Teachers' perception on creativity at armenian schools in the diaspora

TEACHERS' PERCEPTION ON CREATIVITY AT ARMENIAN SCHOOLS IN THE DIASPORA

Kayane Gavrilof

Dissertação

Mestrado em Educação Artística

Dissertação orientada pela Profa. Doutora Ana Isabel Tudela Lima Gonçalves de Sousa e pela Profa. Doutora Filipa de Burgo de Lima Ramos

2022

DECLARAÇÃO DE AUTORIA

Eu Kayane Gavrilof, declaro que a presente dissertação intitulada “[Teachers' Perception on Creativity at Armenian schools in the Diaspora]”, é o resultado da minha investigação pessoal e independente. O conteúdo é original e todas as fontes consultadas estão devidamente mencionadas na bibliografia ou outras listagens de fontes documentais, tal como todas as citações diretas ou indiretas têm devida indicação ao longo do trabalho segundo as normas académicas.

O Candidato

[assinatura]

Lisboa, [02.03.2022]

Resumo

O propósito deste estudo é perceber as concepções de criatividade dos professores e educadores atuantes nas escolas primárias arménias na diáspora. A pertinência de uma investigação desta natureza reside, por um lado, no facto de apenas existir um estudo sobre a educação neste contexto educativo em particular (escolas primárias arménias), de que se tenha conhecimento; e por outro lado, numa motivação pessoal: a autora desta dissertação tem vindo a trabalhar nestas escolas e pretende compreendê-las mais profundamente para melhor atuar.

Este resumo irá sumarizar os capítulos da tese, seguindo a sua estrutura. Assim, iremos começar por apresentar o problema da criatividade, de modo abrangente e transversal, para de seguida nos focarmos na criatividade em relação com a educação e, mais especificamente, no contexto educativo do 1.º ciclo do ensino básico nas escolas arménias na diáspora. Para compreender as concepções de criatividade dos professores e educadores destas escolas, foi criado um inquérito por questionário, aplicado em doze países que têm comunidade arménia.

A criatividade está a ser desvalorizada por muitos sistemas constantes que podem dificultar a melhoria das práticas criativas no mundo de hoje. Apesar do início tardio da investigação relativa à criatividade, hoje em dia, esta tomou o seu lugar no mundo académico, o que nos oferece os aspectos mais amplos da criatividade, os seus benefícios e efeitos no desenvolvimento humano.

Estas melhorias ajudaram-nos a perceber amplamente a criatividade e o seu impacto na progressão humana.

Quem pode ser criativo? Qual a área específica para o ramo da criatividade? Pode a criatividade ser ensinada? Quando é que usamos a criatividade? Quais são os benefícios da criatividade? Ou,Como é que desenvolvemos a nossa criatividade?Geralmente, quando se trata de criatividade, numa tentativa de encontrar respostas, é inevitável encontrar a mistificação da criatividade e as consequências desta má percepção. Aqui, ao longo de todo o estudo, testemunhará que ter respostas ambíguas a questões distintas de criatividade restringe o possível reforço da criatividade. Este atraso tem as suas consequências que inibem de forma imperceptível a nossa criatividade. Felizmente, hoje em dia há numerosos estudos que

desmistificam a criatividade. Tomar medidas a este respeito não é apenas tarefa dos investigadores, mas também dos professores e educadores que são responsáveis pelo futuro do desenvolvimento humano.

Sem dúvida, o sistema de educação tradicional assume um papel importante na sua estrutura que consiste em obediência, obrigação e padronização. Consequentemente, numa instituição onde o sistema operativo é inquestionável, concreto e não aberto a ser transformado, é naturalmente improvável que se tomem medidas para melhorar e desenvolver o sistema de acordo com as necessidades atuais. Eventualmente, as crianças seriam a principal vítima desta incompatibilidade e deste sistema conflituoso.

