Kurt, G., & Önalan, O. (2018). Turkish Pre-service EFL
Teachers’ Perceptions of Creativity. International
Online Journal of Education and Teaching
(IOJET), 5(3). 636-647.
http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/444/258
Received: 06.06.2018
Received in revised form: 27.06.2018
Accepted: 01.07.2018
TURKISH PRE-SERVICE EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY
Gökçe KURT
Marmara University
gokce.kurt@marmara.edu.tr
Correspondence (only of the corresponding author)
Okan ÖNALAN
National Defense University
okanonalan@gmail.com
Biodatas
Dr. Gökçe KURT holds PhD in English Language Teaching (ELT). Her research interests
include pre-service and in-service teacher education and technology integration in English
language teaching and learning.
Dr. Okan ÖNALAN holds PhD in English Language Teaching (ELT) field. He currently
teaches English and offers teacher-training courses at various levels.
Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published
elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET.
http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/444/258
mailto:gokce.kurt@
mailto:okanonalan@gmail.com
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9022-1258
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4015-0903
Kurt & Önalan
636
TURKISH PRE-SERVICE EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
CREATIVITY
Gökçe KURT
gokcekurt@hotmail.com
Okan ÖNALAN
okanonalan@gmail.com
Abstract
Creativity is considered one of the key 21
st
century skills and has received an increasing
amount of attention in the field of education. How teachers perceive creativity has a
significant impact on their pedagogical practices to stimulate student creativity in the
classroom. The present exploratory study, based on a qualitative approach, aimed to
investigate pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of creativity. Analysis of data coming
from a semi-structured focus-group interview with eight pre-service teachers revealed their
perception of creativity as being different and unique, having extraordinary ideas and being
able to produce original outcomes. The participants posited that creativity was innate to some
extent and environmental factors such as family environment, cultural background and school
education contributed to its development later in life. They suggested using open-ended,
communicative, and collaborative tasks in English classrooms to foster student creativity. As
prospective teachers, they perceived themselves creative to some extent, but felt unprepared
to teach creativity. Finally, they all agreed on the facilitative role of teacher education in
helping PTs teach creatively and develop an understanding of teaching creativity.
Keywords: creativity, teaching creativity, pre-service teacher education, ELT.
1. Introduction
For over a century, the research on creativity has produced findings that have had
significant impact on personal, social and educational domains. The concept of creativity has
been investigated by researchers focusing on its psychological aspects. This line of research
has attempted to understand, describe and assess the development of human creativity; and as
a result, the findings have revealed that creativity is an important factor in most essential
skills such as language acquisition and critical thinking (Runco, 2007). From the educational
perspective, too, the creativity research has significantly reshaped educational goals,
administrative matters and even the school setting as a part of 21st Century Skills.
The relationship between creativity and education works both ways. Not only does
education have a vital role in stimulating learners’ creative and innovative thinking (Cropley,
2001; Henessey & Amabile, 1987; Runco, 1993; Starko, 2005; Sternberg & Williams, 1996;
Torrance; 1983), but creativity also contributes to learning because as learners build
knowledge they utilize creative effort (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007). In this framework,
teachers are often expected to cultivate students’ creative potential by helping them gain
knowledge and skills related with creativity. What is more, as role models, teachers have a
significant part in achieving creativity in educational settings (Berki, 2005).
mailto:gokcekurt@hotmail.com
mailto:okanonalan@gmail.com
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2018, 5(3), 636-647.
637
From this standpoint, it is acknowledged that teachers’ conceptions might foster or
obstruct students’ behavior since how teachers systematize their instructional practices is
principally influenced by their knowledge and beliefs (Beghetto, 2006). Therefore, teachers’
perceptions of creativity should be taken into account in any educational setting with an
objective to develop creativity in students. In other words, it is initially important to find out
how teachers conceptualize creativity in their own particular educational settings if we want
to make sure that teachers want to facilitate students’ creative potential and that they know
how to do so (Runco, 2003).
