school students creative potential lies at the heart of the educational goals asreected in present and past legislative acts (Law, 1566/1985) and National Curricula (PI, 2003). However, despite the dec-larations for a creative education, the everyday practices in Greek primary schools are very different (Paraskevopoulos,2004). According to Paraskevopoulos (2004), the basic reasons are (i) the written exams (from primary to tertiary edu-cation) that reward divergent thinking and memorization, (ii) the inexible and extensive curriculum, and (iii) teachersinadequate training on creativity. In addition, the term creativity is widely used in formal and informal settings but, asmentioned earlier, with vague denitions or without any specic explanations regarding implementations in the schoolcontext (Kampylis, 2008). For instance, in the reformed Cross Thematic Curriculum Framework (CTCF) for Compulsory Edu-cation (PI, 2003), the term and its cognates have been used approximately 300 times. Nevertheless, CTCF does not offer asubstantiated working denition of the term. Most importantly, CTCF does not give explicit instructions on how creativitymight be developed or how one would know when this ambitious target has been achieved. Moreover, the CTCF occasion-ally refers to the term creativity as a desirable thinking approach, as well as an attribute of specic activities (e.g. creativeactivities).

Looking closer and examining subject-related creativity, one could refer to the Cross Thematic Curriculum Frameworkfor Music (PI, 2003). In this document, the term creativity is cited fty (50) times and teachers are instructed to evaluate1

students considering their creative outcomes. However, the CTCFM does not offer a working denition of creativity norinstructions on its enhancement and assessment. Therefore, the term is used in a confusing way, as a wish rather than atangible and feasible educational goal (Kampylis, 2008).

The absence of a well-dened, goal-directed approach in these denitive educational formal documents creates prob-lems for understanding the nature and level of creativity. Consequently, a lack of understanding creates a lack of teachersmotivation for working towards the realisation of creativity at school. Kampylis (2008) reports a discrepancy between theobjectives of Greek National Curricula with respect to creativity and its outcomes; other researchers report similar inconsis-tencies between school objectives and outcomes regarding creativity in other educational systems (e.g. Diakidoy & Kanari,1999; Dinca, 1999; Kowalski, 1997; Saarilahti, Cramond, & Sieppi, 1999). In any case, the development from motivation to

1 Using a grading system that contains both words and numbers: Excellent (910), Very Good (78), Good (56), and Fair.


an idea in our case creativity in primary education and nally to a real innovation requires communication of differentviewpoints (Ahonen & Syvnen, 2006).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 70 in-service teachers who work in Greek State Primary Schools in the Athens region and 62prospective teachers of the Faculty of Primary Education of the National and Capodistrian University of Athens (N=132).All the prospective teachers were enrolled in the nal eighth semester of their studies and they had completed thecompulsory practice period in primary education schools. The study was conducted after two ofcial permissions weregiven by the Greek Pedagogical Institute (for in-service teachers) and by the assembly of the Faculty of Primary Educationof the National and Capodistrian University of Athens (for the prospective teachers). The participation in the study was on avoluntary basis. Themajority of the participants (62.7% of the in-service teachers and 88.7% of the prospective teachers)werefemale; this is consistent and representative of primary education in Greece and worldwide (e.g. Beghetto, 2006; Diakidoy& Kanari, 1999). Finally, 57.2% of the participants stated that they would like to be informed about the results of the surveyby e-mail. The summarised demographic information of the participants is shown in Table 3.

2.2. Research instrument

The research instrumentwas a self-report, anonymous, pencil-and-paper questionnaire (Teachers Conceptions of Creativ-ity Questionnaire TCCQ) containing a covering letter and 62 items divided into ve sections (four sections with attitudinalitems and one with demographics and factual items). The majority of the questionnaire items (41) were ve-point (fromstrongly disagree to strongly agree) Likert-type scales. There were also 10 open-ended and four multiple-choice items.Eleven of the questionnaire items were adopted with modications from past research of Diakidoy and Kanari (1999);the other items arose from the authors experience in the eld.

The initial questionnaire was presented to experts in the eld for their review of the content, structure, and layout. Afterthe necessary modications, it was administered to 10 Greek teachers (seven females, and three males) in order to test outthe clarity of the items, the requisite time, the suitable structure and the appropriate layout. The nal TCCQ was printed outand distributed to the participants by the researchers. In this study, we present only quantitative data from selected items(14 Likert-type scales and 1 multiple-choice item) of the TCCQ.

2.3. Data gathering procedure

In-service teachers lled in the questionnaire during the spring of 2006 in their schools. The questionnaire was dis-seminated to prospective teachers in the same period in two courses of compulsory attendance to guarantee maximumparticipation, although it was up to the willingness of the attendees to participate or not. The participants lled in the ques-tionnaire in 2535min time. One researcher was present and the participants were free to discuss with him any claricationor further understanding required before completing the TCCQ.

Table 3Demographic information of the participant.