Nesta altura, é inadmissível negligenciar a criatividade.Como forma de resolução de problemas, a criatividade permite-nos fazer ligações, chegar a uma ideia original que nunca foi considerada antes e propor soluções ajustadas. Assim, mesmo a estrutura sempre presente do sistema de ensino poderia ter mais espaço para respirar e tomar medidas em relação aos problemas.

Se o sistema escolar não estiver a dar importância a uma determinada capacidade; as melhorias e práticas relacionadas com esta capacidade não serão recompensadas e consideradas bem sucedidas. Nestas circunstâncias, encorajar as capacidades e proporcionar as condições necessárias para a melhoria passa pelos professores. A fim de evitar uma má transmissão e de investir nas gerações futuras, deve ser-lhes associada uma forte abordagem criativa. Deste modo, a educação ajudará aqueles que têm um pensamento flexível em relação às estruturas estabelecidas e que vêm com formas inovadoras, ideias, práticas para contribuir para o desenvolvimento humano em geral.

A segunda parte do estudo é dedicada à compreensão da criatividade nas escolas arménias de diáspora. Para além de muitos problemas financeiros ou morais nas escolas arménias da diáspora, a importância dada à criatividade é igualmente digna de análise. Estas escolas foram fundadas há mais de um século em vários países que visam principalmente a transmissão cultural e linguística às novas gerações, juntamente com a implementação do seu currículo local. Se a educação for preferida ou utilizada como a única opção para fazer um canal de retenção de uma cultura numa comunidade estrangeira, exige inevitavelmente uma atenção especial na educação

para evitar problemas de droning e prováveis práticas de inculcação nos estudantes. Estes são pontos importantes que têm o potencial de afetar negativamente a ideia de uma educação holística e centrada no estudante e, consequentemente, dificultar o desenvolvimento da criatividade entre os estudantes, professores, pais e eventualmente a sociedade.

A fim de recolher os dados atuais sobre a percepção dos professores acerca da criatividade, o estudo teve em conta a prática de um inquérito por questionário online e programas educacionais ainda em decurso. As perguntas baseiam-se noutro estudo realizado por Cachia e Ferrari em 2010 denominadoCriatividade nas Escolas: Um Inquérito aos Professores na Europapor parte de professores do primeiro e segundo ciclo de escolaridade. Este estudo mencionado foi investigando a compreensão da criatividade nas escolas Europeias. No caso do nosso estudo, as perguntas são adaptadas e apresentadas de uma forma singular aos professores pirmários Armênios, uma vez que têm objectivos particulares em termos de educação. O inquérito foi transmitido a cada escola arménia activa de nível primário (95 escolas no total) na diáspora. No total 80 participantes de 12 países diferentes aceitaram contribuir para o inquérito com as suas respostas.

Neste estudo, o inquérito está dividido em 5 tópicos diferentes Quais são os elementos demográficos e factuais dos participantes?, Como é que os professores percebem e compreendem a criatividade?,Os professores fomentam a criatividade nas suas salas de aula?, Como é que os professores transmitem os valores armênios na sala de aula? eO que é que os professores pensam de receber formação sobre o pensamento criativo?Cada capítulo destina-se a ser respondido pelos professores primários de escolas arménias participantes independentemente da sua disciplina, experiência e estatuto na escola. Certamente, os resultados não apresentam a visão de todos os professores, apenas dos participantes deste inquérito por questionário online voluntário. No entanto, dá uma opinião geral sobre a forma como os professores estão a perceber a criatividade e como aplica esta percepção nas práticas. Além disso, a missão de transmitir valores culturais através da educação é também discutida com base nas práticas criativas destas escolas.

