Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity
journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/tscCreative children in a robust learning environment: Perceptions of
special education teacher candidates
Sule Gucyeter
a,*, Sezen Camci Erdogan
b aUsak University, Faculty of Education, Special Education Department, TurkeybIstanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Education, Special Education Department, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:
Creative child
Special education teacher candidate Learning environment
Perceptions of creative child Creativity in special education
A B S T R A C T
How special education teacher candidates perceive the creative children in learning environ-ments? To examine this question, we asked teacher candidates about their feelings for creative children, and their perceptions of creative children’s characteristics, gender, and effects on the learning environment. In this qualitative study, an online form was developed and data were gathered from 105 special education teacher candidates. Findings revealed that the majority of the participants considered males to be more creative, and the most frequently expressed char-acteristics have been original, curious, different, productive, flexible, imaginative, and in-telligent. Most of the participants had positive feelings about having a creative child in the classroom and also thought that a creative child had positive effects on the entire learning en-vironment including peers and teachers. On the other hand, participants expressed that creative child would be negatively affected because of feeling bored, being excluded from peers and being envied by peers. This study can contribute to the literature on the awareness of the character-istics, gender bias, and effects of the creative children to the learning environment from the viewpoint of special education teacher candidates who are responsible to teach not only gifted students but also students with disability.
1. Introduction
Teachers are important actors in improving creativity in children. Teachers are expected to support creative thinking in their students (Karwowski, Gralewski, Patston, Cropley, & Kaufman, 2020;Soh, 2000) so that they may be better able to keep up with the fast changing and complex world today and take initiative by thinking creatively. It is, therefore, essential that the perceptions of teachers and teacher candidates towards creative children in their classrooms should be determined in order for a more effective and supportive learning environment. By examining, teacher candidates’ perceptions of creative children, the implicit theories of can-didates about creativity can be inferred. Thus, the results of this study may contribute to revising the contents of the instruction about creativity for teacher training programs.
The contribution of creativity and productivity to the development of a country and its existence in global competition is an indisputable reality. Therefore, societies endeavor to integrate creative thinking skills into the education system, starting from preschool and throughout the lifelong learning process. Developing these skills applies to learners of all types and levels. What is expected from education in today’s societies is to educate each individual using his/her higher-order thinking skills effectively, especially the creative thinking skills. Creativity is not innate or invariable, but on the contrary, it is a skill that can be developed
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100675
Received 19 January 2020; Received in revised form 5 June 2020; Accepted 7 June 2020 ⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses:sule.gucyeter@usak.edu.tr(S. Gucyeter),scamci@istanbul.edu.tr(S. Camci Erdogan).
Available online 16 June 2020
1871-1871/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
(Beghetto and Kaufman, 2013;Sak, 2014;Sternberg et al., 2008). Therefore, the desired and expected issue in the education system is to develop the creativity level of creative children to much higher levels and to direct them into production. It should be ensured that the characteristics of the creative child in the learning environment and their contribution to the classroom climate are read correctly, and adaptations and practices are realized accordingly by the teachers.
Examining whether teacher candidates’ perceptions of the creative children's characteristics correspond to the literature or not can also contribute to the determination of existing myths. According to a recent study conducted on creativity myths in Turkey, it has been determined that teachers had opinions like “creative people are contradictory persons” and “genetics have an impact on creativity” (Sevinc & Kanli, 2019). These researchers have inferred that teachers did not have enough information about educating children to be creative and had some misconceptions about creativity. Thus, not only should teachers’ conceptions of creativity be explored, but also there is a need to discern teacher candidates’ conceptions of creativity. On the undergraduate level, if teacher candidates' creativity related perceptions did not change positively and if myths about creativity related issues were not eliminated, perhaps their incorrect knowledge and negative perspectives might continue during their in- service period.
2. Creative Children in the Learning Environment
Davis (1997)states that the characteristics of creative individuals may be in twelve categories such as original, independent, risk-taking, energetic, curious, having a sense of humor, liking complexity, artistic, open-minded, needing loneliness, and intuitive. In addition to these categories,Sak (2014)states that extraordinary thinking, logical thinking, being knowledgeable/experienced, being emotional, ethical, interrogative, and having high intelligence are the characteristics of a creative individual.
Montgomery, Bull, and Baloche (1993)examined the characteristics of the creative individual by asking faculty members who were teaching creativity at the university. Their findings showed that the main characteristics of the creative individual were imagination, openness to experience, curiosity, intuition, finding new ideas, tolerance to uncertainty, independence, innovation, insight, internal and external openness. In another study,Lee and Seo (2006)examined the concepts of creativity of experienced teachers working with gifted students. They concluded that teachers emphasized originality, problem-solving, and thinking ability as features for creativity. In a qualitative study conducted with a teacher who is teaching gifted students, it was found that free- thinking and imaginative intelligence were leading characteristics of creative students. Also, it was stated that imagination, emotional in-tensity, and curiosity were among the characteristics that distinguish the creative student from the academically gifted student (Sak, 2004).
Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005)studied with primary school teachers and found that features such as thinking dif-ferently, being imaginative, risk-taking, being artistic, and having rich vocabulary were prominent characteristics for creative people. Chan and Chan (1999)had investigated creative student characteristics perceived by elementary and secondary school teachers and determined that besides imagination, these students also had characteristics such as asking questions, responding quickly, and having an active and high mental ability.Tugrul, Uysal, Gunes and Okutan (2014)looked at preschool teacher candidates and found that characteristics like thinking differently, designing, being original, finding a field of use for waste, being positive, happy, responsible, imaginative and curious were among the most frequently mentioned characteristics of creative children.
Although the creative student characteristics mentioned above are mostly perceived as positive features, some of the features can be perceived as a threat in terms of classroom management and teachers’ self-efficacy in the learning environment (Cropley, 2010; Guncer & Oral, 1993). In a study examining how good student’s and creative student’s characteristics were perceived by teachers, it was found that creative student’s and good student’s characteristics were not perceived as similar. Teachers thought that creative students were more intellectual, excitable and dynamic, but less conscientious (Karwowski, 2010).Scott (1999)examined the at-titude of teachers and teacher candidates towards creative students, and their participants perceived the students with high creativity as more disruptive than those considered less creative. In the same study, it was revealed that teachers considered creative students to be more destructive than prospective teachers.
Identifying candidate teachers’ perceptions of the creative child and this child's effects on the learning environment is essential to provide data for new research on whether creativity is supported in the learning environment (Cropley, 2010) or how to better support (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014).Brown and Campione (1990),Erez (2004), andTorrance (1972)state that students should be provided with a free and open learning environment for creative thinking. In other words, for developing creativity, the learning environment should encourage the students to explore, be open to new ideas, take risks, etc. (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014;Maker, 1982;Richardson & Mishra, 2018).