Group A: 62 prospective teachers Group B: 70 in-service teachers Total: 132

# % # % # %

SexFemale 55 88.7 44 62.9 99 75.0Male 07 11.3 26 37.1 33 25.0

Age2030 56 90.3 06 8.6 62 47.03140 06 09.7 36 51.4 42 31.84150 26 37.1 26 19.751 02 2.9 02 01.5

Years of experience0 62 100 62 47.315 12 17.4 12 09.2610 16 23.2 16 12.21115 16 23.2 16 12.21620 15 21.7 15 11.521 10 14.5 10 07.6

Interested in the results 27 43.5 48 68.6 75 57.2


2.4. Limitations

Before discussing the results, it is useful to draw attention to the main limitations the researchers faced in conductingthis research. First, as in all self-report questionnaires, TCCQ provides subjective data; the validity of TCCQ data needs to befurther evaluated, most likely by additional research techniques. Second, the participation in the study was on a voluntarybasis, which constitutes a convenience, non-representative sample of Greek in-service and prospective teachers. Therefore,results from this study are limited in this extent and follow-up studies are necessary in order to verify the consistency andgeneralizability of the presented data. Third, the study is limited to the Greek educational system and culture. Therefore,further research in other countries is recommended to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the cross-culturaldimension of teachers conceptions and implicit theories of creativity. Conclusions and implications drawn from this studyshould be viewed in the light of these limitations.

3. Research ndings

In this section, we present selected items from the TCCQ in relation with the three research questions, the gatheredquantitative data in tabular form (Tables 4 and 5) as well as brief commentary.

3.1. Questionnaire items related to the rst research question

First, we present the six selected TCCQ items that are related to the rst research question, namely the teachers concep-tions and implicit theories of creativity in general.

Item 1: Creativity is a key factor for personal and social progress. Creativity has been recognised as a key factor not only forpersonal development, social progress, and economic growth but also for the physical survival of the society (e.g. Florida,2002; Florida & Tinagli, 2004). The majority of prospective teachers (64.6%) supported this view although 21.0% disagreedand 14.4% replied that they do not know (or do not want to answer). In other words, almost one out of three prospectiveteachers does not believe that creativity is a key factor for personal and social progress. Therefore, perhaps they do notstrive to facilitate students creative development. On the other hand, in-service teachers were supportive of the point ofview that creativity is a key factor for personal and social progress; 84.1% agreed or strongly agreed that creativity is akey factor for social and personal progress, while 8.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 7.2% did not know or want toanswer.

Item 2: Sociocultural and environmental factors inuence creative performance. There was an impressive total agreement(100%) among the participants in both groups that sociocultural and environmental factors inuence creative performance.This nding is in accordance with the results from prior studies (e.g. Diakidoy & Kanari, 1999) and the relevant literature inwhich researchers of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Sawyer, 2006b) offered concrete evidence of the interactive role ofenvironmental and sociocultural factors on the expression of creative potential. Furthermore, according to Esquivel (1995),the emphasis on the role of environmental and sociocultural factors over genetic ones is connected with the idea thatcreativity can be taught (Kampylis et al., 2006; Starko, 2005; Sternberg, 2003; Ward et al., 1999).

Item 3: With which of the following do you agree? (Please choose only one). 1. Creativity can be developed in every person.2. Creativity can be developed only in people who are creative by nature. 3. Creativity is innate; it cannot be developed. A validpercentage of 83.9% of prospective and 85.3% of in-service teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement thatcreativity can be developed in any person. On the other hand, 11.3% of prospective teachers and 5.9% of the in-service onesreported that creativity could be developed only in people who are creative by nature. 4.8% of prospective and 8.8% of the in-service teachers considered creativity inborn. These results are consistentwith those of relevant studies in different countriesand educational systems. Fryer and Collings (1991) reported that 89.6% of the British andWelsh educators (N=1028) believedthat creativity couldbedeveloped; the studyofDiakidoyandKanari (1999) revealed that the93.9%ofCypriot student teachersconsidered that creativity could be facilitated in everybody. Diakidoy and Phtiaka (2001) also reported that 83% of Cypriotteachers indicated that creativity could be facilitated in everybody. Furthermore, according to Fleith (2000) 90% of Americanteachers believed that creativity could be developed.

The participants in the present study seemed to support the notion of little c creativity as a general ability of all pri-mary school children (Ripple, 1989). One might also observe that these ndings and conceptualisations implicitly considercreativity as a skill/expertise that can be taught and learned.

Item 4: Creativity can be taught. Almost two out of ve (40.3%) prospective teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed withthe statement that creativity can be taught, while 45.2% agreed or strongly agreed and 14.5% did not know how to answer. In-service teachers seemed to have different viewpoints as only 15.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 65.2% agreed or stronglyagreed and18.9% did not knowhow to answer. As awhole, 55.2% of the participants (N=132) considered that creativity can betaught while 28.1% took the opposite viewpoint. Craft (2001) pointed out that since the 1950s a variety of training methods,programs and techniques have been developed to enhance creativity but researchers disagree on which of these really workand how we should test their effectiveness (Nickerson, 1999). Furthermore, Ryhammar and Brolin (1999) reported a seriouslack of systematic, controlled evaluations of such training programs.

Item 5: Creativity is a characteristic of all students and it is not a rare phenomenon. In this item the participants did notdemonstrate the sameconsensus as in theprevious ones. Almost half (48.4%) of prospective teachers supported the statement

22P.K

ampylis

etal./Thinking

Skillsand

Creativity4

(2009)1529

Table 4Selected TCCQ items (for Item 10 see Table 5).

