Content uploaded by Xianhan Huang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xianhan Huang on Apr 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Huang, X. (2021). Striving for better teaching and student creativity development:
Linking informal workplace learning and teaching for creativity. Thinking Skills and
Creativity.
This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the
journal. It is not the copy of record. The exact copy of record can be accessed via the
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100889
2
Striving for better teaching and student creativity development:
Linking informal workplace learning and teaching for creativity
Xianhan Huang
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Sept 2021
Requests for further information about this investigation can be made to Dr. Huang
Xianhan, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of
Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. Email:
xhhuang@eduhk.hk
3
Striving for better teaching and student creativity development:
Linking informal workplace learning and teaching for creativity
Abstract
The importance of workplace learning to personal creativity has been repeatedly
demonstrated, but there has been limited research on the relationship between
teachers’ informal workplace learning and their teaching for creativity (TfC)
behaviour. Using a sample of 2,880 primary teachers, this study examined the
relationship between teachers’ TfC and their informal workplace learning behaviour
and how this relationship is influenced by gender and teaching experience. Means
comparison, regression analysis and structural equation modelling showed that the
five types of informal workplace learning activities, namely learning through media,
colleague interactions, stakeholder interactions, student interactions and reflection,
were positively related to TfC, but in different ways. Specifically, reflection and
learning through student interactions had the strongest associations with process-
oriented and product-oriented TfC, respectively. Learning through colleague
interactions was related to process-oriented TfC but not product-oriented TfC.
Product-oriented TfC was favoured by male teachers. Teaching experience was
positively related to both process- and product-oriented TfC. The details of the key
findings, as well as the implications for policymakers and researchers seeking to
promote student creativity, are discussed.
Keywords: teaching for creativity; informal workplace learning; product-oriented;
process-oriented; individual reflection
4
Striving for better teaching and student creativity development:
Linking informal workplace learning and teaching for creativity
1. Introduction
Teaching for creativity (TfC) has become a critical issue for schools around the world
(Cachia et al., 2010; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; OECD, 2019; Shaw et al., 2013).
Mirroring this trend, a mounting number of teacher-targeted books and reports have
been published to offer practical suggestions on how to carry out effective TfC in
classrooms (e.g., Beghetto et al., 2014; Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Craft, 2010).
Meanwhile, an increasing number of studies have discussed TfC with varying foci (e.g.
teacher beliefs about creativity and TfC, see Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Mullet et al.,
2016; student creativity development, see Runco, 2014; creativity-friendly classroom
environments, see Davies et al., 2013; Richardson & Mishra, 2018). Despite these
tremendous efforts from researchers to promote TfC, frontline teachers in a variety of
contexts constantly report that they are struggling to develop student creativity due to
various barriers (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Hong & Kang, 2010; Rubenstein et al.,
2018). This calls for creativity researchers to examine, as a matter of importance, the
enablers of TfC and to provide substantial evidence and practical implications for
effectively promoting teachers’ TfC in school.
Regarding the impact factors of TfC, researchers have identified a handful of
supporting factors for TfC, including school support (Rubenstein et al., 2013), student
attitudes and skills (Alsahou, 2015), parental support (Adams, 2013) and teachers’
personal determinants (e.g., teachers’ beliefs, see Hartley, 2015; teachers’ thinking
skills, see Rubenstein et al., 2018; teachers’ creative self-efficacy, see Author, 2019;
teachers’ attitudes towards TfC, see Merriman, 2015). Few studies have explored how
5
teachers’ TfC behaviour is influenced by daily interactions between individual teachers
and the school context. Recent studies of workplace creativity have emphasised that the
development of creativity is a social process that is largely dependent on daily
interactions in the workplace (Carnevale et al., 2017; Widmann et al., 2016; Zhou et al.,
2019). This perspective highlights the vital role of dynamic workplace interactions in
the development of an individual’s creative performance. However, few studies in the
field of education have examined how teachers’ daily activities shape or reshape their
classroom decisions about TfC.
A promising way to examine the relationship between social interactions and
TfC is through teachers’ informal workplace learning (IWL). A burgeoning stream of
research has confirmed that teachers’ IWL experiences (re)shape their teaching
performance (Kyndt et al., 2016; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). These studies have shown
that IWL can significantly contribute to the transformation of professional identity and
educational beliefs (Verberg et al., 2013) and the improvement of professional
knowledge and skills (Louws et al., 2017), which in turn lead teachers to design
curricula and implement classroom instruction in a creative manner (Hoekstra et al.,
2009; Kang & Cheng, 2014). As IWL is deeply rooted in interactive activities
throughout a teacher’s working life (Kyndt et al., 2016), we hypothesise that teachers’
IWL is closely linked to TfC.
Researchers have noted that TfC can be accessed through different approaches,
such as teaching creatively, recognising student creativity, and constructing creativity-
friendly classrooms (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004; NACCCE, 1999; Soh, 2017). However,
most studies of the correlates of TfC have narrowed the scope by only focusing on
either teaching creatively or constructing a creativity-friendly classroom (e.g. Chan &
Yuen, 2014; Rubenstein et al., 2018). This narrowly defined conception of TfC may
6
have led to ambiguous results and a biased understanding of the role of enablers in
promoting TfC. Differentiating the types of TfC allows researchers to examine the
potentially different ways in which enablers are related to a specific type of TfC. Author
(2015, 2019) combined these three approaches into two categories, product-oriented
TfC and process-oriented TfC, and confirmed that these two approaches are differently
influenced by school context. To date, it is largely unknown whether these two
approaches to TfC relate to teachers’ workplace learning activities in different ways.
Moreover, recent studies of the influence of teachers’ demographic
characteristics, such as gender and teaching experience, on TfC have produced
inconsistent findings (Chan & Yuan, 2014; Leikin et al., 2013). After reviewing 15
years of research papers in the TfC field, Mullet et al. (2016) emphasised that the effect
of teachers’ demographic factors on TfC has still not been established, meaning that
further studies are needed. The discussion of this issue is important, as the findings
could indicate how differentiated professional programmes should be designed for
different groups of teachers to effectively promote TfC performance (Bereczki &
Kárpáti, 2018). Taken together, this study aims to examine teachers’ TfC and discover
how teachers’ TfC behaviour evolves from and is influenced by their daily learning
activities by answering two core questions: 1) How do a teacher’s gender and teaching
experience influence their TfC behaviour? 2) How are teachers’ different types of IWL
activities related to their product- and process-oriented TfC behaviour?
This study makes three contributions to the field. First, it is one of the first
attempts to explore how IWL activities are related to teachers’ TfC behaviour; it may
thus yield substantial evidence regarding how teachers’ TfC is embedded and
(re)shaped by diverse daily interactions in school. Second, by categorising various IWL
activities and adopting two approaches to TfC, this study provides a comprehensive yet
7
detailed picture of the interaction between IWL and TfC by closely examining the
relationships between each type of IWL activity and the two different approaches to
TfC. Third, this study adopted a quantitative research design with a large sample size,
which can provide substantial evidence concerning the effects of teachers’ demographic
factors (gender and years of teaching experience) and teachers’ workplace learning
activities on their decision-making regarding TfC. Taken together, this study aims to
advance the knowledge of the mechanism of teachers’ TfC behaviour by presenting a
fine-grained analysis and solid findings with regard to the detailed association between
teachers’ daily workplace learning activities and their TfC behaviour. Furthermore,
specific and practical implications for educators and policymakers may be generated to
effectively facilitate decision-making aimed at facilitating teachers’ promotion of TfC
in schools.