2.1. Gender Issues about Creative Children in the Learning Environment
One of the other important points in examining the perceptions of creativity is the determination of the potential bias related to the gender of creative children. Gender bias is a frequently emphasized issue not only in the field of creativity but also in most domains especially science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (Corbett & Hill, 2015;Hill, Corbett, & Rose, 2010; Robnett, 2016) and giftedness (Bianco, Harris, Garrison-Wade, & Leech, 2011). Countries that have found solutions to gender equity issues noticed that the reason why women are not as involved in science is a mixture of social, cultural, economic, and political factors rather than lack of interest (Baer & Kaufman, 2008;Merrick, 2012). From the report of the National Academy of Sciences ([NAS], 2006) the women’s under-representation in science and technology is mainly due to implicit biases. These issues are more cultural rather than structural (Merrick, 2012). Therefore, individuals need to grow in as much as possible bias-free social, cultural, and educational environments and need to raise and expand their awareness on these implicit gender biases in all domains.
There is no consensus on the gender of the creative individual because some of the research findings are in favor of males and some of them in favor of females (see, e.g.,Baer & Kaufman, 2008;Hopp, Handel, Stoeger, Vialle, & Ziegler, 2016;Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013,2016;Kousoulas & Mega, 2009;Lau & Li, 1996;Proudfoot, Kay, & Koval, 2015). While controversial ideas about the gender of the creative child continue in the literature, teachers may be deficient in determining and supporting creativity by attributing it to any gender as a result of gender biases. It is crucial to determine whether teachers and teacher candidates have a gender bias when considering creative children for identifying or teaching. If there is any bias, it is vital to work on interventions to reduce it (Bianco et al., 2011).
2.2. Creative Children in Special Education Learning Environment
Regardless of their differences, all individuals can add to a society. One of the main objectives of special education is to train individuals with special needs not just as consumers but also as producers in society (Cavkaytar, 2015). In the past few years, there have been significant changes in the role of special education in that teachers do not just support traditionally special needs of individuals, but they also focus on individuals’ strengths by providing integrative learning with a different vision (Dovigo, 2020). For this vision, it is important to notice and educate creative individuals with special needs and support the education of creativity also in the field of special education.
In parallel with this vision, an emerging issue in special education is the inclusion of creativity in this area. For instance, some of the recent studies related to children with special needs and creativity have emphasized the following subjects: creative thinking abilities of the children with high functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Hetzroni, Agada, & Leikin, 2019); flow, creativity, and ASD (Raoufi, 2018); generating novel metaphors of children with ASD (Kasirer & Mashal, 2016); developing a measure for the creativity of children with ASD (Diener, Wright, Smith, & Wright, 2014); encouraging musical creativity of children with learning disabilities (McCord, 2004); studies on visual disability and creativity (Llamazares de Prado, Arias Gago, & Melcon Alvarez, 2020); and the creativity level of hearing impaired and hearing students by using researcher designed questionnaire (Daramola, Bello, Yusuf, & Amali, 2019).
In the education of individuals with special needs, it is important to focus on their sufficiencies rather than their deficiencies and to explore their creative productivity in these areas because “each individual plays out their little c creativity in a unique way, according to their talents, skills and aspirations” (Craft, Jeffrey, & Leibling, 2001, p. 55). Creativity studies conducted with in-dividuals with special needs can contribute to focusing on their abilities rather than their disabilities and increasing their creative potential. For this reason, it is expected that the teachers who will teach individuals with special needs have positive perceptions about the characteristics and guidance of creative children and positively contribute to the learning environment in terms of crea-tivity (Fautley & Savage, 2007).
There are various problems in the education of individuals with special needs and with the changing role and competencies of the teachers. Inclusion of creativity in the educational process may perhaps lead to a new way of solving these problems. Determining teachers’ perspective on creativity while still at the undergraduate level and then developing their perspectives on creativity -their own and the others'- can make contributions for organizing learning activities and environments in creative ways both for the gifted groups and other special education groups because implicit perceptions may affect strategies, methods, and activities for organizing learning environments (Aish, 2014;Patston, Cropley, Marrone, & Kaufman, 2017).
2.3. The Present Study
This study focused on the perceptions of special education teacher candidates towards creative children’s characteristics, gender, and effects on peers and learning environment because in Turkey, special education teachers are responsible for teaching a wide range of students, from gifted to the disabled. Although we obtained demographic information of teacher candidates, our goal was not to compare their perceptions, but rather to explore most typical creative children's characteristics in their minds, implicit ceptions about gender, and creative children’s effects on the learning environment. We did not aim to judge whether these per-ceptions about the creative children are right or wrong, but we aimed to have a deeper understanding of the issue by examining candidates’ existing perceptions.
3. Method
This study was a qualitative study that was conducted to determine the special education teacher candidates’ perceptions of the creative child and the effect of the creative child on the learning environment and his/her peers.
3.1. Participants
The participants of the study were 105 conveniently sampled special education teacher candidates from public and foundation universities in Istanbul. There were 65 (61.9 %) females, 37 (35.2 %) males, and 3 (2.8 %) unspecified gender. Across The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, 5% of students hope to work as teachers, and in about all OECD countries, more females than males plan to work as teachers. In these countries, only 3% of males plan to work as teachers, while 6% of females do (OECD, 2015). Similarly, more female students prefer education faculties than do males in Turkey (Council of Higher Education [CHE], 2019a). So the distribution of gender may be related to this career choice (Eret-Orhan & Ok, 2014), not
entirely related to the distribution of the voluntary participation of male and female students.
The majority of the participants (86, 81.9 %) were from the public university, and 19 (18.1 %) of them were from the foundation universities. In the study, age information has not been collected specifically, but in Turkey, undergraduate students' ages range generally from 17 to 23 (CHE, 2019a). Of the total of 105 participants, 52.4 % were in the third grade, 29 (27.6 %) were second grade, 15 (14.3 %) were fourth grade, and 6 (5.7 %) were first grade students.
Special education teacher training programs are structured on training teachers who are expected to work with all diagnosed students ranging from disability groups (e.g. mental disability, hearing-visual impairment, learning disability, etc.) to giftedness. Therefore, every teacher who graduates from this program is expected to be competent to work with any diagnosed student. As part of this program, teacher candidates are expected to take core courses (such as special education, evaluation in special education, autism spectrum disorder and mental disability, inclusion in special education, and giftedness, and learning disability) as well as select courses from an elective pool of six different special education domains (mental disability, autism spectrum disorder, learning disability, giftedness, hearing impairment, and visual impairment). Students are expected to take the remaining elective courses from the pool they want, provided that they take one of each pool in their elective courses (CHE, 2019b).
