Views of German chemistry teachers on creativity in chemistry classes and in general
Luzie
Semmler
and
Verena
Pietzner
*
Chemistry Education, Institute of Chemistry, University of Oldenburg (Germany), Carl-von-Ossietzky-Straße 9-11, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany. E-mail: luzie.semmler@uni-oldenburg.de; verena.pietzner@uni-oldenburg.de
First published on 13th April 2018
Abstract
Creativity has become an increasingly important competence in today's rapidly changing times, because economics and industries depend on innovation. Creativity is therefore a requirement for school graduates, especially for the ones who strive to pursue a technical or scientific career. But creativity has not been integrated into the curricula of STEM subjects in many European countries like Germany. To successfully integrate it in the classroom, it is important to investigate teachers' views and conceptions on creativity, because they have an influence on teaching and lesson planning. This is the purpose of this study. To investigate the views and conceptions, a research instrument especially designed for this study is used. It includes the creation of two concept maps and filling out a questionnaire. The study was carried out using fifteen German chemistry teachers. The evaluation of the data was made qualitatively as well as quantitatively. It has revealed that almost all of the teachers in this study had a positive attitude towards creativity and had experiences referring to integrating creativity into their own chemistry lessons. But not all of these experiences are good ones and there were some aspects with regard to creativity in general, where uncertainties could be identified.
Introduction
Creativity is a term for which no standard definition exists. What is called creative, is subjective and therefore individual. Especially in Europe, creativity research remained a neglected area for a long time (Urban, 1991). However, creativity has become an important competence for today's rapidly changing time, because economies depend on innovative and creative workers to be successful in the global competition (Ward, 2007; Sawyer, 2012, p. 3ff). The European Union also realised the importance of creativity for economies, science and social development, especially referring to global challenges such as climate change. According to it, creativity is the main source of innovation and promoting creativity is a goal of the European community (Andiliou and Murphy, 2010). Therefore, creativity is a requirement for school graduates, but in Germany it has still not been made an integral part of school education. Especially in STEM subjects, which are of special importance with respect to coping global challenges and furthering technical and scientific progress, creativity is not mentioned in curricula, so it can be assumed that it is not integrated in the lessons. This is confirmed by the fact that teachers and students from Europe and the US, who were surveyed in various studies, view music, art, drama and handicraft subjects as more appropriate to implement creative thinking than STEM subjects, as these subjects are more open and practical (Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Kampylis et al., 2009; Newton and Newton, 2009). Furthermore, Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) found out that teachers showed a lack of knowledge about creativity and the characteristics of creative students, so that teachers inhibit the promotion of creative characteristics because they prefer a non-creative behaviour which they promote. Therefore, the teachers are not qualified to identify and facilitate creative behaviours. Because of that it can be a problem for those teachers to foster and support creativity in their students.All of these aspects suggest that creativity is not integrated and not supported by the teachers in the lessons of STEM subjects. In addition, the teachers do not seem to have the necessary knowledge to integrate it in class and to promote creative skills in their students. However, the STEM subjects are important for technical occupations where innovation and creativity are required especially referring to global challenges and the international comparison of technical and scientific progress. Therefore, it is important that teachers appreciate the importance of creativity for the professional world and for the students and they have the necessary conditions to integrate creativity in class. These conditions include an appropriate knowledge of the teachers to implement creativity in the classroom and to identify and promote creative characteristics and skills in their students, a positive attitude towards creativity and the necessary self-confidence in their own creative abilities (NACCCE, 1999, p. 103f; Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Baer and Garrett, 2010). In order to achieve an integration of creativity in chemistry classes, teachers' views and attitudes must first be determined, because conceptions of creativity have a great impact on teaching and lesson planning (Newton and Newton, 2009). Therefore, the teachers' conceptions of creativity can facilitate or inhibit students' creativity in the classroom. In addition, the teachers are role models for students (Kampylis et al., 2009). Depending on their attitudes and knowledge about creativity they may act creatively or not in the classroom and, thus, influence the students' behaviour. Investigating the views and concepts on creativity lead to an overview about the understanding and the knowledge, but also problematic views and knowledge gaps of chemistry teachers, which can be a starting point for teacher training.
Views and conceptions of teachers from the USA, Canada, China, India, Korea and some European countries were already investigated and evaluated (for an overview of the studies since 1991, see Kampylis et al., 2009; Andiliou and Murphy, 2010). Studies about the views and attitudes of German teachers, especially of STEM subjects, are still lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to answer the following questions:
1. Which views and conceptions on creativity in general and creativity in chemistry classes do German chemistry teachers have?
2. How extensive are the conceptions and knowledge of these German teachers about creativity (in chemistry classes)? And
3. What are similarities and differences between chemistry teachers and chemistry student teachers regarding their views and conceptions on creativity?
4. What implications are arising for teacher training?
The study was already carried out including German student teachers (Semmler and Pietzner, 2017). This should be expanded by this study with German chemistry teachers. Investigating chemistry teachers should lead to new perceptions especially about the teaching practice regarding the integration of creativity in chemistry class. To find out similarities and differences between the teachers' and student teachers' views on creativity in general and in chemistry class the results of this study and the results of the previous study are compared. In this context one aim is to find out whether the chemistry teachers have a different understanding of creativity and whether this understanding is maybe influenced by their age or professional experiences. The results can also be important for researchers and teachers in other countries to gain new perspectives about the integration of creativity in chemistry classes.
A study is presented in this article, in which views of German chemistry teachers have been investigated with a new research instrument. In the following, the theoretical background, the research instrument, the implementation of the study and the investigation and evaluation of the data are described.
Theoretical background
Definition of creativity
The definition of the British National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) may serve as a starting point for teachers to integrate creativity in the classroom. It refers directly to the integration of creativity into the classroom. The body defines creativity as “imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 30).This definition refers to a creative process and a creative product in the end of this process, but teachers need to have knowledge about all other areas creativity can refer to. With that knowledge, they are able to successfully integrate creativity in the classroom and to recognise and facilitate the creative characteristics and skills of students. 4P-E-model by Urban (1995) contains an extent understanding of creativity. It states that creativity can be demonstrated by a person, product, problem or process all of which are tied to social, cultural, political and historical environmental factors. All of the 4 Ps Urban described in the model have to be recognised by the teachers in the classroom.
Creativity in chemistry classes
As mentioned above, the teachers must have knowledge about creativity to integrate it in the classroom. This includes knowledge about possibilities to implement creativity, a creativity-promoting classroom atmosphere, the benefits of integrating and promoting creativity in class, and the tasks and behaviours of teachers and students. A positive attitude towards creativity and the person's own creative skills is a prerequisite for implementing creativity in the classroom (NACCCE, 1999, p. 103f). In the following, the aspects for a successful integration of creativity especially in chemistry class by the teachers will be explained.Although there are many studies that indicated that teacher do not view STEM subjects as appropriate to implement creativity, there is a study of Cachia and Ferrari (2010), in which teachers from Europe consider creativity to be applied in every school subject (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 23). Such teachers possess basically positive attitudes towards creativity in class, but they mention only a few possibilities with which creativity can be promoted in the classroom (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 33f). Frontal teaching is still the method that is preferred by most teachers, although this method does not result in promoting creativity. Creative teaching is associated with open, student-centered, cooperative and group-based teaching strategies, which also refers to project work and learning opportunities outside of laboratory or school settings (Kind and Kind, 2007). This also includes inquiry- and discovery-based classrooms (Fasko, 2001; Kind and Kind, 2007). Egg races, jigsaw classrooms, learning companies and various types of learning at stations can be cited as examples of creative methods. There are a few elaboration possibilities for chemistry classes in Germany including these methods (for example Gärtner and Borstel, 2003; Schwarz and Lutz, 2004; Borstel and Böhm, 2005; Orth and Hilgers, 2006; Wittek and Eilks, 2006). In the media, new technologies are particularly available, which provide opportunities for the development of creative skills and new approaches to learning (Fautley and Savage, 2007, p. 84f). For chemistry lessons, chemistry experiments are particularly important in the context of media and methods. Creativity in this area means formulating hypotheses, planning, carrying out, reflecting upon and, if necessary, revising experiments (Newton and Newton, 2009). Furthermore, in chemistry classrooms the opportunity to design and build models independently and the teacher's creative use of models in the classroom belongs to this realm. Working with models promotes problem-solving skills and knowledge transfer, because knowledge must be applied to new situations. Thus, it can also encourage creativity and stimulate creative thinking processes (Sawyer, 2012, p. 401).
While organising the lesson and choosing methods and media, the teacher must involve students and their interests. Fryer and Collings (1991) showed in their study that the inclusion of students in lesson planning and design is an important aspect of the integration of creativity in the classroom. Even Kind and Kind (2007) emphasised student-orientation. Acting autonomously, thinking and problem-solving all foster creative skills in learners by giving students the opportunity to develop, try and revise their own ideas (Craft, 2005, p. 60). It is important that the students can develop their creativity in assessment-free phases. Nevertheless, an assessment cannot be avoided, but needs to be changed and possibly moved temporally. In addition, it is important that students learn to assess themselves (Joubert, 2001).
Creativity can take place at school only in a nurturing learning environment. This includes, among other things, that teachers and students create a stimulating and fear-free classroom atmosphere, value (unusual) ideas, recognise different approaches to problem-solving, support free play and self-initiated learning, allow mistakes to be made and learn to deal with constructive criticism (Fasko, 2001; Joubert, 2001; Craft, 2005, p. 60; DeHaan, 2009). The learning of knowledge is also a central condition belonging to any creative work on a topic (Weisberg, 1999). Apart from imparting knowledge to the students, the teacher must activate the students' creativity by facilitating creative processes. To do that there must be a problem that can be creatively solve. Identification and solving a problem are parts of the creative process described by Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (2014). It also includes the finding and testing of different approaches, the collection of ideas, the appropriation of knowledge, and a constant reflection and evaluation (Runco, 2004; DeHaan, 2009; Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer, 2014). Generating ideas is a central aspect of creativity (Craft, 2005, p. 19; Sawyer, 2012, p. 88ff). In the classroom the teacher should ensure that students have enough time for such creative processes (Fasko, 2001). Furthermore, the teacher must be aware that she or he can not force creativity, just stimulate their students in that direction and support the development of creativity awareness (Newton and Newton, 2009). Phases of reflection and sharing with others are often followed by periods of the reworking before the resulting product is made available to others. This exchange and reflection should lead to new perspectives from which new ideas can emerge (Simonton, 2004, p. 84/112). These creative processes are thus integrated into everyday life as well as into scientific professions and areas (Kind and Kind, 2007). In the sciences, the product resulting from the creative process takes a central position (Simonton, 2004, p. 15). The students produced something that is original and of value in the context of the classroom.