2. Literature review and hypothesis
2.1 TfC and the effect of gender and teaching experience
2.1.1 TfC
TfC requires teachers to construct an environment that fosters students’ creative
thinking and behaviour (NACCCE, 1999). TfC can substantially improve students’
achievement (Gajda et al., 2017); confidence and motivation (Cremin et al., 2006); and
problem-solving skills (Webster et al., 2006). Teachers have been identified as critical
in the construction of creativity-friendly environments, both physically (Addison et al.,
2010; Davies et al., 2014; Halsey et al., 2006) and pedagogically (Craft, 2010; Cremin
et al., 2006; Cropley, 2001). Soh (2017) identified three approaches to TfC (he used the
term ‘fostering student creativity’ in his study): social modelling, reinforcement and
classroom ecology. Social modelling requires teachers to be imaginative in their
curriculum design and classroom instruction. Empirical studies have demonstrated that
8
student creativity can be promoted in environments in which teachers’ creative thinking
and behaviour are fully expressed (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004; Niu & Liu, 2009). Using
reinforcement, teachers can promote TfC by identifying and encouraging students’
creative thinking and behaviour. With teachers’ recognition and encouragement,
students can actualise their creative potential and develop a positive self-image as
creative persons (Soh, 2017). Classroom ecology emphasises the construction of
classroom environments that foster student creativity.
Author (2015) examined teachers’ views on and uses of these three TfC
approaches, and combined the three approaches into two categories: product-oriented
TfC, which consists of social modelling and reinforcement, and process-oriented TfC.
Product-oriented TfC focuses on either teachers’ or students’ creative outcomes
throughout the teaching and learning process. These creative products can be creative
pedagogy developed or used by teachers or students’ creative products, such as
innovative opinions and artefacts. The creative aspects of these outcomes are easy to
observe and identify. In contrast, process-oriented TfC nurtures student creativity by
building an open and communicative environment in which students actively engage in
learning, for example, by connecting teaching content with students’ experiences (Lev-
Zamir & Leikin, 2013) or being open to students’ diverse ideas and types of behaviour
(Hong & Kang, 2010). Although the creative features of process-oriented TfC are not
easy to detect, the value of this approach for fostering students’ creativity has been
repeatedly confirmed by teachers and researchers (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Craft,
2010).
2.1.2 The effect of gender on TfC
Regarding the impact of gender on teachers’ TfC, only a few studies have discussed the
issue and their findings have been contradictory. Given that teachers’ TfC behaviour is
9
sensitive to their perceptions of creativity (Rubenstein et al., 2018; Yang & Huang,
2008), we provide a brief overview of studies that comprehensively discuss the effect
of gender on teachers’ beliefs and behaviour with respect to TfC. Pertaining to teachers’
perceptions of TfC, Chan and Chan (1999) reported that no gender differences were
found in Hong Kong teachers’ perceptions of the features of creative students. Leikin
et al. (2013) conducted a study in six countries and concluded that the only country in
which male teachers favour more open views with respect to understanding creative
teachers and students than female teachers is India. No gender differences were found
among teachers from the other five countries. In relation to teachers’ product-oriented
TfC behaviour, Mueller et al. (2008) indicated that no gender difference was detected
in teachers’ innovative integration with computers. Regarding process-oriented TfC,
Snell (2013) found that American male teachers felt more comfortable teaching
creativity-relevant standards than female teachers. Hondzel (2013) reported that no
gender differences were found with respect to US teachers’ creativity-fostering
behaviours. Given the previous findings regarding the effect of gender on teachers’ TfC,
we formulate our first hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 1:
Teachers’ TfC behaviour (both product- and
process-oriented) is independent of teachers’ gender.
2.1.3 The effect of teaching experience on TfC
Although it has been confirmed that teaching experience has an impact on teachers’
decision-making concerning TfC (Chan & Yuen, 2014; Mullet et al., 2016), the related
findings are inconsistent. With regard to teachers’ conceptions of creativity, Lee and
Seo (2006) discovered that less-experienced teachers tend to have a more balanced view
of creativity than veteran teachers. However, Kampylis et al. (2011) reported that in-
service teachers tend to have more receptive perceptions of the value of creativity than
10
pre-service teachers. Scott (1999) found no differences in perceptions of creativity
among teachers with different levels of teaching experience. Regarding teachers’
perceptions of product-oriented TfC, Cachia and Ferrari (2010) surveyed 7,566 teachers
across 32 countries and found that novice teachers tend to have more positive attitudes
towards innovative ways of integrating mobile devices into creative learning. In
contrast, a study by Mueller et al. (2008) concluded that teachers at all career stages are
equally innovative in terms of integrating computers with teaching. In terms of teachers’
process-oriented TfC, Chien and Hui (2010) reported that veteran teachers tend to have
more favourable beliefs and to be more skilful in performing the ecology of creative
teaching and learning than novice teachers. However, two studies conducted by Forrest
and Hui (2007) and Chan and Yuen (2014) found that teachers with different levels of
teaching experience perform similarly in terms of their level of TfC performance. Given
these contradictory findings regarding the effect of teaching experience on teachers’
TfC behaviour, we postulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2:
Teachers’ TfC behaviour (both product- and process-
oriented TfC) is independent of teaching experience.
2.2 Informal workplace learning (IWL) and TfC
2.2.1 IWL
From a sociocultural perspective, learning is an intra-mental process that allows people
to first construct knowledge through social interactions (Vygotsky, 1981) and then to
form their own cognitive pathways (Gordon Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Therefore,
interaction in specific contexts is an integral part of individual learning. Accordingly, a
workplace is not just a physical location but an interactive context that can yield
multiple learning opportunities for employees (Billett, 2001; Jacobs & Park, 2009;
Manuti et al., 2015). The core component of workplace learning is IWL, which consists
of experiential learning activities that are initiated and conducted by employees to fulfil
11
both organisational and individual demands (Boud & Garrick, 1999; Jacobs & Park,
2009). IWL often occurs during moments of critical need in work situations that are not
necessarily intended for learning. These critical moments may be related to anticipated
or existing problems, the changing needs of a work environment or personal curiosity
(Manuti et al., 2015; Marsick & Volpe, 1999). Due to its embedded motivation and
frequent occurrence, IWL is a ‘superior’ form of learning for tackling work-related
problems, and it improves adaptability and employability (Colley et al., 2002; Hager,
2004; Manuti et al., 2015). Studies of teacher education have confirmed that teachers’
IWL activities significantly contribute to expanded domain and pedagogical knowledge
(Fraser, 2010; Henze et al., 2009), improved professional skills (Burns, 2008; Kang &
Cheng, 2014) and changes in beliefs (Hoekstra & Korthagen, 2011; Verberg et al.,
2013).
Teachers’ IWL activities can be divided into two types: interaction with others
and individual reflection on actions. Studies have consistently confirmed that teachers’
IWL mainly occurs during interactive activities, which can be further divided into four
types: interactions with media, colleagues, students and stakeholders (e.g. scholars,
parents and friends) (Grosemans et al., 2015; Louws et al., 2017). Reflection, the second
type of IWL activity, is also a crucial component of teachers’ IWL. Specifically,
reflection can make the tacit knowledge used in actions explicit and allow learners to
assess how their knowing-in-action may have contributed to an outcome (Marsick &
Volpe, 1999; Mezirow, 1998). Critical reflection is a core component of
transformational learning because critical self-reflection on one’s assumptions, values
and practices can lead to the transformation of one’s frame of reference. Empirical
studies have demonstrated that teachers’ reflections on their own teaching constitute a
significant IWL activity (Kyndt et al., 2016; Louws et al., 2017).