The creative thinking education, which is an elective course, is the only content offered for gaining experience in the special education teacher training program. The content of this course consists of creativity definitions, theories, characteristics of creative children, and development of creativity (CHE, 2019b). Thirty-five (33.3 %) of the teacher candidates stated that they had taken creativity related courses, and 70 (66.7 %) had not. Another way of gaining experience is attending seminars on creativity. Twenty-six (24.8 %) of teacher candidates stated that they had attended a seminar on creativity, and 79 (75.2 %) had not. We do not have any information about the content of these seminars. The opportunities and experiences that teacher candidates can benefit from in way of special education teacher training programs on creativity and development are limited.
3.2. Instrument
Data were collected through an online form that was developed by the researchers. Two experts who have a doctorate in special education and have studies on creativity reviewed the questions for appropriateness for gathering teacher candidates’ perceptions of creative children. The experts stated that the questions were appropriate in examining the perceptions about the creative children, and they made minor suggestions. In this sense, minor changes were made on the questions by taking into consideration the sug-gestions of the experts. As a result of these arrangements, the form has become final. Within the scope of this online form, pre-service teachers were asked to fill in their demographic information and answer open-ended questions like:
•
What are the five characteristics that come to mind when you think about a creative child?•
What is the most likely gender of the creative child in your mind? Why?•
How does it feel to have a creative child in your classroom?•
What are the pros of having a creative child in your classroom?•
What are the cons of having a creative child in your classroom?•
How does having a creative child in your classroom affect peers?•
How does having a creative child in your classroom affect the learning environment? 3.3. ProcedureIn the study, the data were gathered through an online form to determine the teacher candidates’ perceptions of the creative child. In this online form, students were asked to fill in their personal information and answer open-ended questions. The students were asked to give as detailed and explanatory answers to the open-ended questions as possible. The researchers chose to collect data online to reach more participants and to ensure the principle of volunteering information was maintained. No compensation was given to the participants who had filled out the online form.
3.4. Data Analysis
In the study, participants’ answers to open-ended questions were used as data sources. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis with an inductive method. The answers of teacher candidates for open-ended questions were transcribed, and participants were coded as K1, K2… Data were processed according to the framework, and the blank forms were excluded. After the first arrangement, the data were re-examined and, as a result, a code list was created. The data were encoded with the created code list. In the analysis of characteristics of a creative child, just the codes were shared to see which of them were attributed to the creative child, and the characteristics that came to mind first, and then the next ones. In the analysis of other questions, common codes were gathered under the themes for each question. Expressions that would serve as an example for the themes were decided at this stage. To reflect the views of the participants in a vibrant way, samples are often included from the expressions of individuals because it is essential to report the data collected in a qualitative research in detail, to include direct quotations from individuals and to explain the results based on them, to ensure the validity of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;Yıldırım & Simsek, 2008).
In order to ensure the reliability of the data analysis, the researchers first performed the coding independently. Afterward, these independent codings were put together, and those with consensus and disagreements were identified. The reliability was found to be .91 withMiles and Huberman (1994)’s reliability formula [Reliability = (Consensus)/(Consensus + Disagreement) X 100]. For a
small number of data categorized with disagreements, the researchers came together, discussed them, and reached a consensus. Also for reliability, the researchers recorded each stage by writing so that new researchers can follow these stages and repeat the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
4. Findings
In this section, the findings are presented in sub-titles to answer the research questions. 4.1. Characteristics of Creative Child
According to the responses to what were the five characteristics coming to their mind when teacher candidates thought about a creative child, the most common characteristics were original (39), curious (33), different (31), flexible (31), productive (26), imaginative (23), and intelligent (23). Then, the responses were analyzed separately starting from the first rank up to the fifth; frequency and percentage values were formed. In the tables, characteristics with the same frequency were expressed in the same line separated by semicolons.Table 1presents the first ranked responses of the participants for creative child characteristics.
InTable 1, the most frequently mentioned characteristics in the first rank were original, different, curious, imaginative, and productive, while the least mentioned characteristics were happy, hardworking, patient, innovative, brave, fluent, compatible, and perfectionist. The second-ranked responses of the participants for creative child characteristics were presented inTable 2.
While the most frequently mentioned characteristics inTable 2 were flexible, imaginative, practical, different, curious, pro-ductive, some of the least mentioned characteristics were high-level thinker, explorer, naughty, innovative, entrepreneur, and brave. The third-ranked responses of the participants for creative child characteristics are presented inTable 3.
While the most repeated characteristics in the third rank were productive, flexible, different, problem solver, original, and curious, some of the least repeated characteristics were fluent, adventurous, confident, observer, and entrepreneur. The fourth-ranked responses of the participants for creative child characteristics are presented inTable 4.
Table 1
Creative Child Characteristics Mentioned in the First Rank.
Creative Child Characteristic-1 f %
Original 18 17.1 Different 11 10.5 Curious 10 9.5 Imaginative; Productive 8 7.6 Intelligent 7 6.7 Problem Solver 5 4.8 Flexible; Practical 4 3.8 Critical; Investigative 3 2.9
Highly aware; Free; Niggling; Motivated; Logical; Realistic 2 1.9 Happy; Hardworking; Patient; Innovative; Brave; Fluent; Compatible; Perfectionist 1 1
Invalid response 4 3.8
Table 2
Creative Child Characteristics Mentioned in the Second Rank.
Creative Child Characteristic-2 f %
Flexible 11 10.5 Imaginative 9 8.6 Practical 8 7.6 Different 7 6.7 Curious; Productive 6 5.7 Original; Intelligent 5 4.8 Critical; Interesting 3 2.9
Problem Solver; Investigative; Logical; Perfectionist; Fast; Energetic 2 1.9 Niggling; Innovative; Brave; Compatible; Careful; Idealist; Entrepreneur; Smarty; High-level thinker; Foresighted; Organizer; Abstract thinker;
Highly understanding; Leader; Explorer; Naughty; Ambitious; Artistic; Stirring; High expression power 1 1
While the most repeated characteristics in the fourth rank were original, investigative, critical, and curious, some of the least repeated characteristics were productive, problem-solver, foresighted, imaginative, and free. The fifth-ranked responses of the participants for creative child characteristics are presented inTable 5.
While the most frequently repeated characteristics in the fifth rank were flexible, energetic, investigative, and curious, some of the least repeated characteristics were problem-solver, productive, elaborative, motivated, courageous, and forward-thinker.
4.2. Gender of Creative Child
The gender of the creative child was the first open-ended question in the form. For the gender of the creative child, 43 (41 %) of the participants answered as male, 28 (26.7 %) of them answered as female, 30 (28.7 %) did not specify gender, and 4 (3.8 %) did not answer the question. The perceptions and reasons for the gender of the creative child are presented inTable 6.