TCCQ items Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Dont know, dont answer (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

PTa ITb Mean PT IT Mean PT IT Mean PT IT Mean PT IT Mean

1. Creativity is a key factor for personal andsocial progress

01.6 01.4 01.5 19.4 07.3 13.3 14.4 07.2 10.8 45.2 59.5 52.4 19.4 24.6 22.0

2. Sociocultural and environmental factorsinuence creative performance

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 33.9 45.7 39.8 66.1 54.3 60.2

3. With which of the following do youagree on? (please choose only one)a. Creativity can be developed in everyperson

83.9 85.3 84.6

b. Creativity can be developed only inpeople who are creative by nature

11.3 05.9 08.6

c. Creativity is innate; it can not bedeveloped

04.8 08.8 06.8

4. Creativity can be taught 12.9 4.3 08.6 27.4 11.6 19.5 14.5 18.9 16.7 35.5 56.5 46.0 09.7 08.7 09.25. Creativity is a characteristic of all

students and it is not a rare phenomenon03.2 13.0 08.1 41.9 44.9 43.4 06.5 05.9 06.2 38.7 29.0 33.8 09.7 07.2 08.5

6. The school is the best environment forstudents to manifest their creativity

04.8 07.2 06.0 27.4 47.8 37.6 6.5 11.7 09.1 48.4 29.0 38.7 12.9 04.3 08.6

7. Students are offered a lot ofopportunities to manifest their creativityin school

12.9 12.9 12.9 62.9 61.4 62.2 08.1 05.7 06.9 11.3 17.1 14.2 04.8 02.9 03.8

8. Students are offered a lot of means toexpress their creativity in school

16.1 18.8 17.5 62.9 65.2 64.1 08.1 08.8 08.4 08.1 05.8 06.9 04.8 01.4 03.1

9. A student could manifest his/hercreativity in a variety of domains and in avariety of ways

01.6 00.0 00.8 00.0 01.4 00.7 03.2 04.3 03.8 56.5 65.7 61.1 38.7 28.6 33.6

11.The Greek textbooks end educationalmaterials in general allow for themanifestation of students creativity

11.3 05.7 08.5 56.5 70.0 63.3 24.2 15.7 19.9 04.8 05.7 05.3 03.2 02.9 03.0

12. Students are offered enough time tomanifest their creativity in the classroom

19.4 17.1 18.2 66.1 71.4 68.7 08.1 04.4 06.3 04.8 07.1 06.0 01.6 00.0 00.8

13. Students are offered manyopportunities to use their handscreatively

37.1 34.3 35.7 59.7 58.6 59.2 03.2 07.1 05.1 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0

14. My role as a teacher involves thefacilitation of students creativity

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 01.5 00.8 01.6 00.0 00.8 46.8 79.7 63.2 51.6 18.8 35.2

15. I feel well-trained to facilitate creativityto students

09.7 04.3 07.0 41.9 52.2 47.0 22.6 24.7 23.7 24.2 18.8 21.5 01.6 00.0 00.8

a Prospective teachers.b In-service teachers.


Table 5TCCQ Item 10the more creative school subjects.

School subjects Typea Text-booksb Frequency %

PT (N=62) IT (N=70) Total (N=132) PT (N=62) IT (N=70) Total (N=132)

Theatre education O 60 62 122 96.8 88.6 92.4Arts education O 56 64 120 90.3 91.4 90.9Flexible zone O 55 57 112 88.7 81.4 84.8Music education O 54 50 104 87.1 71.4 78.7ICT P 41 53 94 66.1 75.7 71.2Greek language C

39 49 88 62.9 70.0 66.6

Environmental studies P

43 40 83 69.4 57.1 62.8Mathematics P

39 43 82 62.9 61.4 62.1

Science P

38 43 81 61.3 61.4 61.3Physical education O 33 46 79 53.2 65.7 59.8

Health education O 26 31 57 41.9 44.3 43.1Geography P

23 29 52 37.1 41.4 39.3

History C

18 28 46 29.0 40.0 34.8Citizenship O

12 26 38 19.4 37.1 28.7

Foreign languages C

13 24 37 21.0 34.3 28.0Religious education C

6 17 23 09.7 24.3 17.4

a Key index (terms in Greek Educational System): C: classical (humanistic sciences), P: positivist (natural sciences), O: other (e.g. arts and cross-disciplinary).

b When we conducted the survey (spring of 2006), 9 out of 16 school subjects had had textbooks. Nowadays there are new textbooks for 13 schoolsubjects.

that creativity is a characteristic of all studentswhile 45.1%didnot. In the secondgroup, that of in-service teachers, supporterswere reduced to one out of three (36.2%), while roughly two out of three (57.9%) considered creativity a rare phenomenon.

These results differ somewhat from those of similar studies;Diakidoy andKanari (1999) reported that themajority (75.5%)of the participants in their study believed that creativity is not a characteristic of all people even though 77.5% believed thatteachers encounter creative students often or very often. In Fryer and Collings (1991) study, 70.6% of the participants thoughtcreativity is a rare gift, whereas Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) found that 64% of teachers believed more than50% of their students demonstrate characteristics of creativity.

3.2. Questionnaire items related to the second research question

In this section, we introduce teachers conceptions and implicit theories of creativity in the context of primary education,presenting results from seven TCCQ items.

Item 6: The school is the best environment for students to manifest their creativity. The majority of prospective teachers(61.3%) shared the optimistic view that school is the best environment for students to manifest their creativity. On the otherhand, in-service teachers had different beliefs: 55.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement whereas 33.3%agreed or strongly agreed. 32.2% of prospective teachers shared in-service teachers pessimistic (or realistic?) view that theschool is not an adequate nurturing environment for students to express their creativity.

According to this data, we can identify two groups: school-oriented, including those who believe that the school is thebest environment for students to manifest their creativity, and school-skeptic, including those who believe that the schoolis not the best environment for such manifestation. In order to clarify and perhaps understand whether our participantsare school-oriented or school-skeptic regarding creativity, we should also take into consideration the results concerning thenext two statements.