12
2.2.2 Four interactive IWL activities and TfC
Few studies have directly addressed the relationship between teachers’ interactive IWL
activities and TfC. However, we can cautiously postulate associations based on the
findings of related studies.
First, knowledge is a prerequisite for innovation (Beghetto, 2016). Prior
research has demonstrated that creative outcomes are strongly dependent on how one’s
domain knowledge is encoded (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013), how accessible that
knowledge is to the person trying to use it (Rietzschel et al., 2006) and how that domain
knowledge is used when solving novel problems (Hao, 2010). Thus, the idea that
domain knowledge is necessary for creativity has been widely endorsed in the field of
creativity (e.g. Gardner, 1993; Sawyer, 2012). Furthermore, new information can give
rise to innovative behaviour, which in turn can be an incentive for innovative corporate
processes (Høyrup, 2010). Therefore, through different IWL activities, individuals can
share information and advice relevant to tasks and promote the flow of knowledge, thus
contributing to creativity and innovation (Zhang et al., 2019).
Second, divergent feedback and views can promote innovation (West, 2002), as
multiple perspectives and divergent views can lead to potentially constructive conflict
(Zhou & Hoever, 2014). Such informational conflict may motivate innovative actions
or creative decision-making (Paulus & Yang, 2000; de Stobbeleir et al., 2011). The
interactive processes involved provide participants with the diverse points of view
necessary for problem-solving or task execution, and also help them to adapt their
objectives and solutions to changing circumstances, which is conducive to an
individual’s creative performance (Shin et al., 2017; Widmann et al., 2016). Substantial
research on teacher IWL has confirmed that interactive IWL activity can provide
13
teachers with diverse types of feedback (Grosemans et al., 2015; Kyndt et al., 2016),
which may facilitate their TfC behaviour in the classroom.
Third, the findings of various studies have consistently confirmed that teachers’
different types of IWL activities are positively related to teachers’ self-efficacy (Kyndt
et al., 2016; Lecat et al., 2020). With higher self-efficacy, a successful teaching
experience can foster resilience in teachers, which provides an effective buffer to the
challenges involved in experimenting with innovative teaching methods (Burgstahler,
2009). Empirical studies have also confirmed that teachers’ self-efficacy is positively
related to their TfC behaviour (Rubenstein et al., 2013), which provides support for a
potential association between IWL and TfC behaviour.
In addition to the general relationship between common outcomes of different
IWL activities and teachers’ TfC, we also reviewed related studies to support individual
relationships between each type of interactive IWL activity and teachers’ TfC
behaviour.
Regarding the relationship between learning through interaction with media and
TfC, research has confirmed that, with the Internet, teachers are able to access more
diversified educational resources, create their own materials and share educational
information with colleagues (Cachia et al., 2010), which contributes to innovative
teaching (Loogma et al., 2012; Venezky & Davis, 2002). Furthermore, with online
learning, teachers can access different ICT tools, which is acknowledged to be an
important impetus for TfC behaviour in the classroom (Law et al., 2008; Way & Webb,
2007).
Studies of TfC have confirmed that colleagues can act as mentors and/or sources
of ideas (Reilly et al., 2011). Within a school’s professional learning culture, teachers
may be prepared to take risks based on effective sharing among colleagues (Thomson
14
& Sander, 2010; Troman et al., 2007). Through communication and collaboration,
teachers can find like-minded teachers with whom they can work together (Bamford et
al., 1999) and carry out teaching experiments (Riccardi, 2001), thus contributing to their
TfC behaviour in the classroom (Chennabathni, 2006).
Studies of creative teaching have consistently confirmed that communicating
with scholars in universities or professional experts in person or online can provide new
teaching ideas (Sharp et al., 2006) or suggest alternative approaches to classroom
teaching (Loveless et al., 2006). Furthermore, Reilly et al. (2011) concluded that
creative teachers can be deeply influenced by their communities. With a strong
connection to the community, the teacher can either invite community members into
the classroom (Riccardi, 2001) or encourage students to go into the community
(Chennabathni, 2006), which is significant in bringing innovative ideas to bear on not
only the teacher’s curriculum design but also student learning. In addition, parental
expectations have been reported to be an important reason for teachers to adapt their
curriculum design and classroom teaching (Bramwell-Rejskind et al., 2008). These
findings indicate that teachers’ learning through interaction with stakeholders may be
positively related to their TfC behaviour.
There is substantial evidence that developing an awareness of learners’ needs is
a prerequisite for creative teaching (Burnard et al., 2006; Jeffrey, 2006). First,
Bramwell-Rejskind et al. (2008) stated that building connections with students serves
as one of the central values necessary for teachers to carry out creative teaching. Second,
with effective dialogue with students through negotiation of conflict and comparison of
ideas, teachers can cultivate flexible student thinking and creativity (Gandini et al.,
2005). Third, students’ resistance, coming either from feelings of the inadequacy of
familiar routines or feelings of being challenged when faced with different expectations,
15
can also serve as an impetus for teachers’ TfC behaviour (Bramwell-Rejskind et al.,
2008). Teachers can be stimulated to come up with innovative ways to engage students
or to construct a learning atmosphere in which students can take risks by exploring
different perspectives (Reilly et al., 2011). Based on the findings of these previous
studies, we postulated our third hypothesis as follows.
Hypothesis 3:
The four types of interactive IWL activity (learning
through media, colleague interactions, stakeholder
interactions and student interactions) are positively
related to process- and product-oriented TfC.
2.2.3 Reflection and TfC
Reflection is an important component of individual creativity (Beghetto, 2016). Before
an individual explores a newly observed phenomenon and tests their tentative
understanding or restructures his/her strategies of action, s/he needs to consider what
s/he has done and to discover what knowing-in-action is. Schön (1987) observed that
reflecting on what has been done and considering the possible outcomes of various
alternative approaches can give rise to on-the-spot experiments. Kolb (1984) also
confirmed that continuous reflection on experiences can lead to more advanced and
generalisable action plans, which in turn give people the ability to respond to
unexpected challenges with innovative approaches (Widmann et al., 2016). Empirical
studies have also confirmed that reflection significantly contributes to a higher level of
flexibility, which leads to more effective adaptation to novel or unexpected tasks
(Messmann & Mulder, 2015). Research in neuropsychology has also suggested that
reflection, in the form of idea evaluation, can improve creative thinking (Hao et al.,
2016). Based on these findings, we propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4:
Teacher reflection is positively related to process- and
product-oriented TfC.
16
3. Research method
This section describes the sample, data collection procedures and data analysis.
3.1 Participants and procedure
This study used a cross-sectional, exploratory correlational design. Adopting
convenience sampling, 2,880 primary school teachers (Grades 1–6) from Chongqing, a
municipality directly controlled by the central government and located in Southwest
China, participated in this study. This study was part of a large project investigating
teacher IWL in China. The data were collected through an online self-reported
questionnaire. We personally contacted the educational officers in nine districts in
Chongqing, informed them of the purpose of this research and solicited their support.
They assisted us in disseminating the invitations, consent forms, and the link to and QR
code of the questionnaire to approximately 3,000 teachers on the WeChat platform (an
online instant messaging platform widely used in China). Participation in this study was
voluntary and anonymous. We obtained the participants’ consent forms before they
filled out the online questionnaire. All of the participants were assured that their
responses would be kept confidential, and that their responses would only be used for
research purposes and would not affect their work. This helped to ensure that they
answered the questions as honestly as possible. The data collection procedure was
approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the university, which is in line
with the American Association for Public Opinion Research Code of Professional
Ethics and Practices. Ultimately, 2,939 teachers submitted completed copies of the
online questionnaire. After discarding multivariate outliers, the final sample consisted
of 2,880 teachers. A total of 85.5% of the participants were female, which is higher than
the percentage of female teachers in Chongqing (64%, Ministry of Education of the
People’s Republic of China, 2019). This may be because female respondents are more
17
likely to complete surveys by mobile phone and tablet (Cook, 2014; Lugtig & Toepoel,
2016). The age of the teachers varied from 21 to 60 years old (M = 36.35, SD = 8.87).