Curricula and assessments are problems for implementing creativity in the classroom. This was confirmed by a study including European teachers (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 28/52). The teachers were of the opinion that most finalised examples of curricula contain no creativity-based exercises (or at best superficial ones). This means that teachers do not know how to implement creativity in their class (Andiliou and Murphy, 2010). Whether creativity is integrated into classes at all depends to a large extent on the teachers themselves. The behavior of the teacher, the skill set, the qualities, etc., are important. Overall, a change in the traditional role of the teacher is necessary in this context (Safran, 2001). Some studies have indicated that the teacher's creative behaviour can positively affect the creative thinking and actions of students (Fasko, 2001; Craft, 2005, p. 44). Such creative behaviour includes, among other things, an open attitude towards students' questions and answers, the recognition of different ideas and approaches to solving problems, and increased teacher–student interaction. In the report by NACCCE (1999, p. 103f), it was also stressed that teachers cannot foster the creative skills of their students, if they do not recognize and use their own creative abilities.
Creativity in the classroom can be influenced not only by the teacher, but also by the student. Creativity in general is still influenced by social conventions, the social environment and intrapersonal characteristics (Guilford, 1968; Feldman, 1999). Creativity-promoting properties are, among other things, an intrinsic motivation (Simonton, 2004, p. 102), willingness to work hard and perseverance (Simonton, 2004, p. 52), openness towards new things (Fautley and Savage, 2007, p. 113), self-confidence and preparedness to take risks (Fasko, 2001). Furthermore, creative people tend to be curious and independent in their thinking, they ask many questions and often act intuitively (Westby and Dawson, 1995; Sawyer, 2012, p. 390). It is important that teachers recognise these behaviours in their students to promote creativity in the classroom and in their students.
For teachers it is also important to know characteristics of creativity to recognise these in the teaching and to promote the characteristics within the students. Creativity in general is characterized by inventiveness, sensitivity to problems, fluid and flexibility of thinking as well as originality and novelty (Guilford, 1968, p. 77/82). Adequacy (Runco, 2004), the crossing of borders and rules (Craft, 2003) and the imagination (Kind and Kind, 2007) are also regarded as important characteristics of creativity. Everyone has creative potential that can be stimulated, developed and promoted (Sawyer, 2012, p. 390).
Description of methods
To answer these questions and to build a comprehensive picture of the conceptions of the teachers, a triangulation of methods (Flick, 2004) was used. This includes two concept maps, a questionnaire and think-aloud transcripts. The research instrument was already piloted without the think-aloud method and it was used in a previous study with German master's degree students (Semmler and Pietzner, 2017). The research instrument has turned out to be an appropriate instrument to investigate a person's views and attitudes about creativity. In addition to these methods, the think-aloud method was used for this study with teachers, because the researchers expected a more comprehensive insight into the teaching practice of the participants.Concept maps are structured, two-dimensional representations of knowledge resources, information or ideas about a topic. They consist of terms or concepts. Meaningful relations are produced by grouping corresponding compound words. Two terms connected by a linking phrase represents a proposition. It is believed that concept maps' structuring of the representations corresponds to the knowledge structure in the brain (Yin et al., 2005). Therefore, the cognitive knowledge structure can be visualized using concept maps (Novak and Cañas, 2008). Nevertheless, it does not represent a picture of overall knowledge, but reveals only an excerpt or snapshot of a person's knowledge of an issue (Kinchin, 2013).
The participants of this study were supposed to create two concept maps. The teachers created the first concept map without guidelines, only using their own thoughts. They developed the second one using twenty-two prescribed terms. The teachers got the first part of the research instrument including a brief introduction into the creation of a concept map and the creation of the first concept map without prescribed terms. The introduction includes an example they can orient on during the creation. The creation of the concept map, without the provision of any particular specifications, is to intend to ensure that the participants are not influenced or restricted immediately by prescriptions, but can freely express their thoughts (Novak and Cañas, 2008). After finishing the creation of the first concept map, the teachers received the second part of the research instrument including the creation of the second concept map with prescribed terms and a questionnaire. The twenty-two prescribed terms have been resulted from a previous concept map, which was especially designed for this study (Semmler and Pietzner, 2017) and can be found in Table 3. The prescribed terms are directly derived from the definitions and the publications used for the theoretical background. For example, the terms “Product”, “Problem”, “Cognitive Process” and “Social Environment” are derived from the 4P-E-model by Urban (1995), but they are also oriented towards the views of Sawyer (2012), Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (2014) and Feldman (1999). The other terms also reflect the current research trends in creativity research described in the theoretical background. In addition to these prescribed terms, “Creativity” and “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” are already given in this concept map. The participants need not to use all of the prescribed terms, only the terms they can connect to creativity or other terms.
The questionnaire is to intend to support the concept maps and to collect personal data. The questions are supposed to investigate important aspects of the teachers' conceptions about creativity, which may have not been expressed in the concept maps clearly enough. The questions ask: (1) whether promoting creativity is an important goal in chemistry classes, (2) if creativity has already been integrated into the classroom setting, (3) whether creativity should play a major role in the person's own future teaching, (4) if creativity plays (or played) a role in their chemistry studies and traineeship, and (5) whether the person would describe herself/himself as creative. The participants are also asked to give examples of personal creative teaching situations in question (2) and to give reasons for the answers in questions (3) and (5).
In addition to the methods described above, the method of think-aloud is also used in this study. With this method, insights into the thoughts of a person can be gained as well as cognitive processes can be disclosed (Van Someren et al., 1994, p. 8). A person is asked to express what is going through her/his head, which means to verbalize her/his thoughts and associations on a task or an issue. For this method, there are no established rules regarding the process of implementation that would differentiate the method from others (Nielsen et al., 2002). Therefore, the use of this method in this study is described in the following.
Regarding the verbalization of the ideas, the participants were allowed to choose between the “concurrent verbalization” and “retrospective verbalization” (Ericsson and Simon, 1980) to express their thoughts. In the first case, they should verbalize their thoughts during the processing. In the second case, they are allowed to verbalize their thoughts immediately after creating the concept maps. This exemption is necessary, because the creation of the concept maps is a demanding cognitive process, which competes with the verbalization of thoughts to a high level (Boren and Ramey, 2000). The exemption ensures that the verbalization does not hinder the writing process or vice versa.
After an introduction and detailed instructions about the implementation and purpose of the study by the researcher, the participants were asked to think out loud and verbalize their thought while creating the concept maps and filling out the questionnaire. Everything that the participant said was recorded with an audio recording device until the tasks has been completely processed. The researcher had to restrain any commenting and, if necessary, should invite the participant to express the thoughts on what has been written. This should avoid disturbances of the cognitive processes of the participant (Fonteyn et al., 1993). Furthermore, the researcher should respond to the participant's statements with confirmatory expressions to persuade the speaker to go on, but the researcher is not to emphasize to evaluate or criticize the statements (Boren and Ramey, 2000).
Quality criteria
The quality criteria for quantitative research, objectivity, validity and reliability, cannot be measured in a traditional way and they are not appropriate for this study, because the research instrument should investigate a person's individual view. The concept maps, which are used to investigate the views, represent only a snapshot of the knowledge and understanding. Therefore, a replication of the study is not possible. Because of that, the quality criteria need to be redefined. The researchers abide by six general quality criteria for qualitative research developed by Mayring (2014, p. 109): documentation of method, interpretation safeguards, proximity to the object, rule-boundedness, communicative validation and triangulation. Because of these quality criteria, care was taken in this article to describe every process step in detail and to connect different analysis approaches, methods and interpreters. To ensure the research instrument's reliability, a group discussion including PhD students, lecturers and a professor about the method, the data, the evaluation and especially the defining of categories occurred. “Interpretation in groups are a discursive way of producing inter-subjectivity and comprehensibility” (Steinke, 2004, p. 187).The think-aloud method is a well-discussed method used by psychologists first and then by researchers, for example in usability tests (Boren and Ramey, 2000). In this study, the method is used according to Ericsson and Simon (1980) and Boren and Ramey (2000), who have already described the method and its use in detail. The evaluation of the think-aloud transcripts using categories is also discussed and interpreted in groups, like the concept maps and the questionnaire.
Description of the sample and implementation of the study
The study took place on two different dates. Four teachers from North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany participated in the study in February 2016. The other teachers were interviewed from January to March 2017. They all taught at schools in the Weser-Ems region in Lower Saxony in Germany. A total of fifteen teachers participated in this study. The teachers were not specifically selected. They got a circular letter and they could volunteer to take part in the study. The circular letter includes the introduction of the researcher, the topic of the study “Creativity in Chemistry Classes”, the purpose of the study meaning to investigate the views, attitudes and experiences to creativity in general and in chemistry classes, and the request to teachers of Gymnasium, Oberschule, Realschule or Hauptschule to take part in the study and, therefore, support it. Furthermore, it was described that creativity is important for today's rapidly changing times, especially for school graduates, but it does not seem to be integrated in chemistry lessons. The research instrument was not mentioned, but the teachers were invited to take part in an interview of about 45 minutes. This transcription was used because the teacher should not be daunted by creating a concept map.No consideration of the distribution by age and sex could be given because of little feedback from the circular letter. It was, however, ensured that all school forms typical of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia were represented. The distribution by age, sex and school form can be found in Table 1. The implementations took place both in the University of Oldenburg and in the respective schools.
| Age | School | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oberschule | Gesamtschule (comprehensive school) | Gymnasium (grammar school) | ||||
| Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | |
| “Oberschule” is a lower secondary school in Germany, “Gesamtschule” and “Gymnasium” are schools including lower and upper secondary forms. | ||||||
| <25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 25–29 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 30–39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 40–49 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 50–59 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| >60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 4 | 6 | 5 | |||
| 15 | ||||||
At the time of the implementation of the study, nine teachers had five to ten years, five teachers had eleven to thirty years, and one teacher already had more than thirty years of professional experience. Biology was mentioned by eight teachers as a second subject. Four teachers named mathematics, two teachers named physics and one teacher named German language as second subjects. Two teachers of a Gymnasium also taught acting.