However, in spite of the common consensus on the teachers’ significant role in facilitating
students’ creative thinking and expression, the research that examines teacher perceptions on
creativity is somehow limited. As Fryer and Collings (1991) put it, most studies have
attempted to find out teachers' perceptions indirectly by measuring perceptions prior and
subsequent to creativity workshops or have focused on teachers' attitudes towards the
personality traits of creative individuals. What is more, there is inconsistency between the
findings of such research (Westby & Dawson, 1995). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct
further research focusing on in-service and prospective teachers’ creativity conceptions
(Nickerson, 1999) and the current study has been conducted upon this need.
2. Literature Review
In the educational framework, the word creativity is a common term, but the definitions
provided by the educational and psychological researchers as well as educators are somewhat
vague (Sawyer 2006a; 2006b). The term creativity may signify the process, person, product,
or context; but the definitions may include one or several of these factors together, even in a
contradictory manner (Taylor, 1988). Despite this elusiveness, research indicates some
common themes in the definitions. Researchers and educators fundamentally concur that
creativity refers to “the ability to produce work that is novel (original, unexpected) and at the
same time appropriate so that the outcome meets the constraints and requirements of a task at
hand” (Kaufman & Baer, 2004, p.6).
Creativity researchers also agree that creativity is commonly “a process that leads to an
outcome that is novel, original, unconventional” (Ryhammar & Brolin, 1999, p.262). Sawyer
(2006b) gives a broader definition by stating that creativity is the appearance of something
original and appropriate. Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) assert that “creativity is the
interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group
produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social
context” (p. 90). Correspondingly, according to Valtanen et al., (2008), creativity requires
critical and reflective thinking. Within the same framework, Dineen, Samuel, and Livesey
(2005) maintain that creativity necessitates both divergent and productive thinking in order to
ensure novelty as well as appropriateness.
According to the research on teachers’ beliefs about creativity, it is not only researchers
who have different opinions on creativity. Results of studies on teachers’ views of creativity
have also revealed that in the classroom setting, teachers often attempt to develop the creative
potential of children when they see one (Chappell, 2007; Runco & Johnson, 2002), but they
have different explanations for the term (Fleith, 2000; Fryer & Collings, 1991). For example,
Diakidoy and Phtiaka (2001) point out to inconsistencies between teachers’ conceptions of
creativity. Also, teachers tend to have a limited view of creativity with a stereotyping attitude
and they emphasize the lack of attention to creativity in teacher education (Davies, et al.,
2004). What is more, according to the results reported by some researchers (Beghetto, 2006;
Fasko, 2001; Runco, 2003; Westby & Dawson, 1995), although teachers generally seem to
Kurt & Önalan
638
value creativity, they hold negative attitudes and little tolerance for behaviors and attributes
associated with it.
From this perspective, how teachers perceive creativity as a concept and the extent to
which such perceptions align with definitions of creativity in literature proves to be important
for teachers who wish to facilitate creativity in their learners (Runco & Johnson, 2001).
Contemporary research on teachers’ conceptions about creativity has revealed valuable
outcomes about what teachers think about the nature of creativity, their conceptualization of
creative individuals, and their beliefs about the kind of classrooms that promote creativity. A
comprehensive review of this line of research by Andiliou and Murphy (2010), in which they
analyzed peer-reviewed, empirical research studies of teachers’ beliefs about creativity
appearing in the published literature, suggests that the beliefs that teachers hold about
creativity have a significant impact on the role they undertake in relation to creative thinking
as a learning objective and on the instructional strategies they use to develop the personality
characteristics required for creative behavior. They also conclude that there is still a need for
further research on teachers’ conceptions of creativity and their role in students’ creative
thinking development (Andiliou and Murphy, 2010).