The mean number of years of teaching experience was 15.00 years (SD = 10.18), with
a range from 1 to 40. About half of the participants (53.6%) were working in urban
schools, and the others were working in rural schools. Almost all of the participants in
the sample (95.1%) were working in government schools, and the remaining
participants were working in private schools.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 TfC
Author (2015) identified nine approaches used by teachers to conduct TfC. These nine
approaches were then used to develop a scale to measure the extent to which teachers
perform TfC in their classrooms (Author, 2019). The scale contained two dimensions:
product-oriented TfC (four items, α = 0.94, e.g. ‘I creatively use different teaching
strategies to teach more effectively’) and process-oriented TfC (five items, α = 0.95,
e.g., ‘I am always open to students’ diverse perspectives and behaviour’). (All of the
items are provided in the Appendix.) The items were scored using a 5-point scale
ranging from ‘Totally disagree’ (1) to ‘Totally agree’ (5).
3.2.2 IWL
IWL was measured using a scale developed by Author (2020). The original version of
this scale contained 18 items distributed among the 5 dimensions identified above.
However, recognising that university scholars are important stakeholders in the use of
TfC, one item was added to the dimension of learning through stakeholder interaction:
‘I have communicated with university scholars about educational issues’. Therefore,
19 items were used in the scale in this study to measure how frequently each type of
IWL activity had been carried out by teachers in the past six months. Teachers’ learning
18
through media was measured by five items (α = 0.85). A sample question is ‘I browse
online educational literature or research reports’. Learning through colleague
interactions was measured by three items (α = 0.95). A sample question is ‘I have
communicated with my colleagues about curricula and teaching’. Learning through
stakeholder interactions was measured by four items (α = 0.76). A sample question is
‘I have communicated with parents about educational issues’. Learning through student
interactions was measured by four items (α = 0.93). A sample question is ‘I have
discussed teaching materials or lesson content with my students outside of regular class
hours’. Learning through reflection was measured by three items (α = 0.92). A sample
question is ‘When my teaching has not met my expectations, I have considered possible
reasons why’. The items were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘Never’ (1) to
‘Almost every day’ (5).
3.3 Data analysis
To validate the scales, half of the data set was used to test the factor structure of the
questionnaire using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Next, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was used to analyse the other half of the data set. Independent t-tests
were conducted to examine the relationships between gender and the two types of TfC.
Next, a linear regression was performed, with gender as a control variable, to examine
the relationships between teaching experience and the two types of TfC. Finally,
structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to explore the relationships between all
of the focal variables. To assess the model fit, the following well-established indices
were used: chi-square (χ2), degree of freedom (df), root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and
standardised root mean square residual (SRMR). A model was considered to have a
good fit if the chi-square was not significant, the RMSEA was less than 0.08, the CFI
19
and TLI were each more than 0.90, and the SRMR was less than 0.06 (Hu & Bentler,
1999).
4. Results
4.1 Measurement properties of the scale
EFA with varimax rotation was conducted with a randomly selected subsample
consisting of half of the data set. The factor loadings of individual items in the TfC and
IWL scales are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Two categories of TfC and five categories
of IWL were defined, and they all corresponded to the factors identified in the literature.
The construct validity of each scale was examined with CFA and yielded an acceptable
model fit (see Table 3). The factor loadings of all of the items in both the TfC and IWL
scales were above .40, ranging from .47 to .95. Table 4 shows the means, standard
deviations and correlation coefficients of the study variables. Teachers’ performance of
process-oriented TfC (M = 4.17, SD = 0.71) received a slightly higher score than their
performance of product-oriented TfC (M = 3.93, SD = 0.78). Among the five IWL
activities, teachers scored highest for learning through colleague interactions (M = 4.42,
SD = 0.75), followed by reflection, learning through the media and learning through
student interactions (M = 4.37, 3.91, and 3.90, respectively), and lowest for learning
through stakeholder interactions (M = 3.90, SD = 0.94). All of the scales had reliability
scores above 0.76. In the full measurement model, consisting of TfC and IWL, the chi-
square/degrees of freedom ratio was 10.67 (χ2 = 3510.926, df = 329, p < .0001), RMSEA
= 0.058, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.951 and SRMR = 0.043. These results indicated an
acceptable model fit.
Table 1. Factor loading of each item in the TfC scale
Product-oriented TfC
Process-oriented TfC
Item 1
0.88
Item 2
0.90
Item 3
0.92
Item 4
0.87
20
Item 5
0.91
Item 6
0.91
Item 7
0.86
Item 8
0.89
Item 9
0.85
Table 2. Factor loading of each item in the IWL scale
Learning
through media
Learning
through
colleague
interaction
Learning
through
stakeholder
interaction
Learning
through student
interaction
Reflection
Item 1
0.75
Item 2
0.75
Item 3
0.70
Item 4
0.65
Item 5
0.79
Item 6
0.92
Item 7
0.95
Item 8
0.91
Item 9
0.47
Item 10
0.79
Item 11
0.81
Item 12
0.68
Item 13
0.91
Item 14
0.94
Item 15
0.91
Item 16
0.74
Item 17
0.86
Item 18
0.93
Item 19
0.91
Table 3. Model fit indices of TfC and IWL
Model fit indices
χ2
df
p
RMSEA
CFI
TLI
SRMR
TfC
400.721
23
.000
.076
.987
.980
.016
IWL
2259.856
142
.000
.072
.952
.942
.053
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Descriptive statistics
Cronbach’s alpha
.94
.95
.85
.95
.76
.93
.92
Mean
3.93
4.17
3.91
4.42
3.62
3.90
4.37
Standard deviation
0.78
0.71
0.83
0.75
0.86
0.94
0.71
Correlations
TfC
1. Product-oriented TfC
2. Process-oriented TfC
.84**
IWL
3. Learning through the media
.51**
.51**
4. Learning through colleague interactions
.43**
.50**
.60**
5. Learning through stakeholder interactions
.52**
.47**
.65**
.57**
6. Learning through student interactions
.57**
.56**
.61**
.55**
.67**
21
7. Reflection
.52**
.59**
.59**
.65**
.54**
.64**
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
4.2 Effect of gender and teaching experience on TfC
The results of the independent samples t-test comparing the TfC of the male and female
teachers are presented in Table 5. The score for the male teachers (M = 4.13, SD = 0.04)
was significantly higher than that for the female teachers (M = 4.05, SD = 0.01); the
mean difference was 0.09 (p = .031 < .05). In particular, the male teachers (M = 4.02,
SD = 0.04) scored significantly higher for product-oriented TfC than their female
counterparts (M = 3.91, SD = 0.02); the mean difference was 0.10 (p = .013 < .05).
However, there was no significant difference between the male and female teachers in
terms of process-oriented TfC (p = .067 > .05).
Table 5. Independent samples t-test of TfC by gender.
N
Mean
SD
Levene
T-test
F
Sig.