The study was carried out under the supervision of the researcher. There was no time limit, unless this was desired by the teacher. Therefore, the length of the recording depended on the interviewed teachers. Thus, recordings varied from twenty minutes to over sixty minutes. The recording has started when the teachers began to create the first concept map and it has ended when they finished the questionnaire. Before starting the recording, the main author explained the purpose and the carrying out of the study. Then, the teachers had time to read the first pages of the research instrument including some information about the study and the example of a concept map. The teachers got only the first part of the research instrument including the general information and the creation of the first concept map. Immediately after finishing that concept map they got the second part including the creation of the second concept and the questionnaire.
Evaluation of the data and results of the study
The data of this study was analysed and evaluated qualitatively as well as quantitatively by the main researcher of this study. The quantitative evaluation includes the analysis of the number of terms, propositions, prescribed terms used in the concept maps, newly added terms, and less connected terms in the concept maps with and without prescriptions. The quantitative evaluation is only done with the concept maps and not with the interviews. In the research done so far, concept maps are usually analysed by counting the numbers of terms and propositions or by comparing the concept maps with an ideal one made by an expert. For this study, such an analysis is not sufficient. The quantitative analysis shall give an idea of the breadth and depth of the persons' knowledge. But it does not indicate which understanding and knowledge the participants about creativity in chemistry classes and in general have. Because of that, it is necessary to carry out a qualitative analysis consisting of a structural and a content analysis. Both the quantitative and the qualitative analysis of the concept maps were carried out using the PC software © IHMC CmapTools (Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, 2014b) and the software tool © IHMC CmapAnalysis (Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, 2014a). The results of the quantitative analysis are supposed to support the results of the qualitative evaluation. The purpose of the qualitative evaluation is to investigate the teachers' views, concepts, attitudes and knowledge about creativity in general and related to chemistry classes. The structural analysis is only referred to the concept maps and includes the classification of the structures in the concept maps to five different kind of structures (see Fig. 1) and the identification of the central terms, which usually have the most connecting lines. The structures reflect the interconnectedness of the terms in the participant's mind. Usually there are different kinds of structures in one concept map. Therefore, there can be areas and concepts, which are well connected to creativity and terms related to creativity, and others, which are less connected. This allows conclusions to be made about the depth and complexity of a person's understanding of creativity. Accordingly, a network structure including many branches and cross-links between different areas of a concept map represents a deep, wide and flexible understanding of a topic. Structures composed of chains, circles or spokes represent barely-interconnected terms and lack complex interactions between the individual terms. These forms are a sign of superficial understanding with little thought behind it. Furthermore, such structures are often accompanied by less-connected terms with only one ingoing or outgoing connection. These terms represent little knowledge and understanding of the participants and thus are important for possible topics to be included in professional development courses for teachers. | ||
| Fig. 1 Five types of structures, modified from Yin et al. (2005). | ||
The qualitative evaluation also consists of a content analysis of the propositions in the concept maps, the answers in the questionnaires, and the statements in the think-aloud records. For the content analysis of the propositions (connection of two terms using a linking phrase), these were separated from the concept maps and written down in tables. Thus, the propositions could be categorised easily. To analyse the teachers' statements the think-aloud records were transcribed first using the software MAXQDA (1989–2017). The qualitative evaluation includes a categorisation of the participants' propositions, answers and statements. This classification into categories shall give an overview of the teachers' concepts of creativity, so that similarities and differences can be highlighted. Furthermore, the categories make it easier to compare the results with literature data and the results of the previous study including German student teachers. Therefore, it is possible to draw conclusions as to which aspects of creativity are already common and implemented in class, which knowledge gaps arise with regard to the theoretical background, and which problems the participants have when integrating creativity in class. According to Mayring (2014, pp. 79–83), the “inductive category assignment” was used and categories were inductively created (see Table 3). First, the propositions were arranged according to the terms and linking phrases used in the concept maps. For example, verbs such as “lead to”, “cause” or “result in” indicated consequences and verbs such as “condition”, “need” or “influence” stated conditions and influencing factors. The categories presented in Table 3 have already resulted from a previous study (Semmler and Pietzner, 2017) including German student teachers. In that study, the student teachers' views and concepts about creativity were investigated using the same research instrument described in this article. Therefore, the categories are also suitable for using in this study. While analysing the data it is possible to modifying or expanding the categories, according to the inductive category assignment. After several rounds of analyses of the teachers' data, the category “Creativity in Non-school activities and in Everyday Life” was added. The propositions that are not related to creativity were rejected and not mentioned in the following. The main author of this article carried out the quantitative and qualitative evaluation and the second author examined the classification to the categories and maybe changed it. The categories resulted from the analysis of the concept maps were then applied to the answers in the questionnaires and the statements in the think-aloud transcripts. At this step it was also possible to change and modified the categories. Several rounds of analyses have revealed that the categories described above are suitable to sort the answers and the statements of the teachers. Regarding the think-aloud transcripts all statements that refer to creativity or the terms related to creativity (see Table 2) were separated and categorised. The think-aloud transcripts were primarily used to better understand and expand the propositions made in the concept maps. But the analysis using the categories should also lead to highlighting views or concepts of the teachers that are not included in the concept maps, for example experiences gained in the teaching practice. It is possible that the participants find it easier to talk about their experiences than writing those down.
| Prescribed terms | Number of uses in the concept maps with prescribed terms |
|---|---|
| Curriculum | 13 |
| Methods | 13 |
| New perspectives | 13 |
| Classroom atmosphere | 13 |
| Knowledge | 13 |
| Intrapersonal characteristics | 12 |
| Media | 12 |
| Student | 12 |
| Ability | 11 |
| Limits/rules | 11 |
| Idea | 11 |
| Cognitive process | 11 |
| Teacher | 11 |
| Originality/innovation | 11 |
| Problem | 11 |
| Reflection | 11 |
| Adequacy/usefulness | 10 |
| Social environment | 10 |
| Assessment | 8 |
| Behavior | 8 |
| Social conventions | 7 |
| Product | 4 |
Quantitative evaluation
When comparing the numbers of the terms and propositions between both of the concept maps, it is noticeable that the numbers are higher related to the concept maps with prescribed terms (see Table 14). This suggests that the prescribed terms seem to stimulate new think processes and associations to creativity. In addition, the higher numbers of terms and propositions indicate that the participants were able to use the prescribed terms and link those to creativity. This is also shown in the high number of prescribed terms used in the concept maps by the teachers. All participants used half of the prescribed terms or more. This leads to the assumption that it was easy for the teachers to link the terms to creativity and, therefore, the teachers have a profound understanding of creativity. In contrast to that, there are many less connected terms in both concept maps. Usually, many less connected terms are combined with many star structures in the concept maps. Therefore, the teachers seem to have a broad, but superficial understanding of creativity. The results of the structural analysis will provide information on the connectivity of the understanding.The most frequently and the less frequently used terms in the concept maps with prescriptions are shown in Table 2.
More than half of the participants brought twenty of the given terms into their concept maps. Eighteen of these terms were used in ten or more concept maps. This means that many of the teachers who participated in this study could connect the terms to creativity easily. The terms “Curriculum”, “Methods”, “New Perspectives”, “Classroom atmosphere” and “Knowledge” seem to be important related to creativity for the majority of the teachers. It can be assumed that most of the views and conceptions are related to those terms. The terms “Product” and “Social Conventions” are only rarely used in the concept maps. This leads to the assumption that the majority of the teachers had difficulties to connect those terms to creativity or they could not connect those at all. These terms seem to have a minor importance for the participants with respect to the integration of creativity in chemistry classes. It is to show in the qualitative analysis what importance the most frequently and the less frequently used terms have.
Regarding the most frequently used terms in the concept maps without prescriptions, it was found that nine participants used “Creativity” and six participants used “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” in the concept maps. Thus, the teachers established a connection to creativity in general or creativity in chemistry classes in almost all of the concept maps. Furthermore, the term “Experiment” was found in eight concept maps.
Qualitative evaluation
For the qualitative evaluation, the concept maps, the propositions of the concept maps in the form of a table, the answers in the questionnaire, and the transcripts of the think-aloud recordings were used. All data was analysed using the category catalogue in Table 3.| Creativity in chemistry classes | Creativity |
|---|---|
| Attitude | Individual definition |
| Implementation | Influencing factors on creativity |
| Conditions for implementation | Characteristics |
| Obstacles to implementation | Influencing factors on general processes in class |
| Consequences and effects | Creativity in non-school activities and in everyday life |
| Students' and teachers' roles |
The qualitative analysis of the structures and propositions of the concept maps as well as the statements in the questionnaires and think-aloud transcripts will follow.
