Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Conflicted epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity

T
Jen Katz-Buonincontroa,*, Elaine Perignatb, Richard W. Hassc
a
Drexel University School of Education, 3001 Market St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, United States
b
Post-Doctoral Scholar, Creative Interdisciplinary Research in Graduate Education (CIRGE) Program, Department of Chemistry, Drexel University, 32
South 32nd St., Disque Hall, Office 415, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, United States
c
Jefferson (Philadelphia University + Thomas Jefferson University), East Falls Campus (Downs 24B), 4201 Henry Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19144,
United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Educational policymakers and workforce studies emphasize creativity for teachers and students,
Creativity yet there is an overreliance on performance measures and ratings of creativity that excludes the
Teaching perspective of how teachers construct epistemic beliefs about what creativity means to them. This
Beliefs paper presents results from a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to unearth
epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity as described by sixteen pre-service and in-service
teachers enrolled in teacher education, Masters and PhD programs in an American university.
Using qualitative content analysis, five themes emerged: teaching for creativity as a component
of teaching success, discordant beliefs about creative teaching abilities, diverse beliefs about
student creative potential, the importance of creativity for student learning and freedom to ex-
press new ideas. We discuss further how beliefs conflicted, namely the confusion about student
potential as innate, malleable or a fusion of both, and the conflation of creativity with the arts.
For implications, we propose future research exploring the calibration of teacher epistemic be-
liefs with teaching behavior in the classroom.

1. Introduction

How educators develop epistemic beliefs about creativity is a critical, yet understudied area in the field of education. Epistemic, or
implicit beliefs about knowledge in certain areas (Kitchener, 1983; Sandoval, Greene, & Braten, 2016) drive metacognition and
cognition, making it important to investigate especially in the area of teaching. Studies of layperson implicit beliefs about creativity
show considerable variation in implicit definitions of creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013; Mullet, Willerson, Lamb, & Kettler,
2016). As well, teacher research shows diverse challenges to incorporating creativity into the classroom (Beghetto, 2009; Beghetto &
Kaufman, 2014). Taken together, the variation in creativity definitions and teaching challenges can lead to confusion about the
concept of creativity for teacher education students and dissuade the effective incorporation of creativity into classrooms. As a result,
the development of effective practices in higher education for teacher training in creativity are woefully behind the teaching of
creativity principles. Therefore, it is important to further study how teachers construct epistemic beliefs about what creativity means
to them and how they draw upon these epistemic beliefs as a source to guide their teaching of creativity in PK-12 classrooms.
While scholars agree that creativity includes novel thought that has relevant or useful applications (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), beliefs
about creativity have been found to be distinct according to domains (Hass & Burke, 2016; Kaufman & Baer, 2008). For example, a
recent study found that students’ beliefs about the malleability of creativity are related to domain-specific problem-solving and not

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Katz-Buonincontro), [email protected] (E. Perignat), [email protected] (R.W. Hass).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100651
Received 20 January 2020; Received in revised form 12 March 2020; Accepted 19 March 2020
Available online 20 March 2020
1871-1871/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

domain-general problem-solving (O’Connor, Nemeth, & Akutsu, 2013). Another study revealed that students tended to differentiate
between their own creative abilities in math and science, but their teachers did not (Beghetto, Kaufman, & Baxter, 2011). Epistemic
cognition studies also confirm that domain specificity plays a large role in the formation and enactment of belief systems (Hofer,
2004; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). We contend that there is much to learn about the nature of epistemic beliefs about teaching for
creativity: do teachers believe that creativity is a student trait that is learnable or innate? And if teachers believe that students can
learn to be creative, do teachers also believe that they have the capacity to teach creativity? To investigate these questions further,
this paper presents results from a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to unearth epistemic beliefs about teaching for
creativity as described by sixteen pre-service and in-service teachers enrolled in teacher education, Masters and PhD programs in an
American university.

2. Epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity

While there are several models of creativity and approaches to researching creativity in education (Smith & Smith, 2010),
creativity can be defined as the ability to produce new, useful, and high-quality ideas and products (Sawyer, 2012). Creativity is
recognized as one of the prominent 21st Century skills (along with critical thinking, communication, and collaboration) (Trilling &
Fadel, 2009) and claimed as central for students’ career success in the United States, Europe and many Asian countries (Craft, 2003;
Land, 2013). However, the notion that schools “kill” creativity has emerged in American and British culture (Craft, 2003; Hennessey,
2015; Robinson, 2006), provoking researchers to examine how creativity is cultivated and hindered in different classroom contexts.
Several studies on teachers’ beliefs of creativity have revealed that issues such as standardized testing, overly structured curricula,
administrative expectations (Rubenstein, Ridgley, Callan, Karami, & Ehlinger, 2018), as well as worksheets, closed-ended problems,
and discouragement of idea-sharing inhibit creativity development in the classroom (de Souza Fleith, 2000). Findings similar to these
have sparked interest in understanding how to “teach for creativity” in the classroom in an effort to foster and enhance student
creativity development. Several creativity researchers have examined the impact of mental models of creativity on cognitive aspects
of creative problem solving (Mumford et al., 2012; Rich & Weisberg, 2004; Vincent, Decker, & Mumford, 2002). In fact, Mumford
et al. (2012) suggest that people rely on mental models to guide their approach to enacting creativity. However, these studies are
experimental in nature using quantitative analysis of creativity scores. Few if any studies focus solely on teacher beliefs about
creativity and how they might affect teaching practices aimed at fostering creativity in the classroom. To adapt experimental studies
to educational contexts, it is important to first isolate and characterize the range of epistemic beliefs in this area.
Getting a clearer picture of the nature of epistemic beliefs, as opposed to a single belief or thought about a concept, is important. Beliefs are
personal orientations that incorporate information from experience and social-cultural contexts, which inform our thoughts and actions
(Zubek & Solberg, 1954). As beliefs differ from fleeting thoughts or moods, the way that people develop and construct beliefs have been a
source of psychological inquiry for decades. The characterization of beliefs and how they correspond to products of belief is a core philo-
sophical and scientific question (Stone, 2008). Teacher epistemic beliefs refer to how a teacher constructs an understanding of a certain
concept (Kitchener, 1983), which took hold in the 1990’s (Calderhead, 1996). Since then, researchers have examined the relationship
between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices used in classroom settings, also known as “calibration” studies (Nietfeld & Schraw, 2002).
Several studies found that teacher beliefs directly influenced pedagogical practices (Maggioni & Parkinson, 2008).
Interestingly, characteristics of teaching for creativity have been noted in studies of epistemic beliefs about teaching. For example,
Radigan noted that teachers who share the legitimization of knowledge claims also tolerate rule-breaking, minority points of view,
and risk-taking behavior in students. These characteristics are strikingly similar to features of student creativity in the creativity
literature. Other studies, however, indicate variation in teacher competence in teaching for creativity (Hartley & Plucker, 2014;
Rubenstein et al., 2018). A recently published systematic review of literature on teachers’ perceptions of creativity that were pub-
lished between 1999 and 2015 (Mullet et al., 2016) reported that teachers generally hold misconceptions about creativity which
extends to their teaching practices and their perceptions of student creativity in their classrooms. Further evidence from other studies
confirms this disconnect. For example, Gralewski and Karwowski (2016) examined how teachers’ implicit theories of creativity
affects their perceptions of their students’ creativity revealing that most teachers do not fully understand creativity nor how to
identify creativity in students’ work or behaviors. Other studies about teacher conceptions of creative students reveal similar dis-
parities (Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, 2015; Kettler, Lamb, Willerson, & Mullet, 2018; Paek & Sumners, 2017). Interestingly,
Paek and Sumners’ (2017) study of teachers’ creative mindsets suggest that the more teachers believe creativity to be innate, the less
they believed students were capable of developing their creativity.
The confusion about creativity and how to teach for creativity appears to resound in other international studies. For example,
Kampylis, Berki and Saariluoma (2009) examined 132 Greek in-service and pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity, and found
that the majority of teachers do not feel prepared to teach for creativity or to foster student creativity well. In addition to feeling
under-prepared to teach for creativity, culturally-bound conceptions of creativity in teacher interviews emerged as well, exposing
beliefs Confucian-based values (So & Hu, 2019; Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018) and even a distinct gender bias (Gralewski, 2019).
Gralewski (2019) found that teachers hold gender-biased views of student creativity and creative behaviors in the classroom. For
instance, teachers in the study described creative boys as impulsive, risk-taking, and individualistic, while creative girls were de-
scribed as calm, conscientious, consistent, and well-behaved. In an English study, Newtown and Beverton (2012) collected data from
an all-female sample of pre-service teachers through a 45-minute focus group, finding that teachers have a limited understanding of
creativity and may not be able to identify opportunities for creativity in classroom. Likewise, interview studies conducted with
practicing and pre-service teachers (Kokotsaki, 2011; Liu & Lin, 2014; Myhill & Wilson, 2013; Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018) also confirm
this.