Similarly, pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity are significant since future
teachers need the necessary awareness and training about creativity even before they
graduate. Kampylis et al. (2009) draw attention to this issue and report that the facilitation of
students’ creativity is included in the teachers’ role, but pre-service teachers do not feel
confident and well-trained enough to fulfill this particular expectation. There are studies that
investigate pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity in various areas (e.g. Bolden et al.,
2010 – mathematics). Also, recent studies within EFL (English as a foreign language) setting
underline the necessity for a supportive classroom environment to promote creativity (Rao,
2014; Heathfield, 2015; Hlenschi-Stroie, 2015; Markova, 2015; Read, 2015; Wright, 2015;
Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018). However, literature indicates a shortage of such studies regarding
pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity especially in language teaching field in
different contexts. Thus, informed by the literature mentioned above, the present exploratory
study, based on a qualitative approach, aims to investigate Turkish pre-service English
teachers’ perceptions of creativity. More specifically, pre-service teachers’ (PTs hereafter)
understanding of creativity in teaching and learning has been explored by addressing the
following research questions:
1. How do Turkish PTs of English define creativity?
2. What do Turkish PTs of English think about teachability of creativity?
3. How do Turkish PTs of English perceive their own creativity?
4. How do Turkish PTs of English perceive the role of teacher education in developing
creativity?
3. Method
3.1. Design, Participants and Setting
The present exploratory study adopted qualitative approach. It took place in an English
Language Teaching (ELT) program of a state university in Turkey. The four-year ELT
program offers basic skills courses such as Reading and Writing in English, Contextual
English Grammar and Oral Communication Skills and method courses such as English
Language Teaching Methods, Teaching Language Skills and Instructional Technologies and
Materials Design. In the last year of the ELT Program, PTs receive two practicum courses:
School Experience in English Language Education in the first term and Teaching Practice in
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2018, 5(3), 636-647.
639
English Language Education in the second term. PTs are sent to different primary, secondary
and high schools to observe teachers and students in the first term and to teach micro- and
macro-lesson plans in the second term. At the time of the study, there were 135 PTs enrolled
in the fourth year of the program. Eight PTs were selected using convenience sampling based
on their willingness. Demographic characteristics of the participants were as follows: The
participating PTs were all native speakers of Turkish. Four of the PTs were female and four
were male. Their ages ranged from 19 to 21. None of them had any prior teaching experience.
In the fall semester, they had completed the observation sessions and in the spring semester,
they were doing their practicum at the assigned schools.
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis Procedure
Data for the present study came from a semi-structured focus group interview. Due to the
exploratory approach of the present study, the focus group interview was preferred to gather
in-depth information about PTs’ perceptions of creativity. Focus-group interviews produce
data and insights that cannot be easily reached without the interaction found in a group
setting (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). The face-to-face interview lasted around 50 minutes and
was audio-recorded for transcription purposes. During the interview, the questions were
asked in English, but PTs were free to choose the language, i.e., English or Turkish to share
their opinions. The interview questions aimed to explore PTs’ perceptions of the notions of
creativity, teachability of creativity in the classroom, their own creativity as a future teacher,
and the role of teacher education in enhancing creative ability. The transcribed data were
analyzed by repeated reading to identify and report common patterns, themes and
divergences within the data, as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994).
4. Findings
4.1. PTs’ Conceptions of Creativity
The interview began with PTs’ definitions of creativity. They defined creativity as ‘being
different and unique,’ ‘having extraordinary ideas’ and ‘being able to produce new and
original products.’ PTs also discussed whether defining factors of creativity came from nature
or nurture. There was an agreement among the PTs that creativity is innate to some extent,
but can be enhanced in life. They stated that factors such as family environment, cultural
background and school education influence creative behavior. PTs shared the following
opinions:
I believe 30 % of creative behavior can be explained by the innate nature of creativity. 70
% is about the environmental factors.
Creativity is an innate trait, but like other abilities, it can be developed based on
experience.
Children are born with creative potential. The family in which they grow up and the
schools they attend to might enhance or obstruct their creativity.
I think culture also influences individuals’ creativity. Some cultures value creative ideas
more than others.
4.2. Teachability of Creativity
All PTs agreed on the teachability of creativity and discussed that the teacher, types of
classroom tasks, the classroom environment and attitudes of school administration influence
its development in the classroom. They also listed the characteristics of a creative student.
PTs identified teachers as influential figures in enhancing students’ creative potential.
They posited that as teachers are responsible for facilitating students’ creativity development,
Kurt & Önalan
640
they should have an understanding of creativity and be knowledgeable about teaching
creativity and creatively. Here are some of their comments:
The role of teachers is very important to students’ creativity. Teachers should recognize
the creativity in students and establish an environment that supports students’ creative
ability.