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
difference
TfC
Male
418
4.13
0.04
8.212
.004
.031*
0.09
Female
2462
4.05
0.01
Product-oriented
TfC
Male
418
4.02
0.04
2.540
.111
.013*
0.10
Female
2462
3.91
0.02
Process-oriented
TfC
Male
418
4.23
0.04
4.913
.027
.067
0.07
Female
2462
4.15
0.01
Using gender as a control variable, a regression analysis of the effect of years
of teaching on TfC showed that teaching experience had a significant positive effect on
teachers’ TfC (β = 0.167, p < .001). A comparison of the effects of the two types of TfC
showed that experience had a slightly greater effect on process-oriented TfC (β = 0.182,
p < .001) than on product-oriented TfC (β = 0.135, p < .001) (see Table 6).
Table 6. Effect of teaching experience on TfC, product-oriented TfC and process-oriented TfC
(with gender as a control variable)
Model
Variable
R
R²
△R²
F (df)
B
β
t
p
1. TfC
Constant
.166
.028
.027
40.750
(2, 2875)
3.881
86.484
.000
Gender
.005
.003
.140
.889
Teaching experience (years)
.012
.167
8.731
.000
2. Product-
oriented
TfC
Constant
.138
.019
.018
28.075
(2, 2875)
3.792
76.961
.000
Gender
−.022
−.010
−.509
.611
Teaching experience (years)
.010
.135
7.063
.000
22
3. Process-
oriented
TfC
Constant
.178
.032
.031
47.289
(2, 2875)
3.952
88.242
.000
Gender
.027
.013
.700
.484
Teaching experience (years)
.013
.182
9.530
.000
Note: Gender was a dummy variable: male = 0; female = 1.
4.3 Relationship between IWL and TfC
The hypothesised relationships between the study variables were analysed using SEM.
The model had a good fit with the data set: χ2 = 3459.639, df = 326, p < .0001, RMSEA
= 0.058, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.952 and SRMR = 0.042. The final structural model, with
significant standardised path coefficients, is displayed in Figure 1. This model
explained 42.7% of the variation in product-oriented TfC and 45.3% of the variation in
process-oriented TfC.
Learning through student interactions had the strongest association with
product-oriented TfC (β = 0.24, p < .001), followed by reflection (β = 0.21, p < .001),
learning through the media (β = 0.18, p < .001) and learning through stakeholder
interactions (β = 0.15, p < .001). There was no significant relationship between learning
through colleague interactions and product-oriented TfC (β = −0.04, p = .095).
Teachers’ reflection was positively related to process-oriented TfC, with the
strongest association (β = 0.32, p < .001). Among the four interactive IWL activities,
learning through student interactions (β = 0.18, p < .001) had a stronger positive
association with process-oriented TfC than learning through the media (β = 0.15, p
< .001) or colleague interactions (β = 0.07, p < .01). Learning through stakeholder
interactions was not significantly associated with process-oriented TfC (β = 0.06, p
= .13).
23
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Structural model of the relationships between the five types of IWL and two types of TfC.
(Standardised regression weights are reported. For simplicity, only significant regression
coefficients and paths are shown here.)
5. Discussion
This study explored the effects of gender and teaching experience on teachers’ TfC
behaviour and the association between teachers’ IWL activity and TfC. It yielded four
major findings: 1) Male teachers performed more product-oriented TfC activities than
female teachers; 2) Teaching experience was positively related to both types of TfC
behaviour; 3) Four of the five types of IWL activities (not stakeholder interactions)
were positively related to process-oriented TfC, and the strongest association was with
reflection; 4) Four of the five types of IWL (not colleague interactions) were
significantly related to product-oriented TfC, and the strongest association was with
student interactions.
5.1 Effects of gender and teaching experience on TfC
Consistent with previous studies (Leikin et al., 2013; Snell, 2013), this study found that
male teachers performed more TfC activities than their female counterparts. The study
advanced the current understanding of the effect of gender on TfC by separately
examining the interaction of gender and product-oriented and process-oriented TfC.
24
This study showed that the gender difference was significant in product-oriented TfC,
but not in process-oriented TfC. In other words, male teachers were more likely than
female teachers to experiment with innovative teaching tools and strategies or to
develop innovative student outcomes, but there was no difference between male and
female teachers in the construction of creativity-friendly classroom environments.
Contrary to our second hypothesis, teaching experience was positively related
to both process- and product-oriented TfC behaviour, which is consistent with Snell’s
(2013) findings. However, this is inconsistent with several other studies, according to
which less-experienced teachers have a more positive attitude towards TfC (Al-Nouh
et al., 2014; Cachia et al., 2010). There are three possible explanations for this
discrepancy. First, teachers’ receptivity towards TfC is often different from their TfC
behaviour. Teachers who express positive attitudes towards student creativity or TfC
may not implement TfC in their classroom (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). Second, novice
teachers face more teaching challenges than their senior colleagues (Day et al., 2007;
Intrator, 2006), which may limit their opportunities to carry out TfC in the classroom.
Third, Author (2020) confirmed that the frequency of most teachers’ IWL activities
generally increases with teaching experience. Thus, the positive relationship between
teaching experience and TfC may be due to the close association between IWL
activities and TfC behaviour discussed in detail in the following sections.
5.2 Teachers’ IWL activities and TfC behaviour
This study is one of the first to reveal the influence of teachers’ daily IWL activities on
their TfC decisions. In addition to supporting the general positive association between
learning and creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013; Zhang et al., 2019), the study
contributes to the scholarship on TfC by comprehensively mapping the relationship
between the five types of IWL and two approaches to TfC.
25
5.2.1 Interactive IWL activities and TfC behaviour
Learning through student interactions had the strongest association with TfC behaviour,
especially product-oriented TfC. Although few previous studies have provided direct
evidence of a relationship between TfC and student interactions, other studies in
education have supported the importance of teacher–student interaction to teaching
behaviour (Klassen et al., 2012). Increased teacher–student interactions may
significantly contribute to TfC in three ways. First, a better understanding of students’
learning needs helps teachers to engage students effectively in learning, which may
benefit their knowledge and creativity development (Gaertner, 2014). Second, being
open to different student perspectives can provide teachers with alternative approaches
to designing curricula or implementing teaching (Hoy & Weinstein, 2013), which can
lead directly to creative teaching strategies. Third, being fully aware of students’
diverse opinions can give teachers insights into what creative student outcomes have
been generated by their teaching. These creative student outcomes can serve as
incentives for engagement in TfC behaviour in the next stage. In sum, this study
demonstrated that regular teacher–student interactions are closely related to both types
of TfC.
Unexpectedly, learning through colleague interactions was only weakly
associated with process-oriented TfC and had no relationship with product-oriented
TfC. Challenging the proposition that knowledge sharing is closely related to creativity
(Zhang et al., 2019), this result indicated that regular communication with colleagues
about teaching and learning may encourage teachers to construct open and interactive
classroom environments but probably does not increase their deployment of creative
teaching strategies or their direct cultivation of observable creativity outcomes. We
explain this finding in two ways. First, as teaching in a creative way or encouraging
26
creative student outcomes is often ignored in teacher evaluations and student
assessments (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018), product-oriented TfC may not be a frequent
topic of discussion among teachers. Second, the ‘practicality effect’ may also influence
the association between learning through colleague interactions and product-oriented
TfC. Glăveanu et al. (2019) found that people working together often prefer practical
rather than innovative ideas because practical ideas are easier to communicate and
validate. This may partially explain why teachers’ daily interactions were found to have
no relationship with their creative teaching strategies or the development of observable
creative student outcomes.
This study found that learning through media is equally related to process- and
product-oriented TfC behaviour. According to previous studies (Tomasevic & Trivic,
2014), reading teaching-related materials, whether online or offline, not only broadens
teachers’ understanding of their subjects but also gives them access to a variety of
pedagogical approaches (Kyndt et al., 2016). The knowledge and improved skills they
gain may lead to creative teaching and the development of student creativity.