2
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

3. Methodological approaches to studying epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity

Because research on the nature of epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity are so important for understanding the drivers
behind teaching behavior, it is important to consider the potential adequacy of research methods for unearthing these beliefs. Some
researchers assert that authentic beliefs are hard to assess if people are concerned about characterizing their beliefs in a socially
desirable way that appeals to a research investigator or a supervisor, also known as “social desirability bias” (Johnson & Christensen,
2008; Messick, 1960). Additionally, it is challenging to use surveys that measures stable traits to examine developmental periods of
change over time, or to characterize the contextual qualities of teaching. That is, surveys are often validated in terms of reliability,
such that when administered multiple times, the survey should provide the same assessment of the trait. A variety of quantitative
surveys have been used to discern the nature of epistemic beliefs in general (e.g. Hofer, 2004; Qian & Alvermann, 1995). An early,
widely used measure, the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory, however, has a factor structure that has not been replicated with studies on
teacher epistemic beliefs. In addition to the factor issues and social desirability bias, concern about self-report measures for epistemic
beliefs includes trait-like representation rather than a contextualized understanding (Sandoval et al., 2016). These concerns hold true
for creativity research in which the majority of the field relies on psychometric methods (Plucker & Makel, 2010). In addition,
AUTHORS (in press) showed recently that teachers’ beliefs about creativity are likely subject to social-desirability bias when mea-
sured with Likert scale items. This was especially true when responding to items about growth creative mindset.
Beyond social desirability bias, some researchers maintain that Likert-type survey items do not allow for expositions of reasoning
and elaboration that characterize teacher epistemic beliefs in general, and beliefs about creativity, in particular (Hofer, 2004). In
creativity research, mostly quantitative measures have been used to ascertain teacher ratings of student creativity. For example, Long
(2014) examined 612 empirical creativity studies published between 2003 and 2012 (Long, 2014) revealing that a majority of
creativity research in this time frame used quantitative methods (83 %) and heavily relied on self-report measures of creativity. For
this reason, Mullet et al. (2016) advocate for the use of qualitative in creativity research in order to converge evidence of perceptions
of teacher creativity with observational evidence of teacher behavior in the classroom.
Also, most of the quantitative studies on teacher conceptions of creativity originate from the United States (Mullet et al., 2016)
with very few qualitative studies. A recent survey of American teachers using open-ended survey questions on the Teaching for
Creativity Scales survey, finding that as teachers’ experience levels increased, they indicated less environmental support for teaching
for creativity (Rubenstein et al., 2018). Another open-ended survey of American elementary teachers found that teachers hold some
misconceptions about the definitions of creativity as well as misconceptions about how to identify creativity in students, and feel ill-
prepared to foster creativity (Aljughalman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005).
In contrast with survey methods, interviews are a fitting choice for unpacking individual teacher beliefs as they allow unfettered time for
explaining thoughts about teaching for creativity. Within the interview paradigm, a variety of approaches exist. A phenomenological ap-
proach provides insight into the individual’s construction of beliefs and interactions with one’s environment (Magolda, 1992 in Hofer, 2004).
As phenomenology focuses on lived experience, the interview approach would focus on multiple interviews with each participant, enabling
the participant to reflect and peel back layers of retrospective experiences. While phenomenological interviews might offer insight into past
events, these interviews would focus more on past experiences than the current contexts of teaching experiences.
Past qualitative interview studies on teacher creativity span various countries such as South Korea (So & Hu, 2019), China (Huang
& Lee, 2015; Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018), England and the UK (Bolden, Harries, & Newton, 2010; Myhill & Wilson, 2013; Newton &
Beverton, 2012), and Poland (Gralewski, 2019). Remarkably, few interview studies of American teachers exist. To note, the majority
of these studies are published in Thinking Skills and Creativity. Many of the qualitative studies include mostly female teachers
(Aljughalman & Mowrer‐Reynolds, 2005; So & Hu, 2019; Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018) or entirely female teachers (Gralewski, 2019;
Newton & Beverton, 2012) (noting that several studies did not report demographic nor sex/gender information (Bolden et al., 2010;
Huang & Lee, 2015; Kokotsaki, 2011; Myhill & Wilson, 2013; Rubenstein et al., 2018)). This dearth of interview studies led us to
wonder how American teachers might describe their epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity.

4. Present study

As shown above, earlier studies of epistemic beliefs struggled with ways to authentically capture individual beliefs, and the field
of creativity has used predominantly performance measures and ratings of student creativity, with researchers calling for more
interviews and observation studies (Author, 2018). The interview studies we found focused on female non-American teacher samples
(e.g. Gralewski, 2019). This points towards a surprising lack of studies on beliefs about teaching for creativity, especially among
American pre-service and in-service teachers. In summary, the present study will bridge these two major streams of research: teacher
epistemic beliefs and teacher perceptions of creativity, using the method of interviews to address the limitations of survey, focus
group and phenomenological research identified in epistemic belief research and an overreliance on creativity assessment and
measurement as identified in past creativity research (Snyder, Hammond, Grohman, & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). Our research
question driving this study was how do teachers describe their beliefs about creativity and teaching for creativity?