A primeira parte onde as classificações “são” analisadas para compreender a percepção dos professores sobre a criatividade mostra que é dada uma intensa importância à criatividade por parte dos professores destas escolas. Os professores, ideologicamente, acreditam que a criatividade é uma habilidade que pode ser aplicada a todos os domínios do conhecimento e que pode ser aplicada a todas as disciplinas escolares. Nas declarações apresentadas a seguir, há participantes que também pensam que a criatividade está apenas relacionada com a arte. Além disso, neste tópico, para fazer uma ligação entre educação e criatividade, os participantes classificaram se a criatividade pode ser ensinada e desenvolvida nas escolas. Ainda assim, a maioria deles está altamente de acordo com estas afirmações. No entanto, a comparação entre estas respostas e as suas actividades classificadas na escola pode implicar que os professores não são totalmente capazes de evitar as práticas que, directa ou indirectamente, tocavam na criatividade.

Nos tópicos seguintes, onde se pretende aligeirar as suas atividades conduzidas, os métodos de avaliação e as capacidades e competências que pretendem fomentar na sala de aula, a incongruência está a ser retomada. Por exemplo, os professores classificaram altamente as atividades que são entendidas como fomento da criatividade, tais comocapacidade de pensar;

capacidades de comunicação; capacidade de aprender; motivação; curiosidade. Não obstante, a avaliação das actividades pode afectar o acto criativo do aluno. Os mesmos participantes têm uma classificação baixa nos testes informais, ensaios abertos ou portfólios, etc., que são mais aplicáveis para uma educação mais criativa.

Além disso, existem atividades no inquérito que estão disponíveis para beneficiar das características da criatividade. Por exemplo, nos resultados podemos ver os participantes que acreditam fortemente que a criatividade permite fazer conexões que nunca foram feitas antes, classificaram o trabalho multidisciplinar como sendo uma atividade pouco utilizada (rara ou nunca) na sua sala de aula. De facto, ostrabalhos multidisciplinarespodem ajudá-los a aplicar os seus conhecimentos anteriores a outro campo ou conceito. Assim, o processo de aprendizagem estende naturalmente a sua duração e esse conhecimento torna-se mais significativo para o aprendente; em vez de se tornar uma meta de que os estudantes necessitam para ganharem o favor do professor, dos pais, ou de qualquer outro, a não ser eles próprios.

Estas e outras comparações semelhantes são confrontadas ao longo deste estudo. Existem também respostas contraditórias dos participantes que indicam que existe uma ambiguidade na percepção da criatividade. Dar importância a uma habilidade/aptidão/habilidade de pensamento não é suficiente para servir o seu propósito. A percepção da criatividade é ambígua, bem como a compreensão do domínio da criatividade, a correlação entre personalidades e criatividade, a probabilidade de desenvolvimento da criatividade entre indivíduos. Esta compreensão e suposta importância que é dada à criatividade está a ser transmitida através de professores aos alunos, o que pode dificultar os seus possíveis resultados criativos. Assim, concluímos que uma solução sustentável e prática, seria a concepção de uma formação online para professores de diferentes lugares que trabalham numa escola arménia com a mesma missão que é transmitir os valores armênios.

Subsequentemente, a compreensão correta da criatividade no sentido mais amplo pode ajudar as novas gerações a adoptar uma abordagem criativa dos valores armênios. Desta forma, as crianças terão a oportunidade de abraçar estes valores com a sua contribuição. Consequentemente, em vez da constante repetição cultural, a nova geração terá a oportunidade de recriar, renovar os valores que hoje correspondem e assim revitalizar a sociedade.

Palavras-Chave:

criatividade; abordagem criativa; escolas armênias; professores armênios;.treinamento criativo

Abstract

Creativity is being undermined by many constant systems and traditional mainstream education is one of the ringleaders in this regard. Besides many financial or moral problems in Armenian schools in the diaspora, the importance given to creativity is just as worth analyzing. These schools have been established for more than a century in various countries which are mainly aiming at cultural and lingual transmission to new generations alongside of implementing their local national curriculum. If education is being used as a channel to retain a culture in a foreign community, it inevitably demands particular attention on education to avoid droning problems and probable inculcation towards students. These are important points that have the potential to adversely affect the idea of holistic, student-centered education and consequently hinder the creativity development among the students, teachers, parents, and eventually the society.