This study confirmed that teachers can access creative pedagogical approaches
and innovative tools by communicating with scholars and through online micro-
blogging platforms, which is consistent with previous findings. A growing body of
empirical evidence has confirmed that communicating with scholars or cross-border
practitioners can provide teachers with novel ideas or practices (Reilly et al., 2011;
Robson & Jaaniste, 2010). Carpenter and Krutka (2015) found that teachers can use
micro-blogging platforms to access novel ideas and advanced educational trends,
particularly those related to educational technology. These innovative strategies and
tools may boost product-oriented TfC behaviour. However, it should be noted that ‘eye-
catching’ innovative perspectives or strategies have always been the core component
27
of stakeholder interactions, which may explain why process-oriented TfC such as
connecting teaching content with students’ daily lives may not be significantly related
to interactions with stakeholders.
5.2.2 Teacher reflection and TfC behaviour
Consistent with our hypothesis, teachers’ reflections on their teaching successes and
failures were positively related to their TfC behaviour. As previous studies have
demonstrated, reflecting on experience and evaluating alternative approaches and
possible outcomes not only leads to creative thinking (Hao et al., 2016; Thorley, 2018),
it also increases an individual’s flexibility and adaptability when faced with unexpected
tasks (Messmann & Mulder, 2015). Therefore, regularly reflecting on teaching
experiences can increase teachers’ flexibility and their use of on-the-spot experiments,
leading to more TfC behaviour.
This study extends previous studies by determining that teacher reflection has a
closer relationship with process-oriented than with product-oriented TfC, possibly
because it is easier for teachers to develop process-oriented TfC. Reflecting on their
teaching experiences and students’ performance can help teachers to actively engage
students or to create links between teaching content and students’ experiences (process-
oriented TfC), but may not lead directly to innovative teaching methods (product-
oriented TfC). In addition, this study found that teachers’ reflections had a stronger
association with process-oriented TfC than with any of the other IWL activities. This
finding is consistent with Kolb’s study (1984), which found that continuous reflection
generated advanced action plans. Many studies have demonstrated the importance of
teachers’ reflections to their action transformation (see Marcos and Tillema’s 2006
review). Therefore, it is understandable that teachers’ reflections are closely linked to
the construction of a creativity-friendly classroom environment.
28
6. Limitations and future directions
This study has a few limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, given its cross-
sectional research design, this study cannot demonstrate causal relationships between
teachers’ IWL activities and TfC behaviour. As two closely related forms of human
activity, learning can presuppose creativity and vice versa (Høyrup, 2010) Therefore, a
longitudinal research design is needed to further explore the complex relationship
between teachers’ IWL activities and TfC behaviour. Second, teachers’ informal and
formal workplace learning are closely interconnected (Grosemans et al., 2015). Formal
learning experiences should be included in future research to enhance our
understanding of the relationship between teacher learning and TfC decision-making.
Third, it should be noted that using a self-reported scale to measure teachers’ diverse
types of creativity-related performance inevitably simplifies our understanding of TfC.
Furthermore, although using an online questionnaire has the benefit of being able to
reach a large number of teachers efficiently, it may attract teachers with similar profiles.
This study reported a high response rate among female teachers, which may be a threat
to the validity of the findings and limit the generalizability of the results. Therefore,
qualitative studies and mixed methods studies with different sampling strategies are
needed to further explore teachers’ TfC and IWL and to validate the findings of this
study. Fourth, this study was conducted in China. Given the differences in teachers’
TfC across cultures (Hartley & Plucker, 2014; Morris & Leung, 2010), more studies in
other cultural settings are needed to enrich our understanding of the link between
learning activities and creative performance. Despite these limitations, this study
provides valuable insights into the relationship between teachers’ workplace learning
and their decisions about nurturing student creativity. The study’s demonstration of the
29
different relationships between IWL and the two types of TfC behaviour indicates the
need for further analysis of how different factors are related to different types of TfC.
7. Practical implications
Given the constrained implementation of TfC reported by teachers in a variety of
contexts (Banaji et al., 2013), promoting TfC is a challenging issue for educators and
policymakers worldwide. The findings of this study provide valuable insights for
practitioners seeking to effectively promote teachers’ TfC in schools.
First, given the demonstrated value of IWL to TfC, we strongly believe that
building teachers’ capacity to learn from daily interactions is crucial to the cultivation
of student creativity. Teachers are exposed to numerous IWL opportunities every day.
Their ability to access the information embedded in IWL experiences and to handle
complicated relationships with others may be directly connected to their classroom
decisions about TfC. Therefore, methods of facilitating teacher IWL competency
should be integrated into teacher education programmes and training workshops.
Second, this study found a weak connection between learning through colleague
interactions and TfC. This result should be interpreted cautiously, as it is important not
to thoughtlessly dismiss the importance of the teacher learning community. Indeed,
more efforts may be needed to integrate TfC into teachers’ learning communities. In
the field of workplace activity, Zhou and Hoever (2014) highlighted the prominent role
of group creativity in promoting individual creativity. Currently, the development of
student creativity and creative teaching may not be among the topics emphasised in
most teachers’ learning communities (Davies et al., 2013). Thus, policymakers and
researchers who wish to facilitate effective TfC in the classroom need to consider how
to make TfC topics more visible in teachers’ learning communities.
30
Third, given the importance of reflection to TfC, policymakers and school
principals should develop teachers’ capacity for intrapersonal reflection and self-
awareness. Notably, Reilly and colleagues (2011) found that teachers’ reflections on
TfC should be shared in a safe space, as they may contain tentative ideas and
unsuccessful experiments. Therefore, policymakers should promote both teachers’
individual reflections on TfC and the construction of a safe context for sharing these
reflections.
Fourth, the crucial role of student interactions to TfC, confirmed in this study,
indicates the importance of involving students in the development of TfC. To date,
much attention has been paid to stimulating TfC through cross-border collaboration
(Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). The findings of this study indicate the value of regular
student interactions in the classroom. We believe that a mechanism for integrating
student feedback and opinions into teaching designs would boost teachers’ creativity
and the cultivation of student creativity.
Fifth, given the effects of gender and teaching experience on TfC that were
identified in this study, policymakers and educators may use differentiated
interventions to promote TfC. For male teachers and experienced teachers, it is crucial
to design training courses that support their passion for TfC. For female and novice
teachers, training programmes must build their confidence and expand their knowledge
of creative pedagogies.
8. Conclusions
This study investigated the relationship between teachers’ daily learning experiences
and their nurturing of student creativity. It also considered the effects of gender and
teaching experience on teachers’ TfC behaviour. The findings demonstrated the crucial
role teachers’ IWL played in their classroom TfC and revealed that each type of IWL
31
had a different relationship with TfC. Specifically, learning through media, student
interactions, stakeholder interactions and reflection were positively related to product-
oriented TfC, with learning through student interactions having the strongest
association. Learning through colleague interaction was not related to teacher’s
product-oriented TfC behaviour. Learning through media, student interactions,
colleague interactions and reflection were significantly associated with process-
oriented TfC, with reflection having the strongest association. Learning through
stakeholder interactions was not associated with teachers’ process-oriented TfC
behaviour. In addition, this study found that male teachers supported product-oriented
TfC more strongly than female teachers. Both types of TfC were positively affected by
teaching experience.
Appendixes.
TfC scale items
Product-oriented TfC
1. I inspire student creativity in my teaching.
2. I improve students’ self-inquiry skills in my teaching.
3. I use different teaching strategies creatively to teach more effectively.
4. I use different teaching tools (such as teaching software) creatively to teach more
effectively.