5. Method

5.1. Design

We designed and conducted in-depth exploratory qualitative interviews. The study goal was to describe, understand and then

3
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

Table 1
Demographic and Academic Makeup of Interview Participants.
Demographic Information Number (N = 16) Percentage

Female 8 50%
Male 8 50%
Asian or Pacific Islander 1 6.25%
Black or African American 3 18.75%
Hispanic or Latino 1 6.25%
Bi-racial 1 6.25%
White or Caucasian 10 62.50%
Academic Status
Bachelor's Degree Program 3 18.75%
Certificate Program 2 12.50%
Master's Degree Program 5 31.25%
Doctoral Degree Program (Ed.D.) 5 31.25%
Doctoral Degree Program (Ph.D.) 1 6.25%

identify patterns characterizing the diversity of views concerning the nature of epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity among
pre-service and practicing educators. Our approach can be referred to as “basic” qualitative research in that the design is inductive,
comparative and descriptive as opposed to focusing on essence of lived experience (phenomenological), bounded systems (case
study), stories (narrative), or theory-building (grounded theory) (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative exploratory research aiming
to produce emergent generalizations is common in research on beliefs and beliefs systems where verification via hypothesis-testing is
not the aim (Stebbins, 2008).

5.2. Sample and american curricular context

We used purposive sampling strategy (Teddlie & Yu, 2007) to recruit sixteen (8 male; 8 female) pre-service and practicing
teachers from a population of students (N = 1,227) enrolled in bachelors, masters, and doctoral (Ph.D. and Ed.D.) education pro-
grams within a private university located in the northeastern United States. We wanted to ensure we would be able to interview an
equal number of male and female students in order to address the limitations of previous interview studies which primarily sampled
female teachers. Table 1 shows the demographic and academic makeup of the interview participants.
In terms of the American curricular context for preparing educators, educators receive mixed messages about the perceived
benefits and challenges of teaching for creativity: On one hand, creativity is often described as a necessary 21st Century skill that
needs to be developed in classrooms, but on the other hand, methods for teaching and fostering creativity are not typically the focus
of teacher education departments (Sternberg, 2015). In most American universities, creativity is taught in psychology programs-not
in teacher education programs. While students at this university may elect to take a creativity course later in their planned programs,
none of the participants in this study had completed a creativity course. Interestingly, the university strategic plan and school of
education strategic plan refer to creativity and innovation, but in a rhetorical way without concrete examples. The acknowledgement
of creativity as a learning objective rings hollow without equipping educators to teach for creativity in PK-12 classrooms.

5.3. Semi-structured interview protocol

The semi-structured interview protocol used predetermined, but flexible and open-ended interview questions on the topics of
beliefs about creativity and beliefs about students’ creativity (See Appendix A). The set of questions were asked in a systematic and
similar order consistent with best practices used in semi-structured interviewing, allowing each study participant to expand upon
their experiences and tell stories stemming from the question (Berg, 2004). Each question was reviewed by the research team in
multiple drafts until a core set of “essential” and “probing” questions was agreed upon (Berg, 2004). As is the nature of semi-
structured interviews (Crabtree & Miller, 1999), some interviews asked participants to elaborate in certain areas or provide examples
to help clarify certain points.
The first interview question asked the interview participant to describe their current or intended area of teaching. This question
was intended to relax the participant and establish the context of education and teaching. The second question was specific to the
participants’ survey results and aimed to investigate any outlier responses that may have emerged through the survey analyses in the
previous study. The remaining interview questions aimed to more deeply examine the interest in creativity for teaching success and
valuing creativity for student learning.

5.4. Interview process

5.4.1. Trust and rapport

The interviewer was a PhD student enrolled in the same college of education as the interviewed students, so the common
background between interviewer and interviewee helped to establish and maintain trust and rapport (Berg, 2004). In addition, we
were able to minimize hierarchical power differentials between the interviewer and interviewee as the doctoral student interviewed

4
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

the students instead of a professor who taught in the same college. An approved human subjects protocol was used and consent was
acquired prior to the online survey and again prior to the interviews. Each interview was scheduled as either a face-to-face meeting at
the university’s main campus or online using a university-approved internet-based meeting site. Each interview was approximately
45−60 min in duration. Each student who completed the interview was given a book on teaching for creativity in the elementary
classroom. Audio-recordings of the interviews were transcribed and coded. We used the method of member-checking to help ensure
validity, or authenticity of the transcription (Merriam, 2009). We emailed each interview participant prior to the completion of the
study analysis and requested confirmation of their interview responses. There were no changes or points of clarification requested by
the interviewees, which allowed us to proceed with the results.

5.5. Data analysis

Using an interpretivist/constructivist approach (Merriam, 2009), the central aim of the qualitative analysis was to describe,
understand and interpret educators’ conceptions and beliefs about teaching for creativity.

5.5.1. Validity and reliability of codes

We ensured adequate engagement in data collection as well as capturing the range of variation in understanding the phenomenon
(Merriam, 2009): The research assistant and first author discussed each interview as they transpired and reviewed the transcriptions
together in team meetings. The lead researcher and research assistant discussed the first transcription and initial coding strategy to
help establish accuracy and validity of codes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). The research assistant who conducted the in-
terviews and completed the transcriptions also coded the transcriptions, which helped to ensure a close understanding of the in-
terview. Pseudonyms were used to protect each student’s anonymity and confidentiality. To ensure authenticity of each participant’s
voice and identity, we chose pseudonyms that reflected each pre-service and practicing teacher’s ethnicity and gender.

5.5.2. Coding procedure

Each transcription was reviewed for in vivo descriptions and expressions (colloquial terms used by participants that were re-
presentative of the themes) (Miles et al., 2014) that offered insights about the students’ conceptions of creativity. Coding was
completed using a two-cycle coding process by which the first cycle identified several subthemes (or subcodes) and the second cycle
grouped the subthemes into a smaller number of themes, or parent codes (Miles et al., 2014) (see Table 2).For all areas, there was a
rich scope of responses which is considered to be a sign of valid data (as cited in Maxwell, 2013).
The first parent code, Creativity for Teaching Success, was derived inductively to capture how participants described using crea-
tivity for success in the classroom. Some participants explained teaching success in terms of creating new fun lesson plans (sub code:
Lessons) and others described success as engaging students so that they learn to think creatively (sub code: Engagement). The second
parent code, Creative transcription was reviewed for in vivo descriptions and Teaching Abilities, emerged as evidence of each parti-
cipant’s conceptions about their own creative abilities. Participants were directly asked if they were themselves creative. Responses
were coded in the first cycle as either “Positive” if they described their own creative abilities or endeavors, or “Negative” when
teachers explained that they lacked creative abilities. These subcodes emerged as a way to differentiate between the participants’ self-
beliefs about their own creative abilities as teachers. We should note here that both Positive and Negative subcodes were used within
a single transcript, indicating that teachers believe they can be creative in certain areas or domains, but not in others. This point is
further explained in the Findings section of this paper.
The parent code Student Creative Potential characterized how participants described whether student potential was Innate,
Malleable, Partial. Innate was used to sub code evidence of teachers’ beliefs that creativity is an inborn trait, unable to be changed. The
Malleable sub code was used to identify explanations from teachers indicating that they believed creativity is malleable and able to be
developed through effort and hard work. Finally, the Partial sub code describes evidence of teachers’ vacillating beliefs between
Innate and Malleable, or holding simultaneous beliefs about the nature of creativity. The parent code Importance of Creativity for
Student Learning represented participants’ conceptions of creativity for the purpose of student learning and development. The par-
ticipants described the importance of creativity in one of two ways: creativity was an essential component of students’ development in
order to become responsible members of society (sub code: Student growth) or creativity was necessary for any career option pursued
by students, and therefore necessary as part of their learning and development (sub code: Career). Lastly, the parent code Creative
Freedom further characterized participants’ beliefs about fostering creativity and the factors necessary for student creativity devel-
opment. The subcodes illustrate the participants’ descriptions of using a variety of hands-on activities that provide students with the
freedom to explore and play (sub code: Activities) and the need to provide students with options and choices that encourage ima-
gination (sub code: Options). Examples of the parent codes, subcodes, and in vivo descriptions are included in Table 2. The results of
this analysis is described in detail below.

