The purpose of this study is to determine whether Turkish student teachers have implicit opinions regarding creativity. For this purpose, whether the student teachers’ genders, backgrounds, and socioeconomic levels created significant differences on the formation of their implicit opinions regarding creativity was examined. First, the What Do You Think of Creativity Scale was translated into the Turkish language. Next, the validity and reliability of the scale were analyzed. The scale was subsequently applied to 1,274 student teachers. At the end of the study, the scale's health and youth dimensions showed that male student teachers are more strict-minded than female student teachers. Moreover, the study found that student teachers who grew up in rural areas were more strict-minded in the scale's birth order dimension. In addition, regarding the scale's race and intelligence dimensions, student teachers associated with high socioeconomic levels were more strict-minded than the student teachers associated with low and middle socioeconomic levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlderH. (2004). Yaratιcι zeka [Creative intelligence] (M. Zaman ve Cüneyt Avş,ar, Trans.). Istanbul: Hayat.
2.
AralN. (1999). Sanat eğitimi-yaratıcılık etkileş,imi [Art education-creativity interactions].Hacettepe University Journal of Education,15, 11–17.
3.
BaconL. D. (1997). Using Amos for structural equation modeling in market research.New York: Lynd Bacon.
4.
BlackS. (1999). Using Polynesian legends and folk tales to encourage culture vision and creativity.Childhood Education,75(6), 332–336.
5.
BlackS. (2003). Harry Potter: Enchantment for all seasons.Gifted Child Today,26(3), 46–54.
6.
BrislinR. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
7.
ByrneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
8.
ChanD. W., & ChanL. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception of student characteristic in Hong Kong.Creativity Research Journal,12(3), 185–195.
9.
Council of Higher Education. (1998). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programlarι [Teacher training curriculums in the faculties of education]. Ankara: Author.
10.
Council of Higher Education. (2007). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme yeni lisans programlarι [New teacher training curriculums in the faculties of education]. Ankara: Author.
11.
Council of Higher Education. (2011). Öğretmen yetiştirme ve eğitim bilimleri temel alan yeterlikleri [Teacher training and education sciences qualifications]. Ankara: Author. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/content/view/977
12.
CohenB. H., & LeaR. B. (2004). Essentials of statistics for the social and behavioral sciences.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CronbachL. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
15.
CropleyA. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In RuncoM. A. (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83–114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
16.
de VausD. A. (2005). Research design in social research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DikiciA. (2006). Art education and the creativity level of the students [in Turkish].Eğitim ve Bilim,139, 3–9.
18.
DikiciA. (2011). Implicit theories of creativity: The adaptation to Turkish culture of what do you think of creativity scale [in Turkish].e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy,6(1), 589–604.
19.
DikiciA., & SağnakM. (2011). An investigation of teacher candidates’ attitudes toward teaching profession and teacher efficacies [in Turkish].e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy,6(1), 871–883.
20.
DominoG., WalshJ., ReznikoffM., & HoneymanM. (1976). A factor analysis of creativity in fraternal and identical twins.Journal of General Psychology,94, 211–221.
21.
EislerR., & MontuoriA. (2007). Creativity, society, and the hidden subtext of gender: Toward a new contextualized approach.World Futures,63(7), 479–499.
22.
FreudS. (1994). Toplum psikolojisi [Community psychology] (2nd ed.). (K. Saydam, Trans.). İstanbul: Düşünen Adam.
23.
GoddardW., & MelvilleS. (2007). Research methodology: An introduction (2nd ed.). Lansdowne: Juta.
24.
GuilfordJ. P. (1950). Creativity.American Psychologist,5, 444–454.
25.
GündoğduK., & YıldırımA. (2010). Voices of home and school on democracy and human rights education at the primary level: A case study.Asia Pacific Education Review,11(4), 525–532.
26.
HairJ. F., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., & AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
27.
HattieJ., & RogersH. J. (1986). Factor models for assessing the relation between creativity and intelligence.Journal of Educational Psychology,78(6), 482–485.
KimA., & LimE. (1999, April). How critical is back translation in cross-cultural adaptation of attitude measures? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430014)
32.
KwangN. A., & SmithI. (2004). The paradox of promoting creativity in the Asian classroom: An empirical investigation.Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,130(4), 307–330.
33.