Item 7: Students are offered a lot of opportunities to manifest their creativity in school.Item 8: Students are offered a lot of means to express their creativity in school. The data from these two statements makes

it clear that the majority of the participants belong to the school-skeptic group. Prospective (75.8%) and in-service teachers(74.3%) shared the view that the primary school does not offer a lot of opportunities for students to manifest their creativity,and only 16.1% of prospective and 20.0% of in-service teachers took the opposite view. Furthermore, prospective (79.0%)and in-service (84.0%) teachers strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement that students are offered a lot of meansto express their creativity in the primary school, whereas 12.9% and 7.2%, respectively, agree or strongly agree with thisstatement.

One explanation for these results could be that many Greek schools still utilize lectures and recitation methodologies(Kampylis, 2008; Ksanthakou, 1998; Paraskevopoulos, 2004), catering for lower thinking and recall rather than critical, reec-tive, caring, and creative thinking (Valtanen et al., 2008). Another explanation is that teachers most likely feel overwhelmedwith a plethora of everyday tasks that add a great deal of responsibility and stress to the overall external and internal pres-sure. As a result, they do not have time and energy to offer students more opportunities for creative expression and action(Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005). Furthermore, in-service and prospective teachers in our sample believed thattextbooks and educational materials do not allow the manifestation of students creativity (see Item 11).


Table 6The way participants select the more creative school subjects.

How many school subjects Frequency %

PT T Total PT T Total

16 (all) 3 12 15 04.8 17.1 11.41115 15 12 27 24.2 17.1 20.5610 35 35 70 56.4 50.0 53.025 9 11 20 14.6 15.8 15.1

These ndings are also consistent with those of Diakidoy and Kanari (1999), who reported that 89.8% of the Cypriotstudent teachers considered that there are few opportunities in Cypriot schools for students to exhibit their creativity.

Item 9: A student could manifest his/her creativity in a variety of domains and in a variety of ways. The majority of prospective(95.2%) and in-service teachers (94.3%) in our sample supported the viewpoint that primary school students could demon-strate their creativity in a variety of application domains and inmultipleways. The above research ndings are also consistentwith those in Diakidoy and Kanaris (1999) study, in which 81.6% of Cypriot student teachers considered that students tendto exhibit their creativity in a variety of ways an in a variety of domains. These results seem somehow contradictory to thendings regarding Item 10, presented next.

Item 10: Please select the school subject(s) in which you consider it likely for a student to manifest his/her creativity. Table 5presents the summarised results of TCCQ Item 10. In the rst column, the table outlines all the primary school subjects aslisted in the Cross Thematic Curriculum Framework for Compulsory Education (PI, 2003) and in the second column the typeof each school subject. The third column outlines the school subjects that had used textbooks; in the other columns arepresented the frequencies as well as the percentages of respondents selections. Overall, the misconception that creativitycan be manifested especially in arts seems to dominate in-service teachers and prospective teachers opinions. As a result,the three artistic school subjects (Theatre Education, Arts Education, and Music Education) occupy three out of four toppositions (see Table 5). This is also consistent with Fryers (1996) research nding that among teachers and educationallectures there was a pervasive view that creativity is only relevant to the arts (p. 79). Craft (2003) also pointed out thatcreativity is often associated with the arts although it is not subject-specic and the whole curriculum offers opportunitiesfor its development.

The literature review conducted for the purposes of this paper revealed references which, rstly, indicate a gap in under-standing and, secondly, a gap in research regarding the school subjects that apparently manifest students creativity. Ourstudy is the only one that explicitly investigates school subjects that are considered to facilitate/manifest students cre-ativity. Diakidoy and Kanari (1999) investigated the subjects or domains, in general in which it is likely for a personto manifest his/her creativity; Arts and Music took the rst positions (93.9% and 71.4%, respectively) while Politics, Eco-nomics, Organising Social Functions, and Energy conservation took the last position (all with 2%). In the study of Davies etal. (2004), trainee teachers pointed out Arts and Design subjects as the most creative school subjects. According to Amer-ican (Runco et al., 1993), German (Busse, Dahme, Wagner, & Wieczerkowski, 1986), Cypriot (Diakidoy & Phtiaka, 2001),and Singaporean teachers (Tan, 2001), art products in general are important elements of creativity. Moreover, Sawyer(2006b) states that the majority of the general population connects creativity primarily with arts. However, Aljughaimanand Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) argue that limiting creativity to arts may be another reason for the regular classroom teacherto ignore the responsibility of facilitating students creativity because it is regarded as the duty of the specialized artteacher.

Altogether, in-serviceandprospective teachers (averagesmore than59.8%)believed that the subjects inwhichstudents aremore likely to demonstrate their creative potential are the following 10: Theatre Education, Arts Education, Flexible Zone ofInterdisciplinary andCreativeActivities,Music Education, ICT, Greek language, Environmental Studies,Mathematics, Science,and Physical Education. On the contrary, there were six primary school subjects that gained averages below 43.1%. Thesesubjects are Health Education, Geography, History, Citizenship, Foreign Languages, and Religious Education. We commenton these ndings later on.

In Table 6, we present analytical data on the way our participants selected the more creative school subjects. Onlythree prospective teachers (4.8%) reported that creativity could be manifested in all school subjects. On the other hand, 12in-service teachers (17.1%) have selected all the school subjects as creative (see Table 6).

With regard to the opportunities offered to students to express their creative potential, the participants in our surveyconsidered ve school subjects in which no specic textbooks were followed and in which the teachers had the opportunityto choose the educational materials. The next statement refers directly to the textbooks and educational materials, andshould be taken into consideration.