5
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

Table 2
Coding Matrix for Interviews.
Parent code Sub code Description of the code In vivo description

Creativity for teaching Lessons Providing different/new/unique pedagogical I was relating back to having fun new teaching approaches to bring
success approaches and lesson plans in the classroom. I think that’s essential nowadays, especially since
we’re competing with technology and how kids are glued to iPhones
and iPads.
Engagement Creative ways to engage students in the I definitely think it’s an important factor for teachers to be creative.
learning process Because you need to be creative to ensure students are learning and
coming up with different ideas.
Creative teaching abilities Positive Good at coming up with novel ideas and But if I look at creativity now, as a doctoral student and as I get
thinking differently older, being open to more ideas, then I’d say I definitely am more
creative.
Negative Not able to have original ideas; Discuss I’m not necessarily good at coming up with original ideas or that
inability to come up w/new ideas kind of creativity.
Student creative potential Innate Believing that creativity is inborn; a person I like to relate it back to a God-given talent like we see people on
is either creative or not creative. like the Voice or singing competitions that can sing, I feel like that’s
a God-given talent. Especially relating creativity to art, I would say
that’s a God-given talent.
Malleable Believing that creativity can be changed or You can – like building a muscle up – I think you can do that with
developed through effort and hard work. creativity when you learn to think differently by exposing yourself
to different learning, different ways of learning.
Partial Vacillating beliefs that creativity is innate I don’t think you’re either born creative or not. I do think certain
and malleable. skills, some people have an innate ability. They’re born great artists
or musicians, but then others aren’t, and they learn that.
Importance of creativity for Student growth Creativity for student growth for life in I think in all their careers and all of their lives creativity can help
student learning general, and to be a valuable member of them, not hinder them from being better people in their chosen
society. fields, being better students, etc.
Career Creativity is important for students’ future I think professionally, I think that because you never know where a
careers and goals. person will end up career-wise, that creativity can be really helpful
and marketable in a variety of careers.
Creative freedom Activities Classroom activities that encourage So, if you’re exposing them to different things in a way that’s fun,
collaboration, hands-on, projects, and in a way where they can get hands-on experience, then I think it
challenge students to think. will spark their imagination enough to be creative themselves.
And allowing them the freedom to use materials in a different way.
Options Use reduced structure, open-ended I think a big thing that enhances creativity is student choice or
questions, and allow options and choice to autonomy. Like, their ability to have input on the task that they’re
students. completing.

6. Findings

Five main categories of teachers epistemic beliefs about creativity and teaching for creativity are presented here as the findings
from the sixteen individual pre-service and in-service teachers.

6.1. Beliefs about creativity for teaching success

When asked if creativity can help teachers become successful, the participants described ways in which they believe that crea-
tivity can help them (or has helped them) to become successful teachers. The participants described “success in teaching” as de-
veloping and implementing new lesson plans that excite students and/or using creative approaches that enhance student learning.
Many described teaching as a personal creative outlet which allows them to think in unorthodox ways, plan engaging lessons and
activities, and creative solve emergent problems in the classroom – efforts that lead to feeling successful as a teacher. Comments like
“I think it’s important to learning because teachers have to be creative in their instructional delivery” or “my goal was to engage them
in lessons and I think a lot of times creativity was involved in order to get them to be engaged” are examples of participants’
explanations of success in teaching. For example, one of the in-service teachers, Edward, explained how teaching allows him to be
“unorthodox” compared to other professional identities:
When I’m teaching it automatically comes out. Which is why I came into the profession serendipitously. Because really as an
undergrad I was studying to be an investment banker. But it just did not work out, it didn’t mesh well with me at all. And I just found
when I’m teaching English, when I’m in the classroom, I can be just as unorthodox as I want to be. And the students enjoy it, and they
get it.
A pre-service teacher, Garry, explained his intent to use creativity in the classroom:
I think I want to influence creativity in the classroom to help students branch out and learn things they might not know. As a
person in math, I don’t fully know how to do that yet… But I think it could lend itself to drawing or painting, like you could do
multiple things with math. Just getting creative and thinking outside the box. I don’t fully know exactly how, but I definitely intend to
have a very arts-focused math classroom.
A doctoral student and educator, Marianne, also discussed the importance of developing creative environments for students, “And

6
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

I try to be creative in like – in the sense of giving students space to be creative, or to innovate on their own within a particular subject.
I think it’s more about creating an environment of creativity is important for education.”
Several of the pre-service and practicing teachers described the desire to use creativity in teaching to address challenges with
teaching multiple types of learners. For example, teacher Jaime said, “We know that we’re all different people. And we learn in
different ways. So, sometimes as an educator, we have to be cognizant that there’s different learner types in the classroom… But in
order to just tap into these different learner types, I think we have to use creativity.” Another practicing teacher, Jarred, also shared
the need to use creativity to find new ways to engage students, “I was thinking back to having fun new teaching approaches to bring
in the classroom. I think that’s essential nowadays, especially since we’re competing with technology and how kids are glued to
iPhones and iPads.” Lastly, the pre-service and practicing teachers described their desire to use creativity in the classroom for the
purpose of preparing their students for career successes. For example, Catherine said:
I think that because you never know where a person will end up career-wise, that creativity can be really helpful and marketable
for them in a variety of careers. So, I think it is helpful to try and encourage someone to express themselves creatively and learn to
think innovatively. It’s such an in-demand thing out there.
Another teacher, Lynn, said, “So if you have someone tapping into that [creativity], then what the kids get out of it is they are
motivated to go into creative careers and have creative lives as adults instead of just sitting behind a desk doing something mundane,
doing something that’s not stimulating.” Overall, each of the teachers expressed the desire to use creativity for the purposes of
engaging students in the classroom and preparing students for a variety of future careers. Achieving these goals to apply creativity to
the classroom ostensibly made the teachers feel successful in their own careers.

