SOUTH KOREAN AND THE US SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY AND TEACHING...

MIYOUNG HONG and NAM-HWA KANG

SOUTH KOREAN AND THE US SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCETEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY AND TEACHING

FOR CREATIVITY

Received: 21 October 2008; Accepted: 2 November 2009

ABSTRACT. This study examined science teachers’ conceptions of creativity in scienceeducation, pedagogical ideas, and contextual factors perceived as constraints on teachingfor creativity and any differences in the conceptions of teachers from South Korea and theUnited States. Participants in the study consisted of 44 South Korean and 21 USsecondary science teachers. Data was collected from open-ended and Likert-typequestionnaires. Results indicated that each individual teacher’s conception was considerablylimited, but the teachers’ conceptions of creativity as a whole group were consistent with theliterature. In terms of teaching methods for creativity, the teachers commonly emphasizedproblem-based or project-based inquiry which was consistent with the literature. The SouthKorean teachers tended to consider ethics as a more important criterion for judging creativitythan the US teachers and emphasized providing thinking opportunity for fostering creativity,while the US teachers emphasized environmental or emotional support. Possible sources ofthese differences were discussed. The commonly mentioned constraints included pressure ofcontent coverage for high-stakes tests, difficulties in assessing creativity, and class size.Suggestions for professional development of teachers and further research questions weremade based on the findings.

KEY WORDS: conceptions of creativity, science teachers, teaching for creativity

INTRODUCTION

Since 1990, there has been an increasing number of policy statements andeducational projects that have called for incorporating creativity into theschool curriculum and fostering creativity in education (Craft, 2003;Gibson, 2005; Ng & Smith, 2004; Park, Lee, Oliver & Crammond, 2006).Two main driving forces for the growing emphasis and values placed oncreativity are students’ personal fulfillment and their economic capabil-ities as future citizens (Craft, 2003; Gibson, 2005). Along with thetheories and research on creativity originating from the Western world,creativity has been recognized and emphasized as one of educationalgoals in many Asian countries including Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore,South Korea, and Taiwan (Choe, 2006; Niu, 2006; Ng & Smith, 2004;Tan & Law, 2004).

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2010) 8: 821Y843# National Science Council, Taiwan (2009)

In the literature on the nature of science, it is widely accepted thatscience is ultimately a creative endeavor and most scientific inquiryprocesses involve creativity (Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar &Duschl, 2003). In school science, therefore, providing students withopportunities for engaging in creative thinking through scientific inquirycould be a way for them to understand creativity in science. For example,the US science education reform documents emphasize students’ creativethinking and creative expressions (American Association for theAdvancement of Science [AAAS], 1989; National Research Council[NRC], 1996). Similarly, the recently revised South Korean NationalScience Curriculum has put forth the fostering of creative scientificproblem-solving capacity as one of the major educational goals(Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development [MOE &HRD], 2007).

Despite the importance of creativity in science and scienceeducation, science teachers’ perceptions of creativity and teaching forcreativity have rarely been discussed. The teacher is critical forshaping students’ learning experience (Author et al., 2005, ScienceEducation; Hashweh, 1996; Pajares, 1992), and understanding scienceteachers’ conceptions of creativity is hence an essential first step forpromoting creativity in the science classroom. Recently, Park et al.(2006) investigated South Korean science teachers’ perceptions ofcreativity and science teaching during a professional developmentprogram about creativity. At the end of the professional development,they found that the teachers showed “a growing awareness thatcreativity can be expressed by every student; creativity can beenhanced; science has a much wider range of activities that fostercreativity; and creativity-centered science teaching can be imple-mented” (p. 37). Further research on teachers’ understanding ofcreativity in science would facilitate science educators in developingpractical curriculum materials and professional development programs.

Just as with any other teacher conceptions (Eisenhart, Shrum, Harding &Cuthbert, 1988), conceptions about creativity reflect cultural values. Culturalcontexts may affect a person’s experience of creativity and their ability tomanifest it (Craft, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Lubart, 1990, 1999;Sawyer, 2006; Sternberg, 2007). As a result, what would be viewed ascreative in one cultural context might be viewed as noncreative in a differentcontext. Accordingly, our study paid attention to the possible differences inconceptions of creativity of teachers from two different educational cultures,South Korea and the US.

MIYOUNG HONG AND NAM-HWA KANG822

The purpose of this study was to examine secondary science teachers’conceptions of creativity in science and teaching for creativity in thescience classroom. Considering the cultural and contextual dependence ofteacher conceptions, we additionally examined potential cultural andcontextual differences in teachers’ conceptions of creativity by comparingconceptions of secondary science teachers from South Korea and theUnited States.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The term creativity is widely used in different ways, indicating thecomplex nature of any creative activity itself (United Kingdom NationalAdvisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education [NACCCE],1999). Accordingly, there have been various approaches to addressingthe concept of creativity in the literature. Some researchers considercreativity as an indefinable concept (Bohm, 1998; Craft, 2003). Theyclaim that creativity should be considered as an open-ended andinherently indefinite concept (Craft, 2003). Others use the term withoutexplicit definition. According to Plucker, Beghetto & Dow’s (2004)extensive review, only 34 out of 90 (38%) studies about creativityprovide an explicit definition of the term. They conclude that creativityhas rarely been explicated in the literature, which in turn, has causedlimitations in research and education.