Item 11: The Greek textbooks, and educational materials in general, allow for the manifestation of students creativity. Themajority of prospective (66.8%) and in-service (75.7%) teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement thatcurrent educational materials and textbooks (refer up to 2006) allow for the manifestation of students creativity, and only8.0% of prospective and 8.6% of in-service teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. This viewpoint on thecreative dimension of the textbooks and educational materials offers a possible explanation for the selection of the mostcreative subjectsthose which did not have specic textbooks and educational materials. We should note here that since


September of 2007 there are new textbooks for all the school subjects and, therefore, further research is needed, perhapswith the same sample, in order to verify these results.

Item12: Students have enough time tomanifest their creativity in the classroom. More than four out of ve participants (85.5%of prospective teachers and 88.5% of in-service teachers) thought that students do not have enough time to express theircreative potential in the classroom. Researchers (Fleith, 2000; Sarsani, 2008; Starko, 2005; Wong, 2008) have also stressedthe importance of time in creative education and Sawyer (2006b) asserted that creativity is not only a burst of inspirationbut also a long process, extended over time.

Item 13: Students are offered many opportunities to use their hands creatively. A nearly total disagreement (96.8% of prospec-tive teachers and 92.9% of in-service teachers) existed among the participants with regard to the statement that primaryschool students have enough opportunities to be creative by using their hands. In Tans (2001) study, Singaporean teachersrated hands-on activities as the most useful for fostering creativity. In Fleiths study (2000), teachers similarly reported thatstudents preferred hands-on activities and activities that integrate school subjects. One could also associate these ndingswith Bartletts (1958) classical study on the relations between thinking and motor movements.

3.3. Questionnaire items related to the third research question

The following two TCCQ items are connected with the third research question and reveal how self-condent teachers feelto play their key role in the development of students creative potential.

Item 14: My role as a teacher involves the facilitation of students creativity. There was a nearly total agreement amongprospective (98.4%) and in-service teachers (98.5%) that their role as teachers involves the facilitation of students creativity.This statement refers to the teaching for creativity concept (Craft, 2003), and the in-service as well as prospective teachersbeliefs agree with the implicit or explicit demands for this in many ofcial documents and initiatives (e.g. NACCCE, 1999).These results are consistent with those of Diakidoy and Phtiaka (2001) who reported that 98.0% of the Cypriot teachersbelieved that it is within teachers capability to facilitate students creativity.

Item 15: I feel well-trained to facilitate creativity to students. More than half of prospective (51.6%) and in-service teachers(56.5%) replied that they do not feel well-trained to act as creativity facilitators, while only 25.8% and 18.8%, respectively, feltwell-trained. There were also high percentages of prospective teachers (22.6%) and in-service teachers (24.7%) who repliedthat they do not know how to answer this specic statement.

These results highlight a discrepancy in in-service and prospective teachers implicit theories of creativity. Almost allof them agreed or strongly agreed with the previous item (Item 5), namely that the teachers role includes the facilitationof students creativity, even though they reported that they do not feel well-trained and condent to play this importantrole. Further research is needed in order to point out why they do not feel well-trained to facilitate students creativity. Is itjust a matter of initial and in-service training or something more? According to Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005),teachers express inconsistent beliefs and practices regarding their responsibility for developing students creativity. This isbecause although they believe that students creativity can be developed in the regular classroom, they consider that it isnot their responsibility to develop it.

4. Discussion

The aims of the present study have been to answer the following three research questions in the context of primaryeducation: 1. What are the teachers conceptions and implicit theories of creativity in general? 2. What are the teachersconceptions and implicit theories of creativity in the context of primary education? and 3. How well-trained and equippeddo teachers feel to play their key role in the development of students creative potential?

With regard to the rst research question, our study revealed that the Greek in-service and prospective teachers whoparticipated in our study conceptualized creativity as a key factor for personal and social progress inuenced by socioculturalandenvironmental contexts.Moreover, thevastmajorityof theparticipants seemed to support thedemocratic (NACCCE, 1999)approach to creativity, as they considered that creativity can be developed in every person. However, with regard to creativeteaching, Greek in-service and prospective teachers appeared less certain, as only one out of two asserted that creativity canbe taught, thus implicitly supporting the distinction between creative learning and creative teaching (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004).Furthermore, one out of two Greek teachers conceptualized creativity as a gift that only few students have. Thus, on theone hand, the vast majority of the participants believed that creativity can be developed in everyone, but, on the other hand,half of them still believed that only few charismatic students have the gift of creativity.

Based on these results, we argue that Greek teachers who participated in our study hold contradictory conceptions ofcreativity and strive to formulate consistent implicit theories for this multifaceted phenomenon. Similar contradictions inteachers perceptions and implicit theories of creativity have been reported by several researchers and for different culturaland educational contexts (Fasko, 2001; Runco, 2003; Sarsani, 2008; Westby & Dawson, 1995).

These inconsistent implicit theories act as additional inhibiting factors that hinder teachers efforts to promote studentscreative potential.

With regard to the second research question, the majority of the participants believed that even though students couldexpress their creative potential in many domains and with many ways, there are many school subjects that do not offer themenough opportunities for creativity. The participants in our study considered that less theoretical subjects, such as Theatre,


Arts and Music Education, in which students could also collaborate and use their hands creatively, give opportunities forstudents to express their creativitymore than less abstract subjects such as Citizenship, and Religious Education. Accordingly,the idea of creativity as a skill receives tacit support from these ndings. However, in the light of these results, teachers donot necessarily emphasize goal-oriented problem solving as an important learning paradigm. We wonder why, for instance,Theatre andArts Education (believed to be creative subjects that also develop creativity) share too high percentageswhile theschool subjects of Citizenship and Religious Education are not considered creative and have too low percentages regardingstudents creativity facilitation. Moreover, we wonder why the Greek Language itself is believed to be a creative subject and,at the same time, Foreign Languages are not considered to facilitate creativity by the same respondent(s). Our intention isto extend the TCCQ and also use focus groups to obtain more data on how and why teachers formulate their conceptionsfor creativity-friendly subjects and creativity-unfriendly subjects. More information is denitely required to investigate thesebeliefs further and understand possible misconceptions concerning the ways particular school subject-specic skills aredeveloped with or without creativity fostering.