6.2. Discordant beliefs about creative teaching abilities

An interesting discordance in how the participants defined creativity emerged. Most of the participants initially associated
creativity with artistic abilities, but when prompted to explain their own creativity, they provided examples of thinking in new and
novel ways, creative problem-solving, and coming up with original ideas or connections. Interestingly, when teachers’ explained
creativity as an artistic ability, they described a lack of self-efficacy. They shared that they did not feel that they were creative.
However, when they explained creativity as an ability to creatively problem-solve, develop new ideas, and think of novel approaches
to teaching, they expressed strong creative self-efficacy. For example, a pre-service teacher, Carry, explained, “I’d say I am a creative
person. Not in the arts. More just in the way I problem solve." Another teacher, Tina, said, “I don’t consider myself artistically
creative, but I’m more creative with problem solving and things like that.” A third teacher, Evan, said, “I wouldn’t think of myself
generally as a very creative person. But I think the basis for creativity comes from a good imagination. And in that sense, I think I
have a strong imagination, but I’m not necessarily artistic or anything like that.” And finally, Daphne explained, “I think I’m like ‘ish’
creative. Like not like typically creative. Like I’m not good at art or anything but I think I go about things differently than other people
would.”
These explanations of creative self-efficacy in terms of both artistic abilities and teaching abilities signifies some disparities in how
teachers define creativity. It may also indicate that the teachers’ definitions of creativity are evolving. One teacher, Jaime, reflected
on this evolution in terms of his own creativity:
Because some people might define creativity, at least I did when I was younger, as artistic ability. And if you see my artistic ability
you’ll see why I teach Spanish; there is nothing there. But if I look at creativity now, as a doctoral student and as I get older, being
open to more ideas, then I’d say I definitely am more creative. I try to think outside of the box as much as possible. I just switch things
around a little bit. I consider myself unconventional. I’m not a person who will always do things a certain way.
When the teachers narrowly defined creativity in terms of artistic abilities, they expressed a lack of creative self-efficacy, however,
as they described their creative abilities in terms of teaching, designing lessons, and solving problems they expressed high creative
self-efficacy.
Two additional teachers expressed their creative self-efficacy in teaching as well. Kelly said, “I think I’m good at taking other
perspectives into account and seeing all sides of an equation. Which also has its downfalls because I am also sometimes indecisive.
Yeh I would say I’m creative in my thinking, having a well-rounded perspective.” And finally Mike said, “I can think of things in
creative ways so that’s more like on my own… So, would I love more opportunity to be creative in a classroom? Yeh. I think I do have
those skills to be creative in the classroom, if presented with them.”

6.3. Diverse beliefs about student creative potential

The teachers shared insights about their beliefs as to whether creativity is either malleable and able to be learned, innate and
unable to be learned, or a blend of both. Several teachers in this study expressed their epistemic beliefs as they shared examples of
their own creativity development and anecdotes of students in their schools. One teacher, Harrison, explained his own creative
development when he said, “I wasn’t really as creative as I thought I was until getting older and realizing, oh there’s so many things to
think about I didn’t really think about them until now. So no, I wasn’t really creative but as I got older like freshman year at [college]
I got a lot more opportunities to like think.” Harrison further described how his students learn creativity through friends and family,
indicating his belief that creativity is malleable. He said, “They learn through their families, they learn through their friends, they
change the way they want to act for other people. So, yeh they can be creative.”
Another teacher, Erica, also expressed her belief about malleability when she said, “I think everybody has the ability to be creative
in whatever way works best for them… I feel like having them get into a creative mindset early on, especially in the younger ages,

7
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

will be beneficial when they move up a school system that may not foster that quite as much.” This quote shows that Erica believes
that creativity can be developed and that schools can do more to foster student creativity at an early age.
Interestingly, some of the teachers shared vacillating perspectives as to whether creativity is malleable or innate, indicating that
their perspectives are more closely related to a partial belief system. Each teacher explained their belief that creativity is an innate
talent, but that it is also developed or learned through school and activities. For example, a practicing teacher, Joe, first explained
that creativity is innate when he said:
Creativity is a raw ability, a power to have… I think for a lot of people going through the school system, whether or not that they
get chances to be creative or do creative things, is one part of it. To express things. But whether or not that changes the raw power,
you know like an athletic ability, I don’t know that that is the case… So, whether or not the pure creative ability in an individual can
be changed, I don’t know the answer to that question.
As he continued thinking about his answer, he added, “I think that it may even go back to what we say with people doing the
10,000 h of doing something, building skills. And as they build skills they see more possibilities. That’s sort of an additive process
there.” This quote indicates a growth creative mindset in that he believes creativity can be developed with effort and hard work. Joe
eventually offered an explanation about his beliefs that although everyone can be creative, some people lack the interest or drive to
enhance their own creativity. He said, “Some people are more naturally going to be curious and I think curiosity drives creativity a
lot. And some kids are not going to be as naturally curious. I’ve seen that – I work with people who are genuinely curious and ones
who are not.” Here, Joe’s explanation indicates that he believes that people are born with creative abilities and possibly able to
develop them but drive and motivation determine whether or not creativity can be learned. Another teacher, Jake, expressed his
vacillating perspectives by first explaining his beliefs that creativity is innate when he said:
I guess I would answer yes and no, because I mean I like to relate it back to a God-given talent like we see people on like the Voice
or singing competitions that can sing. I feel like that’s a God-given talent. Especially relating creativity to art, I would say that’s a God-
given talent.
He then expressed more of a malleable belief about the ways in which people do learn to be artistic and creative:
But I mean that’s why you have art teachers and music teachers for kids or anyone that wants to start ground zero and work on
their craft. They don’t have to be the next pop star or the next Picasso but making sure they can let their creativity flow and making
sure that they get what they want out of it. I feel like it’s a teachable thing to do, and creativity is teachable for me.
A final example of the partial belief system is from a teacher, Katie, who shared her beliefs about those who are born talented and
others who put forth the effort to develop creativity:
I don’t think you’re either born creative or not. I do think certain skills - some people have an innate ability. They’re born great
artists or musicians, but then others aren’t, and they learn that. I definitely think you can learn it [creativity], but it’s not from reading
a book or sitting in a class. I think it’s through life experiences, communicating with people, going through different experiences as
you’re growing up. And then in college, different education settings. So, you can learn it, but not in the classroom I guess.
Katie’s final point here that she is unsure if creativity can be learned in the classroom indicates that she may be unaware or
uniformed about ways to teach or enhance creativity in the classroom and formal learning environments. Jane offered an interesting
explanation of her epistemic belief about creativity:
I think students are already creative. I just think they need somebody who – I think humans are naturally creative. But if the adults
in your life, the educators, the family members, if they’re not allowing you to express that creativity or they’re not doing anything to
bring it out of you, then I think it kind of dies over time.
Here, instead of describing how students can develop their creative abilities, she describes her perspective on how the lack of
creativity development can stifle or kill a student’s creativity over time.