Process-oriented TfC
5. I inspire students’ thinking in my teaching.
6. I inspire student engagement through my teaching.
7. I am always open to students’ diverse perspectives and types of behaviour.
32
8. I have good interactions with students and communicate well with them while
teaching.
9. I connect teaching content with students’ daily lives.
33
References
Adams, J. W. (2013). A case study: Using lesson study to understand factors that
affect teaching creative and critical thinking in the elementary classroom.
[Doctoral Dissertation, Drexel University].
Addison, N., Burgess, L., Steers, J., & Trowell, J. (2010). Understanding art
education: Engaging reflexively with practice. Routledge.
Al-Nouh, N. A., Taqi, H. A., & Abdul-Kareem, M. M. (2014). EFL primary school
teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and skills in alternative assessment.
International Education Studies, 7(5), 68–84.
Alsahou, H. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and practices for fostering
creativity in science classrooms in the State of Kuwait. [Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Exeter].
Author (2015).
Author (2019).
Author (2020).
Bamford, C., Boursier, J., Bresnen, K., Shank-Farah, D., Slonosky, A., DiZazzo, A.
M., Pupo, M., Rhoades, J., McBride, J., Rejskind, G., Mitchell, S., & Reilly,
R. (1999, April). You may call it research – I call it coping: Collaborative
action research. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on
Teacher Research, Bishop’s University, Lennoxville, QC.
Banaji, S., Cranmer, S., & Perrotta, C. (2013). What’s stopping us? Barriers to
creativity and innovation in schooling across Europe. In K. Thomas & J. Chan
(Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 450–463). Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Beghetto, R. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education
34
and Psychology, 15(1), 6–23.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2014). Teaching for creativity in the
Common Core classroom. Teachers College Press.
Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its
nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational
Research Review, 23, 25–56.
Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: Workplace affordances and individual
engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5), 209–214.
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understandings of workplace learning. In D. Boud &
J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 29–44). Routledge.
Bramwell-Rejskind, G., Halliday, F., & McBride, J. (2008). Creating change:
Teachers’ reflections on changing their teaching. In B. Shore, M. Aulls, & M.
Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education Vol. 2: Overcoming barriers to
successful implementation (pp. 207–234). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burgstahler, S. (2009). Universal design in higher education. In S. Burgstahler & R.
Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education (pp. 23–44). Harvard
Education Press.
Burnard, P., Craft, A., & Cremin, T. (2006). Documenting ‘possibility thinking’: A
journey of collaborative enquiry. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 14(3), 243–262.
Burns, J. Z. (2008). Informal learning and transfer of learning: How new trade and
industrial teachers perceive their professional growth and development.
Career and Technical Education Research, 33(1), 3–24.
Cachia, R., & Ferrari, A. (2010). Creativity in schools: A survey of teachers in
Europe. Joint Research Centre (Seville).
35
Cachia, R. Ferrari, Ala-Mutka, K. & Punie, Y. (2010). Creative learning and
innovative teaching: Final report on the Study on Creativity and Innovation in
Education in the EU Member States.
https://edu.lu.lv/pluginfile.php/74635/mod_resource/content/1/%21%21_Creat
ive%20Learning%20and%20Innovative%20Teaching.pdf
Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Crede, M., Harms, P., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2017). Leading to
stimulate employees’ ideas: A quantitative review of leader–member
exchange, employee voice, creativity, and innovative behavior. Applied
Psychology = Psychologie Appliquée, 66(4), 517–552.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging:
Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in
Education, 41(4), 707–728.
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers'
perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research
Journal, 12(3), 185-195.
Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Creativity beliefs, creative personality and creativity-
fostering practices of gifted education teachers and regular class teachers in
Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 109–118.
Chennabathni, R. (2006). Case study of a creative teacher (Publication No. AAT
NR25115) [Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal].
Chien, C. Y., & Hui, A. N. N. (2010). Creativity in early childhood education:
Teachers’ perceptions in three Chinese societies. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 5(2), 49–60.
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the
conceptual terrain: A consultation report. University of Leeds.
36
Cook, W. A. (2014). Is mobile a reliable platform for survey taking? Defining quality
in online surveys from mobile respondents. Journal of Advertising Research,
54(2), 141–148.
Craft, A. (2010). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age.
Trentham Books.
Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the
early years. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 108–119.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and
educators. Psychology Press.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013).
Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Digby, R., Howe, A., Collier, C., & Hay, P. (2014). The
roles and development needs of teachers to promote creativity: A systematic
review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41(C), 34–41.
Day, C., Sammons, P., & Stobart, G. (2007). Teachers matter: Connecting work, lives
and effectiveness. McGraw-Hill Education.
de Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of
creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811–831.
Fraser, J. W. (2010). A tale of two futures: A fable of teacher education in the United
States, 2025. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 29–32.
Gaertner, H. (2014). Effects of student feedback as a method of self-evaluating the
quality of teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 91–99.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic
37
achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2),
269.
Gandini, L., Hill, L., Cadwell, L., & Schwall, C. (Eds.). (2005). In the spirit of the
studio: Learning from the Atelier of Reggio Emilia. Teachers’ College Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives
of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. Basic
Books.
Glăveanu, V. P., Gillespie, A., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Are people working
together inclined towards practicality? A process analysis of creative ideation
in individuals and dyads. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
13(4), 388.
Gordon Wells, C., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together:
Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Grosemans, I., Boon, A., Verclairen, C., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Informal
learning of primary school teachers: Considering the role of teaching
experience and school culture. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 151–161.
Hager, P. (2004). The conceptualisation and measurement of learning at work. In D.
R. Harrison (Ed.), Workplace learning in context (p. 248–258). Routledge.
Halsey, K., Jones, M., & Lord, P. (2006). What works in stimulating creativity
amongst socially excluded young people. National Foundation for Educational
Research.
Hao, N. (2010). The effects of domain knowledge and instructional manipulation on
creative idea generation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(4), 237–257.
Hao, N., Ku, Y., Liu, M., Hu, Y., Bodner, M., Grabner, R. H., & Fink, A. (2016).
Reflection enhances creativity: Beneficial effects of idea evaluation on idea
38
generation. Brain and Cognition, 103, 30–37.
Hartley, K. A. (2015). Creativity in context: A cultural comparison of creativity in the
elementary classroom (Publication No. 1756714486) [Doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
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.
Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2009). Experienced science teachers’
learning in the context of educational innovation. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60(2), 184–199.
Hoekstra, A., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experienced
teachers’ informal learning: Learning activities and changes in behavior and
cognition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 663–673.
Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher learning in a context of educational
change: Informal learning versus systematically supported learning. Journal of
Teacher Education, 62(1), 76–92.
Hondzel, C. D. (2013). Fostering creativity: Ontario teachers’ perceptions,
strategies, and experiences. The University of Western Ontario.
Hong, M., & Kang, N. H. (2010). South Korean and the US secondary school science
teachers’ conceptions of creativity and teaching for creativity. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(5), 821–843.
Hoy, A. W., & Weinstein, C. S. (2013). Student and teacher perspectives on
classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.),
Handbook of classroom management (pp. 191–230). Routledge.
Høyrup, S. (2010). Employee-driven innovation and workplace learning: Basic
39
concepts, approaches and themes. Transfer: European Review of Labour and
Research, 16(2), 143–154.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Intrator, S. M. (2006). Beginning teachers and the emotional drama of the classroom.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 232–239.
Jacobs, R. L., & Park, Y. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace
learning: Implications for theory development and research in human resource
development. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 133–150.