Overall, we may state that the way in which the primary school curriculum is presented and organised within the timeavailable in a school day might offer greater or fewer opportunities to foster learners and teachers creativity. For instance,in Greek Music and Arts Education, where there were no specic textbooks until the completion of our questionnaire in May2006, students have more opportunities for collaboration and teachers are free to produce their own teaching and learningmaterials. Participative group work, therefore, could be the rst step towards the development of the creative potential inall students of primary education and drive towards the development of a democratic creativity culture within the primaryschool framework. Participative group work can be a great facilitator of collaborative creativity (Kampylis & Berki, 2005) andcan lead towards democratic forms of creation (Kampylis et al., 2006).

In relation to creativity in primary school settings, the majority of in-service and prospective teachers in our sample tinto the school-sceptic group, as they believed that the primary school does not offer enough opportunities and means forthe students to express and develop their creative potential. Furthermore, the questionnaire respondents did not believethat the school offers the appropriate textbooks and time required for the expression of students creativity. In addition, theparticipants presented a remarkable agreement regarding the need for more hands-on activities.

With regard to the third research question, the data analysis of the selected TCCQ items reveals that the vast majorityof the survey participants believed that within the teachers role also lies the responsibility to facilitate students creativity.However, the majority of Greek in-service and prospective teachers did not feel well informed on the various theories andtypes of creativity. They also felt that they are not well-equipped to act as facilitators for students creativity. Although,facilitating students creativity was regarded as a crucial factor for personal and social well-being by teachers.

Every year almost 58,000 Greek primary school teachers strive to develop among other teaching tasks the creativepotential of 650,000 students (see Eurybase, 2006, p. 44). The quality and the outcome of their work determine to a highdegree not only the future of these students but also the future of the Greek society in general. Policy makers, educationalauthorities and designers of programs and initiatives that aim to enhance students creativity should consider the researchndings that point out the teachers conceptions and implicit theories as well as their misconceptions, values, aspirations,and practical needs. Except for in-service teachers training, which is required for facilitating students creativity (Kowalski,1997; Sarsani, 2008; Storm & Storm, 2002; Wong, 2008), the developers of teachers academic education should primarilyoutline long-term educational aims. In both cases, specic courses that focus on fostering creative thinking together withcritical, caring and reective thinking are in need of initial and continuous teachers training.

5. Further research and conclusive remarks

Our study reveals that only one out of ve participants (22.3%) feels well-trained to facilitate students creativity. Thisnding contradicts the commonly accepted belief (e.g. Diakidoy & Phtiaka, 2001; Storm& Storm, 2002) that creativity shouldbe a basic component of teachers profession. Further research is needed in order to investigate whether teachers initial andin-service training are effective in promoting the concept of creativity in practice.

Another area that requires further investigation is the comparison between the conceptions and preconceptions of cre-ativity of Greek teachers and those from other nationalities, cultures, and educational systems. The report on our ndingspresented earlier included a brief comparison with research ndings in other geographical and cultural environments. How-ever, there is a further need for a replication of our study in other countries andwith larger samples thatwould offer a broaderview for these issues. We are currently working towards this aim by trying to involve Finnish primary school teachers. Thesecross-cultural studies are more essential than ever if we take into account the crucial role that teachers play (or should play)in the enhancement of students creativity and the numerous national (e.g. OfSted, 2006) and European (e.g. Jeffrey, 2008)initiatives that aim to achieve this target for the sake of human development and innovation growth.

Our ongoing research also includes the comparison of the in-service and prospective teachers concepts to those ofteachers of specialized subjects such as music, foreign language, sport, and ICT. Moreover, we are going to investigate the roleof curricula and textbooks in the facilitation and development of students creative thinking and action. We suggest furtherresearch not only on in-service and prospective teachers conceptions of creativity, but also on their thoughts and possiblytheir uctuation over a longer period. The need for longitudinal studies emerges here to objectify the research ndingsand draw more concrete and less ambiguous conclusions on how the teachers thoughts on creativity change over time atdifferent points and various school environments during their professional life.


An additional goal of our ongoing research -through focus groups- is to understand whether there is a relation betweenthe teachers conceptions and the scientic research of creativity.We also aim to understandhow the teachers conceptions ofcreativity inuence the development of creativity in their students. It will also be worth investigating students conceptionsof creativity in general and their views on specic issues, such as what they regard as creative and what not in specic schoolsubject contexts. Last but not least, further investigation is needed on the role of additional signicant others -such aspeers, parents and mentors- in the development of students creativity.

A more creative primary education seems something desired by all (policy makers, teachers, parents, and students).However, there are conicts between and limitations in theories, policies, objectives, and practices. One limitation is thegap in research on the conceptions and educational values of teachers, who are supposed to implement the policies andinitiatives for creativity in primary education. Other limitations include the absence of a consistent and generally acceptabledenition of creativity, the inadequate initial and in-service training of teachers, and the ambiguous, centralised curricula(Craft, 2003; Kampylis, 2008).