6.4. Beliefs about the importance of creativity for student learning

The teachers generally believed that there is importance in creativity for enhancing student learning. Many teachers value
creativity for the purpose of engaging students in the classroom, encouraging self-expression, and allowing them to learn in different
ways. For example, Dana said:
I think it’s important to learning because teachers have to be creative in their instructional delivery. So, if they’re not constantly
assessing what kids need and where they need to go through formative assessments, and then the creativity part comes in: how do I
reach that child when what I’m currently using is not working.
Jaime shared a similar perspective when he said, “I think with kids now, they learn in different ways. You have the bodily
kinesthetic learners, you have the ones who learn through seeing, the ones who learn through hearing… If it gets people to pay
attention more, hopefully it’ll get them to learn more.” Marianne explained how social interactions in the classroom help develop
students’ creative thoughts as well. She said, “So that a lot of trying to create a space for them to be creative is more about like, ‘you’re
allowed to talk in this class. I want you to discuss. It’s important that you have social interactions because it’ll help foster your ideas.’ I
think it’s very important to education.” Brad also explained the value of creativity for helping students to learn through different
methods and practice self-expression. He said:
One of my beliefs as a person is to allow people to express themselves and that is important in a classroom. Even learning styles,
like auditory et cetera, are important to also influence by just giving students more of an option…I think creativity goes with being
engaged in a classroom. I would say it’s definitely important to what education should be.
Lastly, one teacher, Mia, also discussed the value of creativity for student self-expression and to learn from other students through
hands-on activities:

8
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

It’s important for kids to learn to express themselves in different ways. Just thinking of creative ways of doing things, creative
ways of replanting a garden… Like we do collaborative sculptures sometimes, where we take a big basket of stuff and each kid takes
one or two things and adds to it. So, they learn about building off of each other’s ideas, working collectively, while also learning to
express themselves.
One pre-service teacher, Leslie, shared her student perspective that the lack of student creativity and freedom means that students
are not thinking for themselves. She said, “If you don’t have the freedom to learn on your own and explore, I mean, you’re just really
doing what they [teachers] want. You’re not allowed to have creative space.” Kelsie’s belief is that creativity improves learning by
allowing students to think independently.
Taken together, these findings suggest that teachers have more complex ideologies and conceptions of creativity than are captured
by survey data. The interview data reflects interesting paradoxes in definitions of creativity (as artistic or thinking differently in
general), their creative self-efficacy (low self-efficacy in creative arts, but high self-efficacy as creative teachers), and vacillation
between growth and fixed mindsets. The vacillation of mindsets suggests that the teachers’ beliefs about creativity are in line with a
partial creative mindset. Lastly, the shared beliefs that creativity is valuable for student learning, their desire to incorporate creativity
into teaching, and high creative self-efficacy as teachers supports the notion that beliefs about creativity are domain specific.

6.5. Beliefs about students’ creative freedom

The concept of freedom when fostering student creativity emerged as fifth theme during the interviews. Many pre-service and
practicing teachers expressed a belief that teaching for creativity requires giving students the freedom to think, explore, express new
ideas, and take-risks. Some suggested techniques included using open-ended assignments, hands-on activities, and encouraging
students to explore and play. For example, Aaliya explained:
And I just gave them the shell for them to do that work. It wasn’t it me saying you have to do this, this, and this. It was like, ‘okay
I’m looking for these things and as long as you have these things then you’re good. And then the rest is up to you.’ So just being freer
and more flexible in teaching strategies and letting them be themselves within the classroom…So when I look at their stuff, I know. I
talk to them, I walk around, circle around, and see, and I’ll point out ‘make sure you’re within this rubric’. Everything else is up for
grabs. To me, it gives them that freeness and ownership of their work, but still me having to meet that standards of teaching.
Other teachers described freedom in terms of providing options and multiple choices for assignments. For example, Evan said:
I think a big thing that enhances creativity is student choice or autonomy. Like, their ability to have input on the task that they’re
completing. For example, the one course I’m taking, every week there’s an assignment that’s due. And there’s three versions of the
assignment you can choose from. So one would be like a creative writing piece, one is a traditional essay, and the third is a third
option. I think that’s a good way of catering to individual student needs without jeopardizing the measurement of their learning.
One teacher expressed her perceived challenges to providing creative freedom to students such as the restrictive nature of the
school structure and data reporting. For example, Lynn said:
I think contending with the rules is always a challenge. Especially when the school is looking for data and you have to provide it.
So I don’t think anybody has complete freedom to do things like that [allow students full creative freedom]. Especially if you have an
administration who doesn’t agree with you. I think that’s the biggest challenge.
Overall, qualitative analysis of the interviews provides evidence that teachers generally belief in the value and benefit of teaching
for creativity. Teachers believe that by designing creative lessons and activities and allowing students freedom to explore and develop
new ideas, students can enhance their creative skills.

7. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to unearth and compare epistemic beliefs about creativity and teaching for creativity through in-
depth, immersive interviews with 16 pre-service and in-service teachers. After analysis of the interviews, five epistemic belief themes
about teaching for creativity emerged. Using Wolcott’s (1994) approach of interpreting qualitative data after it has been described
and analyzed, we then compared these five themes to allow for rendering the complexity of their “conceptual structures” (Geertz,
1973, pp 314). This comparison highlighted how the beliefs do not necessarily seem reconcilable, therefore exposing the conflicting
nature of epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity. For example, even though teachers thought creativity was important in
general, and that creative freedom was essential for learning, some teachers believed that creativity was innate in students, and
therefore could not be developed, whereas as others believed it could be cultivated in a classroom. Prior teacher interview studies
found that teachers articulate creativity as a fixed, “innate trait” of only a select few students (e.g. Bereczki & Karpati, 2018), but we
found that there was a clear range of epistemic beliefs about student creative potential. Some teachers in this study described the
nature of creativity as an innate trait wherein some students are simply creative by nature, while others are not. Other teachers
believe that any student can learn creativity if they put forth the effort and are motivated to do so (malleable). In addition, some
teachers in our study showed a tendency to vacillate between Innate and Malleable beliefs (or Partial beliefs). This exposes a “thick
description” (Geertz, 1973) of beliefs about student creative potential to add to the literature:
The Partial belief about student creative potential characterizes creativity as both an innate ability, but also one that can be
developed with guidance, practice, and the freedom to explore ideas. Some teachers explained that although creativity is innate in all
students and can be developed, some students are inherently close-minded and unwilling to develop their creativity. So, in this way,
while these teachers believed that all students have the potential to develop their creative abilities, they discussed how not all
students are willing to do so. As one teacher explained, “So, having curriculum and activities where they’re being encouraged to think