Structural analysis
The structures of the concept maps were analysed using the five types presented in Fig. 1.Regarding the centres, many similarities can be found between the concept maps. Thus, the teachers recognized at least one of the given terms “Creativity” and “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” as a center in the concept maps with prescribed terms. In each case, four participants placed the terms “Teacher” or “Student” in the center. Both of the terms build the center in three concept maps. Twelve participants positioned the terms “Creativity” or “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” in the center of the concept maps without prescribed terms. In most cases, the centers corresponded to the terms with the most connections in the concept maps. Therefore, these terms are of particular importance. Table 4 shows the structures that predominate in the concept maps.
| Structure | Star | Chain | Circle | Tree | Network |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of structures in the concept maps without prescribed terms | 9 | 7 | 0 | 10 | 7 |
| Number of structures in the concept maps with prescribed terms | 11 | 12 | 4 | 12 | 9 |
The structures always refer only to specific areas or terms in a concept map. An example of different structures in a concept map is given in Fig. 2. As described in Table 4, the number of all structures for the concept maps with prescribed terms increases compared to the concept maps without prescriptions. The numbers of terms and propositions also increases for the concept maps with prescribed terms (see Table 14). This suggests that the terms provided stimulated new links and new thought processes when creating the concept map.
 | ||
| Fig. 2 Example of a concept map without prescribed terms made by a teacher participated in this study. “Creativity” is in the centre of the concept map. There is a network structure build around this term because of many ingoing and outgoing connections. In the right area of the concept maps, there are many tree structures, including, for example, the terms “Problem-solving”, “Independent experimentation” and “Scientific path of knowledge”. There is a star structure created around the term “Practice/Apply/Transfer” because of one ingoing and many outgoing connections. | ||
The number of network structures and the high number of tree structures in the concept maps suggest that there are many terms that are well-networked, which means a deep understanding or knowledge. Nevertheless, the equally high number of star and chain structures also shows that there are many areas where is only a superficial understanding present, which also has little depth. Both the star and the network structures were often created around the centres of a concept map. As already stated, the many star structures accompany with many less connected terms. Fig. 3 shows an example of a concept map with prescribed terms including star structures and some less connected terms. Eight teachers connected the term “Limits/Rules” less. This is the term which is connected less to the other terms most frequently. Seven participants connected the terms “Adequacy/Usefulness”, “Knowledge” and “Curriculum” less to the other terms. Many teachers seemed to have difficulties to connect those terms to the concept of creativity or to other terms. The concept maps without prescriptions also include many less connected terms all over, but there are only a few matches between the participants.
 | ||
| Fig. 3 Example of a concept map with prescribed terms made by a teacher participated in this study. There are two star structures created around the terms “Creativity in Chemistry Class” and “Creativity”. The terms with only one ingoing connection are less connected ones. | ||
Content analysis
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Affirmative | “Creativity in chemistry classes improves [the] classroom atmosphere” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes is important for students” | |
| “Creativity [is] a prerequisite [for] methods” – “methods provide variety [and] motivation” | |
| Dismissive/critical | “Creativity in chemistry classes [is associated with] own hypotheses [and] new perspectives” – “new perspectives [are] questionable [relating to] factual knowledge” |
This affirmative attitude also reflected in the think-aloud transcripts and the answers of the questionnaires. Here, all participants stated that they consider the promotion of creativity among students as an important aim within the lessons. There were also two critical attitudes revealed in the think-aloud transcripts. The two teachers considered creativity to be important within the lessons, but they thought that teaching skills and experimental methodological skills were more important.
The answers of the questionnaires also showed that fourteen teachers wanted creativity to play a bigger role in their future lessons. One participant gave a negative answer and put forward the opinion that the creativity, which is already integrated in the lesson, is sufficient. The reasons for the positive answers differed widely, but most of them were referring to the encouragement of the students through creativity. They thought that creativity fosters problem-solving competences, increases interest, motivation, and self-confidence, leads to a better integration of the students in the lessons, encourages as well as stimulates students to be able to develop ideas. Three teachers also highlighted the benefits of creativity for life within the society and the future occupation. The think-aloud transcripts provided further explanations of their answers. Two teachers wanted creativity to play a bigger role in their teaching, but they saw the implementation of creativity as problematic. They described both the time available and the education authority, which sets limits for the teaching, as obstacles.
Overall, a positive attitude appeared when assessing one's own creativity. Eleven teachers considered themselves to be creative persons, but the reasons for the answers given differed. Among other things, the participants wrote, with regard to the lessons, that they can discover new and interesting aspects of discussions, vary the implementation of the lessons, like to experiment, try new and alternative approaches, develop new conceptions, teach issues in a motivating way and support the students' ideas. Regarding their own person, some teachers explained that they always develop new perspectives and ideas, structure different ideas in an unusual way, have varied interests, have a high level of reflexivity, solve situations unconventionally, try out something new. The reasons for the four negative answers referred to the belief that the teachers considered themselves to be factual, scientific and analytical persons. Furthermore, they thought that they need a lot of time to develop new ideas and have difficulties to find alternative implementations of teaching or icebreakers at the beginning of a lesson.
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Use of experiments (8) | “Experimental design requires creativity” |
| “In chemistry classes (method) [for example] open experimental tasks” | |
| “Students' creativity is promoted by problem-oriented teaching, forming hypotheses [and] drawing a conclusion [and] extrapolating from observance to explanation” | |
| Concrete, possibilities of implementing creativity, concepts, methods and media (8) | “Students develop board games related to chemistry” |
| “Exercise/apply/transfer by using (theatre) play, comic strips as protocols [and] videos” | |
| “In chemistry classes (method) [for example] inquiry-based learning” | |
| “Media, for example interactive board [and] videos” | |
| Implementation by using methods and media in general (7) | “Problems are arranged [by] media [and] methods” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes is reflected [in] methods” | |
| “New perspectives [can be] put into practice by using media [and] methods” | |
| Presentation of results (by students) (3) | “Creativity in chemistry classes [by doing] presentation of results [using] PowerPoint presentations, poster [and] drawings” |
| Problem solving (3) | “Problem solving requires creativity” |
| Reference to everyday life (3) | “Models/concepts, ‘transfer’, try to associate the living environment with concepts, [for example with] individual experiences/relationship/friendship” |
The teachers mentioned the use of experiments and specific methods and conceptions of creative teaching most frequently. Apart from the description of implementing creativity with the use of experiments, the teachers explained that planning of experiments and forming hypotheses needs creativity, so creativity can be fostered by open experimental tasks. Here, the students are supposed to plan, carry out and evaluate experiments independently. Eleven teachers highlighted this aspect and the use of experiments in general in the think-aloud transcripts. Two teachers named concrete experiments, which the students could already plan and carry out in the teachers' lessons (“creativity is required in experiments including the oxidation of non-metals”, “we had the problem to investigate copper oxide, red and black copper oxide, how do they differ from each other […], this refers to oxygen content […], then I said, okay, then try to think about how you can prove it in an experiment, and then they started to plan it”). Three other teachers said that creativity includes the modification of experiments.
Apart from the concrete possibilities to implement creativity in class that are named in Table 6, the teachers mentioned further specific methods and media in their concept maps, such as role plays, movies, models, animations, quizzes, memories, concept maps, creative writing tasks, handicrafts, discussions, egg races, and brainstorming. The teachers, who pointed out the implementation of creativity by using methods and media in general, described the media in detail in the think-aloud transcripts. They already used this media in their own lessons. This includes videos of YouTube, animated stories, articles or medieval writings made by themselves (“there are many and very good animated stories”, “you can find this on YouTube”, “I made an introduction of a lesson, for this I made an old papyrus paper, like old papyrus scrolls, and then a very old newspaper article […], so this was an old article from the 17th or 18th century”), and the digital networking in the classroom and what possibilities open up for the classroom by this approach.
Finally, each of two participants described the implementation using differentiation and possibilities for implementing creativity outside the regular chemistry lessons, for example in the seminar subject, in public performances or in replacement lessons. Referring to this aspect, the teachers mentioned the competition “Jugend forscht” (Youth researches) and project weeks as possibilities to implement creativity into the classroom in the think-aloud transcripts. Two other teachers mentioned the use of experimental kits in the classroom in these transcripts.
The answers of the questionnaire provided a positive attitude refer to the implementation of creativity in the lessons, too. Fourteen teachers put forward the opinion that creativity was already integrated in their lessons. The examples of creative teaching situations mentioned in the answers largely corresponded to the statements in the concept maps. Two teachers described a critical attitude referring to the implementation of creativity in class within the think-aloud transcripts. One of them criticized the use of concept maps (“the tendency to use concept maps always annoyed me, and when students shall do that, this often results in no great products, because they do it differently in the subjects”) and the other teacher described her/his experiences based on a learning company referring to separation processes (“we did this kind of learning company, Dr Schmeck, […] and the students looked at me and asked ‘can we get real chemicals?’ […] I have never done it again in this form”).
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Knowledge forms the basis of creativity (6) | “Knowledge creates creativity in chemistry classes” |
| “Knowledge is a requirement [for], supports creativity” | |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes requires expertise” | |
| Media and methods allow or promote creativity (4) | “Media allow creativity in chemistry classes” |
| “Methods and media provide a framework [for] creativity in chemistry classes” | |
| Curriculum (4) | “Curriculum determines methods” |
| Freedom in thinking/associating (3) | “Creativity requires or allows freedom in thinking/lateral thinking” |
| Inclusion of students and their interests (3) | “Core questions [are] what are the students' interests and what questions do the students have” |
| New perspectives/ideas (3) | “New perspectives generate creativity in chemistry classes” |
The think-aloud transcripts showed that the aspect of the curriculum was even more pronounced. A total of seven participants mentioned it and emphasized that the curriculum “does not prevent creativity, but it provides the framework for it a little bit”.
Two participants described further aspects. Therefore, free thinking or freedom in the lessons should allow creativity as well as creativity requires a cognitive process and a reflection. According to two other participants, a person's intrapersonal characteristics play a role, because they decisively determine creativity. Furthermore, the appropriateness and usefulness should be noticed for the implementation of creativity in the classroom and the classroom atmosphere can support creativity. In addition, creativity can be determined by limits and rules, but the teachers did not specify them. This corresponds to the quantitative evaluation, in which limits/rules belong to the most frequently less connected terms.
The think-aloud transcripts provided that limits and rules played a bigger role. Four participants explained that rules and limits “are necessary for the target attainment” and they were important for free experimentation (“so according to their own experimental setup you have to pay attention to safety”).
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Curriculum (6) | “Curriculum prevents creativity in chemistry classes” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes is restricted by the curriculum” | |
| “Curriculum limits creativity in chemistry classes” | |
| Social conventions (3) | “Social conventions limit creativity in chemistry classes” |
| Limits/rules (3) | “Limits and rules limit creativity in chemistry classes” |
Apart from the subcategories described in Table 8, two teachers each presented adequacy/usefulness and the behaviour as well as the intrapersonal characteristics as problems. In addition, financial resources of the school were rarely regarded as a problem for the implementation of creativity in class.
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Motivation/interests/success of students (6) | “Creativity in chemistry classes makes curious about the subject matter” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes motivates students” | |
| “The students' interests increase due to creativity in chemistry classes” | |
| Facilitation of new perspectives and ideas (6) | “Creativity in chemistry classes open up new perspectives” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes facilitates ideas” | |
| Improving the classroom atmosphere (5) | “Creativity in chemistry classes causes a better classroom atmosphere” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes causes a positive classroom atmosphere” | |
| Developing of new methods and media (5) | “Creativity in chemistry classes results in various methods” |
| “Media are developed [by] creativity in chemistry classes” | |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes results in new methods” | |
| Generation of knowledge (4) | “Creativity in chemistry classes generates knowledge” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes allows a connection of prior knowledge” | |
| Promotion of cognitive processes (4) | “Creativity requires, promotes associating/freedom in thinking” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes allows cognitive processes” | |
| Creation of originality and innovation (3) | “Creativity in chemistry classes results in originality and innovation” |
Further explanations were given in the think-aloud transcripts. Therefore, creativity is supposed to cause acceptance and popularity of the subject. In addition, two participants put forward the opinion that creativity can lead to more variety in teaching and in everyday life and facilitate to solve problems.
