Teaching for creativity (TfC) is highlighted worldwide due to its crucial role in students’ learning motivation,  creative performance, and academic achievement (Craft et al., 2008; Davies et al., 2013; Gajda et al., 2017). A line of research in the field of management has found that psychological capital (PsyCap) has a close relationship with individual creativity in many service settings (Huang & Luthans, 2015; Li & Wu, 2011; Rego et al., 2012; Sweetman et al., 2011). To date, few studies in education have explored whether and to what extent teachers’ PsyCap is related to their TfC behavior. To address the discussed research gaps, this study was designed to investigate the relationship between teachers’ PsyCap and their TfC behavior, by first examining the links between each of the four components of PsyCap—efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism—and teachers’ TfC, and then by analyzing the differences in these links between urban and rural teachers.

TfC emphasizes the development of creativity in students through their empowerment in the learning process.  (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004; National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, 1999).

Luthans (2002) defines PsyCap as “positively oriented human resources strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement” (p. 59). From this perspective, Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2007) advanced four positive psychological resources as constituting PsyCap: efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience.

The relationship between efficacy and TfC can be addressed in three ways. Based on the previous literature, we postulated a positive relationship between efficacy and TfC.

Conceptual work backed by empirical evidence indicates that hopeful individuals are apt to welcome creativity. Zhou and George (2003) argued that creativity-related performance at work requires a willingness to explore despite the possibility of failure. From this literature, we anticipated a positive association between hope and TfC among teachers.

Resilience is the ability to adapt to changing contexts and life stressors, to bounce back from failure, uncertainty, and adversity, and even to move beyond resilience to achieve success (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Given that failures and challenges are inherent in creative tasks (Amabile, 1983) as well as the cultivation of student creativity (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018), feeling at ease in abnormal situations and persevering despite failure are prerequisites of creativity-related behavior. We postulated that the positive association between resilience and creativity found in this literature would be also applicable to TfC.

Optimism refers to an individual’s generalized positive expectancy for, and attributions of, success (Scheier et al., 2001). Empirical studies have also found that optimism can enhance flexible cognition, trigger intrinsic motivation, and promote creative thinking and creativity-related performance (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; Sweetman et al., 2011). Based on the theory of optimism and the attendant empirical studies, we predicted that a positive association between optimism and TfC. 

In China, due to community poverty, isolation, and distance from the centers of political, economic, and cultural life (Sargent & Hannum, 2005), rural teachers in under-resourced schools may exhibit different features of PsyCap and face distinct challenges in TfC. we predicted that the structural relationships between efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism to TfC are invariant across urban and rural teachers.

Sample and Data Collection This study used a cross-sectional survey research design to investigate studied variables. The participants were 2,309 primary school teachers (86.6% females) in Chongqing, with a mean age of 36.18 years (SD = 8.98, ranging from 21 to 60 years) and mean years of teaching experience of 14.78 years (SD = 10.26, ranging from 1 to 40 years). An online self-reported questionnaire was used to collect the data. We contacted local educational administrators and teacher educators to obtain their approval to conduct the research in their districts, and to ask for their assistance in distributing the link and QR code of the online questionnaire to teachers. Measures PsyCap Teachers’ PsyCap was measured with the 12-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12; Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). TfC The items developed by Author (2021) were used to measure teachers’ TfC behavior. The participants responded to all items using a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Data Analysis After data cleaning, descriptive statistics were computed for all the variables and Cronbach’s alpha scores were calculated to assess the internal reliability of the multi-item subscales. Independent sample T-test was used to compare differences in PsyCap and TfC between urban teachers and rural teachers. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine difference in four components of PsyCap within all teachers, urban teachers and rural teachers respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis was then used to measure the construct, discriminant, and convergent validity of the scales. A measurement model was used to test the structural validity of the hypothetical model. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed to examine the hypothesized relationships among the studied variables, with the maximum likelihood method adopted for parameter estimation. The goodness-of-fit indices used for the model were the chi-square test (χ2), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; should be < .08), comparative fit index (CFI; should be > .90), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI; should be > .90), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; should be < .08) (Keith, 2014). To compare the relationships among the studied variables between the urban and rural groups, we tested the measurement invariance of the models. After confirming measurement invariance, the structural weights and latent means were compared. Mplus 8.0 was used for data analysis.

This study mapped the associations between four components of PsyCap and TfC among urban and rural teachers. Four major findings emerged from the analyses: (1) teachers scored highest in optimism and lowest in hope, and urban teachers had higher levels of efficacy and hope than rural teachers; (2) Efficacy and Resilience were significantly related to both urbans’ and rural teachers’ TfC performance; (3) Hope was only positively associated with urban teachers’ TfC; (4) Optimism was only positively related with rural teachers’ TfC The results of this study showed that teachers reported different levels of the four components of PsyCap. Among the four components of PsyCap, hope scored the lowest and optimism the highest for both urban and rural teachers. This supports Synder’s (1994) claim that hope and optimism differ. Combining willpower with waypower, hope represents to what extent teachers are motivated and how many pathways teachers can identify for accomplishing tasks; optimism represents generally positive expectancy and attribution. The results revealed that both urban and rural teachers held a quite optimistic perspective on their work but had limited self-motivation and a relative lack of hope in terms of identifying different ways to solve problems. The present study found that urban teachers had higher levels of general efficacy and hope than their rural counterparts. Given their limited educational and social resources, poor working conditions, and worse student performance (Sargent & Hannum, 2009; Zhao et al., 2017), rural teachers may encounter more challenges and have limited access to the resources needed to solve problems; this might decrease their self-judgments of their abilities and motivation. In addition, limited teacher training and development opportunities commonly founded in the rural schools (Sargent & Hannum, 2005) may also lead to teacher constrained confidence in their abilities.

References (abridged) Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. 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. Craft, A., Chappell, K., & Twining, P. (2008). Learners reconceptualising education: Widening participation through creative engagement? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 235–245. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91. Gajda, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Exploring creative learning in the classroom: A multi-method approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 250–267. Huang, L., & Luthans, F. (2015). Toward better understanding of the learning goal orientation–creativity relationship: The role of positive psychological capital. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 444–472. Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. Li, C. H., & Wu, J.-J. (2011). The structural relationships between optimism and innovative behavior: Understanding potential antecedents and mediating effects. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 119–128. Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 57–72. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541–572. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press. Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. E. (2012). Retail employees’ self-efficacy and hope predicting their positive affect and creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(6), 923–945. Sweetman, D., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Luthans, B. C. (2011). Relationship between positive psychological capital and creative performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(1), 4–13. Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320–333. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The rOole of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 545–568.