Unfortunately, the lack of academic studies about the current state of Armenian schools is obstructing gathering any information in terms of the development of creativity. This deficiency paves the way for unearthing the interactive problems by this study in these schools, based on creativity. In order to collect present data, the study had practice on an online survey and ongoing programs in regard. Subsequently, it discusses the wide-ranging effects of undervalued creativity in these schools and suggests sustainable development on creative thinking in Armenian Schools through teacher training.

Keywords:

creativity; creative approach; Armenian schools; Armenian school teachers; creative training

Acknowledgments

Throughout the writing of this dissertation, I have received a great deal of support and assistance.

Firstly, I would to thank my both supervisorsProfa. Doutora Filipa de Burgo de Lima Ramos and Profa. Doutora Ana Isabel Tudela Lima Gonçalves de Sousa, due to their time and effort to find the best way of presenting this educational culture that is completely stranger to them. I appreciated your motivation for me to be able to understand the academic world and its requirements.

I would like to acknowledge the moral and material support that I got from the Armenian Communities Departmentof Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. I really appreciate that I can feel the presence of Baron Razmik Panossianin each step of my personal development. Here, it is impossible to neglect the support of Ani Garmiryan who is literally the whole reason why I ended up where I happily am today. You are beyond a friend, a teacher, a mentor, a guide. I still have a lot to walk, and on this road, it is an honor to be your mentee, your student, your sister.

During my thesis, there were numerous questions I had about an academic thesis, and I would love to deeply thank my friends Irmak Kaleli, Alvaro Trabanco, Sarin Akbaş, Vahan Kerovpyan, Şirag Erkol, Rafael Mangas da Silva Ferreira and my lovely cousins who are always with me Sibil Çekmen and Irene Gavrilof to make this blurry road more clear for me with their knowledge and the motivation they provide.

In order to understand teachers' perceptions more qualitatively, thanks to Hagop Yacoubianfor sharing his remarkable study with me. Besides, to my friends and colleagues, Anush Pilafian, Alina Hadjian Goldberg, Lucine Ianikian, Mary Gulumian, Rupen Doroumian, my pen friend from Cairo Hovsep Ohanian, helped me to reach educators that are not in my network and special thanks in this regard to one of the best colleague I ever hadHrayr Kalemkeryan.

It is improbable to neglect the impact on me when it comes to pieces of training I have got during my masters' degree, which shaped my pedagogical ideology. In this regard, I would like to thank to my P4C trainer Dr. Özge Özdemir, and alsoDr. Hasan Yüceferwho let me be a guest student for a period in his lectures on Deleuze. Your sense of pedagogy will be accompanied by me throughout the journey I have started on education.

During my thesis, I had the chance to meet the company ofArno Kalaycıwho witnessed all my crises and achievements regarding this thesis. Your existence is one of the biggest supporters of my life and I deeply appreciate that.

Once for all, I am fully aware that I would never be in the place that I wanted to be if I did not have an opportunity to be a part of my own family. They were always there when I need their support without any hesitation, sometimes even without knowing what I exactly want to do. This constant support is empowering and motivating me for the next plans that I would love to carry out. That is why I would love to sincerely thank my mother Kayuş Çalıkman Gavrilof who is exactly the creator of my cultural identity and the base of my anarchical ideology; to my father Jan Gavrilofwho made me respect the hard work and labor; to my brotherMuraz Sarangilas my first friend and my first teacher; to my lovely sister in lawNaira Geghamian Sarangil, and ultimately to my little sister Nare Gavrilof who was my first student in our imaginary school games, and the first and last victim student of that conventional school sense of mine that I copied from my former teachers.

Special thanks to all my former teachers in the past who made me question the education system because of their paradigmatic conception of education. If I was not a victim of your passivization, I would never realize the problems of what we had been through and would not have become a warrior against their traditional sense of education.

