This article describes the development of an instrument for examining schools as institutions where teaching practices and school structures provide opportunities and support for student imagination, creativity, and innovation, as well as initial comparisons using the instrument, using a sample of n = 5020 students and n = 268 teachers (n = 161 classes of students nested within teachers). The three five-item subscales show acceptable reliability across groups (.73–.90). Paired sample t tests indicate that, on average, students reported significantly more opportunities for creativity as compared to imagination or innovation. There were also significant differences between actual student reports and teachers’ predictions only for creativity and innovation. Students reported more opportunities for creativity and innovation than their teachers predicted. However, students reported significantly less opportunity for imagination, creativity, and innovation than their teachers’ ideals. Implications for subsequent research and practice are also discussed.
AlsahouH. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and practices for fostering creativity in science classrooms in the state of Kuwait [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. UMI No. 1794987924
4.
AndilouA.MurphyP. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers' and teachers' conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research. Educational Research Review5, 201–219. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003
5.
BeghettoR. A. (2008). Prospective teachers’ beliefs about imaginative thinking in K-12 schooling. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 134–142.
6.
BeghettoR. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Information Age Publishing.
7.
BeghettoR. A. (2019). Large scale assessments, personalized learning, and creativity: Paradoxes and possibilities. ECNU Review of Education, 2, 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119878963
8.
BeghettoR. A.PluckerJ. A. (2006). The relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “You can’t get there from here”? In KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ. (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316–332). Cambridge University Press.
BereczkiE. O.KárpátiA. (2018). Teachers' beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research Review, 23, 25–56. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003
11.
BrandonL. E. (2019). Teachers’ and students’ perspectives of school-based opportunities for student creativity [Doctoral dissertations. 2127].
CampW. G. (1990). Participation in student activities and achievement: A covariance structural analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(5), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1990.10885969
14.
ChengV. M. Y. (2010). Tensions and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinese context. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.09.005
15.
CraftA. (2014). Possibility thinking: From what is to what might be. In RobsonS.Flannery QuinnS. (Eds.). The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding (pp. 416–432). London: Routledge.
CropleyA. J. (1995). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In RuncoM. (Ed.), The creativity research handbook Vol. 1, 83–114. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
18.
EasonR.GiannangeloD. M.FranceschiniL. A. (2009). A look at creativity in public and private schools. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.04.001
19.
FarbA. F.MatjaskoJ. L. (2012). Recent advances in research on school-basedextracurricular activities and adolescent development. Developmental Review, 32(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.10.001
20.
FleithD. dS. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554022
21.
HansenJ. B.FeldhusenJ. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800304
22.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999) Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
23.
JonesB. D.EgleyR. J. (2004). Voices from the frontlines: Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n39.2004
24.
MakelM. C. (2009). Help us creativity researchers, you’re our only hope. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014919
McLellanR.NichollB. (2012). Creativity in crisis in design & technology: Are classroom climates conducive for creativity in English secondary schools?Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.11.004
27.
MulletD. R.WillersonA.LambK. N.KettlerT. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001
OlivantK. (2015). “I am not a format”: Teachers’ experiences with fostering creativity in the era of accountability. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29, 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2014.978920
30.
PluckerJ. A.BeghettoR. A.DowG. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–97.
31.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented: Part II. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627702100216
32.
RenzulliJ. S. (1999). Reflections, perceptions, and future directions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902300109
33.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
34.
RenzulliJ. S. (2020). The catch-a-wave theory of adaptability: Core competencies for developing gifted behaviors in the second machine age of technology. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 8(2), 79–95).
35.
SchacterJ.ThumY. M.ZifkinD. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance elementary school students’ achievement?The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01266.x
SohK. C. (2000). Indexing creativity-fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.200.34
38.
SweetD. A. (1986). Extracurricular activity participants out perform other students. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Education, OERI.
U.S. Department of Education (2018). Public School Data Search. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