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Influencing factors by the students (6) | “Students' creativity supports or hinders the organisation of lessons [and] the teacher's role” |
| “Student has an impact on the social environment” | |
| “Student influences ideas, new perspectives, usefulness, reflection [and] knowledge” | |
| Influencing the classroom atmosphere (6) | “Students define [the] classroom atmosphere” |
| “Student ensures a positive classroom atmosphere” | |
| “Students' behaviour influences classroom atmosphere” | |
| Importance of creativity for students or promotion of creativity of students (6) | “Creativity in chemistry classes is important for students” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes should be promoted within students” | |
| “Students need creativity in chemistry classes [to] work on different kinds of tasks” | |
| Tasks of the students (5) | “Students do a reflection and evaluation” |
| “Student solves a problem” | |
| “Taking responsibility [is] the requirement for students' creativity” | |
| Independent planning, performing and evaluation of experiments (5) | “Giving students the responsibility of planning of experiments [is a] requirement for creativity in chemistry classes” |
| “Students evaluate the experiments” | |
| “Students' creativity is promoted by problem-oriented teaching, [for example] planning experiments, forming hypotheses [and] drawing conclusions, extrapolating from observance to explanations” | |
| Influencing factors on students (5) | “Social environment influences students” |
| “Intrapersonal characteristics influence students” | |
| “Social conventions influence skills [and] creativity [of students]” | |
| Motivation and interests of students relating to chemical topics (4) | “Students' living environment [results in] an exploratory creativity [within] practice or experiment” |
| “Addressing students' motivation by producing relevance to everyday life” | |
| Characteristics and skills of the students (4) | “Students have skills” |
| “Students have specific intrapersonal characteristics” | |
| Acquisition and development of knowledge and skills (3) | “Students have and develop skills” |
| “Student expands knowledge” |
Six teachers described the influence that students have on different teaching processes or persons. They are supposed to influence other peoples’ behaviour, support cognitive processes and influence the social environment, knowledge, ideas, new perspectives, usefulness, and reflection.
Five teachers described tasks of the students in their concept maps. According to them, the students are supposed to develop and play games, do a reflection and an evaluation, choose and apply methods and media, discover and solve problems, take responsibility, and use knowledge. The think-aloud transcripts showed that four teachers explained the aspect of the students' self-reflection in detail: “Reflection is important in everyday life as well as in class, because it facilitates the planning and reconsidering of own actions”. Five teachers mentioned the independent planning, performing, evaluation and reflections of experiments by the students in their concept maps as a further aspect regarding the students' tasks. They explained in the think-aloud transcripts that the students could get the opportunity to answer questions revealed from their own experiences independently by using materials provided by the teacher. It should also be possible to develop and try out different approaches.
Five teachers mentioned influencing factors on students in their concept maps. This includes apart from the factors described in Table 10 that the organisation of teaching can support or hinder the students' creativity. Furthermore, the students can be restricted by limits and rules. The think-aloud transcripts revealed that the teachers emphasized the social environment, whereby the parents can have a significant influence on their children (“the social environment always plays an important role, is the educational style of the parents very authoritarian […] or do the parents support the creativity, are the children allowed to mention new ideas at home”).
Four participants mentioned characteristics and skills of the students in their concept maps. In accordance to the statements in Table 10 the participants were of the opinion that students can have different characteristics and skills, but they did not describe these characteristics or skills in detail. According to the teachers, students of a grammar school can differ from students of an Oberschule, because they can work more independently, whereas students of an Oberschule need a structure and help. Furthermore, they mentioned creativity as a skill of students. They explained the fact that students are already showing existing creativity, but this creativity can differ.
The aspect of working in groups only appeared in the think-aloud transcripts. Four teachers said that creativity also includes working together on a problem and developing solutions together. In addition, three teachers pointed out that “the creation of products, which students can show to others, is an important thing for students”.
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Tasks of the teachers (8) | “Teacher stimulates cognitive processes” |
| “Creativity in chemistry classes [is] managed by [the] teacher” | |
| “[There are] difficulties for the teachers: deciding what is important because they [have] many tasks at the same time, [for example] advising, diagnosing, assessing, educating, teaching, safety in the classroom, [and] testing” | |
| Characteristics and skills of the teachers (7) | “Intrapersonal characteristics determine [the] teacher” |
| “Teacher should have creativity” | |
| “Teacher needs intrapersonal characteristics, [for example] own creativity, curiosity, own engagement, interest, walking new paths, asking [and] being a good example” | |
| Choice and development of media and methods (6) | “Teacher chooses/proposes/offers methods” |
| “Teacher develops methods” | |
| “Teacher chooses media” | |
| Relationship with the students (6) | “Teacher communicates with students” |
| “Teachers support students” | |
| “Teacher observes student” | |
| Implementation of reflection and evaluation (4) | “Teacher do a reflection or evaluation” |
| Influencing factors on teachers (4) | “Intrapersonal characteristics shape teacher” |
| “Curriculum has an influence on teacher” | |
| Teachers' influence on the classroom atmosphere (4) | “Teacher determines [the] classroom atmosphere” |
| “Teacher ensures [a] positive classroom atmosphere” | |
| Setting limits and rules by the teacher (3) | “Teacher sets rules” |
| Consideration of the curriculum (3) | “Teacher must consider the curriculum” |
In this category, different tasks of the teacher were mentioned most frequently by a total of eight participants. According to them, the teacher is supposed to develop and use new perspectives, use impulses, stimulate cognitive processes, introduce a reference to everyday life to experiments, create new experiments with the help of their own creativity, support and control creativity in the classroom, define the framework for creativity in the classroom, and recognise and promote students' talents. In addition, the teacher's tasks also include the choice and development of methods and media. The think-aloud transcripts expressed that the participants described the teacher's own creativity she/he has to apply when choosing media and methods. This includes the modification of methods and media depending on the learning group. The participants reported, according to their own experiences, that they “create a memory by oneself” and “create a chain quiz referring to the topic of metals”, and they modified experiments and icebreakers in the beginning of a lesson. Furthermore, two participants mentioned the assessment of, for example, adequacy and usefulness as a task of the teacher.
The think-aloud transcripts showed that three participants went into detail relating to the teacher's tasks, but they were of different opinions. Two participants said that the teacher must control different phases of the lesson and she/he must pick up and motivate the students in different phases of the lesson. However, another participant was of the opinion that the teacher should restrain and not intervene in creative teaching phases, so that the students can develop their ideas independently.
In addition to the intrapersonal characteristics of the teacher, the professional experience was mentioned as a teacher's ability, which creativity should depend on. The think-aloud transcripts revealed that five participants emphasized the teacher's own creativity as an ability. According to them, teachers must be creative when organising lessons as well as in the lessons (“they have to be so flexible that they can give other laboratory equipment to the students”).
In the context of the relationship between teachers and students, four teachers pointed out in the think-aloud transcripts that teachers need to provide students with opportunities and freedom in the classroom so the students can be creative.
In addition, the task of planning and organising the lesson was assigned only rarely to the teacher. However, the think-aloud transcripts revealed that the organisation of teaching is even an important aspect, which was pointed out by seven teachers (“that they coordinate the framework of the lesson, the icebreaker, the experiment, the evaluation”, “of course, the teacher thinks about, if she or he wants to support creativity in class, how she or he can do this”, “I need creativity to look for alternatives and alternative materials, which I can use to set up experiments in another way”). Three participants mentioned the assessment of the students by the teacher in the think-aloud transcripts, but this aspect did not appear in the concept maps. However, these participants do not agree on the assessment. Two participants were of the opinion that the assessment should be differentiated from creativity in the classroom and the knowledge should be assessed. The third teacher thought that different approaches can be assessed.
The think-aloud transcripts also showed that definitions appeared only rarely. Two teachers attributed creativity to the artistic field (“the artistic design of something”, “for me, creativity is something that is connected to art”), two others regarded creativity as a problem-solving ability.
The fact that only a few teachers have defined creativity may be related to the fact that creativity has not been a topic in the academic studies or the traineeship of nine participants. Six teachers answered this question with “yes”, five of which mentioned in the think-aloud transcripts that creativity was a topic in their academic studies. Three said that creativity was a topic in their traineeship. In both cases, creativity has not been explicitly made a subject of discussion.
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| New perspectives and ideas (5) | “Creativity produces idea” |
| “Creativity produces new perspectives” | |
| “Creativity influences idea [and] new perspectives” | |
| Originality and innovation (3) | “Creativity creates originality” |
| Problem solving (3) | “Creativity allows problem solving” |
The think-aloud transcripts revealed that four teachers mentioned characteristics of a creative person. According to them, a creative person should “be open-minded”, “be a very original person” and not be “biased in everyday life”. In addition, a creative person should be able to “think outside the box” and “solve a problem […] faster than trying to go traditional ways or solve problems as doing it every time”.
By using different approaches than a less creative person. One teacher described a creative person as someone who is artistic in everyday life and plays instruments in their leisure time, for example.
| Subcategories | Examples of propositions |
|---|---|
| Influencing factors on new perspectives and ideas (6) | “Methods allow new perspectives” |
| “Intrapersonal characteristics cause ideas” | |
| “Many ideas [can be] stimulated by media [and] social environment ” | |
| Importance of reflection and evaluation (6) | “Product is proved [by using] reflection” |
| “Methods are subject to reflection/evaluation” | |
| “Reflection promotes planning own actions and thinking about them” | |
| Expansion of knowledge (5) | “Problem solving expand knowledge” |
| “Cognitive process produces knowledge” | |
| “New perspectives result in (new) knowledge” | |
| Influencing factors on skills (4) | “Cognitive process increases skills” |
| “Knowledge influences skills” | |
| “New perspectives promotes the skill of correcting wrong thoughts (no stubbornness)” | |
| Influencing factors on problems or problem solving (4) | “Idea allow problem solving” |
| “New perspectives open up problem solving” | |
| Making a product (4) | “Knowledge produces product” |
| “Cognitive process allow product” | |
| Facilitating cognitive processes (3) | “Assessment promotes cognitive process” |
| “Methods influence cognitive process” |
With regard to the skills, these can be influenced and promoted by limits and rules, the social environment, behaviour and usefulness. Furthermore, the teachers described that ideas and new perspectives can allow problem-solving processes, but social conventions can also support these processes. The teachers also described that reflection, media, ideas and new perspectives can lead to a product.