FromTable 6, 12 of the participants thought that females had more dominant characteristics than males, and so the creative children were females. As an example, K58 stated that “I always think that girls are more imaginative and intelligent than boys.” On the other hand, ten of the participants attributed creativity to males; for instance, K88 stated, “Because most of the important people in the world are male.” Perceptions of 13 were gender-neutral, and exemplarily K4 declared that “Creativity cannot be linked to gender”.
Table 3
Creative Child Characteristics Mentioned in the Third Rank.
Creative Child Characteristic-3 f %
Productive 10 9.5
Flexible 7 6.7
Different 6 5.7
Problem Solver; Original; Curious 5 4.8
Intelligent; Innovative; Solution oriented 4 3.8
Critical; Logical; Resourceful 3 2.9
Imaginative; Motivated; High-level thinker; Selfless; Social; High expression power 2 1.9 Practical; Hardworking; Fluent; Entrepreneur; Smarty; Leader; Ambitious; Artistic; Adventurous; Excited; Self-confident; Observer; Hyperactive;
Understanding; Fair; Helpful 1 1
Invalid response 12 11.4
Table 4
Creative Child Characteristics Mentioned in the Fourth Rank.
Creative Child Characteristic-4 f %
Original 9 8.6
Investigative; Critical; Curious 7 6.7
Practical 5 4.8
Different; Intelligent; High-level thinker 4 3.8
Flexible; Logical; Innovative; Solution oriented 3 2.9 Motivated; Entrepreneur; Artistic; Emotional 2 1.9 Problem solver; Productive; Hardworking; Highly aware; Imaginative; Free; Patient; Open to learning; Fast; Foresighted; Energetic; High level
comprehending; Leader; Experienced; Mature; Objective; Clear; Chatty; Responsible; Modifier; Amazing; Sensitive 1 1
Invalid response 7 6.7
Table 5
Creative Child Characteristics Mentioned in the Fifth Rank.
Creative Child Characteristic-5 f %
Flexible 6 5.7
Energetic; Investigative; Curious 5 4.8
Different; Intelligent; Imaginative; Free; Innovative; Sensitive 3 2.9 Critical; Original; Patient; Logical; Leader; Ambitious; Humoristic 2 1.9 Problem solver; Productive; Practical; Hardworking; Highly aware; Niggling; Motivated; Brave; Compatible; High-level thinker; Foresighted; Artistic;
Stirring; Adventurous; Excited; Self-confident; Observer; Clear; Having strong memory; Successful; Special; High expression power; Sharing; Realistic
1 1
4.3. Feelings for the Creative Child in Classroom
In the question about how it would make the teacher candidates feel if they had a creative child in their classroom, the answers were categorized as themes like positive, negative, complex, neutral, not known, and invalid answers inTable 7.
InTable 7, the majority of teacher candidates (60 %) stated that they would feel positive if they had a creative child in their classrooms. Teacher candidates stated that when there was a creative student in their class, they would be happy, feel excited or lucky, be proud, and motivated. K73 stated, “I feel lucky because I can make his/her (creative child) current potential turn into talent.” Some of the participants (10.52 %) stated that they would have complex feelings. Participants said that sometimes they could be proud of the creative student and sometimes could experience jealousy or sometimes they could be happy and sometimes they could be worried about being competent enough for the student. K10 stated, “I feel happy to be able to improve myself with him/her, but I can also be nervous.” A few participants (4.8 %) stated that they could feel negative emotions by experiencing stress and fear of being inadequate for creative students. For example, K7 stated that “It may scare me a little bit if I can't be knowledgeable enough about how to teach creative children.”
4.4. Pros and Cons of Having a Creative Child in Classroom
In the question about the pros and cons of having a creative child in the classroom, the answers were categorized as themes like pros for the teacher, for the creative child, for the peers of the creative child, for the learning environment and functioning, and multiple aspects. These categories are presented inTable 8.
InTable 8, pre-service teachers stated that the presence of a creative child in their classrooms would have mostly multiple positive aspects (25.7 %). That meant, the presence of a creative child in the classroom environment would contribute positively to the teacher, his/her peers, and the learning environment and functioning. For example, K22 stated that the creative child would have positive effects on both his/her friends and teachers with the following sentences: “It affects him/her friends positively. It helps the teacher to constantly improve himself/herself.”. Following this, the second most common category of positive aspects was the learning environment and functioning (21.9 %). For example, in this category, K7 states that “It provides an active course and brings differences.”, and K34 stated that “Unspoken ideas can solve different problems which are difficult to do according to other people.” From these ideas, it could be inferred that the creative child would have positive effects in terms of providing different perspectives with the active participation in the educational environment and reaching different problem solutions. Finally, at the level of 19 %,
Table 6
Perceptions and Reasons for Gender of Creative Child.
Gender of creative child Reason of gender f %
Female Niggling, elaborating 6 5.7
Having more dominant characteristics than other gender 12 11.4
Unspecified 1 1
No response 9 8.6
Male Attribution to a man 10 9.5
Having more dominant characteristics than other gender 3 2.9 Experience effect with creative males 4 3.8 Seeing himself in creative child 3 2.9 Women masking/hiding with peer pressure 4 3.8
Unspecified 2 1.9
No response 17 16.2
Unspecified gender Both genders 10 9.5
Gender neutral 13 12.5
Depends on culture and society 3 2.9
Complicated 4 3.8
No response 4 3.8
Table 7
Feelings for the Creative Child.
Feelings f %
Positive (happiness; pride; excitement; luck; motivating; helpfulness) 63 60 Negative (stress; fear of not being enough; feeling oneself simple) 5 4.8 Complex (jealousy and pride; happiness and anxiety; stress and tolerance) 11 10.5
Neutral (curiosity; responsibility) 6 5.7
Not known 2 1.9
Invalid response 18 17.1
the participants stated that the creative child had positive aspects in terms of peers. K57’s statement “It helps to increase the imagination of other friends.” is an example of one of the exemplary statements in this category.
On the other hand, teacher candidates' perceptions on the cons of having a creative child in the class were categorized as themes like cons for the teacher, for the creative child, for the peers of the creative child, for learning environment and functioning, multiple aspects, no cons, no idea, and invalid answers. These categories are displayed inTable 9.
InTable 9, teacher candidates stated that the presence of a creative child in their classrooms would have mostly negative aspects in terms of creative child (26.7 %). In other words, if there was a creative child in the classroom, he/she could be excluded, envied by peers, learning units would be insufficient for him/her and he/she could get bored. For example, K56 stated that “His/her ideas may not be understood by his/her friends and may be excluded from the group.” This could mean that the creative child might have difficulty communicating with peers. Following this, it was found that the presence of a creative child in the classroom would negatively influence their peers (15.2 %) and the teacher (11.4 %). While K47 was pointing out that “There may be negative situations in class such as peers could feel themselves inadequate and jealous.”; K8 stated that “I feel deficient in some ways.” It could be inferred that candidates had the idea that the creative child would have negatively affected his/ her peers, that they felt jealousy, insufficient, and low self-confidence. Also, it was thought by participants that creative children could make their teachers feel inadequate. On the other hand, some of the teacher candidates (15.2 %) thought that there were no cons.