In efforts to define creativity, many criteria for judging creativity havebeen used. Among these, researchers commonly include two: novelty andappropriateness (Beghetto, 2007; Plucker et al., 2004; Starko, 2005; Tan& Law, 2004). In addition, divergent thinking is often consideredsynonymous with creativity in English-speaking countries (Baer &Kaufman, 2006; Plucker et al., 2004). Novelty is sometimes referred toas originality, newness, difference, uniqueness, or unusualness, whileappropriateness is referred to as effectiveness, practicality, or usefulness(Cropley, 2001; Jackson & Messick, 1967). One of the dilemmas of usingsuch criteria is that novelty and appropriateness are determined by thecontext from which creativity emerges (Gibson, 2005; Starko, 2005). Inother words, the social context mediates the judgment of whether aperson, action, or product would be seen as creative or not. From thisperspective, recent research has focused on the notion of creativity as asociocultural construction (Bleakley, 2004). Certain constructions ofcreativity become legitimate at a certain point in history or within a

CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY AND TEACHING FOR CREATIVITY 823

specific sociocultural setting. Therefore, the type of creativity that wouldbe judged as desirable needs to be understood based on the socioculturalcontexts from which educational goals emerge. Relevant to thesociocultural nature of creativity, Cropley (2001) suggested “ethicality,”meaning not selfish or destructive ideas, as another key aspect ofcreativity. In the same vein, Gibson (2005) pointed out the importance of“value” in creativity education and criticized the absence of any ethicalargument in discussing creativity.

Another approach to understanding creativity has been modeling thecreative cognitive processes of various components. Components such asperson, process, press (environment), problem, and product have beenincluded in various creativity process models (Rickards, 1999; Sternberg,2006; Urban, 1995). For example, creativity processes are initiated by aperson confronting a problem and may end with yielding a product. Theseprocesses are mediated by environmental contexts.

In defining and judging creativity, Gow (2000) points out theimportance of considering various degrees or kinds of creativity in orderto describe a full range of creative activity. Creativity can be categorizedas Big-C (eminent) creativity and little-c (everyday) creativity, dependingon the degree of novelty. Similarly, psychological creativity (P-creativity)can be distinguished from historical creativity (H-creativity). P-creativityrefers to the ideas that are novel to an individual regardless of whether theideas are known to others. Something can be creative to one person, butnot necessarily to others. In contrast, H-creativity applies to the idea thatis fundamentally novel with respect to human history (Boden, 1991).Many scientific inventions are examples of H-creativity because they arenew to human history. These two types can be extremes of a spectrum ofcreativity for which NACCCE (1999) categorizes three levels: Creativityis mostly judged in relation to the creator’s own previous work (originalto the individual), to their peer group (original to others in the samegroup), or to human history (historically original). To these, Gow (2000)adds two more types of creativity: born creativity (type A) and learnedcreativity (type B). Type A creativity is observed most often in thosereferred to as gifted and is hardly ever learned in the classroom, whiletype B creativity is developed through education.

In understanding the notion of creativity, Sternberg (1985) suggestsresearch on implicit theories about creativity. People draw on theirsociocultural experiences to construct implicit theories (Vygotsky, 1986).For example, research reports that the implicit creativity definitions ofteachers and parents are similar within a culture, but, at the same time,they focus on different characteristics of children (social versus


intrapersonal qualities) in describing creative children (Plucker &Renzulli, 1999). Choe (2006) reports cultural differences as well assimilarities in the implicit theories of creativity. Therefore, implicittheories reflect sociocultural contexts (Ruzgis & Grigorenko, 1994) andwould be useful in formulating common cultural views and guidingeducators to design an appropriate course of educational actions.Moreover, research on implicit theories in cross-cultural studies can shedlight on the degree of sociocultural mediation in people’s conceptions ofcreativity. Thus, in this cross-cultural study, we examined scienceteachers’ conceptions of creativity by focusing on their implicit theories.

While various levels, types, or aspects of creativity are discussed in theresearch literature, no clear characterization of creativity that can bepromoted in education and science education in particular is present.Without a consensus on the kind of creativity to be promoted in theclassroom, teachers may depend on their implicit theories of creativitywhen designing science teaching for creativity, if at all. What do thescience teachers think creativity is? What do they think teaching forcreativity means? Answers to these questions will serve as a first steptowards establishing a base for addressing creativity in science education.

Educational Contexts of Creativity in Science Education

In South Korea, creativity in science has recently become an importanteducational goal and a topic of social discourse on the nation’s well-being(Choe, 2006). Reflecting the social movement generally, a recent nationalcurriculum revision addressed the importance of fostering students’creativity as a core quality of citizens in the twenty-first century (MOE &HRD, 2007). In particular, divergent thinking has been treated assynonymous with creativity, based on the major research trend in SouthKorea (Choe, 2006). The revised curriculum is characterized as a “student-centered curriculum for fostering independence and creativity.” Given thispromotion of creativity in education, science education is treated as a keycurricular area in which creativity can be fostered (Choe, 2006). Thispromotion of creativity as an important educational goal has, however, littlesubstance in terms of practical guidelines. Pedagogical approaches tofostering creativity in science are mainly left to the teachers’ discretion,while only some opportunities for professional development on creativityhave been provided (Park et al., 2006).