Two of the concept maps included the influence on the atmosphere in the classroom, providing originality, innovation and assessment, and the influence on a person's behaviour. In this context, the teachers described that methods, originality and innovation can facilitate the atmosphere, new perspectives can lead to originality and innovation, new perspectives and products can allow an assessment, and intrapersonal characteristics as well as new perspectives can influence a person's behaviour.
Comparison with the views of German student teachers and the literature data
In the following, the results of this study are compared with the results of a previous study including seventeen German student teachers studying chemistry in a master programme (Semmler and Pietzner, 2017). For this study, the same research instrument including concept maps and a questionnaire is used to investigate the views, concepts and attitudes of the student teachers. Furthermore, a comparison with the literature data related to creativity research and education, which were described in the theoretical background, will be drawn.With regard to the descriptive analysis, higher average numbers of the teachers in all cases can be identified (see Table 14). They integrated more terms into both concept maps and created more propositions, but the differences between both groups is greater with regard to the concept maps with prescribed terms. This accompanies with more less connected terms created by the teachers. Usually this is combined with a high number of star structures in the concept maps. However, as shown in Table 15, the teachers created fewer star structures than the student teachers.
| Category | Teachers | Student teachers |
|---|---|---|
| Number of terms in the concept maps without prescribed terms | 7–33 | 5–18 |
| ∅ 13.7 | ∅ 12.2 | |
| Number of terms in the concept maps with prescribed terms | 13–33 | 14–36 |
| ∅ 20.9 | ∅ 17.2 | |
| Number of propositions in the concept maps without prescribed terms | 6–34 | 6–31 |
| ∅ 18.1 | ∅ 17.5 | |
| Number of propositions in the concept maps with prescribed terms | 12–42 | 16–51 |
| ∅ 27.3 | ∅ 23.7 | |
| Number of prescribed terms used in the concept maps with prescribed terms | 11–22 | 12–18 |
| ∅ 16.3 | ∅ 15.1 | |
| Number of newly added terms in the concept maps with prescribed terms | 0–12 | 0–14 |
| ∅ 2.4 | ∅ 1.3 | |
| Number of less connected terms in the concept maps without prescribed terms | 0–22 | 0–8 |
| ∅ 5.5 | ∅ 2.5 | |
| Number of less connected terms in the concept maps with prescribed terms | 0–20 | 1–13 |
| ∅ 8.1 | ∅ 5.5 |
| Structure | Star (T/S) | Chain (T/S) | Circle (T/S) | Tree (T/S) | Network (T/S) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of structures in the concept maps without prescribed terms | 9/13 | 7/11 | 0/1 | 10/11 | 7/13 |
| Number of structures in the concept maps with prescribed terms | 11/11 | 12/12 | 4/2 | 12/9 | 9/13 |
The aspects described suggest that the teachers have more ideas about creativity than the student teachers do. In addition, they obviously found it easier to associate the prescribed terms with creativity. Nevertheless, the many less connected terms indicate that the teachers hardly connected the terms among each other. Therefore, the teachers' views are more superficial than the ones of the student teachers. The student teachers seemed to better connect the terms. This is confirmed by the structural analysis, because the student teachers created more network structures than the teachers (see Table 15). However, the numbers of star structures created in the concept maps of the teachers contradict this aspect, because the teachers created fewer of them than the student teachers did. This depends on the extent of the star structures, which the teachers created in their concept maps. These structures include more terms that are only less connected. Therefore, there are three teachers who less connected fifteen or more terms, whereas none of the student teachers included such a high number of less connected terms. Especially the views of these teachers seem to be poorly networked.
The terms that were only less connected differ in content from each other. There are three terms, which were less connected by the student teachers and the teachers: “knowledge”, “curriculum” and “social environment”. The student teachers added the terms “media”, “methods”, “ability” and “originality/innovation”. The terms “media” and “methods” are of special interest, because they were only less connected by the student teachers. This is maybe related to the fact that the student teachers have fewer professional experience than the teachers. The content analysis of the concept maps also show that the teachers mentioned more possibilities to implement creativity in class such as concrete methods and media. They also used those by themselves in their lessons.
Relating to the use of the prescribed terms in the concept maps, similarities between student teachers and teachers appear. Both groups used the terms “curriculum”, “new perspectives”, “methods”, “classroom atmosphere”, “knowledge”, “media”, and “student” most frequently. They used the term “product” only rarely. This is problematic, because the product is an important aspect in the 4P-E-model by Urban (1995) as well as in the definition of NACCCE (1999). Furthermore, Simonton (2004) emphasised the special role of a product in the context of scientific processes. The importance of the product in the context of a creative process should therefore be discussed in professional development courses. With respect to the concept maps without prescribed terms, the teachers and the student teachers integrated the same terms most frequently. In particular, this includes the terms “creativity” and “creativity in chemistry classes”. This indicate that they already have an understanding of creativity in general and in the context of chemistry classes, although they did not get any input about that topic. The student teachers also frequently added the term “motivation” to their concept maps. According to Simonton (2004) this is an important characteristic that promotes creativity and creative potential in a person.
Referring to the content analysis of the propositions in the concept maps and the answers in the questionnaire, many similarities between teachers and student teachers appear. Overall, a positive attitude appeared of all teachers and student teachers towards creativity in chemistry classes in the concept maps and the answers in the questionnaire. All teachers and student teachers indicated in the questionnaire that they consider the promotion of the students' creativity an important aim in chemistry lessons. The clear majority of all participants wanted creativity to play a greater role in their future lessons. The student teachers mentioned the same reasons for that as the teachers. This positive attitude was also shown in the positive effects and consequences, which were described by the teachers and student teachers. All participants described only positive consequences and effects. The student teachers' statements largely correspond to those of the teachers. In addition, the student teachers mentioned the change of the acquisition of knowledge, the promotion of the students' independence and the support of learning.
According to Newton and Newton (2009), the positive attitude towards creativity is an adequate condition for actually implementing creativity in chemistry lessons. Based on the examples of teaching situations given in the questionnaires and the experiences in their own teaching described by the teachers and the student teachers, it can be concluded that creativity has already been integrated in the chemistry lessons. The teachers also described their experiences, which they gained by using creative methods in chemistry class, but not all of these experiences were positive. Furthermore, the teachers included a critical position regarding the role of creativity in future lessons. Due to the professional experience, the teachers have a more critical and distanced view of the integration of creativity in chemistry classes.
When assessing their own creativity, eleven student teachers as well as teachers considered themselves creative persons. In line with the report of NACCCE (1999), this is an adequate prerequisite for promoting the student teachers' creative abilities and being a good example related to creativity.
There are similarities between teachers and student teachers not only relating to the consequences of creativity in chemistry class, but also the other categories. Accordingly, the teachers' as well as student teachers' focus were on the use of experiments related to contents and possibilities of implementing creativity in chemistry classes. Newton and Newton (2009) also consider this aspect an important one with respect to the implementation of creativity in chemistry classes. Especially teachers emphasised the independent planning, performing and evaluating of experiments by the students. This aspect fits the demands to creative scientific teaching given by Craft (2005) and Kind and Kind (2007). Teachers as well as student teachers also mentioned the implementation of creativity using methods and media. As mentioned earlier, the teachers described concrete creative methods and media more frequently. Participants of both groups mentioned in the questionnaires that they already integrated creativity in their own chemistry lessons, but the teachers described more possibilities and experiences of implementing creativity in chemistry class. The methods described by the teachers correspond to the new and various teaching methods and open teaching concepts, which Kind and Kind (2007) demanded. The media mentioned by the teachers partly correspond to the new media that are described by Fautley and Savage (2007). The teachers did not describe the use of models, but the student teachers mentioned this aspect. Furthermore, both groups mentioned the inquiry-based learning concept, the variation of contents of experiments, the problem solving processes and the reference to everyday life as possibilities of implementing creativity. In addition to that, the teachers were of the opinion that creativity is implemented in the presentation of results and it can be developed outside of chemistry classes, for example in seminar subjects or project weeks. Kind and Kind (2007) also described this aspect.
Regarding the conditions for implementing creativity in chemistry class, the student teachers mentioned all aspects, which were also pointed out by the teachers. However, the number of mentions differ. Above all, the teachers emphasised the knowledge that was also highlighted by Weisberg (1999) as an important condition to be able to work creatively. Both groups also described the orientation towards the students and the inclusion of the students' interests, which were already mentioned by Kind and Kind (2007) and Craft (2005). Furthermore, the teachers and the student teachers considered the cognitive process and a reflection to be necessary conditions for creativity in chemistry class. Thus, they mentioned an important aspect of 4P-E-model by Urban (1995). The aspects related to the cognitive process that were described by the teachers represent the phases of a creative process (Craft, 2005; DeHaan, 2009; Sawyer, 2012). Teachers as well as student teachers emphasised setting limits and rules, but the teachers referred in detail to setting rules for students before they are experimenting. In the literature, however, a crossing of these limits and rules is required (Craft, 2003). But it is a necessary thought regarding the students' safety when experimenting. Furthermore, some teachers emphasised that the curriculum provide the framework for creativity in chemistry class, but it does not restrict creativity. The student teachers mentioned the dependence of creativity on the teacher herself/himself more frequently. Therefore, the teacher should act as a moderator in the classroom and she/he should be able to plan and change teaching processes flexibly. However, both groups largely lack a description of a creativity-supporting environment in the classroom, as Kind and Kind (2007) described one.
Although some teachers considered the curriculum as a framework for creativity, many teachers and student teachers mentioned this aspect as a problem for implementing creativity in class. This coincides with the results of the study by Cachia and Ferrari (2010). However, the student teachers perceived the curriculum as a problem more frequently. Furthermore, the student teachers and teachers were of the opinion that social conventions, limits and rules and the intrapersonal characteristics or the teachers' and students' behaviour are supposed to be obstacles for implementing creativity. The student teachers also consider the assessment as problematic. All participants lack a more detailed concept of the assessment such as Joubert's (2001) concept. In addition, the teachers mentioned the school's equipment and time problems related to the category of obstacles.