Teachers should believe that creativity can be taught in the classroom if suitable tasks are
designed.
Teachers are responsible for teaching students skills such as questioning, analyzing,
synthesizing and problem solving. These skills will foster creative performance.
Teachers may not consider themselves creative, but they can design lesson plans to
promote students’ creative behavior in the classroom. A wide range of teaching resources
are available on the web. Teachers can adapt creative ideas to their own teaching context.
While discussing the teachability of creativity, all PTs mentioned that types of classroom
tasks and activities contribute to students’ creativity development too. For a foreign language
classroom, PTs suggested implementing tasks that are open-ended, communicative and
collaborative for the promotion of creativity. Here are some of their comments:
I believe the open-ended nature of tasks stimulates students’ creativity. Students produce
new, original, unique ideas. Tasks with only one possible answer might impede creativity.
Tasks based on production support creativity in the classroom. When students are asked to
design a poster, create a podcast or plan a trip, they might use their creative potential.
I am doing my practicum in a private primary school. In one of the English classes I
observe, a teacher asked students to design a new sport game and students came up with
the idea of Mars football. I found the idea very creative. I think tasks that are different and
that ask students create something new fosters students’ creative potential.
When students work in groups to complete a task, they talk, exchange ideas, and help each
other. They learn from each other. They also inspire each other. Together, they approach
tasks and solve problems in more innovative ways.
The classroom environment was also mentioned by PTs as an important variable to
enhance students’ creativity. PTs believed teacher-centered classrooms where students have
little or no control might impede their creativity. As one PT stated and others agreed,
“students’ creative thinking ability cannot be developed in a classroom environment where
students are passive recipients of input.” One PT also referred to the size of the classroom
and said that “crowded classes are difficult to manage for creative teaching. It is easier to
design creative instruction for a small number of students.” As suggested by another PT and
agreed by others, availability of a wide range of materials and tools also stimulates creativity.
A classroom equipped with computers with Internet connection, a projector, or a
smartboard creates better opportunities for creative teaching. Students can also produce
more creative products such as a podcast or a digital story in such a classroom
environment.
PTs’ responses to the question about the teachability of creativity also focused on the
attitudes of school administration. They agreed on the importance of school support for
teachers’ creative pedagogical practices. The following comment of a PTs summarizes all
PTs’ opinions on the topic:
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2018, 5(3), 636-647.
641
School administration should not force teachers to follow the assigned coursebook closely,
as instructed in a teacher’s manual. Rather, teachers should be encouraged to design their
own methodology to foster creativity in the classroom.
Another theme that emerged during the discussion was features of a creative student. All
PTs agreed that it is important for teachers to recognize these characteristics of creative
students and establish a learning environment where they feel comfortable and respected.
Here are their definitions of creative students:
Creative students ask many questions.
Creative students come up with unexpected, unusual, original answers or solutions.
Creative students easily get bored when they are exposed to similar materials and
instruction again and again.
Creative students are usually risk takers.
Creative students are good at adapting or improving ideas and products of other people.
4.3. PTs’ Perceptions of their Own Creativity
During the interview, PTs were asked whether they perceived themselves creative as
teacher candidates. PTs’ responses revealed that all PTs except one had considered
themselves creative only to a limited extent. Only one PT said he had always considered
himself creative. However, they all felt unprepared to teach creativity. Here are some of their
comments:
I don’t think I am really creative. This worries me because I want to be a creative teacher.
I am a creative person. I can always find creative solutions to problems in life, but I don’t
feel competent enough to use my creativity for teaching.
Creativity is an important skill for 21
st
century learning. I know I should teach my students
creativity, but don’t really know how.
When I was learning English, my teachers did not have a very creative way of teaching.
Their practices were kind of traditional- not fostering our creativity in the classroom. This
might explain why I do not find myself very creative.
4.4. PTs’ Perceptions of the Role of Teacher Education
PTs had a consensus on the supportive role of teacher education in developing their
creativity. They believed their creativity had increased since their entry to the program. They
mentioned the courses they had received and the attitudes of the instructors as contributing to
their understanding and practice of creativity. The following comments illustrate their points:
I never considered myself very creative, but I think my creativity has developed in this
program. Receiving practice-based courses such as Task-based Instruction and Teaching
English to Young Learners and doing my practicum at a primary school contributed to my
creativity.