Jeffrey, B. (2006). Creative teaching and learning: Towards common discourse and
practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 399–414.
Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity:
Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87.
Kampylis, P., Saariluoma, P., & Berki, E. (2011). Fostering creative thinking – What
do primary teachers recommend? Hellenic Journal of Music, Education and
Culture, 2(1), 46–64.
Kang, Y., & Cheng, X. (2014). Teacher learning in the workplace: A study of the
relationship between a novice EFL teacher’s classroom practices and
cognition development. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 169–186.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative
metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative.
Roeper Review, 35(3), 155–165.
40
Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers’ relatedness with
students: An underemphasized component of teachers’ basic psychological
needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 150.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Prentice Hall.
Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday
professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents,
and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111–1150.
Law, N., Pelgrum, W., Monseur, C., Brese, F., Carstens, R., Voogt, J., Plomp, T., &
Anderson, R. (2008). In N. Law, R. J. Pelgrum, & T. J. Plomp (Eds.),
Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA
SITES 2006 study (pp. 13–36). Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Lecat, A., Spaltman, Y., Beausaert, S., Raemdonck, I., & Kyndt, E. (2020). Two
decennia of research on teachers’ informal learning: A literature review on
definitions and measures. Educational Research Review, 30, 100324.
Lee, E. A., & Seo, H. A. (2006). Understanding of creativity by Korean elementary
teachers in gifted education. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 237–242.
Leikin, R., Subotnik, R., Pitta-Pantazi, D., Singer, F. M., & Pelczer, I. (2013).
Teachers’ views on creativity in mathematics education: An international
survey. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2),
309–324.
Lev-Zamir, H., & Leikin, R. (2013). Saying versus doing: Teachers’ conceptions of
creativity in elementary mathematics teaching. ZDM: The International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 295–308.
Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Ümarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring
41
innovativeness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia. Computers &
Education, 58(2), 808–817.
Loveless, A., Burton, J., & Turvey, K. (2006). Developing conceptual frameworks for
creativity, ICT and teacher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 3–
13.
Louws, M. L., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & van Driel, J. H. (2017). Teachers’ self-
directed learning and teaching experience: What, how, and why teachers want
to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 171–183.
Lugtig, P. J., & Toepoel, V. (2016). Mobile-only web survey respondents. Survey
Practice, 9(3), 1–8.
Manuti, A., Pastore, S., Scardigno, A. F., Giancaspro, M. L., & Morciano, D. (2015).
Formal and informal learning in the workplace: A research review.
International Journal of Training and Development, 19(1), 1–17.
Marcos, J. J. M., & Tillema, H. (2006). Studying studies on teacher reflection and
action: An appraisal of research contributions. Educational Research Review,
1(2), 112–132.
Marsick, V. J., & Volpe, M. (1999). The nature and need for informal learning.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(3), 1–9.
Merriman, T. J. (2015). A phenomenological approach to understanding Pro-C level
teachers’ perceptions of creativity [Doctoral dissertation, University of South
Dakota]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2015). Reflection as a facilitator of teachers’
innovative work behaviour. International Journal of Training and
Development, 19(2), 125–137.
Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185–
42
198.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2019). Number of female
educational personnel and full-time teachers of schools by type and level.
Retrieved June 7, 2021, from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A03/moe_560/jytjsj_2019/qg/202006/t20200611_
464798.html
Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. (2010). Creativity East and West: Perspectives and
parallels. Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 313–327.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying
discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and
teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.
Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., N. Lamb, K., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher
perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 21, 9–30.
NACCCE (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education).
(1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Department for
Education and Employment.
Niu, W., & Liu, D. (2009). Enhancing creativity: A comparison between effects of an
indicative instruction “to be creative” and a more elaborate heuristic
instruction on Chinese student creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 3(2), 93–98.
OECD (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in
school. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/fostering-students-creativity-
and-critical-thinking-62212c37-en.htm
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning.
43
Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity
in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
82(1), 76–87.
Reilly, R. C., Lilly, F., Bramwell, G., & Kronish, N. (2011). A synthesis of research
concerning creative teachers in a Canadian context. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(3), 533–542.
Riccardi, M. (2001). Down memory lane: Creativity in a retired teacher [Unpublished
M.Ed. project]. McGill University, Montreal.
Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student
creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A
comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea
generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2),
244–251.
Robson, J., & Jaaniste, L. (2010). Growing future innovators: A new approach to
learning programs for young children. Edith Cowan University.
Rubenstein, L. D., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for creativity
scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow
for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334.
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
44
practice. Elsevier.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology
Review, 7(3), 243–267.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). The science of human innovation: Explaining creativity (2nd
ed.). Oxford University Press.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey Bass.
Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers’ biases toward creative children. Creativity Research
Journal, 12, 321.
Sharp, C., Pye, D., Blackmore, J., Brown, E., Eames, A., Easton, C., et al. (2006).
National evaluation of creative partnerships: Final report.
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/CPS01/CPS01.pdf
Shaw, K., Bourke, S., Holmes, K., Preston, G., & Smith, M. (2013). ITL Australia:
Innovative teaching and learning 2013: ITL Research Australia, 2011–2012
Phase Two Report.
https://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/46387/ITL-
Research-Australia-Book-WebReady.pdf
Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S. H. (2017). Reflection toward creativity: Team
reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team
creative performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 655–671.
Snell, A. H., II. (2013). Creativity in instrumental music education: A survey of winds
and percussion music teachers in New York State. University of Rochester.
Soh, K. (2017). Fostering student creativity through teacher behaviors. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 23, 58–66.
Thorley, M. (2018). The role of failure in developing creativity in professional music
45
recording and production. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 160–170.
Thomson, P., & Sanders, E. (2010). Creativity and whole school change: An
investigation of English head teacher practices. Journal of Educational
Change, 11, 63–83.
Tomasevic, B., & Trivic, D. (2014). Creativity in teaching chemistry: How much
support does the curriculum provide? Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 15(2), 239–252.
Troman, G., Jeffrey, B., & Raggl, A. (2007). Creativity and performativity policies in
primary school cultures. Journal of Educational Policy, 22(5), 549–572.
Venezky, R. L., & Davis, C. (2002).Quo Vademus? The transformation of schooling
in a networked world. OECD/CERI. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/20/2073054.pdf
Verberg, C. P. M., Tigelaar, D. E. H., & Verloop, N. (2013). Teacher learning through
participation in a negotiated assessment procedure. Teachers and Teaching,
19(2), 172–187.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental function. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Sharpe.
Way, J., & Webb, C. (2007). A framework for analysing ICT adoption in Australian
primary schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4),
559–582.
Webster, A., Campbell, C., & Jane, B. (2006). Enhancing the creative process for
learning in primary technology education. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 221–235.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of
creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology
46
= Psychologie Appliquée, 51(3), 355–387.
Widmann, A., Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2016). The impact of team learning
behaviors on team innovative work behavior: A systematic review. Human
Resource Development Review, 15(4), 429–458.
Yang, S. C., & Huang, Y.-F. (2008). A study of high school English teachers’
behavior, concerns and beliefs in integrating information technology into
English instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1085–1103.
Zhang, W., Sun, S. L., Jiang, Y., & Zhang, W. (2019). Openness to experience and
team creativity: Effects of knowledge sharing and transformational leadership.
Creativity Research Journal, 31(1), 62–73.
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and
redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1(1), 333–359.
Zhou, J., Wang, X. M., Bavato, D., Tasselli, S., & Wu, J. (2019). Understanding the
receiving side of creativity: A multidisciplinary review and implications for
management research. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2570–2595.