In the US, the promotion of creativity is closely connected to the natureof science to be taught in schools. Creativity has been promoted inscience education reform documents through the promotion of providing


students with opportunities for authentic science in reformed teachingpractices. For example, “Science for all Americans” (AAAS, 1989)recommends that effective science teaching should reflect scientificvalues such as curiosity, creativity, and imagination and claims, “Inlearning science, students should encounter such values as part of theirexperience…The science classroom ought to be a place where creativityand invention—as qualities distinct from academic excellence—arerecognized and encouraged.” Similarly, the US National ScienceEducation Standards [NSES] promote students’ use of creativity inscience learning through the experience of scientific inquiry and alsodemand that students understand the role of creativity in science because“Science is very much a human endeavor, and the work of science relieson basic human qualities, such as reasoning, insight, energy, skill, andcreativity” (NRC, 1996, p. 170). To achieve this goal, the NSES, inparticular, emphasize the development of active learning environments asa key teaching standard: “Good teachers of science create environments inwhich they and their students work together as active learners” (p. 4).

Regarding science education for creativity, the two countries demon-strate marked differences. In South Korea, creativity is treated as anessential human quality to be developed in future citizens, and scienceeducation is considered a tool for such an educational endeavor. In theUS, on the other hand, education for creativity is closely connected to thenature of science, and science inquiry in particular, and therefore,creativity becomes a legitimate goal for science teaching and scienceinquiry is promoted as both a goal and a means of science education.

METHODS

This is a survey study. Due to different educational contexts as detailedbelow, we used two different sampling methods for recruiting teachersfrom the two countries. For teachers in South Korea, we used a snowballsampling method (Patton, 1990). We contacted several secondary scienceteachers, who were past colleagues of one of the authors, to ask for theirparticipation. The initial participants recruited their colleagues in theirschools later on. In doing so, we collected a total of 44 survey responses(ten males and 34 females) from teachers in a metropolitan city of SouthKorea. The participants’ teaching experience varied from 1 to 28 years,and their average teaching experience was 14.7 years. About 60% (26teachers) of the participants were teaching in middle schools, while the


others were in high schools. Among them, about 30% (13 teachers) hadprofessional development opportunities in teaching for creativity andeight (18%) had professional development focused on teaching sciencefor creativity.

For the US teachers, we used a convenience sampling method (Patton,1990). We sent recruiting letters along with the survey questionnaire to 60secondary science teachers who used to serve as mentors for studentteachers from a university in the Pacific Northwest. In doing so, wereceived 21 survey responses (ten females and 11 males). Theparticipants’ teaching experience varied from 2 to 42 years, and theiraverage teaching experience was 16.6 years. The participant groupconsisted of nine middle school teachers and 12 high school teachers.Among them, about 43% (nine teachers) had reported to have hadprofessional development in teaching for creativity and five (24%) hadprofessional development focused on teaching science for creativity.

The different sampling methods were used to increase the participationrate by utilizing contextual factors. Teachers in South Korea have closedepartmental collegiality between them (Authors, 2008, EducationalResearcher) and hence snowball sampling seemed to increase participa-tion in the survey. On the other hand, in the US, we increased responsesfrom teachers by addressing specific teachers in sending surveys throughan official network operating between the researcher and teachers.

The relatively small and different sample size from each country mightaffect the generalizability of the comparison. Moreover, we acknowledgethat the depth of data collected from written responses to survey questionsis limited and leaves room for the need for further in-depth study. Takentogether, we limited this study to exploratory descriptive comparisonswithout inferential statistics and paid close attention to the languageteachers used as representing their thoughts (Vygotsky, 1986).

Data Collection and Analysis

Based on the literature reviewed in the previous section, survey questionswere developed in both English and Korean (Appendix A). Two bilingualscience educators and one English-speaking science educator examinedthe comparability of the survey questions in the two languages. Thepresent study focused on responses to questions about teachers’ definitionsof creativity, its nature including educability, pedagogical ideas aboutcreativity in the science classroom, and perceived constraints on teaching forcreativity. Open-ended and Likert-type questions as well as a wordassociation method (White & Gunstone, 1992) were used in the survey.


We also used two critical incidents (Nott & Wellington, 1995) as a tool toexplore teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Among several critical incidentsintroduced by Starko (2005), we selected two to use in this study becausethey were plausible in terms of the possibility of actually happening in thescience classrooms of the two countries. The purpose of using criticalincidents was twofold: First, we wanted to activate teachers’ ideas aboutcreativity and situate their ideas in school settings by presenting specificcases of creative or noncreative student actions. Second, by including twocritical contextual factors, i.e., age/academic level of students and ethics inthe incidents that might illuminate cultural differences (Choe, 2006), wewanted to examine how the two contextual factors were included in theteachers’ conceptions of creativity.