Table of Contents

Resumo 2

Abstract 7

Acknowledgments 8

List of Tables and Figures 12

Introduction 14

Methodology 15

Understanding Creativity 16

The Impact Area 18

Creative Personality 20

Demystification of the Concept 21

Understanding Creativity Through Education 23

The Role of Creativity in Education 25

Understanding 4P's of Creativity within Education 26

Creative Teaching 28

Can Creativity Be Taught? 29

Today, Creativity in the Schools 30

Creative Training 32

Enhancement of Creativity 33

Creativity in Armenian Schools in the Diaspora 37

Characteristics of Armenian Schools in Diaspora 37

Essential Values 37

Alternative Approaches 40

Benefits of Alternative Approach in General 41

A Survey of Teachers Regarding Creativity in Armenian Schools in Diaspora 43

Method, Participation, and Limitations 43

Definition of sample 44

Survey Data Presentation 46

Survey Data Analysis 50

How do teachers perceive and understand creativity? 50

Do teachers foster creativity in their classrooms? 56

How do teachers transmit Armenian values in the classroom? 65 What do teachers think about receiving training on creative thinking? 67

Conclusion 69

Proposed Project 70

References 72

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1:Objectives of Section 1..………..……..…………..…………..………..47

Table 2:Objectives of Section 2 ………..………..…………..……….48

Table 3:Objectives of Section 3………..………..…………..………..49

Table 4:Objectives of Section 4………..………..…………..………..49

Figure 1:Countries of Participants………..……….……..…...……..…………..45

Figure 2:Answers of Participants Regarding Question Topic: Domain of Creativity………...……….51

Figure 3:Answers of Participants Regarding Question Topic: Everyone Can Be Creative………..………..……….…....53

Figure 4:Answers of Participants Regarding Question Topic: Definition of Creativity……….…..………….….….54

Figure 5:Answers of Participants Regarding Question Topic: Creativity in the Schools………..……..……….…..……..55

Figure 6:Answers of Participants Regarding Question Topic: Abilities/Skills Fostered in the Classroom…..….…..…...57

Figure 7:Answers of Participants Regarding Question Topic: Activities Taking Place in the Classroom….……….…...59

Figure 8:Comparison Between Responses (Multidisciplinary Works and Making Connections)………..….…..………...61

Figure 9:Answers of Participants

Regarding Question Topic: Assessment Methods………..…….….….…….………....63 Figure 10:Answers of Participants

Regarding Question Topic: Rewarded Behaviors ………..…….…..………...…..…...64 Figure 11:Answers of Participants

Regarding Question Topic: Armenian Values………..…….….………...……….66 Figure 12:Answers of Participants

RegardingQuestion Topic: Creative Training………..…….….……..….……….67 Figure 13:Answers of Participants

Regarding Question Topic: Creative Training in Armenian School…..….….…….….68

Introduction

Creativity as an ability, a state, a notion had and still has been defined variously throughout the centuries. Studies in this regard started only a couple of centuries ago although creativity is a weighty matter and takes a big role in individuals' life. Consequently, the underestimation of creativity and late studies in the field might bring on a misconception about creativity itself.

Individuals who uncomprehend with creativity, might not make an effort to take advantage of it while benefits are not perceived by them precisely. In fact, the wide-ranging contribution of creativity to many human-related fields such as education, politics, economy, art, science, etc., should not be underestimated.

The misconceptions and naturally the narrow impact area of creativity are being transmitted in the schools to the next generations via teachers. The absence of creative thinking in an educational institution that has undertaken the mission of teaching, might strengthen the existing standardization by multiplying pacified generations. In an ever-changing world that is formed by rapid changes in areas that directly affect human life, such as technology, climate, economy, politics, etc.; adaptation processes of children to fit in society are being impeded by dogmatic attitudes of minds. In response to this, being open to innovation in the society, making connections that assist to find adaptive solutions to unpredictable problems, and dominance of flexible thinking structures to do all of these, all go through parallelly with creative thinking.