With respect to the students' role, the teachers mainly focused on the independent work of the students. They mentioned the independent reflection by them. Therefore, they agree with Joubert's (2001) view on reflection. The tasks of the students described by the teachers and the student teachers represent important phases of the creative process, which were also presented by Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (2014), DeHaan (2009) and Runco (2004). Furthermore, both teachers and student teachers mentioned the influence on students by intrapersonal characteristics and the social environment, but they also mentioned the influence of the students on different teaching processes. In this context, the teachers emphasised the influence of the social environment, especially related to the family. They also described characteristics and skills of students, which are important with respect to the teaching situation, as well as the importance of creativity for the students. The intrapersonal characteristics are supposed to include creativity. Therefore, the participants agree with Sawyer's (2012) view, according to which every person has creative potential, but it can be developed differently. In contrast to the student teachers' statements, the teachers lack a description of motivation as a creativity-promoting characteristic (Simonton, 2004). The master student focused more on the inclusion of students in lesson planning and design.
Regarding the teacher' role, the statements of teachers and student teachers agree for the most part of this category. There are some aspects that were only pointed out by the teachers. These include characteristics and skills of the teacher and the relationship with the students. The characteristics described by the teachers correspond partly to those mentioned in the literature. Therefore, the teachers are supposed to be curious and open-minded (Fautley and Savage, 2007), have the necessary knowledge (Weisberg, 1999), and be a good example related to creativity (Fasko, 2001; Craft, 2005). The communication with the students as well as the praise for unusual approaches, which were mentioned by the teachers, correspond to the creative behaviour described by Craft (2005) and Fasko (2001). Relating to the change of the teacher's role, student teachers and teachers were in disagreement. In this context, only the student teachers were of the opinion that teachers are supposed to change their traditional role. This correspond to Safran's (2001) view.
Only a few teachers as well as student teachers mentioned a definition of creativity. However, the definitions given by the teachers and student teachers differ. The student teachers defined creativity to be an ability or an intrapersonal characteristic, whereas the teachers associated creativity with arts. The latter represent a rather limited concept of creativity, which is an outdated definition, because creativity can be applied to all areas of life (Kind and Kind, 2007). To see creativity as an ability or skill corresponds to the definition of creativity by NACCCE (1999). In addition, creativity rarely was a topic during the participants' studies or traineeship. Seven student teachers and six teachers suggested that creativity have been part of their academic studies of traineeship.
The teachers rarely mentioned influencing factors on creativity. The student teachers created more propositions related to this category. In addition to the aspects described by the teachers, the student teachers also mentioned the intrapersonal characteristics, ideas, individual experiences, media and freedom as influencing factors. With respect to the characteristics of creativity, the student teachers pointed out more aspects here. They also described the aspects mentioned by the teachers, for example new perspectives, ideas, originality and innovation. Guilford (1968) also named these aspects. The teachers did not mention adequacy, the crossing of limits and imagination (Craft, 2003; Runco, 2004; Kind and Kind, 2007). Nevertheless, the student teachers pointed out the two aspects mentioned first and they added the aspects of the creativity's variety, cognitive processes and products including creativity, and allowing different approaches to knowledge by creativity. Furthermore, the teachers mentioned one aspect that was not pointed out by the student teachers. This is related to the characteristics of a creative person. These as well as the teacher's characteristics described by the teachers correspond partly to the characteristics presented in the literature (Fasko, 2001; Simonton, 2004; Fautley and Savage, 2007).
Related to the influencing factors on general processes in class, the student teachers and teachers highlighted influencing factors on the acquisition of knowledge, the problem-solving process and the cognitive process. The student teachers focused on the cognitive process. According to them, these should result in new perspectives and ideas, but the aspects can also influence intrapersonal characteristics. The teachers mentioned more aspects in this category, for example the influence on new perspectives and ideas and the importance of reflection and evaluation. The student teachers did not mention those.
Statements on creativity in non-school activities or in everyday life could be found only in the concept maps and questionnaires of the teachers. They referred to the use of creativity in the professional world and their own everyday life. Therefore, the teachers as well as the student teachers seem to be unaware of the importance of creativity for the professional world and other areas of the environment, which is described by Urban (1991, 1995).
Discussion
Although there are many similarities between the results of the teachers and the results of the student teachers, there are some differences that are of interest. The knowledge about possibilities to implement creativity in class seems to depend on the professional experiences of the participants. The teachers tested a lot of creative methods in their lessons, they changed methods and created new media depending on the learning group. Furthermore, they developed a more critical and reflected view on creativity because of their experiences with creativity in class. This shows that creative methods or concepts described in the literature can not be implemented in every class and that teachers need creativity to modify the methods. Although the teachers seem to have more experiences with using creativity in class, they also have a more critical view on it than the student teachers. This could be problematic because bad experiences and critical views may result in planning and performing chemistry lessons without integrating creativity at all.Another aspect is the association of creativity with arts. This obsolete understanding seems to be enshrined in some teachers' minds. It has to be changed and expanded in teacher training, so that the teachers can identify different creative skills and behavious in their students apart from creating drawings. Maybe this aspect is depending on the age of the participants. The student teachers are on average younger than the chemistry teachers and they have another or at least a deeper understanding of creativity in general.
With respect to the methods, the think-aloud transcripts allow to gain a comprehensive insight into the teachers' conceptions of creativity and in the actual teaching practice. As described in the evaluation of the data, the teachers not only went into detail regarding separate terms and concepts, but they also talked about their own experiences gathered in their own lessons in relation to creativity. In addition, the think-aloud transcripts revealed statements, which the teachers did not mention in the concept maps. A lack of space, difficulties of phrasing or uncertainties regarding the involvement or connection of terms could be reasons for this. The participants themselves mentioned these aspects in the think-aloud transcripts. Thus, it can be stated that the method of think-aloud has supplemented the concept maps and the questionnaire by comprehensive information. Therefore, the use of the method was adequate for this study. Furthermore, the researchers could rely on the think-aloud transcripts during the evaluation of the propositions in the concept maps to ensure a correct understanding. As a result, interpretations and allocations of terms and propositions become more objective and transparent.
Limitations
One problem of carrying out this study was the selection of the sample. The participants answered a circular letter, in which the topic and the purpose of the study were already mentioned. Therefore, it can be assumed that teachers, who already have an interest in creativity or are advancing the view that creativity already is a part of their chemistry lessons, predominantly answered this letter. Furthermore, the teachers have been given the opportunity by the circular letter to prepare for that topic. Therefore, it can not be expected that the teachers express their thoughts spontaneously. However, it was not possible to gain participants in a different way. The distribution according to age, sex and type of school is also problematic. This also refers to the answers of the circular letter. Because of little feedback, the distribution could be influenced only marginally. The sample is too little to derive results related to the different types of school or the professional experience. More teachers have to be investigated to get useful results.By using the methods of concept mapping and thinking out loud, difficulties can occur. Creating a concept map can be a difficult task for someone who have never created a concept map before. A training course about creating concept maps could help to avoid problems or uncertainties with it, but such a course would take a lot of time. The teachers participated in this study are from different schools in different cities, therefore, it is not possible to assemble all of them to participate in a training course. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether all teachers would take part in a training course only to participate in one study. Because of the extensive data collected in this study the example of a concept map seems to be sufficiently for this study. Furthermore, the teachers had the possibility to ask the researcher, if problems with the creation of concept maps appear, or they could talk about their thoughts without writing them down.
Difficulties by using the think-aloud method can refer to the adequate articulation of cognitive processes by the participant, the completeness of the verbalized thoughts and the possible modification of cognitive performances through the immediate verbalisation (Nielsen et al., 2002). To avoid these problems, note only the think-aloud method was used, but also concept maps and the questionnaire. However, the problems described can be neglected, since the transcripts are mainly used to confirm the data from the concept maps and questionnaires and to understand particular propositions. Nevertheless, the statements in the think-aloud transcripts were also evaluated to gain knowledge that goes beyond the written propositions.
There are also limitations referring to the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the data in this study. The sample in this study is too small to deduce generally results from the data. This is especially problematic for the quantitative analyses and also for counting the structures and propositions of the concept maps. But it is not the purpose of the quantitative evaluation to obtain results that can be generalised. The quantitative evaluation is only limited to descriptive analyses of the data and it is supposed to support the qualitative evaluation. Furthermore, it is supposed to help classifying the propositions, terms and structures used and created in the concept maps and to highlight the importance of concepts and aspects of creativity for the teachers in this study. This also applies for the comparison of the results of chemistry teachers and student teachers. To obtain results that can be generalised it is necessary to carry out further studies including larger samples of teachers and student teachers. Nonetheless, it is possible to draw conclusion to possible topics of teacher training and seminars dealing with creativity in chemistry class. To verify, modify or to expand these results it is also necessary to carry out further investigations.