Responses to the Likert questions were analyzed to yield thefrequencies and percentages of each category. In analyzing responses toopen-ended questions, we employed the constant comparison method(Miles & Huberman, 1994) using three pre-established categoriesincluding definitions/nature of creativity, pedagogical ideas, and contex-tual factors perceived as constraints on teaching for creativity. Eachresearcher read the open responses several times and coded the dataindividually, and then discussed the coding together. In so doing, weconstructed agreed-upon codes and produced categories within the largerthree categories. For example, a teacher decided that a student wascreative because the student had approached “a problem from a differentdirection than others and [was] finding many possible solutions to aproblem.” This response was coded into novelty, problem solving, anddivergent thinking within the category of definitions/nature of creativity.In the process of coding, we found similarities between the implicittheories of the participants and the literature in terms of variousdescriptors to distinguish creativity. For example, the teachers used termssuch as “novelty,” “originality,” and “new” interchangeably just as in theliterature (NACCCE, 1999; Plucker et al., 2004; Rubenstein, 2000;Starko, 2005; Torrance, 1967). A few teachers also used one specific termsuch as “novelty” or “originality” to describe creativity just as some otherresearchers did (Cropley, 2001; Sawyer, 2006; Tan & Law, 2004). Wediscussed teachers’ different use of words and decided to use the term“novelty” to represent teachers’ terms such as originality, fresh idea,thinking out of the box, or uniqueness because we found no benefit indistinguishing these terms in understanding teachers’ conceptions ofcreativity. Similarly, the teachers used terms such as “useful,” “appropri-ate,” and “effective” interchangeably. For the same reason, we decided to


use the term “appropriateness” to represent teachers’ words such aspurposefulness, usefulness, or meaningfulness.

FINDINGS

In this section, we first present teachers’ conceptions of creativity, theirpedagogical ideas, and lastly, contextual factors perceived as constraintson teaching for creativity.

Conceptions of Creativity

Scope of Conceptions. Teachers’ conceptions of creativity were examinedfrom the analysis of their responses to the two critical incidents (surveyquestion 1) and word association (survey question 3). The teachers, as awhole, characterized creativity in its various aspects. Based on theliterature, teachers’ characterizations of creativity were grouped into sixcategories (Table 1).

More than 80% of participants from both countries used novelty asthe major characteristic of creativity (86% of all the teacherparticipants). The next popular characteristic of creativity was problemsolving (48%). In addition to these two major characteristics ofcreativity, teachers included characteristics such as ethicality (28%),appropriateness (22%), and divergent thinking (18%). Personal traitssuch as curiosity (8%) and imagination (5%) were also mentioned. Allthese characteristics of creativity in the teachers’ conceptions were, ingeneral, consistent with those in the literature. Moreover, the teachers,

TABLE 1

Categories of characteristics of “creativity”

Categories Words/terms used by teachers

Novelty Originality, fresh idea, thinking out of box, uniqueness, new,untried, innovative , nontraditional, beyond existing perception

Problem solving Solving, tackling, or synthesizing problems, finding solutions,applying knowledge to novel situations

Appropriateness Usefulness, purposefulness, effectiveness, meaningfulnessEthicality Morality, righteousness, positive means, no harm to othersDivergent thinking Showing lots of ideas, generating a variety of solutionsOther Imagination, curiosity, artistic, endurance, etc.


as a whole, focused not only on the product, but also on the cognitiveprocesses. From the perspective of understanding creativity throughcreative cognitive processes, novelty, appropriateness, and ethicalitycome under the category of product component, while divergentthinking and problem solving correspond to the category of processcomponent.

Although the teachers as a whole group characterized creativity in asimilar way to the literature, individual teacher’s conceptions were limitedin scope. Most participants used two or less of the characteristics and aconsiderable proportion of the participants (22%) demonstrated a limitedconception of creativity by mentioning novelty as the only criteria forjudging creativity. Moreover, none of the participants mentioned differenttypes or degrees of creativity or various aspects of creative problemsolving by treating creativity as a simple construct or a straightforwardprocess.

Context and Sociocultural Dependency. The teachers’ responses tocritical incident 1 demonstrated that judgment of creativity was relativeto context. When the participants mentioned novelty or knowledgeapplication as a reason for their judgment, most of them considered thegrade or age of the students. For example, a Korean teacher stated aboutincident 1 that, “He might be considered creative if he were an elementaryschool student. But, middle school students in general know the differentroles of milk and water. The question came from ignorance not fromcreative thinking.” Similarly, a US teacher made a conditional judgmentabout creativity, “1. Was the student being ‘cute’? If so, it was notcreative. 2. Did the student think you could ‘milk’ a plant like you can acow? If so, there’s a big misunderstanding, not creative thinking.”

In addition to dependency on the educational context in the judgmentof creativity, the teachers also demonstrated possible socioculturaldifferences in their conceptions of creativity. When broken down intothe characteristics teachers used to define creativity, the use of threecharacteristics was notably different between the two countries: appro-priateness, ethicality, and divergent thinking (Figure 1).

When the teachers characterized creativity in open-ended responses,for example, 36% of Korean teachers and 10% of the US teachersmentioned ethicality as an aspect of creativity. This difference wasconfirmed when the ethical issue was raised in the second criticalincident. When creativity was used for an unethical purpose in theincident, 10% of the US participating teachers and 39% of Koreanparticipating teachers denied that the student was creative. More US


teachers tended to separate ethicality from creativity than did Koreanteachers. For example, a US teacher responded to the incident that,“Although completely inappropriate, he designed a piece of equipment tocarry out a specific task which was creative problem solving.” Thiswas in contrast to a Korean teacher’s response, “It can be said thathe’s a shrewd boy, not creative. A perfect crime should not beconsidered as creative.” This result is similar to the previous researchfinding that many Eastern cultures consider ethicality and contributionsto society as key requirements for creative work (Kaufman &Sternberg, 2007).

