For decades now, creativity has been аn important topic for researchers, both in terms of defining the concept and applying it most efficiently into school environment. Creativity, as a psychological phenomenon, can be defined as a complex structure, including special cognitive skills, such as divergent thinking, flexibility and speed of idea generating, certain traits, such as curiousity, openness to new experience, tolerance, and acceptance of freedom, and ability to see and react to appropriate signals from external stimulus (such as environment and interaction with others) (Cropley & Cropley, 2009; Sternberg, 2003/2007; Csikszentmihalyj, 1999).

Creativity has already found its way into curricula, both as one of objectives of education in general and the overall outcome of attending the school. Creativity is considered as a crucial trait (or complex abilities) for young adults entering high schools or job market. However, it is the complexity of the concept that generates the mixed understanding of its necessity, and more important, the advantages of being creative, of nurturing creativity in schools, and of competitive advantages creative approach might provide. In Estonian National Curriculum for Gymnasiums (2010), “creativity” is stated as one of major outcomes of general education; however, it is not described or explained, what are the definition, the means and targets for teachers to fullfill that objective. 

Implicit theories of creativity (e.g. Runco & Johnson, 2002; Runco, 2011), which emphasize the important of creativity perception, not just standardized measurements, might provide insights on how particular students in particular settings see the needed support for their creativity. As Sternberg (1985, 1988) described, implicit theories of creativity might provide valuable information on how people view and evaluate creativity in a given place and time. 

Knowing students’ implicit theories of creativity enables us to understand the mechanics of efficient and productive learning, resulting in creative self-expression and creative outcomes. This, in turn, would allow us to model a school environment settings which would take into account maximum personal differences and individual characteristics of students. These individual characteristics, in terms of creativity support, is crucial for understanding, how and what should be done by educators, teachers, and school administration to allow students' originality to grow.

For the current paper, a model was proposed, with 4 component interconnected with each other, making up a complex unified phenomenon of students' perception of school's pro-creative (or, creativity-supportive) environment. As a basis for these implicit understandings of school's creative environment, students' motivational tendencies and evaluation of their school environment were taken. The 4 components proposed for the model were:

1. Cooperation with teachers - formal and informal interaction between students and teachers;
2. Supportive environment in the class - in-class and extra-school support of original ideas;
3. Freedom to be different - courage, acceptance, and one's wish to differ from others;
4. Students' interaction - extra-school and in-class communication between students.

These factors are universal across different educational settings, however their perception, importance for every individual student and acceptance/ evaluation of these differ, depending on cultural and educational traditions, and also on set of background factors (such as involvement in extracurricular activities, gender, class).

1. Veisson, M., Kallas, R., Leino, M., & Ruus, V.-R. (2007). Erinevusi ja sarnasusi Eesti Vabariigi eesti ja vene õppekeelega üldhariduskoolide koolikultuuris, õpilaste edukuses, heaolus, huvides ja toimetulekus [Differences and similarities between schools with Estonian and Russian instruction languages in school culture, success of students, wellbeing, interests, and coping]. In T. Kuurme (Ed.), Eesti kool 21. sajandi algul: Kool kui arengukeskkond ja õpilaste toimetulek [Estonian school in the beginning of 21st century: school as environment for development and students’ coping] (pp. 73–94). Tallinn: Tallinn University Press. 2. Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 45–61. 3. Runco, M. A. (2011). Implicit Theories. In M. Runco, S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity. Volume I (pp. 644–646). Elsevier Inc. Academic Press. 4. Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. (2009). Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for higher education and organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
 5. Cropley, A. (2006). Creativity: A Social Approach. Roeper Review, 28(3), 125–130. 6. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 7. Realo, A. (2003). Comparison of Public and Academic Discources: Estonian Collectivism and Individualism Revisited. Culture & Psychology, 9(1), 47–77. 8. Realo, A., & Allik, J. (1999). A cross-cultural study of collectivism: a comparison of American, Estonian and Russian students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(2), 133–142. 9. Runco, M. A. (2011). Implicit Theories. In M. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of creativity. Volume I (pp. 644–646). Elsevier Inc.: Academic Press. 10. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–627.