9
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

outside of the box and not be so narrow-minded or closed-minded in their thinking, that can translate into any career.” This sample
quote shows how a teacher perceives her role as attempting to breakthrough students’ “close-minded… thinking” in order to unlock
their creativity.
Further complicating teachers’ beliefs about student potential is the variety of definitions of creativity. For instance, when tea-
chers aligned the concept of creativity with the arts (e.g. singers, musicians, visual artists) or athletes, they were more likely to
describe creativity as an innate trait or talent leading to eminence or notoriety. When teachers described creativity as a cognitive
process e.g. creative problem-solving, imagination, unconventional thinking, they were more likely to also describe the malleability
of creativity in students. Several teachers explained both perspectives, suggesting both a Partial belief system as well as confusion
regarding the definition of creativity.
This Partial belief about the nature of creativity also emerged as teachers reflected on their own creativity development over time.
Some teachers revealed that although they may not have perceived themselves as creative in their youth, they found themselves to be
more creative as an adult and as a teacher in their chosen profession. The enthusiasm for infusing creativity into teaching is reflected
in other studies (Myhill & Wilson, 2013).
While teachers generally believed in the promise for using creativity in their profession, some teachers articulated that creativity
is, in fact, more relevant to the arts. For example, one teacher voiced: “I think it [creativity] could lend itself to drawing or painting as
opposed to teaching math.” This finding was consistent with prior interview studies (Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Gralewski, 2019; Li,
2016; Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018). A bias towards teaching for creativity in the arts was confirmed by another teacher in our study who
stated, “I’m not like typically creative. Like I’m not good at art.” This quote shows the conflation of artistic ability with creativity.
Several teachers made references to “Picasso” or “pop stars,” as well as relegating creativity development to the art teacher. The
epistemic belief of creativity as synonymous with artistry, reifies the myth that creativity is a domain-specific feature of learning in
the arts and music. It also reifies the association of creativity with Big-C eminent creative achievement as opposed to creativity as a
feature of everyday cognition.
Due to this conflated epistemic belief that limits creativity to the arts, it is imperative to discuss the dialectical nature of this
meaning for teachers in teacher education programs so that they do not confine creativity to teaching in the arts. Following the
recommendations Kitchener (1983) and others, airing epistemic beliefs in classroom discussion and in-service mentorships are crucial
for dealing with these conflicting epistemic beliefs. As Kitchener recommends, young adults are able to encompass antithetical
perspectives while allowing for the progress of knowledge via integration and synthesis (p. 23), thus implying that pre-service
teachers can air their epistemic beliefs about creativity before they start teaching and then use their course experience and teaching
experience to deepen their understanding of creativity. There was some evidence of the progress of knowledge in the interviews with
practicing teachers who reflected on their own previous ideas and conceptions of creativity as artistic comparative to their present
ideas of creativity relating to problem-solving, idea generation, and unconventional approaches to teaching.
Although the stereotype of artistic creativity was a thread through some interviews, it bears noting that a few teachers associated
creativity less with the arts “if you see my artistic ability you’ll see why I teach Spanish,” and principles of creative problem solving
that cut across a variety of subjects to engage the student. Thus, creativity had a social component described, for example, as
“engagement,” as well as a cognitive one of students “thinking for themselves.” This is an important finding in the study, as teachers
perceived an inherent value in teaching for creativity as well as an explicit link between creativity in the classroom and academic
success and workplace preparation.
On the whole, the American teacher beliefs in this study contrast with Polish, Chinese, Hong Kong and Korean interview studies of
teachers: Unlike the study of Polish teachers (Gralewski, 2019), there was no gender bias detected among this sample of American
teacher responses to the interview questions about student creativity. This raises the question of multi-cultural views of creativity in
undergraduate teacher training. It seems that specific personality traits of independence, rule-breaking and impulsivity have been
associated with male students, whereas conscientiousness, calmness and submission have been related to female students in one
Polish study of teachers (Gralewski, 2019). This binary distinction may be relevant to other cultures that have less flexible gender
roles, but this topic did not come up in the beliefs expressed in this study.
Teachers in our study also did not identify creativity as a mostly cognitive process as found in a recent Hong Kong teacher
interview study (Huang & Lee, 2015). In that study, Hong Kong teachers associated creativity with cognition and intellectual
learning, thereby reinforcing the Confucian emphasis integration of teaching and learning (Kim, 2007), which is also reflected in a
recent Chinese study of teachers (Li, 2016). Our study of American teachers did, at times, describe creativity as cognition relating to
imagination, problem-solving, and idea generating; however, they tended to align these processes to their own thinking and de-
velopment of lesson plans, as opposed to developing students’ creative cognition. The teachers in our study also did not emphasize
creativity related to the concepts of obedience and hierarchy of the teacher as an authority figure as indicated in a Chinese teacher
study (Wang & Kokotsaki, 2018). Korean teachers also link creativity to Confucian ideals that extol high standards of morality such as
social harmony and tend to equivocate creativity as utility to society (So & Hu, 2019). For instance, in one Chinese study, a teacher
remarked that “Chinese think differently from Westerners. People in the West are very direct but we are very indirect.” (Li, 2016, pp.
282).
The American teachers in this study did not cite a feeling of being dissuaded from being creative in society in general, or in the
American educational system in particular, as cited in studies of Chinese teachers. However, some teachers in our study did mention
their awareness of possible dissuasion in certain instances or schools, but they themselves did not have that experience. As well, they
did not emphasize social and moral elements as cited by So and Hu (2019). In this study, American teachers refrained from a social-
cultural reflection of their belief systems and focused more on their individual personal roots of their professional identity geared
towards promoting their own creative growth mindsets and those of their students. It is possible that this individualistic orientation

10
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

when responding to interview questions reflects a Western or American frame of reference, as opposed to a more collective or-
ientation typified in Eastern cultures.

7.1. Limitations

One minor limitation of the study is the limited sample of students. Although the sample size (n = 16) represents under 2% of the
population (N = 1,227), the sample of 16 individuals is considered to be a more than sufficient sample size for in-depth interviews;
most samples range from 8 to 15 persons in interview studies in this area of research. Another limitation of this study could rest on
the possibility that the teachers who self-selected to participate in this study held pre-existing positive views of creativity in edu-
cation, while others who may not have held as favorable views of creativity simply did not respond to study recruitment inquiries.
While we do not know this for certain, it should be considered when reflecting on the study findings. It should also be noted that the
majority of the sample included pre-service or new teachers who spoke broadly about creativity and teaching. Many of their com-
ments included ideas about their own experiences as a student, general ideas about creativity, or how they intend to teach in the
future. Therefore, the findings do not emphasize specific pedagogies used by the participants and instead focus solely on their general
beliefs about creativity and teaching.