Being creative had never been my concern before I started this program. In the
methodology courses, we are supposed to design classroom tasks, teaching materials or
lesson plans. I force myself to generate original, creative ideas.
Observing a real classroom for my practicum allows me to see practices of creative
teaching. Some teachers design very creative teaching tasks. It is great to see how, in a
real classroom setting, students enjoy these tasks and come up with creative outcomes. I
feel much inspired.
Kurt & Önalan
642
I had never thought about creativity before I came to this department. But here our
instructors emphasize it as a 21
st
century skill and expect us to be creative as future
teachers.
In one of the methodology courses, we were supposed to work in groups to create tasks for
a specific group of EFL learners. The instructor encouraged us to generate original ideas.
Nothing different came to our mind but when we talked to the instructor, she gave us
inspiring examples.
The interview ended with PTs’ suggestions for fostering creativity in teacher education.
PTs stated that a course specifically focusing on creativity would enhance their understanding
of creativity, teaching for creativity and teaching creatively. They also posited that PTs
should be provided with more opportunities to observe teachers in real EFL classrooms. As
they all agreed on, being introduced to a real classroom setting, observing classroom
instruction of different teachers and designing lesson plans at micro- and macro-levels made
PTs aware of the gap in their creative ability.
To summarize, the present study aimed to explore Turkish EFL PTs’ understanding of
creativity, opinions about teachability of creativity in the classroom, perceptions of their own
creative ability as a future teacher, and their views on the role of teacher education in
enhancing creative thinking and behavior. Eight PTs participated in the study and data came
from a focused-group interview. Findings revealed that PTs perceived creativity as being
different and unique, having extraordinary ideas and being able to produce original products.
They believed creativity was innate to some extent and environmental factors contributed to
its development later in life. All PTs agreed that creativity could be taught in the classroom as
long as teachers had an understanding of creativity and implemented appropriate instruction
for creativity development in a supportive classroom environment and the school had a
positive attitude to its promotion in the classroom. PTs believed that open-ended,
communicative tasks completed collaboratively would foster students’ creative thinking in
the classroom. PTs considered themselves creative to some extent, but felt unprepared to
teach creativity. Finally, they all agreed on the facilitative role of teacher education in helping
PTs teach creatively and develop an understanding of teaching creativity.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
There has been a considerable debate concerning the conceptualization of creativity. A
widely agreed upon definition of creativity states that creativity requires both novelty and
usefulness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Novelty or originality is crucial for creativity but is not
sufficient. Creative ideas or products should also be useful or effective. In the present study,
PTs’ definitions revealed their limited conceptualization of creativity. PTs recognized
original products as part of creativity, but could not further define that this product must be
useful. PTs’ definitions also focused on the product rather than the process. Cohen (1989)
posits that emphasizing the product means neglecting the process of creativity, which might
result in teachers’ ignoring students’ everyday insights for developing creative products.
PTs’ discussion of creativity also focused on the question of whether creativity is an innate
personality trait or something that can be developed over time. PTs agreed on the idea that all
individuals have their own creativity potential supporting the views of many researchers
(e.g., Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, & Gardner, 1994; Gardner, 2011), and this potential can be
developed or suppressed later in life depending on some factors such as family environment,
cultural background or school education. Those factors have been shown to be critical to the
development of creativity in many other studies (Fasko, 2001; Deng, Wang, & Zhao, 2016;
Fleith, 2000; Niu & Sternberg, 2003).
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2018, 5(3), 636-647.