We strongly believe that creative education should not only be a specic subject in the curriculumbut also a general func-tion of education, integrating skills and knowledge from various school subjects. Promoting democratic forms of creativityeffectively demands a holistic strategy and caring thinking; the kind that promote a exible school curriculum, innovativelearning methods and strategies, re-organised short-term and long-term educational objectives and continuous care forindividual and organizational learning for progressive change, stability and growth.

The teachers already face the social demand for a more creative and effective education but they do not feel well-trainedand well-equipped to achieve these goals. Therefore, we should rst obtain a clear image about teachers conceptions andimplicit theories of creativity and then try to answer the crucial question: What initial education and in-service trainingas well as supportive tools do teachers need in order to facilitate not only students creativity but also their own continuingprofessional development?

Acknowledgments

This research work was supported by the Greek State Scholarship Foundation (I.K.Y.) and the Greek Ministry of NationalEducation and Religious Affairs. The authors thank all the Greek in-service and prospective teachers who voluntarily com-pleted the TCCQ.

References2

Ahonen, M., & Syvnen, A. (2006). How can electronic portfolios facilitate collaborative problem-nding in the innovation process? In Proceedings of theIADIS international conference mobile learning 2006 Dublin, Ireland.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. d. (2002). Mastering creativity for education in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the 13th biennial world conference of the world councilfor gifted and talented children Istanbul, Turkey.

*Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers conceptions of creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 1734.Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking: An experimental and social study. London: George Allen & Unwin.Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1),

19.Berki, E. (2005). Mentoring as a learning processrelationships and communication. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 4249.Boden, M. A. (1991). The creative mind: Myths & mechanisms. New York: Basic Books.Busse, T. V., Dahme, G., Wagner, H., & Wieczerkowski, W. (1986). Factors underlying teacher perceptions of highly gifted students: A cross-cultural study.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(4), 903915.*Chan, D., & Chan, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3),

185195.Clark, C., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 311320.Claxton, G., with Edwards, L., & Scale-Constantinou, V. (2006). Cultivating creative mentalities: A framework for education. Thinking Skills and Creativity,

1(1), 5761.*Craft, A. (1998). Educators perspectives on creativity: An English Study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(4), 244257.Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education (Report prepared for the Qualications and Curriculum Authority). London:

QCA. http://.www.ncaction.org.uk/creativity/creativity report.pdf Accessed January 17, 2008.Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113127.Craft, A. (2006). Fostering creativity with wisdom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 337350.Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page.Cropley, A. J., &Urban, K. K. (2000). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. InK. A.Heller, F. J.Mnks, R. Subotnik, &R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), International

handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 481494). Oxford: Elsevier.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativityContemporary

psychological perspectives (pp. 325339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Davies, D., Howe, A., Fasciato, M., & Rogers, M. (2004). How do trainee teachers understand creativity? In Proceedings of the DATA international research

conference: Creativity and innovation 2004 Wallesbourne, UK,Davies, T. (2006). Creative teaching and learning in Europe: Promoting a new paradigm. The Curriculum Journal, 17(1), 3757.*Diakidoy, I.-A., & Kanari, E. (1999). Student teachers beliefs about creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225243.*Diakidoy, I.-A., & Phtiaka, H. (2001). Teachers beliefs about creativity. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Handbook of policy creativity: Creativity from diverse perspectives

(pp. 1332). Huntington, NY: Nova Science.*Dinca, M. (1999). Creative children in Romanian society. Childhood Education, 75(6), 355358.

2 Asterisked references indicate studies on in-service and/or prospective teachers conceptions of creativity.


Dineen, R., Samuel, E., & Livesey, K. (2005). The promotion of creativity in learners: Theory and practice. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,4(3).

Elliott, R. K. (1971). Versions of Creativity. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 5(2), 139152.Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), 185202.Eurybase (2006). The education system in Greece2005/2006. http://.www.eurydice.org/ressources/eurydice/eurybase/pdf/0 integral/EL EN.pdf Accessed

May 15, 2008.Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3/4), 317327.*Fleith, D. d. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148153.Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how its transforming work, leisure community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.Florida, R. L., & Tinagli, I. (2004). Europe in the creative age. London: DEMOS.*Fryer, M. (1996). Creative teaching and learning. London: P. Chapman.Fryer, M., & Collings, J. (1991). Teachers views about creativity. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 207219.Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York:

Basic Books.Ghiselin, B. (1963). Ultimate criteria for two levels of creativity. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientic creativity: Its recognition and development (pp.

3043). New York: Wiley.Gibson,H. (2005).What creativity isnt: Thepresumptionsof instrumental and individual justication for creativity in education.British Journal of Educational

Studies, 53(2), 148167.Jeffrey, B. (2008). Creative learning in Europe: Making use of global discourses. In A. Craft, T. Cremin, & P. Burnard (Eds.), Creative learning 311 and how we

document it. Stoke-on-Trent (pp. 3542). Sterling, VA: Trentham.Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 7787.Kampylis, P. (2006). Creative connection among Music, Art and Theatre Education through sound-images, sound-stories, hand-made musical instruments

and ICT. In Proceedings of the theatre/drama and education: Creating new roles for the 21st century Athens, Greece,Kampylis, P. (2008). Aposaphinizontas ton oro dimioyrgikotita sta plaisia tis protis vathmidas tis ekpaideysis (bringing out the meaning of creativity in the

framework of primary education). Music in the rst grade, 5, 7079.Kampylis, P., & Berki, E. (2005). Mus-ecology: Enhancing critical and creative learning through the construction of handmade musical instruments. In