Another difference between the participants from South Korea andthe US that might be connected to sociocultural contexts was theteachers’ consideration of divergent thinking. Among the participants inthis study, more of the Korean teachers (25%) than the US teachers(5%) took divergent thinking into consideration when characterizingcreativity. The Korean teachers’ connection of divergent thinking tocreativity reflected the national curricular emphasis. However, the lackof explicit consideration of divergent thinking by the US teachers was instark contrast to the research report that divergent thinking is oftenconsidered synonymous with creativity in English-speaking countries(Baer & Kaufman, 2006; Plucker et al., 2004). One possible explanationfor this contradiction would be the lack of promotion of divergentthinking in science education documents in the US as opposed toeducation in general.

Figure 1. Characteristics of creativity


Conceptions of Teaching for Creativity

Teachers’ pedagogical ideas about creativity were examined throughvarious questions including questions about nurture versus nature forcreativity and teaching strategies for fostering creativity.

Creativity as a Talent. We asked teachers about their opinions on thestatement, “creativity is possessed by a blessed few” because teachers’views of students were critical for identifying their pedagogicalconceptions (Author et al., 2005, Science Education; Nespor, 1987).Most of the participants (South Korea, 73%; the US, 90%) disagreed orstrongly disagreed with a statement such as, “all students have capacity orpotential to be creative” (a US teacher).

The teachers used different standards for creativity. The teachers whoagreed on the statement revealed a high standard for creativity byindicating the idea of Big-C or eminent creativity in their judgment:“From the history of science in solving extremely difficult problems, wecan see that some special scientists have creativity” (a Korean teacher).Moreover, a few teachers thought that some students were not creative atall. For example, a US teacher explained his opinion that, “Creativity canbe taught, but an ‘unblessed’ student never quite has the ease or high levelability of problem solving.” The different standards for creativity mightbe related to their view of creativity as a special talent.

Achievement and Creativity. When the teachers related creativity tostudents, they associated academic achievement with creativity indifferent ways. Many participants commonly mentioned inconsistencybetween academic achievement and creativity in their classrooms, butthey used such an observation differently to support their beliefsregarding the statement that a few who were blessed were creative. Someteachers believed that only a limited number of students were creativewhen not all high-achieving students demonstrated creativity (e.g., “Onlyfew of high achieving students are very creative. Therefore, I think only alimited number of people are born with creativity”). These teachersseemed to expect that creative students would demonstrate highachievement levels, in science at least, and additional characteristics ofcreativity. Others believed that, when even low-achieving studentsdemonstrated creativity, all students could be creative (e.g., “We canfind creativity in students even though they have low achievement levels.So, anyone can be creative”). These teachers seemed to believe thatachievement could be unrelated to creativity. The teachers’ different


connections between student creativity and achievement illustrated thattheir views of creativity and assessments of student achievement vary,and hence, the relationship of the two vary as well in their conceptions.

Teachability. Most of the participants in both countries believed thatcreativity could be taught or fostered (South Korea, 84%; US 86%). Theirbeliefs about teachability were not directly related to their view ofcreativity as a talent. Most of the participants (94%), regardless of theirbeliefs about who were creative, believed that creativity could be fosteredunder proper teaching conditions. When teachers’ beliefs about teach-ability were compared with their beliefs about “who were creative?,” notall teachers who believed that everyone had potential to be creativeagreed with teachability (South Korea, 78%; US, 89%). The teachers whothought that creativity was not alright for teaching mentioned contextualconstraints as reasons for their responses, indicating that teachability wasa relative judgment rather than an absolute judgment. For example,teachers mentioned, “Under the condition requiring one and only oneanswer, creativity is likely to be discouraged.” “Maybe we can promotecreativity through education to a certain extent, but we cannot maintainthe born-to-be-creative. So I think creativity is not for teaching.”However, the participants, in general, seemed to be positive aboutteaching for creativity.

Fostering Creativity in the Science Classroom. While the teachers in thisstudy demonstrated commonalities in general conceptions of creativity inrelation to pedagogy, their responses involving specific pedagogical ideasabout fostering creativity revealed both similarities and some differencesbetween the two countries (Figure 2). Using inquiry activities (includingproject-based learning, experiments, and problem solving) was a popularidea for the participants from both countries. This was consistent with theteachers’ common emphases on novelty and problem solving incharacterizing creativity. In addition, the participants mentioned otherpedagogical methods that revealed some differences between the twocountries. The South Korean teachers emphasized providing thinkingopportunities through open-ended questions and peer interactions such asdiscussions or cooperative learning (82%). On the other hand, the USteachers emphasized environmental or emotional support such asencouragement (33%).

The Korean teachers’ emphasis on thinking opportunities wasconsistent with the curricular emphasis on divergent thinking as an aspect


of creativity, while the US teachers’ emphasis on the learningenvironment was consistent with the teaching standards of the USNational Standards.

Constraints on Teaching for Creativity

Given the common (emphasis on inquiry) and different pedagogical ideas(emphases on thinking opportunities versus learning environment), theteachers’ actual classroom teaching practices were examined through self-reporting along with their perceived educational environments regardingteaching for creativity through questions about whether they usuallyconsider creativity when planning science lessons and the constraints theyperceived in fostering student creativity.

According to the self-reports, the participants in the US planned forencouraging creativity (62%) more frequently than their counterpart(30%). This was consistent with the Trends in International Mathematicsand Science Study 2007 data (Table 2) that show that inquiry activitiessuch as planning and/or conducting an experiment or investigation, whichwas the dominant pedagogical idea of the teachers for fostering creativity,were less frequently used by Korean teachers (less than half of thefrequency of the US teachers).

Then what were the teachers’ thinking constraints in teaching forstudents’ creativity? The most frequently mentioned constraint was alack of time under the pressure of content coverage for high-stakes tests(75%). For example, a US teacher mentioned, “Projects, which requirecreativity, are time consuming and now that certain pieces ofinformation have to be covered for the state test [sic]. Even fun, shortactivities…take time to discuss and are not found on the state test, sowhy cover them?” Korean teachers made similar statements such as,“All the lessons are focused on gaining high scores on college entrance

Figure 2. Pedagogical ideas about fostering creativity


exams which require understanding and applying only basic concepts,not creativity.” Apart from the dominant constraint of content coverage,difficulties in assessing creativity (22%) and class size (26%) were alsomentioned as constraints.

In addition to the three types of constraints commonly mentioned bythe teachers in the two countries, South Korean teachers mentionedtwo other conditions that were rarely mentioned by the US teachers.The first one was a lack of teachers’ own experience and knowledgeabout creativity (32%). For example, one teacher mentioned, “I’venever been taught creativity-centered instructions. So I have no ideaabout how to teach for creativity.” This was consistent with theprevious research finding that Korean teachers connected theirdiscomfort about teaching for creativity to their lack of experience aslearners in creativity-centered instruction (Yoo & Sohn, 2001 cited byPark et al., 2006). The second condition was social pressure for studentachievement (16%). For example, a teacher stated, “Students and evenparents tend to think of teaching for creativity as a waste of time. They careverymuch about achievement and test scores.” Themuch lower frequency ofKorean teachers’ planning of teaching for creativity might be partlyexplained by their feeling of constraints from more diverse sources thantheir counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this study have shown that the teachers’ conceptions ofcreativity and teaching for creativity have elements that are consistent

TABLE 2

Student activities in middle school science (adopted from Martin, Mullis & Foy, 2008)

Country

Percentage of students who reported doing the activity about half of thelessons or more

Design or plan anexperiment orinvestigation (%)

Conduct an experimentor investigation (%)

Work in small groupson an experiment orinvestigation (%)

South Korea 26 28 29US 68 57 67


with the literature. However, each individual teacher’s conception waslimited in that the teachers focused on a few characteristics of creativity.The limited view of creativity was also reflected in the teachers’insensitivity to types or degrees of creativity that are reported in theliterature. None of the teachers explicitly mentioned any different typesof creativity. A sophisticated view of creativity would benefit teachers’pedagogical ideas as well as ability to identify students’ creative thinkingin the classroom (NACCCE, 1999). For example, if a teacher differ-entiates individual and relative creativity, the teacher might flexiblyjudge a student’s creativity. Teacher education, therefore, should addressthe simplistic conceptions of creativity by informing teachers of themultiple characteristics of creativity as well as types or degrees ofcreativity. When the complexity of creativity is considered in relation toscientific enterprise, a more authentic view of the nature of science canbe represented in the classroom (Osborn, Collins, Ratcliffe & Millar,2003). For example, questions about the link between the nature ofscience and creativity, such as, “How are these different types ofcreativity important to the creation of scientific knowledge?,” would bebetter addressed.

Consistent with arguments in the literature (Beghetto, 2007; Runco,2003), some teachers’ conceptions included the process of creativity suchas problem solving and divergent thinking. The focus on the processaspect of creativity should be encouraged because it would help teachersfind the potential for creativity in students rather than judging creativitysolely based on student products.

Along with the teachers’ narrow conceptions of creativity, the teachers’tendency to separate creativity from ethicality needs attention. Whileconceptually the two might be considered as different constructs,perceiving creativity in science education as if value-free might beinappropriate in the context of education (Craft, 2003; Cropley, 2001;Gibson, 2005; Tan & Law, 2004). When fostering creativity in theclassroom, ethical desirability should accompany creativity. As Nickerson(1999) claimed, “Attempting to enhance creativity in a value-free way is abit like teaching a child how to aim and fire a gun without providingguidance regarding what, and what not, to shoot at” (p. 397). As far aseducation is concerned, moral goodness should be included in creativityeducation.

It is very encouraging that the teaching methods suggested by theteachers are very similar to those in literature (Craft, 2000; Kind & Kind,


2007; Nickerson, 1999; Starko, 2005). In particular, problem-basedlearning and project-based inquiry have been emphasized most infostering creativity in science (Kind & Kind, 2007). These strategiesare not different from those promoted in recent science educationreform that focuses on conceptual learning and scientific inquiry.Therefore, teaching for creativity in science is compatible with thecurrent reform agenda, and hence, it might be achieved with minimumadditional effort.

The teachers’ perceived that constraints on teaching for creativity arealso consistent with the commonly reported barriers in the currenteducational contexts including content coverage and high-stakes tests(Beghetto, 2007; Craft, 2000, 2003; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007; Kim,2005; Park et al., 2006). To address the issues, a variety of suggestionshave been made in the literature. At the system level, researcherssuggested a paradigm shift for a new educational vision that centered oncreativity (Craft, 2000; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007). For example,Kaufman & Sternberg (2007) suggested integrating creativity into large-scale assessments. At the classroom-instructional level, Beghetto (2007)recognized the needs for teachers to reconcile their value for creativitywith educational constraints such as curriculum coverage and suggested anumber of pedagogical approaches. For example, teachers can fosterstudent divergent ideas while limiting the scope within the educationalconstraints by helping students differentiate between personally mean-ingful ideas and interpersonally meaningful ideas. When studentsrecognize whether and how an idea is original and appropriate, not onlyfor oneself, but also for others in the class, they can exercise their creativemind within an appropriate scope.

While the participants from both South Korea and the US demonstrat-ed similar trends in their conceptions of creativity and pedagogical ideas,they also revealed some diversity that seemed to originate fromsociocultural differences. The higher proportion of South Koreanteachers’ consideration of ethicality in judging creativity seems to berelated to the Asian cultural emphasis on group goals, which prioritizesconsideration of others and contribution to the society (Nisbett, 2003). Onthe other hand, the higher proportion of the US teachers’ emphasis onclassroom environmental or emotional support in teaching for creativityseems to be related to the emphasis on individuality, personal goals, orself-aggrandizement in Western culture (Nisbett, 2003). Based onrecommendations in the literature and our study, as an example, these


differences point to what to emphasize in teacher education programs indifferent cultural contexts. In order to complement the greater emphasis onthe individual, the ethical aspect of creativity should be emphasized. On theother hand, emotional support may complement a heavy emphasis on groupgoals.

The different emphases of the two cultures also seem to be relatedto the much lower proportion of Korean teachers’ planning forcreativity in the classroom. Creativity is inherently a manifestation ofindividuality, i.e., being different from others. Therefore, teaching forcreativity is incompatible with the traditional Asian cultural prejudiceagainst individuality (Kwang & Smith, 2004; Sawyer, 2006). Lim &Plucker (2001), for example, found that Korean people connectedsocial behaviors that implied negative connotations in the Koreanculture to creativity. They concluded that this negative social imagemight inhibit exercising creativity. In the same vein, teachers whohonor traditional values might feel reluctant to promote creativity inschools. Therefore, in Asian culture, promoting teaching for creativityseemed to be more challenging and its effect might occur slowly, asit requires changes in values. Although it remains to be seen, thecurrent nationwide promotion of creativity as an educational goalmight be effective considering the Asian cultural emphasis on groupgoals.

This study provides only a glimpse of science teachers’ conceptions ofcreativity in South Korea and the United States. As noted previously, theresults of this study cannot be generalized because of the small anddifferent sample sizes from each country. Moreover, the small sample sizefailed to allow an examination of any connections between teachers’conceptions and teacher characteristics, such as teaching experience andprior professional development experiences. Given these limitations, thisexploratory study has provided an initial step for understanding teachers’notion of creativity in relation to the sociocultural conditions ofeducation. The findings of this exploratory study provide questions forfurther research. Considering the sociocultural dependency of creativity,what kinds of creativity should be promoted in science classrooms? Howcan they be taught effectively? The teachers reported their limitedexperience and resources as constraints in promoting creativity in theclassroom. What kinds of professional development programs should beprovided? What kinds of resources for teaching should be provided? Howshould teaching for creativity be promoted? Further research thataddresses these questions will better help teachers foster student creativityin science.


APPENDIXTeacher Creativity on Creativity in Science

♦ The following is designed to understand secondary science teachers’ ideas about creativity in

teaching and learning. Please respond to each question in detail.

1. Please read the following incidents and decide whether each student's behavior is creative or

not. Please provide reasons for your answer.

Incident I. In the midst of a discussion of plants, Toshio, a 6th grade student, raises his hand and

asks, “Do you think the plants would grow taller and stronger if, instead of watering them, we

milked them?”

1-1. Is this student creative? Yes ( ) No ( )

1-2. Please describe your reason:

Incident II. Sam, a 6th grade student, is wearing a baseball cap on hat day. Unbeknown to his

teacher, he has installed a mirror under the brim. When the hat is cocked at the correct angle, he

can see the desk next to his. Sam thought that it would be handy during the sixth-period quiz.

1-3. Is this student creative? Yes ( ) No ( )

1-4. Please describe your reason:

2. Please describe the kinds of classroom activities in which students are expected to use their

creativity. Please provide specific examples (e.g., when students predict lab results).

3. What comes to mind when you think of creativity? Please describe your ideas with examples

if appropriate.

4. To what degree do you plan lessons for encouraging/using students’ creativity?

All the time Frequently When opportunities arise Rarely

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

5. What are the constraints, if any, on teaching for students’ creativity?

6. Some people think that creativity is possessed by a blessed few. Please indicate your opinion

on this.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Please explain your answer.


REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press. Available at http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online.

Baer, J. &Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Creativity research in English-speaking countries. In J. C. K.Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 10–38).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supportingstudent creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29, 265–270.

Bleakley, A. (2004). ‘Your creativity or mine?’ A typology of creativities in higher educationand the value of a pluralistic approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 463–475.

