Recent OECD reports (OECD, 2023; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019) call for clear guidance for teachers on how to embed creativity and critical thinking in their everyday practice. They highlight the need for educators in a range of Higher Education disciplines, including Teacher Education, to re-design their courses and assessments with the intent of developing students’ creativity and critical thinking along with disciplinary content and skills. This paper describes a study which explores preservice-teachers’ engagement with a module on creativity in a post-primary Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programme in an Irish university.* 

Creativity has emerged as a critical issue in education research, with increasing focus on how it can be developed and supported in schools and in teacher education (Helfand et al., 2016; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Central to this discussion is the concept of a creative mindset - a construct that plays a significant role in shaping teachers’ and students’ orientation towards creative practice. The term creative mindset refers to an individual’s belief about the nature of creativity itself (Karwowski, 2014; Karwowski et al., 2020), and has a significant impact on their openness to novel ideas and willingness to engage in creative behaviours (Beghetto & Karwowski, 2023). The concept draws on Dweck’s (2007) mindset theory, which distinguishes between fixed and growth mindsets, suggesting that individuals who believe creativity can be developed over time are more likely to embrace creative challenges and persist when faced with difficulty. Related to the concept of a creative mindset are the interrelated and overlapping constructs of creative identity, creative self-efficacy and creative self-regulation (Culpepper & Gauntlett, 2024; Huang, Lee, and Yang, 2019; Hass et al, 2016; Zielińska and Karwowski, 2022). Challenges can arise for teachers when they seek to foster creativity in their practice. Richardson and Mishra (2018) found a disconnect between the recognised importance of creativity and the systemic and pedagogical challenges teachers face in implementing it effectively.  This is often exacerbated by the arts bias commonly associated with creativity in education (Glăveanu, 2014; Patston et al., 2018).

This paper explores preservice-teachers’ engagement with a module on creativity in post-primary education. The module aimed to foster a creative mindset among preservice-teachers through critical engagement with the theoretical underpinnings of creativity and a range of practical tools and strategies characteristic of creative learning environments. A key objective of the module was to demystify the concept of creativity and highlight the need for every teacher, regardless of their subject specialism, to foster creativity in the post-primary classroom. An interdisciplinary approach to creativity was embedded into the module design, whereby the overarching theme of creativity in education was applied to three separate strands within the module: a Digital Media strand, a Drama strand, and a Linguistic Responsiveness strand. This interdisciplinary approach provided a range of perspectives and distinct pedagogies to the overarching theme of creativity in post-primary education. Each strand offered a distinctive lens based on the respective fields of the lecturers. 

The findings presented here are based on a study which explored the extent to which a module on creativity influences preservice-teachers’ identity and professional practice and how an interdisciplinary and participatory approach supports their development as creative teachers. The research questions are: (1) To what extent can a module on creativity influence preservice-teachers’ identity and professional practice? and (2) How might an interdisciplinary and participatory approach support the development of a creative mindset among this cohort? 

_{*Post-primary Initial Teacher Education in Ireland refers to the programmes that prepare individuals to become qualified teachers at the secondary (post-primary) school level.}

The study was underpinned by an interpretive approach to research, using first anonymous online surveys (n=56) and then focus groups (n=12) as methods of data collection. There were three iterations of the module between 2021 and 2024. After the results of each iteration had been promulgated, students were invited to participate in the research. Participation was entirely voluntary. Ethical approval was gained from the university Research Ethics Committee. Survey participants completed an anonymous online survey (using Qualtrics in Year 1 and Google Forms in Years 2 and 3). Four focus groups were conducted via Zoom (FG 1 = n5; FG2 = n2; FG3 = n3; FG4 = n2). The surveys and focus groups involved a series of open-ended questions which centred on participants’ views, experiences and reflections in relation to (1) the design and delivery of the module and (2) practical pedagogic implications for their future teaching. The data was then qualitatively coded and analysed using Thematic Analysis procedures (Braun & Clarke, 2013). First, each dataset was read closely and then coded. Each item in the data was manually tagged in order to generate initial descriptive codes for the data. These tags were then collated and grouped under broad headings, which were then further compared and organised in order to identify broad patterns, clusters and groupings across the data, which were then used as parent codes (e.g. positive reactions; resistance; challenges; interdisciplinary; pupil motivation etc.). These were then compared and organised to identify broad patterns and groupings across the data. The entire dataset was then systematically collated and categorised according to these ‘parent’ codes. Themes were identified according to frequency in the data and perceived significance on the part of the researchers in relation to the research objectives. These themes were sorted, revised and refined in several rounds, leading to the identification of three overarching themes: (a) becoming a creative practitioner (b) bridging the gap between theory and practice in relation to creativity in the classroom and (c) exploring creativity in an interdisciplinary and collaborative way. There was regular debriefing and cross-checking of codes among the researchers to ensure intercoder agreement. Braun & Clarke’s 15-point checklist of criteria for good thematic analysis (2013, p.287) was adhered to in order to ensure the trustworthiness and dependability of the research.

Findings suggest that: (1) The application of three distinct perspectives in the design of the module resulted in a synergy of approaches which appears to have given preservice-teachers a broader appreciation of the nature of creativity and its role in education. This paper presents a model for fostering creativity using an interdisciplinary framework. The model increases the visibility of creativity in ITE and across the curriculum; thus, helping to counter the arts bias that often exists in school cultures. The model requires students to collaborate across curricular subjects. Findings suggest that this cross-curricular collaboration was instrumental in countering the arts bias, particularly for teachers who initially felt that their subject did not lend itself to creativity. (2) An explicit focus on creativity in education can be instrumental in bridging the gap between educational policy and classroom practice. Embedding examples of creative practices across all elements of ITE is not sufficient; this needs to be accompanied by an explicit focus on the theoretical literature as well as critical analysis of particular techniques, tools and strategies. This dual approach empowered preservice-teachers to identify as creative practitioners and enabled them to articulate their creative self-beliefs, even in contexts where more traditional approaches were evident in the school culture. (3) The interdisciplinary and collaborative approach was found to be highly effective in the development of creative self-beliefs. The findings demonstrate that some participants embraced the possibilities offered by a creative approach to teaching and learning more than others. The variation in the participants’ self-beliefs can be viewed as various positions on a continuum of becoming a creative practitioner. This continuum demonstrates how teachers can develop as creative practitioners and provides insights for continued support beyond ITE. These findings signify important implications and recommendations for ITE programme design which will be explored in the paper.

Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2023). Creative self-beliefs: From creative potential to creative action. In R. Reiter-Palmon & S. Hunter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity: Individual and group level influences, pp. 179–193. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91840-4.00010-4 Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2013) Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. Sage. Culpepper, M. K., & Gauntlett, D. (2024). The construction of everyday creative identity. Journal of Creativity, 34(2), Article 100085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2024.100085 Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Revisiting the “art bias” in lay conceptions of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 11–20. https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.873656 Hass, R. W., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). Disentangling creative mindsets from creative self-efficacy and creative identity: Do people hold fixed and growth theories of creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000081 Helfand, M., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016). The Four-C Model of Creativity: Culture and Context. In V. Glăveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research. Huang, X., Lee, J. C. K, J., & Yang, X. (2019). What really counts? Investigating the effects of creative role identity and self-efficacy on teachers’ attitudes towards the implementation of teaching for creativity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.017 Kaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688 Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62-70 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898 Karwowski, M., Czerwonka, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). Does intelligence strengthen creative metacognition?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(3), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000208 OECD (2023) A draft professional learning framework for teachers and leaders. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Draft%20Professional%20Learning%20Framework.pdf Patston, T., Cropley, D. H., Marrone, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2018). Teacher Implicit Beliefs of Creativity: Is there an Arts Bias?, Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 366-374. https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.001 Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004 Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering Students' creativity and critical thinking in education: What it means in school. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en