4.5. The Effect of Creative Child on Peers in Class
Findings for the question about how a creative child affected peers in his/her classroom were categorized as themes like positive, negative, complex, unaffected, and no clear idea and are presented inTable 10.
InTable 10, almost half of the participants (46.7 %) thought that having a creative child in the classroom would positively affect the peers. In other words, they stated that the peers could get inspiration from the creative child on looking at issues from different perspectives, so a creative child could play a leading role in developing new ideas. For example, K13 stated that “This will have positive effects and it can help peers on looking from different perspectives”. Following this, 32.4 % of candidates said that it could have both positive and negative effects. They stated that while the creative child could make their peers think differently, at the same
Table 9
Perceptions on the Cons of Having a Creative Child in Class.
Cons of having creative child f %
For the teacher (feeling inadequate; extra workload) 12 11.4 For the creative child (exclusion; inability to improve skills; getting bored; not understood; envied by) 28 26.7 For the peers of creative child (feeling of inadequacy; teacher negligence) 16 15.2 For the learning environment and functioning (problems with classroom management; difficulties with curriculum planning) 7 6.7 Multiple aspects (teacher and peers; creative child and peers; peers and environment; teacher, peers and environment) 10 9.5
No idea 2 1.9
No cons aspect 16 15.2
Invalid response 14 13.3
Total 105 100
Table 10
Perceptions on the Effect of a Creative Child on Peers.
Perceptions f %
Positive (being role model; providing different perspectives; motivating; encouraging) 49 46.7 Negative (creating jealousy; feeling worthless; feeling incomplete; low self-esteem) 16 15.2 Complex (fascination and jealousy; improvement of peers and competition; becoming leader and opposite person) 34 32.4
Unaffected 1 1
No clear idea 5 4.8
Total 105 100
Table 8
Perceptions on the Pros of Having a Creative Child in Class.
Pros of having creative child f %
For the teacher (motivation; professional development; new learnings) 16 15.2 For the creative child (displaying originality; flexibility) 4 3.8 For the peers of creative child (being role model; sparking) 20 19 For the learning environment and functioning (active, funny; positive environment; flexible; enriched) 23 21.9 Multiple aspects (teacher and peers; himself/herself and peers; peers and environment; teacher, peers and environment) 27 25.7
Invalid response 15 14.3
time, peers could also feel jealous and exclude the creative child from the environment. K3’s statement supported the point as, “Peers may admire creative friends, but also they may behave jealousy and so on.” Just 1 (1%) participant stated that a creative child would not affect his/her peers.
4.6. The Effect of Creative Child on Learning Environment
Table 11presents the responses to the question about how a creative child affected the learning environment. Findings were categorized as themes like positive, negative, complex, and no clear idea.
It was inferred fromTable 11that the majority of the teacher candidates (79 %) thought that the presence of a creative child in the classroom would positively affect the learning environment. In other words, they thought that the creative child would make the learning environment richer, allow different perspectives, and create motivation. For example, K88 supported this finding with an perception like “It makes the learning environment rich, flexible, and unique.” Following this, 5.7 % of candidates stated that the creative child could have both positive and negative effects. They stated that while the lessons were more effective and productive, creative children or their peers could exhibit competitive behaviors or behavioral problems. For instance, K71 stated that “It can be more productive, but there may be frequent conflicts.”
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Results from the study have led to a deeper understanding on special education teacher candidates’ feelings and perceptions of the characteristics, gender, and effects of creative children on the learning environment and peers. Findings are discussed under the following headings.
5.1. Gender of Creative Child
There are different beliefs in favor of male, female, or neutral according to the gender of creative individuals (e.g.,Baer & Kaufman, 2008;Hopp et al., 2016;Lau & Li, 1996;Proudfoot et al., 2015). In the current study, although the majority of participants were female (61.9 %), the preference on the gender of creative child was mostly male (41 %). Besides, some of the teacher candidates (22 %) have a gender-neutral approach to creativity, which means they give equal chances to both genders. Teacher candidates perceive the creative child as male because of attributing the creative behaviors to men, experience with creative males, and women’s behavior of masking creativity. Findings suggest that teachers have some beliefs that hinder creativity development in schools (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). One of these beliefs is gender bias. Further, gender bias is an issue of struggle not only in creativity but also in other areas; for instance, there is an emphasis on people’s implicit bias on gender in giftedness (Bianco et al., 2011;Matheis, Keller, Kronborg, Schmitt, & Preckel, 2019) and in the STEM areas (Corbett & Hill, 2015;Hill et al., 2010). Underrepresentation of females in these areas are associated with social expectations and support (Sart, 2014;Silverman, 1993). Teachers were found to encourage behaviors like inquisitiveness, assertiveness, inquiry, and activity in males but to discourage these behaviors in females (Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989;Silverman, 1993). Similarly, some of the teacher candidates may have an implicit bias on the gender of the creative child. On the other hand, some candidates with a neutral approach reason that both genders have an equal chance for being creative, creativity is free of gender, and it is influenced by cultural and social context. It is believed that the teacher candidates who have a neutral perspective on creativity might have taken courses on creativity or attended the seminar. It can be concluded that education can reduce the bias on gender. However, this needs to be clarified with future research. Further, to eliminate these biases and to take a neutral approach to the gender of creative child, teacher candidates should receive training on characteristics, gender, and education of creative children and have the opportunity to gain experience with both creative females and males (Bianco et al., 2011).
5.2. Characteristics of Creative Child
Considering all the responses of the participants, the most frequently mentioned characteristics for the creative child emerged as original, curious, flexible, different, productive, imaginative, and intelligent. These characteristics are concordant with the recent study results in which most of them are called cognitive characteristics and are perceived as the most dominant characteristics of the creative children by teachers (Karwowski et al., 2020). The characteristics such as original, curious, different, productive,
Table 11
Perceptions on the Effect of Creative Child on Learning Environment.