Boden, M. A. (1991). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York: Basic.Bohm, D. (1998). On creativity. London: Routledge.Choe, I. S. (2006). Creativity—A sudden rising star in Korea. In J. C. K. Kaufman & R. J.Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 395–420). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Craft, A. (2000). Creativity across the primary curriculum. London: Routledge.Craft, A. (2003). The limitation to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educators.British Journal of Educational Studies, 51, 113–127.

Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creatively in education & learning. London: Kogan Page.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study ofcreativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

7. Some people think that scientists should be creative and some people don’t. Please indicate

your opinion on this.


[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Why do you think so? Please complete one of the following sentences.

When you agreed: Scientists use creativity when they (please be specific)

When you disagreed: Scientists never use creativity because (please be specific)

8. Do you think creativity is teachable? Please indicate your opinion on this.


[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Why do you think so? Please complete one of the following sentences.

When you agreed: In the science classroom, students can develop creativity when they are

asked to (do so) (Please be specific about activities, teaching strategies or classroom

environment.)

When you disagreed: In the science classroom, students can use their existing creativity when

they are asked to (do so) (Please be specific about activities, teaching strategies or classroom

environment.)


http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online

http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online

Eisenhart, M., Shrum, J., Harding, J. & Cuthbert, A. (1988). Teacher beliefs: Definitions,findings, and directions. Educational Policy, 2(1), 51–70.

Gibson, H. (2005). What creativity isn’t: The presumptions of instrumental and individualjustifications for creativity in education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 148–167.

Gow, G. (2000). Understanding and teaching creativity. Tech Direction, 59(6), 32–34.Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47–63.

Jackson, P. W. & Messick, S. (1967). The person, the product, and the response:Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity andlearning (pp. 1–19). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Creativity. Change, 39(4), 55–60.Kim, K. H. (2005). Learning from each other: Creativity in East Asian and Americaneducation. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 337–347.

Kind, P. M. & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives andchallenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1–37.

Kwang, N. A. & Smith, I. (2004). The paradox of promoting creativity in Asianclassroom: An empirical investigation. Genetic, Social and General PsychologyMonographs, 130, 307–330.

Lim, W. & Plucker, J. A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social responsibility:Implicit theories of creativity with Korean samples. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35,115–130.

Lubart, T. I. (1990). Creativity and cross-cultural variation. International Journal ofPsychology, 25, 39–59.

Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook ofcreativity (pp. 339–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S. & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International ScienceReport: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study atthe fourth and eighth grade. Chestnut: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,Boston College.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expandedsourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ministry of Education &Human Resources Development of Korea (2007).National sciencecurriculum. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://cutis.moe.go.kr/edu/edu-pro/

National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (1999). All our futures:Creativity, culture and education. London: DFEE.

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington:National Academies Press.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 19, 317–328.

Ng, A. K. & Smith, I. (2004). The paradox of promoting creativity in Asian classroom:An empirical investigation. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 130,307–330.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook ofcreativity (pp. 392–430). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners thinkingdifferently and why. New York: Free Press.

Niu, W. (2006). Development of creativity research in Chinese societies: A comparison ofMainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. In J. C. K. Kaufman & R. J.


http://cutis.moe.go.kr/edu/edu-pro/

Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 374–394). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Nott, M. & Wellington, J. (1995). Critical incidents in the science classroom and thenature of science. School Science Review, 76(276), 41–46.

Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messyconstruct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Park, S., Lee, S., Oliver, J. S. & Crammond, B. (2006). Changes in Korean scienceteachers’ perception of creativity and science teaching after participating in anoverseas professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17, 37–64.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research method. Newbury Park:Sage.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more importantto educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativityresearch. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.

Plucker, J. A. & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of humancreativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Rickards, T. (1999). Creativity and the management of change. Massachusetts: Blackwell.Rubenstein, D. J. (2000). Stimulating children’s creativity and curiosity: Does content andmedium matter? Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 1–17.

Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal ofEducational Research, 47, 317–324.

Ruzgis, P. &Grigorenko, E. L. (1994). Cultural meaning systems, intelligence, and personality.In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.),Personality and intelligence (pp. 248–270). NewYork:Cambridge University Press.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journalof Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Introduction. In J. C. K. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),The international handbook of creativity (pp. 1–9). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural dimensions of giftedness and talent. Roeper Review, 29,160–165.

Tan, A. G. & Law, L. C. (2004). Creativity for teachers. Singapore: Marshall CavendishAcademic.

Torrance, E. P. (1967). Scientific views of creativity and factors affecting its growth. In J.Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning (pp. 73–91). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Urban, K. K. (1995). Creativity: A component approach model. Paper presented at theWorld Conference on the Education for the Gifted and Talented, Hong Kong.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT. (Translated, newlyrevised, and edited by A. Kozulin)

White, R. T. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Falmer.


Yoo, Y. & Sohn, Y. (2001). A study on the analysis of actual conditions and reformmeasures in light of applying the 7th national curriculum. Journal of Science EducationKyungpook National University, 25, 11–30.

Miyoung Hong

Korea Institute for Curriculum and EvaluationSamcheong-dong, Jongro-gu, Seoul, 110-230, South KoreaE-mail: [email protected]

Nam-Hwa Kang

Department of Science and Mathematics EducationOregon State University301 Weniger Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331-6508, USAE-mail: [email protected]


SOUTH KOREAN AND THE US SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY AND TEACHING...

Documents

Transcript of SOUTH KOREAN AND THE US SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY AND TEACHING...