7.2. Future research: calibrating epistemic beliefs with behavior

Epistemic cognition researchers outline the importance of linking epistemic beliefs to other cognitive operations such as meta-
cognition, cognition and behavior (Hofer, 2004; Sandoval et al., 2016). Calibrating teachers’ beliefs with observations of teaching for
creativity in classroom contexts is another important aspect. Studies have shown that teachers’ epistemic beliefs about creativity
impact their teaching methods, behaviors, and responses to students in the classroom (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2016; Runco, 2014;
Van Driel, Bulte, & Verloop, 2007). The behaviors exhibited by teachers subsequently influence students’ behaviors and belief systems
(Murphy & Knight, 2016; Runco, 2014). Therefore, in order to effectively teach for creativity, further examination and calibration of
teachers’ epistemic beliefs and classroom practices are necessary. Lastly, there is a dearth of observational studies of creativity in the
field of education (see Katz-Buonincontro & Anderson, 2018) and calibration of findings in this study with observed teacher practices
will be valuable in identifying effective pedagogy for fostering student creativity.
This interview study of American pre-service and in-service teachers aimed to unearth teacher epistemic beliefs about teaching for
creativity. The results imply that the field of creativity research can address two core issues: First, American teachers are generally
enthusiastic about teaching for creativity and describe relatively high levels of creative self-efficacy however they can vacillate
between beliefs about student creative potential. This nuanced understanding of conflicting beliefs about student creative potential
could be a rich source of discussion in teacher education training. Further, the complexities and conflicted beliefs about creativity
reveals the need to include teaching for creativity-specific trainings in teacher education programs. Given that teachers generally value
creativity and believe that students have the potential for growth and creative development, teachers simply need additional training
on the methods and techniques for fostering and assessing creativity in the classroom, inclusive of all disciplines and grade levels.
Secondly, American teachers seem to diverge from other cultural beliefs about teaching for creativity except in the area of
conflating creativity with the arts, implying further definitional clarification of “creativity” and the need to dispel false myths about
creativity as relegated to the arts. In summary, the conflicting epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity unearthed in this study
provide a foundation for further research calibrating beliefs with observations of teaching for creativity in the classroom.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jen Katz-Buonincontro: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft. Elaine Perignat: Data curation,
Writing - original draft. Richard W. Hass: Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the funding source Drexel University School of Education.

Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Introductory question:
1. Tell me about what you teach/will teach/courses taught (grade level, area, type of school, district, college, etc.).
Epistemic beliefs questions:
2. Do you think you’re creative? (ask to elaborate or give examples)
3. Were you encouraged to be creative as a young student? If so, in what ways?
4. In your professional opinion as an educator, is creativity an important part of learning?
5. Can creativity help you (has it helped to) become a successful teacher? (ask to explain).
6. Some people say that the school testing culture minimizes opportunities for children to foster their “natural” or innate creative
potential. What do you think?
7. Do you think students can learn to be creative? Why, or why not?

11
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

8. What’s an example of how you encourage students to think creatively in (X)?

9. How do you give students feedback on their creative thinking?
10. What if any assessments do you use for creativity?
11. In your experience, what kind of classroom conditions foster creativity?
12. Do you think students can get “off-task” or distracted when being creative?
13. What changes would you make to help students learn better and be more creative?

References

Aljughalman, A., & Mowrer‐Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative students. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17–34.
Author. (in press).
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). In search of the unexpected: Finding creativity in the micromoments of the classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 2.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students’ creative self-efficacy and
teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 342.
Bereczki, E. O., & Karpati, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research
Review, 23, 25–56.
Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bolden, D. S., Harries, T. V., & Newton, D. P. (2010). Pre-service primary teachers’ conceptions of creativity in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2),
143–157.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). Macmillan: Prentice
Hall.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113–127.
de Souza Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148–153.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description. In C. Geertz (Ed.). The interpretation of cultures (pp. 1–30). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gralewski, J. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics: A qualitative study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 138–155.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2016). Are teachers’ implicit theories of creativity related to the recognition of their students’ creativity? The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 52(2), 156–167.
Hartley, K. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Teacher use of creativity-enhancing activities in Chinese and American elementary classrooms. Creativity Research Journal,
26(4), 389–399.
Hass, R. W., & Burke, S. (2016). Implicit theories of creativity are differentially categorized by perspective and exemplar domain. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19,
219–231.
Hennessey, B. A. (2015). Reward, task motivation, creativity and teaching: Towards a cross-cultural examination. Teachers College Record, 117(10), 10.
Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of
Educational Research, 67, 88–140.
Huang, X. H., & Lee, J. C. K. (2015). Disclosing Hong Kong teacher beliefs regarding creative teaching: Five different perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 15,
37–47.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research (3rd Ed): Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 15–29.
Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., & Szumski, G. (2015). Teachers’ effect on students’ creative self-beliefs is moderated by students’ gender. Learning and Individual
Differences, 44, 1–8.
Kaufman, J., Plucker, J., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the four Cs? Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 7(3), 229.
Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Anderson, R. (2018). Observation of creativity in classrooms: A systematic review from 1980-2018. Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jocb.385.
Kettler, T., Lamb, K. N., Willerson, A., & Mullet, D. R. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity in the classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 164–171.
Kim, K. H. (2007). Exploring the interactions between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(1), 28–53.
Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
Kokotsaki, D. (2011). Student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in the secondary music classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 100–113.
Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547–552.
Li, L. (2016). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning: What can we learn from teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 273–288.
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.
Long, H. (2014). An empirical review of research methodologies and methods in creativity studies (2003–2012). Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 427–438.
Maggioni, L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1),
445–461.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Messick, S. (1960). Dimensions of social desirability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044153.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K. N., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 21, 9–30.
Mumford, M. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Petersen, D. R., Day, E. A., Hougen, D. F., et al. (2012). Mental models of creative problem-solving: The relationship of
objective and subjective model attributes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 311–330.
Murphy, P. K., & Knight, S. L. (2016). Exploring a century of advancements in the science of learning. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 402–456.
Myhill, D., & Wilson, A. (2013). In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 101–111.
Newton, L., & Beverton, S. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity in elementary school English. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 165–176.
Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131–142.
O’Connor, A. J., Nemeth, C. J., & Akutsu, S. (2013). Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 155–162.
Paek, S. H., & Sumners, S. E. (2017). The indirect effect of teachers’ creative mindsets on teaching creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jocb.180.
Plucker, J., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York:

12
J. Katz-Buonincontro, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (2020) 100651

Cambridge University Press.

Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. E. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students’ learning science concepts from text. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 87, 282–292.
Rich, J. D., & Weisberg, R. W. (2004). Creating all in the family: A case study in creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 247–260.
Robinson, K. (2006). How schools kill creativity [Video]. Retrieved December 16, 2019, fromhttp://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html.
Rubenstein, L. D., Ridgley, L. M., Callan, G. L., Karami, S., & Ehlinger, J. (2018). How teachers perceive factors that influence creativity development: Applying a social
cognitive theory perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 100–110.
Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Braten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge: Origins, issues, and future direction of research on
epistemic cognition. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 457–496.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2010). Educational creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 250–264). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, H. T., Hammond, J. A., Grohman, M. G., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). Creativity measurement in undergraduate students from 1984–2013: A systematic
review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 133.
So, K., & Hu, Y. (2019). Understanding creativity in an Asian school context: Korean teachers’ perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33(3), 100573.
Stebbins, A. (2008). Exploratory research. In L. M. Givens (Vol. Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods: Vol. I, (pp. 327–329). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Teaching for creativity: The sounds of silence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 115.
Stone, L. (2008). Epistemology. In L. M. Givens (Vol. Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods: Vol. I, (pp. 264–268). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific
curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(2) 156–17.
Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. D., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14,
163–178.
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, 29, 115–130.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zubek, J. P., & Solberg, P. A. (1954). Beliefs, values, and attitudes. In J. P. Zubek, & P. A. Solberg (Eds.). Human development (pp. 387–403). New York.

13