Proceedings of the interlearn 2005Multidisciplinary approaches to learning Helsinki, Finland.Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2006). Can we see the sound? New and creative solutions in Music and Physics Education through hands-on and

ICT-based activities. In Proceedings of the EDEN 2006 annual conference Vienna, Austria.Kampylis, P., Fokides, E., & Theodorakopoulou, M. (2007). Towards effective computer-related learning environments for primary school students creative

thinking development. In Proceedings of the SQM & INSPIRE conference 2007 Tampere, Finland.*Karrow, D. D. (1997). Science teachers views of creativity. Master Thesis. University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada.*Kowalski, S. A. (1997). Toward a vision of creative schools: Teachers beliefs about creativity andpublic creative identity. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California,

Los Angeles, USA.Ksanthakou, G. (1998). I dimiourgikotita sto sxoleio (Creativity in school). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Lambropoulos, N., Kampylis, P., Papadimitriou, S., Gkikas, A., M., V., Minaoglou, N., et al. (2008). Hybrid synergy for virtual knowledge working. In J. Salmons

& L. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of research on electronic collaboration and organizational synergy. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global Publications, pp. 83102.Law 1566/1985 (1985). Structure and functions of primary and secondary education and other provisions. Government Gazette A 167/30-09-85.Loi, D., & Dillon, P. (2006). Adaptive educational environments as creative spaces. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 363381.Mack, R.W. (1987). Aremethods of enhancing creativity being taught in teacher educationprograms as perceivedby teacher educators and student teachers?

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(1), 2233.Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 2743.National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE). (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture & education. Sudbury: DfEE.Nicholls, J. (1972). Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and useful: The concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait.

American Psychologist, 27(8), 717727.Nickerson, R. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189212). New York: Cambridge University Press.Ofce for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2006). Creative partnerships: Initiative and impact. http://.www.ofsted.gov.uk Accessed July 13, 2008.Paraskevopoulos, I. N. (2004). I Dimiourgiki skepsi sto sxoleio kai tin oikogeneia (Creative thinking in school and family). Athens.Pedagogical Institute (PI) (2003). A cross thematic curriculum framework for compulsory education. http://.www.pi-schools.gr/programs/

depps/index eng.php Accessed April 15, 2008.Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isnt creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions

in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 8396.Richards, R. (1993). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity and psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 212217.Ripple, R. (1989). Ordinary creativity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 189202.Runco, M. A. (1999). Implicit theories. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity (pp. 2730). San Diego, CA\London: Academic Press.Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317324.Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientic, end everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 9398.*Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. J. (2002). Parents and teachers implicit theories of childrens creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal,

14(3/4), 427438.*Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. J., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents and teachers implicit theories on childrens creativity. Child Study Journal, 23(2)Ryhammar, L., & Brolin, C. (1999). Creativity research: Historical considerations and main lines of development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,

43(3), 259273.*Saarilahti, M., Cramond, B., & Sieppi, H. (1999). Is creativity nurtured in Finnish classrooms? Childhood Education, 75(6), 326331.*Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness and teaching the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review, 26(4), 216222.Sarsani,M. R. (2008). Teachers perceptions of creative learning in India. In A. Craft, T. Cremin, & P. Burnard (Eds.), Creative learning 311 and how we document

it. Stoke-on-Trent (pp. 4352). Sterling, VA: Trentham.Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 4148.Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford\New York: Oxford University Press.*Seng, Q. K., Keung, H. K., & Cheng, S. K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity: A comparison of student-teachers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Compare: A

Journal of Comparative Education, 38(1), 7186.*Spiel, C., & Korff, C. v. (1998). Implicit theories of creativity: The conceptions of politicians, scientists, artists and school teachers. High Ability Studies, 9(1),

4358.Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607627.Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In S. Robert (Ed.), The nature of creativityContemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 125147).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 325338.Storm, R. D., & Storm, P. S. (2002). Changing the rules: Education for creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 183200.


Tan, A.-G. (2001). Singaporean teachers perception of activities useful for fostering creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 131148.Taylor, C.W. (1988).Variousapproaches toanddenitionsof creativity. InR. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Thenatureof creativityContemporarypsychological perspectives.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Taylor, I. A. (1959). The nature of the creative process. In P. Smith (Ed.), Creativity: An examination of the creative process (pp. 5182). New York: Hasting

House Publishers.Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1986). Are children becoming more creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 113.Valtanen, J., Berki, E., Kampylis, P., & Theodorakopoulou, M. (2008). Manifold thinking and distributed problem-based learning: Is there potential for ICT

support? In Proceedings of the IADIS international conference e-learning 2008 Amsterdam, Netherlands.Ward, T. B., Smith, S.M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Handbook of creativity (pp. 189212). NewYork: CambridgeUniversity

Press.*Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset of burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 111.Wong, W. Y. (2008). Promoting childrens creativity through teaching and learning in Hong Kong. In A. Craft, T. Cremin, & P. Burnard (Eds.), Creative learning

311 and how we document it. Stoke-on-Trent (pp. 93101). Sterling, VA: Trentham.

In-service and prospective teachers' conceptions of creativityIntroduction and backgroundDefining creativity within the primary education frameworkTypes and levels of creativityThe research environment: creativity in Greek primary education

MethodParticipantsResearch instrumentData gathering procedureLimitations

Research findingsQuestionnaire items related to the first research questionQuestionnaire items related to the second research questionQuestionnaire items related to the third research question

DiscussionFurther research and conclusive remarksAcknowledgmentsReferences

Documents

In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity