Secondary Teachers and Creativity in Teaching: Conceptions and Practices

Maria Mamoura, Aglaia Raftopoulou
{"title":"Secondary Teachers and Creativity in Teaching: Conceptions and Practices","authors":"Maria Mamoura, Aglaia Raftopoulou","doi":"10.32861/rje.64.31.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, there seems to be a sharp shift towards the concept of creativity in education. Given that many theorists and researchers find it difficult to define the concept of creativity itself, this paper will attempt to investigate a) the conceptions about creativity in teaching of 5 teachers of humanistic subjects (Modern Greek Language, Ancient Greek Language, History, Greek Literature) in Greek secondary education b) how these specific conceptions are reflected in their teaching practices and c) the degree to which certain teaching strategies that seem to better facilitate creativity in teaching. The research data were collected from five (5) interviews, transcripts and worksheets of ten (10) teachings and including field notes. Data were analyzed by the method of grounded theory. Data analysis showed that the emphasis is placed on \"creative teaching\" rather than on \"teaching in order to develop student’s creativity\", as distinguished by Jeffrey and Craft. The most important finding of the research is that despite their good intentions or stated open perceptions, the research subjects do not systematically promote students’ creativity unless they abandon their regulatory role and leave a genuine space of self-efficacy to their students. The authors conclude that further research is needed to answer the following questions: why is the model of creative teacher dominant and not that of the teaching that promotes students’ creativity and in what extent and in which ways is creativity defined by specific cognitive subjects.","PeriodicalId":280699,"journal":{"name":"Research Journal of Education","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32861/rje.64.31.38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In recent years, there seems to be a sharp shift towards the concept of creativity in education. Given that many theorists and researchers find it difficult to define the concept of creativity itself, this paper will attempt to investigate a) the conceptions about creativity in teaching of 5 teachers of humanistic subjects (Modern Greek Language, Ancient Greek Language, History, Greek Literature) in Greek secondary education b) how these specific conceptions are reflected in their teaching practices and c) the degree to which certain teaching strategies that seem to better facilitate creativity in teaching. The research data were collected from five (5) interviews, transcripts and worksheets of ten (10) teachings and including field notes. Data were analyzed by the method of grounded theory. Data analysis showed that the emphasis is placed on "creative teaching" rather than on "teaching in order to develop student’s creativity", as distinguished by Jeffrey and Craft. The most important finding of the research is that despite their good intentions or stated open perceptions, the research subjects do not systematically promote students’ creativity unless they abandon their regulatory role and leave a genuine space of self-efficacy to their students. The authors conclude that further research is needed to answer the following questions: why is the model of creative teacher dominant and not that of the teaching that promotes students’ creativity and in what extent and in which ways is creativity defined by specific cognitive subjects.
中学教师与教学创新:观念与实践
近年来,在教育中似乎出现了向创造力概念的急剧转变。鉴于许多理论家和研究者难以界定创造力的概念本身,本文将尝试调查a) 5位人文学科教师(现代希腊语、古希腊语、历史、文化、文化)在教学中的创造力概念。希腊文学)在希腊中学教育中b)这些具体的概念如何反映在他们的教学实践中c)某些教学策略在多大程度上似乎更能促进教学中的创造力。研究数据收集自五(5)次访谈、十(10)次教学记录和工作表,包括实地笔记。数据分析采用扎根理论的方法。数据分析表明,强调的是“创造性教学”,而不是杰弗里和克拉夫特所强调的“为了培养学生的创造力而教学”。本研究最重要的发现是,尽管研究对象有良好的意图或公开的看法,但除非他们放弃自己的调节角色,给学生留下真正的自我效能感空间,否则他们不会系统地促进学生的创造力。作者认为,需要进一步的研究来回答以下问题:为什么是创造性教师的模式占主导地位,而不是促进学生创造力的教学模式,以及特定认知主体在多大程度上和以何种方式定义创造力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信