643
PTs believed in teachability of creativity in the classroom and stated that creativity can be
fostered through variety of tasks in a positive school environment where teachers are aware
of their significant role in stimulating student creativity and supported by school
administration. The role of the teacher and the school environment in developing students’
creativity has been mentioned by many researchers (Feldhusen, 2005; Fleith, 2000; Kruif,
McWilliam, Ridely & Wakely, 2000; Mourgues et al., 2014). Aljughaiman and Mowrer-
Reynolds (2005) posited that “to foster student creativity teachers need to identify
characteristics of the creative personality, recognize creative production, understand the
cognitive processes used by creative students and ultimately establish an environment that
promotes the students’ interest” (p. 17). PTs in the present study could identify some of the
characteristics of a creative student. They defined a creative student as being curious,
original, social, risk-taker and energetic. The descriptors mentioned by the PTs were also
used by teachers in various studies (Kampylis et al., 2009; Liu & Lin, 2014; Runco &
Johnson, 2002; Sak, 2004).
In relation to teachability of creativity, PTs posited that being presented with a task or a
problem in the classroom would encourage students to produce an original outcome or a
solution. Their suggestion supports the view that creativity is manifested when an individual
encounters a novel, ill-structured situation and attempts to define the problem at hand
(Mumford, et al., 1991). For the development of creativity, PTs also emphasized creating a
student-centered learning environment based on collaboration. This finding is in line with the
studies discussing sociocultural and constructivist learning theories in relation to creativity
development (Chan & Chan, 1999; Kampyliset et al., 2009; Myhill & Wilson, 2013;
Rubenstein, McCoach, & Siegle, 2013; Sak, 2004; Zbainos & Anastasopoulou, 2012).
As future teachers, PTs perceived themselves creative to some extent but did not feel
prepared to foster creativity. PTs agreed that teacher education contributed to their
understanding of creativity, creative teaching, and teaching creativity, but not sufficiently.
Similar concerns were reported by pre-service and in-service teachers in previous studies
(Kampyliset et al., 2009; Eckhoff, 2011).
To conclude, this study aimed to contribute to the relevant literature by focusing on the
perceptions of Turkish PTs’ of English on creativity. As one of the key 21
st
century skills,
creativity has been receiving an increasing attention in various fields of education including
foreign/second language teaching. It is widely accepted that teachers’ understanding of
creativity is likely to influence their pedagogical practices to foster students’ creative
thinking and behavior. Teachers’ beliefs on creativity are translated into their practice as long
as creativity is considered an important learning goal and conditions necessary for its
development are ensured to empower teachers to achieve this goal (Andiliou & Murphy,
2010). In this vein, it is important for PTs to develop adequate conceptions of creativity.
Teacher education plays a significant role in providing PTs with training on the nature of
creativity, the characteristics of creative students and the requirements of a classroom
environment to promote creativity. Thus, pre-service English teacher education programs
should be more explicit in their approach to creative teaching and teaching creativity if newly
qualified teachers are to develop student creativity in the classroom.
Kurt & Önalan
644
References
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds. E. (2005). Teachers' conceptions of creativity and
creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 17- 34.
Andiliou, A., & Murphy, K. P. (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and
teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary
research. Educational Research Review, 5, 201-219.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective
teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1–9.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case
for mini-c creativity. Psychology of the Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79.
Berki, E. (2005). Mentoring as a learning process—relationships and communication.
Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 42–49.
Bolden, D.S. and Harries, A.V. and Newton, D.P. (2010) 'Pre-service primary teachers’
conceptions of creativity in mathematics.', Educational studies in mathematics. 73(2).
pp. 143-157.
Chan, D.W., & Chan, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers' perceptions of
student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 185-195.
Chappell, K. (2007). The dilemmas of teaching for creativity: Insights from expert specialist
dance teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 39–56.
Cohen, L. M. (1989). A continuum of adaptive creative behaviors. Creativity Research
Journal, 2, 169–183.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and
educators. London: Kogan Page.
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.
Deng, L., Wang, L. & Zhao, Y. (2016) How creativity was affected by environmental factors
and individual characteristics: A cross-cultural comparison perspective. Creativity
Research Journal, 28(3), 357-366.
Diakidoy, I.-A., & Phtiaka, H. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.),
Handbook of policy creativity: Creativity from diverse perspectives (pp. 13–32).
Huntington, NY: Nova Science.
Eckhoff, A. (2011). Creativity in the early childhood classroom: perspectives of preservice
teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(3), 240-255.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3/4), 317–327.
Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, Talent, Expertise, and Creative Achievement. In R. J.
Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 64-79). New York,
NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world: A
framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT, US: Praeger
Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2018, 5(3), 636-647.
645
Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom
environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148–153.
Fryer, M., & Collings, J. A. (1991). British teachers' views of creativity. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 25 (1), 75-81.
Gardner, H. (2011). Intelligence, Creativity, Ethics: Reflections on My Evolving Research
Interests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), pp. 302 – 304.
Heathfield, D. (2015). Personal and creative storytelling: Telling our stories. In Maley, A., &
Peachey, N. (Eds.). Creativity in the English language classroom (pp.44-50). London:
British Council.
Henessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (1987). Creativity and learning. Washington DC: National
Education Association.
Hlenschi-Stroie, V. (2015). Drama and creative writing: A blended tool. In Maley, A., &
Peachey, N. (Eds.). Creativity in the English language classroom (pp.158-164).
London: British Council.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Hawking’s Haiku, Madonna’s Math: Why it is hard to be
creative in every room of the house. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer
(Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (3–20). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kampylis, Panagiotis & Berki, Eleni & Saariluoma, Pertti. (2009). In-service and prospective
teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 4. 15-29.
Kruif, R. E. L., McWilliam, R. A., Ridley, S. M., & Wakely, M. B. (2000). Classification of
teachers' interaction behaviors in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15(2), 247-268.
Lindlof, T. R. & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Liu, S. C., & Lin, H.S. (2014). Primary teachers' beliefs about scientific creativity in the
classroom context. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1551-1567
Markova, Z. (2015). A journey towards creativity: A case study of three primary classes in a
Bulgarian state school. In Maley, A., & Peachey, N. (Eds.). Creativity in the English
language classroom (pp.165-172). London: British Council.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mourgues, C. V., Tan, M., Hein, S., Al-Harbi, K., Aljughaiman, A., and Grigorenko, E. L.
(2016). The relationship between analytical and creative cognitive skills from middle
childhood to adolescence: testing the threshold theory in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Learner Individual Differences, 52, 137–147.
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991).
Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91-122.
MyHill, D. & Wilson, A. (2013). Playing it safe: Teachers’ views of creativity in poetry
writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, pp. 101-111.
Nickerson, R. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 189–212). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kurt & Önalan
646
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The
case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103-114.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to
educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity
research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.
Rao, L. (2014). Creative education in primary school English (Xiaoxue yingyu chuangxin
jiaoyu). New Curriculum, 6, 76.
Read, C. (2015). Seven pillars of creativity in primary ELT. In Maley, A., & Peachey, N.
(Eds.). Creativity in the English language classroom (pp.29-36). London: British
Council.
Rubenstein, L.D., McCoach, D.B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for Creativity Scales: An
instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the teaching of
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 324–334
Runco, M. A. (1993). Creativity as an educational objective for disadvantaged children.
Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 47(3), 317–324.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity, theories and themes: Research, development and practice.
London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 24, 92-96.
Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. J., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories
of children’s creativity. Child Study Journal, 23(2), 91–113.
Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. J. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s
creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3/4), 427–438.
Ryhammar, L., & Brolin, C. (1999). Creativity research: Historical considerations and main
lines of development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 259–273.
Sak, U. (2004). About Creativity, Giftedness and Teaching the Creativity Gifted in the
Classroom. Roeper Review, 26(4), 216-222.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford\New
York: Oxford University Press.
Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R.J., & Williams, W.M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), The nature of creativity—Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E.P. (1983). Creativity in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2018, 5(3), 636-647.
647
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.
Wang L., & Kokotsaki D. (2018). Primary school teachers’ conceptions of creativity in
teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) in China, Thinking Skills and Creativity.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.06.002
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset of burden in the classroom?
Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1–11.
Wright, A. (2015). Medium: Companion or slave? In Maley, A., & Peachey, N. (Eds.).
Creativity in the English language classroom (pp.14-23). London: British Council.
Zbainos, D., Anastasopoulou, A. (2012). Creativity in Greek music curricula and pedagogy:
An investigation of Greek music teachers’ perceptions. Creative Education, 3(1), 55–
60