Perceptions f %
Positive (pleasant and exciting; diversity providing; open to innovation and change; providing originality and flexibility) 83 79 Negative (boring for creative child; behavioral problems) 4 3.8 Complex (enriching and competitive; productive and controversial) 6 5.7
No clear idea 12 11.4
imaginative, and intelligent are among the most frequently repeated characteristics in the first rank and total. In this case, it can be concluded that the characteristics that come to mind in the first place are the most frequently mentioned ones in total. Unlike the first rank, being practical (second rank), problem solver (third rank), researcher, and critical (fourth rank), energetic and curious (fifth rank) are examples of the most frequently mentioned characteristics in other ranks. Although the frequency of the characteristics decreases with increasing order (1–5), the characteristics in later ranks are also mentioned as important and necessary for creativity such as being critical and questioning. It can be inferred that the majority of characteristics specified by the participants are con-sistent with many characteristics linked with creativity in previous studies (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005;Chan & Chan, 1999;Lee & Seo, 2006;Montgomery et al., 1993;Sak, 2014;Tugrul et al., 2014). Furthermore, characteristics which are mentioned in earlier studies such as risk-taking, energetic, sense of humor, need for loneliness, intuitive, artistic, knowledgeable, experienced, ethical, emotional (Davis & Rimm, 1998;Sak, 2014) are not mentioned very often or mentioned by very few people in the current study. Although the candidates put ideas in parallel with characteristics of creativity highlighted in the literature, they do not have deep and detailed knowledge about the subject or they are not aware of most of the critical points. Teacher candidates attribute more cognitive characteristics to the creative student because they may not be aware of some of the affective characteristics that are important for creative individuals. The lack of knowledge and awareness on creativity may be due to the need of training on creativity (Aish, 2014;Al-Nouh, Abdul-Kareem, & Taqi, 2014;Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018;Cheng, 2010;Hong & Kang, 2010;Kampylis, Saariluoma, & Berki, 2011). This study confirms that there is a need to increase teacher candidates’ awareness of the characteristics that lead to creativity.
Another interesting point from the findings is that one of the most expressed characteristics is intelligence. Most teacher can-didates attribute creativity to intelligence. Thus, this can develop a misperception on creativity and its development in some special education groups. Special education teacher candidates are expected to teach children with disabilities as well as gifted children. Creativity and its development are such crucial issues for gifted students (Renzulli, 2005;2016), but it is also important for the other special education groups (Diener et al., 2014;Hetzroni et al., 2019;Kasirer & Mashal, 2016;McCord, 2004;Raoufi, 2018). Teachers can facilitate creativity by organizing creativity-enhancing activities and designing creative learning environments based on the strengths of these students. There is a need to alter teacher candidates' perceptions that children with disabilities may not think creatively, and they need to improve their knowledge and skills to support the creative thinking skills of these children.
Training and experience in teaching creativity can positively influence teachers’ perceptions (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). In the current study, some of the participants received courses or seminars on creativity. It can be said that these kinds of training are effective in reaching a poor awareness for teacher candidates about the characteristics of the creative child, but this is not enough. If teachers and teacher candidates reach appropriate learning opportunities about creativity and its nurture, they will both develop more positive perspectives and lead the planning and implementing creativity boosting activities (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). At the undergraduate level, for creativity and nurture, it is necessary to give discipline-specific courses that are application-oriented and include different techniques and methods. For existing courses or seminars, educators should revise the contents to emphasize creative student characteristics based on empirical research and give opportunities for applications based on more observation and experience. In these courses or seminars, content should be determined to support creativity not only for normally developing individuals but also for individuals with special needs because the participants should be able to provide training for all kinds of special education groups. The creativity education content should not only address the normally developing or gifted students but also address disability groups.
5.3. Feelings for the Creative Child
Teachers' positive perceptions and feelings towards creative individuals contribute to positive relationships and teaching ap-proaches that foster creativity development (Hong & Kang, 2010). In the study, participants mostly express their feelings positively by declaring that the presence of a creative child in the classroom will make them happy, proud, excited, lucky, motivated, and willing to help. On the other hand, there are negative feelings at the lowest percentages like fear of being enough and feeling inadequate. It is also remarkable that 10.5 % of the participants have complex feelings that emerge from both positive and negative feelings like happiness vs. anxiety, stress vs. tolerance, and jealousy vs. pride. It can be inferred that positive feelings may be caused by candidates’ self-efficacy and self-confidence to support creativity in the learning environment, and negative feelings are caused by insufficient self-efficacy. All these negative and complex feelings can be diminished and eliminated when teacher candidates' self-efficacy and their creativity are supported (Davies et al., 2014). Teacher training programs should assist teacher candidates to set their freedom and autonomy for nurturing their self- creativity and creativity of children (Hong & Kang, 2010). Also, by developing the dynamics like energetic, motivating, and commitment of career in the teacher training process may convert the negative and complex feelings to positive in identifying and training the creative children (Davies et al., 2014;Lily & Bramwell-Rejskind, 2004).
5.4. Pros and Cons of Having Creative Child in the Classroom
Teacher candidates state that having a creative child in the classroom mostly has multiple pros (in terms of teachers, peers, learning environments, and at least two of them) and can motivate his/her peers and teachers, lead and direct the learning process with different questions or perspectives, and be role models in generating new ideas. For teacher candidates, the presence of a creative child has positive aspects also on the learning environment and he/she makes the learning environment more exciting, free, open-ended, and original. What the teacher candidates think the creative child affects the least positively is the creative child himself/herself. Candidates' perceptions on the least positive and most negative affected components are consistent that it is the
creative child's himself/ herself. The negative effects that candidates mention about the creative child are mostly about the boredom of the creative child in class, not being able to realize his/her potential, exclusion, being exposed to peer bullying, dropping out of school when they do not encounter the teacher or learning environments that support their creative ideas, etc. The learning en-vironment is one of the most important variables in the development or suppression of creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014), and these negative conditions can be eliminated with adaptations in content and process and with creating a challenged, free, and secure learning environment. These are mostly linked with barriers/enablers like teachers’ skills, pedagogical background, experience, and information about fostering creativity (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). Although the pre-service teachers value creativity, they are worried about their unclear understanding (Eckhoff, 2011) and lack of pedagogical strategies (Chan & Yuen, 2014) of how to support creativity in complex classroom settings. At this point, it is clear that teachers' understanding should be clarified, and their peda-gogical growth should be warranted.
5.5. The Effect of Creative Child in Classroom on Their Peers
The findings concerning the effect of the creative child on the peers are considered, and it was noticed that the teacher candidates mostly declared positive effects rather than negative and complex ones. In particular, the fact that peers can benefit from a rich, original learning environment that a creative child constitutes to and a creative child can motivate them to share new and original ideas are highlighted as reasons for positive impacts.
Although the positive perceptions about the effect of the creative child on peers are high, 15.2 % of the participants state that a creative child may cause a decrease in peers’ self-confidence, self-perception, and feeling adequate but may cause a rise in compe-tition. The percentages of negative effects and cons of creative children on their peers are the same (seeTables 9 and 10) and consistent with each other. Some of the participants may persist in believing that creative children have a negative effect on their peers. This implies that future research may examine the reasons for this belief. Since these negative and complex feelings make it difficult to accept and improve the creative child in the classroom, further studies on how these negative feelings can be reduced and separated from complex feelings need to be studied more.