Conclusion
The evaluation of the data in this study has revealed that all of the participating teachers have a positive attitude towards creativity. In addition, many teachers considered themselves to be creative and they are open-minded towards creativity. The reasons they gave for their own creative abilities reflect creativity-promoting characteristics. These are good prerequisites to implement creativity in their classes, according to Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005), Newton and Newton (2009) and NACCCE (1999). Actually, many teachers have already implemented creativity in their classes and gained experiences with it. The teachers participated in this study already have a broad knowledge about possibilities to implement creativity in the class, the phases of a creative process described by Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (2014), DeHaan (2009) and Runco (2004), and the tasks and roles of students and teachers. The knowledge about the possibilities to implement creativity in class are broader than the knowledge of student teachers, maybe due to the professional experience of the teachers. The aspects mentioned by the teachers correspond to the open teaching methods and strategies mentioned by Fasko (2001) and Kind and Kind (2007). This knowledge is a positive determination, especially regarding the fact that creativity was not a part of their academic studies or traineeship. Thus, the teachers have dealt with creativity independently and tried different methods, media and concepts in their lessons. However, the teachers participating in this study already had the intention to integrate creativity in their lessons. It is important to emphasise the importance of creativity to all teachers in teacher training and to develop the ability to integrate creativity in class by activating their own creative potential and giving them the necessary knowledge, for example.Nevertheless, the most important findings of this study are the negative experiences and the critical views of the teachers. In contrast to the student teachers' statements the teachers did not speak about positive experiences at all. These negative experiences maybe resulted from the knowledge gaps regarding the conditions for the integration of creativity in class, the teacher's role in class or the creativity-promoting characteristics. Those negative experiences can result in the situation that teachers do not use creative methods or teaching concepts at all. To prevent this from happening, it is important that teachers get the opportunity to exchange experiences and expand their knowledge. Therefore, teachers can reflect their use of creative methods and maybe learn to handle problems when using those. Here, it is of particular importance that teachers of different ages, different types of schools and with different professional experiences can exchange in those courses. The knowledge gaps already described before should become a subject of discussion so that teachers know how to prepare a creativity-promoting environment and how to act in creative teaching processes. In addition, such negative attitudes and experiences have to be prevented in the academic studies. It is important that student teachers learn to use creative methods in an appropriate way and respond to such difficulties. This is also important in order to maintain the positive attitudes of the student teachers and their will to integrate creativity in class. Furthermore, some teachers separate creativity from sciences and associate it with arts. This is an obsolete view on creativity because it is accepted by now that creativity is integrated in all professions and areas and every person have creative potential (NACCCE, 1999; Kind and Kind, 2007). This view has to be changed and extended in teacher training, so that the teachers know that creativity can be seen from different perspectives. This aspect shows that teachers and student teachers have different understandings of creativity, maybe depending on their age, because student teachers did not mention a connection to arts. Therefore, teachers and student teachers need different training including different topics. Nevertheless, it is an expedient development that the student teachers including in the previous study have a newer understanding of creativity. The knowledge about an actual definition of creativity is important to identify different creative potentials in students and to promote these potentials by using different strategies. Furthermore, the limited view on creativity can restrict the person's own creative skills.
Knowledge gaps have not only appeared in the definition of creativity, but also in the statements regarding creativity in general, naming of creativity-promoting characteristics (Westby and Dawson, 1995; Fasko, 2001; Fautley and Savage, 2007; Simonton, 2004; Sawyer, 2012), descriptions of a creativity-promoting classroom environment (Fasko, 2001; Joubert, 2001; Craft, 2005; DeHaan, 2009), the change of the traditional teacher's role (Safran, 2001) and the assessment of creativity (Joubert, 2001). Knowledge about creativity in general, for example about the creativity-promoting characteristics, is important for teachers to identify, stimulate and promote those characteristics in their students. This seems to depend on the age of the teachers, because student teachers mentioned more aspects regarding creativity in general. Thus, it is the teacher's task to create a creativity-promoting classroom environment, which supports the development of the students' creative skills and behaviour. This also includes a change in the traditional teacher's role (Safran, 2001). The teachers should be made aware of these aspects in teacher training because the teachers provide the framework in class, which allows or hinders students to be creative.
Furthermore, the teachers rarely appreciated the importance of creativity for the professional world. The teachers should discuss about this aspect in teacher training because they have to make students be aware of the importance of creativity for technical and scientific occupations. The students need creative skills to assert themselves in the professional world and stand out from the crowd (Sawyer, 2012; Ward, 2007).
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.References
- Aljughaiman A. and Mowrer-Reynolds E., (2005), Teachers' Conceptions of Creativity and Creative Students, Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17–34.
- Andiliou A. and Murphy P. K., (2010), Examining variations among researchers' and teachers' conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research, Educ. Res. Rev., 5(3), 201–219.
- Baer J. and Garrett T., (2010), Teaching for Creativity in an Era of Content Standards and Accountability, in R. Beghetto and J. Kaufman (ed.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6–19.
- Boren M. T. and Ramey J., (2000), Think Aloud: Reconciling Theory and Practice, IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., 43(3), 261–278.
- Borstel G. v. and Böhm A., (2005), Bau eines Schaumlöschers. Ein Egg-Race mit medizinischen Geräten, [Construction of a Foam Extinguisher, An Egg-Race using Medical Equipment.], Unterr. Chem., 14(75), 42–44.
- Cachia R. and Ferrari A., (2010), Creativity in Schools: A Survey of Teachers in Europe, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, retrieved 15 March 2016 from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC59232.pdf.
- Craft A., (2003), The Limits to Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator, Br. J. Educ. Stud., 51(2), 113–127.
- Craft A., (2005), Creativity in Schools, Tensions and Dilemmas, New York: Routledge.
- Csikszentmihalyi M. and Sawyer K., (2014), Creative Insight: The Social Dimension of a Solitary Moment, in M. Csikszentmihalyi (ed.), The Systems Model of Creativity. The Collected Works of Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 73–98.
- DeHaan R. L., (2009), Teaching Creativity and Inventive Problem Solving in Science, CBE – Life Sciences Education, 8, 172–181.
- Ericsson K. A. and Simon H. A., (1980), Verbal Reports as Data, Psychol. Rev., 87(3), 215–251.
- Fasko D., (2001), Education and Creativity, Creat. Res. J., 13(3&4), 317–327.
- Fautley M. and Savage J., (2007), Creativity in Secondary Education, Exeter: Learning Matters.
- Feldman D. H., (1999), The Development of Creativity, in R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–187.
- Flick U., (2004), Triangulation in Qualitative Research, in U. Flick, E. V. Kardoff and I. Steinke (ed.), A Companion to Qualitative Research, London: SAGE Publications, pp. 178–183.
- Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, (2014a), IHMC Cmap Analysis Tool, Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, retrieved 10 March 2015 from http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Miscellaneous/CmapAnalysis.shtml.
- Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, (2014b), IHMC CmapTools, Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, retrieved 09 February 2015 from http://cmap.ihmc.us/cmaptools/.
- Fonteyn M. E., Kuipers B. and Grobe S. J., (1993), A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis, Qual. Health Res., 3(4), 430–441.
- Fryer M. and Collings J. A., (1991), Teachers' Views about Creativity, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(2), 207–219.
- Gärtner H.-J. and Borstel G.v., (2003), Kohlenstoffdioxid und Wettbewerb. “Egg-Races” in der Sekundarstufe I, [Carbon dioxide and competition. “Egg-Races” in lower secondary education], Unterr. Chem., 14(78), 19–21.
- Guilford J. P., (1968), Intelligence, Creativity and their educational Implications, San Diego: R. R. Knapp.
- Joubert M. M., (2001), The Art of Creative Teaching: NACCCE and Beyond, in A. Craft, B. Jeffrey and M. Liebling (ed.), Creativity in education, London: Continuum, pp. 17–34.
- Kampylis P., Berki E. and Saariluoma P., (2009), In-service and prospective teachers' conceptions of creativity, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29.
- Kinchin I. M., (2013), Concept mapping and the fundamental problem of moving between knowledge structures, Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 4(1), 96–106.
- Kind P. M. and Kind V., (2007), Creativity in Science Education: Perspectives and Challenges for Developing School Science, Stud. Sci. Educ., 43, 1–37.
- MAXQDA, (1989–2017), Software für qualifizierte Datenanalyse [Software for qualified analyses of data], VERBI Software, Consult, Sozialforschung GmbH: Berlin, Deutschland.
- Mayring P., (2014), Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution, Klagenfurt: Beltz, retrieved 23 November 2016 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
- National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE), (1999), All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, London: Department for Education and Employment, retrieved 16 February 2016 from http://sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf.
- Newton D. P. and Newton L. D., (2009), Some student teachers' conceptions of creativity in school science, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 27(1), 45–60.
- Nielsen J., Clemmensen T. and Yssing C., (2002), Getting access to what goes on in people's heads? – Reflections on the think-aloud technique, NordiCHI '02 Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, pp. 101–110.
- Novak J. D. and Cañas A. J., (2008), The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, retrieved 14 October from http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
- Orth J. M. and Hilgers U., (2006), Einführung in das Teilchenmodell durch Lernen an Stationen, [Introduction to Particle Model by Working-at-Stations exercises.], Prax. Naturwiss., Chem. Sch., 55(3), 10–22.
- Runco M. A., (2004), Creativity, Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 55(1), 657–687.
- Safran L., (2001), Creativity as ‘Mindful’ Learning: A Case from Learner-Led Home-Based Education, in A. Craft, B. Jeffrey and M. Liebling (ed.), Creativity in education, London: Continuum, pp. 80–91.
- Sawyer R. K., (2012), Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation, USA: Oxford University Press.
- Schwarz P. and Lutz B., (2004), Kreativer Chemieunterricht. Mikrochemische Experimente in der Schule, [Creative Chemistry Lessons. Microchemical Experiments in School.], Unterr. Chem., 15(81), 4–9.
- Semmler L. and Pietzner V., (2017), Creativity in chemistry class and in general – German student teachers' views, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 310–328.
- Simonton D. K., (2004), Creativity in Science. Chance, Logic, Genius and Zeitgeist, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Steinke I., (2004), Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research, in A Companion to Qualitative Research, London: SAGE Publications, 184–190.
- Urban K. K., (1991), Recent Trends in Creativity Research and Theory in Western Europe, European Journal of High Ability, 1(1), 33–113.
- Urban K. K., (1995), Different Models in Describing, Exploring, Explaining and Nurturing Creativity in Society, European Journal of High Ability, 6(2), 143–159.
- Van Someren M. W., Barnard Y. F. and Sandberg J. A. C., (1994), The think aloud method: a practical approach to modelling cognitive processes. (Knowledge-based systems), London: Adacemic Press.
- Ward, T. B., (2007), The Multiple Roles of Educators in Children's Creativity, in A.-G. Tan (ed.), Creativity. A Handbook for Teachers, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, pp. xvii–xxx.
- Weisberg R. W., (1999), Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to Theories, in R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 226–250.
- Westby E. L. and Dawson V. L., (1995), Creativity: Asset or Burden in the Classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1–10.
- Witteck T. and Eilks I., (2006), Using the learning company approach to allow students to investigate acids and bases, Sch. Sci. Rev., 88(323), 95–102.
- Yin Y., Vanides J., Ruiz-Primo M. A., Ayala C. C. and Shavelson R. J., (2005), Comparison of Two Concept-Mapping Techniques: Implications for Scoring, Interpretation, and Use, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(2), 166–184.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 |