LubartT. I., & GeorgsdottirA. (2004). Creativity: Developmental and cross-cultural issues. In LauS., NuiA. N. N., & NgG. Y. C. (Eds.), Creativity: When East meets West (pp. 23–54). Singapore: World Scientific.
34.
MakelM. C., & PluckerJ. A. (2008). Creativity. In PfeifferS. I. (Eds.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 247–270). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
35.
Malley-MorrisonK. (2002). Implicit theories of family aggression. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston.
36.
NiuW., & SternbergR. J. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The East and the West.Journal of Creative Behavior,36(4), 269–288.
37.
OralG., KaufmanJ. C., & AgarsM. D. (2007). Examining creativity in Turkey: Do Western findings apply?High Ability Studies,18(2), 235–246.
38.
ÖzdemirO., ErçevikE., & ÇalışkanD. (2005). Evaluation of pupil growth and development in two primary schools with different socioeconomic status.Medical Sciences,58, 23–29.
39.
PaletzS. B. F., & PengK. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures Novelty and appropriateness in two product domains.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,39(3), 286–302.
40.
PluckerJ. A., & RuncoM. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment.Roeper Review,21(1), 36–39.
41.
RamosS. J. (2005). Cross-cultural studies of implicit theories of creativity: A comparative analysis between the United States and the main ethnic groups in Singapore. Unpublished master's thesis, State University of New York, Albany.
42.
RızaE. T. (1999). Yaratιcιlιğι geliştirme teknikleri [Creativity development techniques Turkish]. İzmir: Anadolu Press.
43.
RudowiczE., & HuiA. (1997). The creative personality: Hong Kong perspective.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,12(1), 139–157.
44.
RuncoM. A. (2004a). Creativity.Annual Review of Psychology,55, 657–687.
45.
RuncoM. A. (2004b). Personal creativity and culture. In LauS., NuiA. N. N., & NgG. Y. C. (Eds.), Creativity: When East meets West (pp. 9–21). Singapore: World Scientific.
46.
SarsaniM. R. (2008). Do high and low creative children differ in their cognition and motivation?Creativity Research Journal,20(2), 155–170.
47.
Schermelleh-EngelK., & MoosbruggerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures.Methods of Psychological Research Online,8(2), 23–74.
48.
SchumackerR. E., & LomaxR. G. (2004). Beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
49.
SengK. Q., KeungH. K., & ChengS. K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity: A comparison of student-teachers in Hong Kong and Singapore.Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education,38(1), 71–86.
50.
SilviaJ. P. (2008). Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan (1965).Creativity Research Journal,20(1), 34–39.
51.
SternbergR. J. (2006). The nature of creativity.Creativity Research Journal,18(1), 87–98.
52.
SternbergR. J., & O-HaraL. (2000). Intelligence and creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 609–628). New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SternbergR. J., & WilliamsW. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
54.
SungurN. (1997). Yaratιcι düşünce [Creative thinking] (2nd ed.). Istanbul: Evrim.
55.
TaylorB., SinhaG., & GhoshalT. (2006). Research methodology: A guide for researchers in management & social sciences.New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
56.
TomulE. (2008). The relative effects of family socio-economic characteristics on participation in education in Turkey.Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,30, 153–168.
57.
TorranceE. P. (1995). Why to fly? A philosophy of creativity.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Turkish Ministry of National Education. (2006). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [Teacher efficacy domains]. Retrieved http://otmg.meb.gov.tr/YetGenel.html
61.
TürkoğluA. (2005). Dünyada öğretmen yetiştirme modelleri [Teacher training models in the world]. Paper presented at Eğitim Fakültelerinde Yeniden Yapılandırmanın Sonuçları ve Öğretmen Yetiştirme Sempozyumu (Results of Restructuring in the Faculties of Education and Teacher Training Symposium), Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
62.
ÜlgenG. (1995). Eğitim psikolojisi [Educational psychology] (2nd ed.). Ankara: Bilim.
63.
WallachM. A., & KoganN. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
64.
WickesK. N. S., & WardT. B. (2006). Measuring gifted adolescents’ implicit theories of creativity.Roeper Review,28(3), 131–139.
65.
YavuzerS. H. (1996). Yaratιcιlιk [Creativity] (2nd ed.). Istanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
66.
YıldırımA., & ŞimşekH. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (6th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin.