5.6. Effect of Creative Child on Learning Environment
Gandini, Hill, Cadwell, and Schwall (2005)state that favoring or disfavoring the creativity in the learning environment depends on expectations of teachers and how students perceive these expectations. Teachers’ expectations from creative students are critical for enhancing the creative environment. The majority of the participants (79 %) see a learning environment with a creative child as pleasant and exciting, diversity providing, open to innovation and change, providing originality and flexibility in a positive way. However, the fact that teachers have positive beliefs on creativity and creative children does not mean that these beliefs will turn into nurturing activities in the learning environment (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). Also, a few candidates think that the creative child's impact on the learning environment is negative (e.g. boring creative child, behavioral problems) or complex (enriching vs. creating competition, productive vs. argumentative). It can be asserted that pre-service teachers may feel insufficient in satisfying the learning needs of creative children in the learning environment and coping with and managing the competition and discussion in the class. Beghetto and Kaufman (2014)state that although the majority of the teachers value creativity, they do not want to invite chaotic situations that allow creativity because of possible confusion in the learning environment. However,Chan and Yuen (2014)and Shaughnessy (1991)declare that creating controversial issues, supporting dissenting ideas, valuing everyone's ideas and mistakes are some of the key points in developing creativity. Teacher candidates should be encouraged to experience a learning environment where children take risks, discuss controversial issues, defend their ideas, and respect different ideas.
In conclusion, the characteristics mostly attributed to the creative child were cognitive and consonant with the findings of previous studies. However, many important characteristics mentioned in other studies were not mentioned often by the candidates. Thus, the teacher candidates’ knowledge and the pedagogical background on the characteristics of a creative child are limited and needed to be advanced. Candidate teachers have some biases on the gender of creative children, but a remarkable percent of can-didates do not consider creativity as gender-specific. More than half of the participants feel positive about creative children in the learning environment, but a few of them feel confused. Teacher candidates believe that having a creative child in the classroom has mostly pros in terms of learning environment, peers, and teachers, however mostly cons in terms of creative child.
5.7. Limitations and Implications
Our study has some limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. First, the participants of the study are limited only to teacher candidates in special education teacher training programs. The data collection tool was limited to an online form. Data analysis was limited to descriptive analysis, and we didn't compare the findings based on demographic information. In the online form, open-ended questions have been formed in a way that they can appeal to all special education groups because participants are charged with training all groups.
Although many of the candidates have positive feelings towards creative students, some of them have negative and complex feelings. Some essential implications emerged from the current study in that teacher training programs may revise the course content to minimize negative feelings, negative implicit beliefs, and gender bias for creative children in all special education groups. The effect of creativity courses taken by candidate teachers was not examined in this study. With further studies, it can be explored how the training received by candidates affects the implicit beliefs towards the creative child and teacher’s competence in developing
creativity, and as a result of these studies, influential contents and applications can be determined.
Teacher candidates’ percepitons about the creative child play a key role in developing creativity, and determining these per-ceptions is vital. Besides, it is also crucial to investigate the continuity of these perper-ceptions in the inservice period (Davies et al., 2013; Davies et al., 2014). In this context, a similar study should be conducted with in-service teachers.
Gender bias is encountered in the domain of creativity as well as encountered in many empirical domains. Therefore, the implicit beliefs of teacher candidates regarding gender bias should be examined in more detail, and it is recommended to examine whether in-service teachers have gender bias about creativity or not. Furthermore, there is a need regarding promoting awareness of pre/in-service teachers on potential biases and increasing equity view for creative students’ gender.
A similar study should be carried out with special education teachers to demonstrate implicit beliefs that hinder creativity in learning environments and to identify feelings and percepitons about creative students in learning environments. In the study, it was found that teacher candidates think creative children may have many pros for the learning environment, so it should be explored how to support children with special needs, whose strengths are creativity, to positively affect the learning environment. In future studies, it is suggested to examine the creative child perceptions of both pre-service teachers and teachers from different branches of ele-mentary education, secondary education, etc.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sule Gucyeter: Project administration, Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Sezen Camci Erdogan: Methodology, Data curation, Writing - review & editing, Writing - original draft, Investigation, Formal analysis.
Acknowledgement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Preliminary results of this study was presented at the 5th TURKCESS International Education and Social Sciences Congress. The authors would like to thank Dr. Michael F. Shaughnessy for reading the first draft of the article.
References
Aish, D. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity in the elementary classroom. Ann Arbor: Pepperdine University (Doctoral Dissertation) ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer- Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 17–34.https://doi.org/10. 1002/j.21626057.2005.tb01247.x.
Al- Nouh, N. A., Abdul-Kareem, M. M., & Taqi, H. A. (2014). Primary school EFL teachers’ attitudes towards creativity and their perceptions of practice. English
Language Teaching, 7(9), 74–90.https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n9p74.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of CreativeBehavior, 42(2), 75–105.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Fundamentals of creativity. Educational Leadership, 70, 10–15. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascd.org/publications/ educational- leadership.aspx.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25, 53–69.https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905. Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research
Review, 23, 25–56.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003.
Bianco, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, D., & Leech, N. (2011). Gifted girls: Gender bias ingifted referrals. Roeper Review, 33(3), 170–181.https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02783193.2011.580500.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.). Contributions to human development,
Vol. 21. Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills (pp. 108–126). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
Cavkaytar, A. (2015). Özel eğitime gereksinim duyan çocuklar ve özel eğitim [Children with special needs and special education]. In I. Diken (Ed.). Özel eğitime
gereksinimi olan öğrenciler ve özel eğitim [Students with special needs and special education] (pp. 2–28). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception ofstudent characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 185–195.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3.
Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 6977.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003.
Cheng, V. M. (2010). Tensions and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinesecontext. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(3), 120–137.https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tsc.2010.09.005.
Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success inengineering and computing. NW, Washington: American Association of UniversityWomen.
Council of Higher Education (2019a). Number of students at the undergraduate level byeducation and teaching areas classification. Retrieved fromhttps://istatistik.yok.gov. tr/.
Council of Higher Education (2019b). New teacher training undergraduate programs. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretimdairesi/yeni-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari.
Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (2001). Creativity in education. New York: Continuum.
Cropley, A. J. (2010). Creativity in the classroom: The dark side. In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.). The dark side of creativity (pp. 297315). Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761225.016.
Daramola, D. S., Bello, M. B., Yusuf, A. R., & Amali, I. O. O. (2019). Creativity level ofhearing impaired and hearing students of federal college of education.
International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1489–1500.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creativelearning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Digby, R., Howe, A., Collier, C., & Hay, P. (2014). The rolesand development needs of teachers to promote creativity: A systematic review ofliterature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 34–41.
Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative studentds and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (pp. 269–281). (2nd). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Diener, M. L., Wright, C. A., Smith, K. N., & Wright, S. D. (2014). Assessing visual-spatialcreativity in youth on the autism spectrum. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 328337.https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.929421.
Dovigo, F. (2020). Through the eyes of inclusion: An evaluation of video analysis as areflective tool for student teachers within special education. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 43(1), 110–126.https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1693996.
Eckhoff, A. (2011). Creativity in the early childhood classroom: Perspectives of preserviceteachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 240–255.https:// doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2011.594486.
Eret-Orhan, E., & Ok, A. (2014). Who prefers teacher education programs? Candidates’ entrycharacteristics and attitude towards teaching. Hacettepe University Journal
of Education, 29(4), 75–92.
Erez, R. (2004). Freedom and creativity: An approach to science education for excellentstudents and its realization in the Israel Arts and Science Academy’s curriculum.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(4), 133–140.https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-461.
Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2007). Creativity in secondary education. UK: Learning Matters.
Gandini, L., Hill, L., Cadwell, L., & Schwall, C. (2005). Epilogue. In L. Gandini, L. Hill, L. Cadwell, & C. Schwall (Eds.). In the spirit of the studio: Learning from the Atelier
of Reggio Emilia (pp. 195–196). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students’ gendermoderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 47, 290–304.https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.36.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2016). Are teachers’ implicit theories of creativity related tothe recognition of their students’ creativity? The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 52(2),https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.140.
Guncer, B., & Oral, G. (1993). Relationship between creativity and nonconformity to schooldiscipline as perceived by teachers of Turkish elementary school children, bycontrolling for their grade and sex. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(3), 208214.
Hetzroni, O., Agada, H., & Leikin, M. (2019). Creativity in autism: An examination ofgeneral and mathematical creative thinking among children with autism spectrumdisorder and children with typical development. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorder, 49, 3833–3844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04094-x.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW.
Hong, M., & Kang, N. H. (2010). South Korean and the US secondary school scienceteachers' conceptions of creativity and teaching for creativity. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(5), 821–843.
Hopp, M., Handel, M., Stoeger, H., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2016). A cross national study of implicit theories of a creative person. Education Sciences, 6(38), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040038.
Kampylis, P., Saariluoma, P., & Berki, E. (2011). Fostering creative thinking-what doprimary teachers recommend? Hellenic Journal of Music, Education & Culture, 2(1), 46–64.
Karwowski, M. (2010). Are creative students really welcome in the classrooms? Implicittheories of “good” and “creative” student personality among polish teachers.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1233–1237.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.179.
Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., Patston, T., Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). Thecreative student in the eyes of a teacher: A cross-cultural study. Thinking Skills
andCreativity, 35.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100636.
Kasirer, A., & Mashal, N. (2016). Comprehension and generation of metaphors by childrenwith autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 32, 53–63.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2016.08.003.
Kousoulas, F., & Mega, G. (2009). Students’ divergent thinking and teachers’ ratings ofcreativity: Does gender play a role? Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 209–222.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162- 6057.2009.tb01315.x.
Lau, S., & Li, W. L. (1996). Peer status and perceived creativity: Are popular children viewedby peers and teachers as creative? Creativity Research Journal, 9, 347–352.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0904_6.
Lee, E. A., & Seo, H. A. (2006). Understanding of creativity by Korean elementary teachersin gifted education. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 237–242.https://doi. org/10.1207/s15326934crj1802_9.
Lily, F. R., & Bramwell-Rejskind, G. (2004). The dynamics of creative teaching. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 102–124.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162- 6057. 2004.tb01235.x.
Llamazares de Prado, J. E., Arias Gago, A. R., & Melcon Alvarez, M. A. (2020). Theoreticalreview of the creativity, the key factor in education with visual impairment.
Educationand Urban Society, 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519896863Special issue.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Publishers.
Matheis, S., Keller, L. K., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2019). Do stereotypesstrike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in preservice teachers’ beliefs aboutstudent characteristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232.https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029. McCord, K. A. (2004). Moving beyond “That’s all I can do”: Encouraging musical creativityin children with learning disabilities. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
MusicEducation, 159, 23–32. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40319205.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design andimplementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Merrick, H. (2012). Challenging implicit gender bias in science: Positive representations offemale scientists in fiction. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 4, 744–768.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montgomery, D., Bull, K. S., & Baloche, L. (1993). Characteristics of the creative person:Perceptions of university teachers in relation to professional literature.
AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 37, 68–78.https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764293037001007.
National Academy of Sciences (2006). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential ofwomen in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National AcademiesPress.
OECD (2015). Who wants to become a teacher. (Report No. 58)Paris: OECD Publishinghttps://doi.org/10.1787/5jrp3qdk2fzp-enRetrieved from.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. M., & Kulieke, M. J. (1989). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents. In J. VanTassel-Baska, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.). Patterns of
influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 125–145). New York: Teachers College Press.
Patston, T., Cropley, D. H., Marrone, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Teacher self- concepts of creativity: Meeting the challenges of the 21st century classroom.
International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 27(2), 23–34.
Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. A. (2015). Gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and 
experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psychological Science, 26, 1751–1761.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615598739.
Raoufi, M. (2018). Flow, creativity and autism spectrum disorder: Creatively supporting development and pro-social behavior in children with ASD (Masters’ Thesis). Retrieved from:https://digitalcommons.lesley.edu/expressive_theses/16.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.).
Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 246–279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2016). The three-ring conception of giftedness: Its implications for understanding the nature of innovation. In L. V. Sahavinina (Ed.). The international
handbook of innovation (pp. 79–96). Oxford: Elsevier.
Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support studentcreativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004.
Robnett, R. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self- concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 65–79.https://doi. org/10.1177/0361684315596162.
Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review, 26, 216–222.https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0278319040955427.
Sart, G. (2014). Gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): A case of Turkey. Presented at the 8th International
Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED2014). Retrieved fromhttp://library.iated.org/view/SART20l4GEN.
Scott, L. C. (1999). Teachers’ biases toward creative children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 321–328.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_10.
Sevinc, N., & Kanli, E. (2019). Öğretmenlerin yaratıcılık kavramı ile ilgili sahip oldukları mitler ve görüşler [Teacher myths and views about creativity]. Journal of
Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(2), 103–122. Retrieved fromhttps://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jgedc.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (1991). The supportive educational environment for creativity. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED360080).
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Social development, leadership, and gender. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.). Counselling the gifted and talented (pp. 291–327). Denver: Love. Soh, K. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 118–134.https://doi.org/10.
1002/j.2162 6057.2000.tb01205.x.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2008). Applied intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Presshttps://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511611445.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114–143.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162- 6057.1972.tb00923.x. Tugrul, B., Uysal, H., Gunes, G., & Okutan, N. S. (2014). Picture of the creativity. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3096–3100.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.01.714.