Although the dominance of creativity is still not evident in traditional education today, many practices and development in this field are seen in alternative education institutions. Regarding Armenian schools in the diaspora - which conduct their education by their particular missions and visions in the education standard of the country they are in - there is no recent research on the importance of creativity and its place in practice. This study examines how teachers in Armenian schools in the diaspora perceive and understand creativity, their practices to foster creativity through their teaching; what method they use to cultivate creativity among students;

and what sort of context and support is necessary for educators to associate the Armenian cultural and linguistic values to creativity. This investigation aims to detect the understanding of creativity in Armenian schools through educators' responses from the online survey that is

adapted for them. Additionally, a particular emphasis has been given to teachers' methods to transmit Armenian values that are being intended to protect at their community in various countries. By these results, implications will be explained and analyzed in order to offer a proposal for the enhancement of creativity. In this way, it is intended to contrive the optimum ways of fostering creativity objectively under certain conditions.

Methodology

In this study, the first chapter is focused mostly on understanding creativity through misperceptions. Here, effects of this misperception on creativity itself will be examined through various researchers in the field. The discussion will be continuing in the following chapter through education, as one of the impediments of creative development. This chapter is dedicated to examine the benefits of creative approach in the schools and contribution of enhancement of creativity in children's individual life. In the following part, all the discussed matters of creativity will be reflected on Armenian schools in the diaspora in order to detect the perception of creativity in these schools and their practices. It is discussed how the problems that creativity has been through are embodied in these schools; what provokes and hinders these problems, and what solutions could be offered concerning the enhancement of creativity.

The data to be analyzed are accumulated quantitatively from an online survey and qualitatively from a semi-structured interview. These questions are adapted by another study about creativity in the schools from Cachia and Ferrari (2010) and further detail in regard will be mentioned over the research. The range of the survey is presented with 15 questions and they are asked in both Western Armenian and English to avoid any sort of exclusion caused by the language barrier.

The majority of survey participants were current primary school teachers and the rest were former educators that are currently working for the enhancement of education of Armenian primary schools in the diaspora.

The research design follows an experimental structure due to there being no recent studies, particularly on Armenian schools in the diaspora. The experimental design is selected for the study in order to assist in identifying problems that may occur in the future.

Understanding Creativity

Astonishingly, a word as creativity and its extensions like 'create','creation','creative thinking' are widespread notions, and yet the definition is not decisive for all of us. Related to creativity, some words have been used to date as 'creative', 'genius', 'talented', and so forth to describe people who are considered good at creativity. Even those adjectives had been identified and defined variously through the ages: "The clear definitions of creativity and its components are rarely consistent if offered at all" (Plucker et al., 2004, p. 88). Probably one of the reasons for this uncertainty in a more scientific approach had started to investigate it considerably late.

William Duff (1767), is known (in some parts of the world) as the first person who touched on the biopsychological structure of creativity and states not only hereditary characters but also examines the contribution of the social environment. Additionally, research on the history of creativity and related concepts often cites S.F. Galton (1869) as having conducted the first systematic study of creativity. He was in fact, looking for characteristics of a genius and determining the nature of it.

Regardless of the main objective of studies about creativity, after all, there had been studies to excogitate creativity:

This matter has been dealt with in different conditions throughout history. Research on the creative process was deterred not so much by ignorance as by the conviction that the nature of innovative thinking was already understood: it was thought that it came as a gift from above. (Dacey, 2011, p. 310)

This mystical and extraordinary characterization lasted till Renaissance, thenceforth, it began to be discussed that it was hereditary. Then, their psychological and contextual interactions began to be recognized as well. Over the decades’ various academics, educators, and psychologists argued about creativity, its process, its components, the barriers ahead of creativity. In research from Plucker et al. (2004), several definitions of creativity are extracted from around 90 selected articles in the Creativity Research Journaland Journal of Creative Behavior. The authors detect the common characteristics of explicit definitions and they are uniqueness, artistic,

psychometric, usefulness, accessible, divergent thinking, problem-solving, and others as imagination. These characteristics might bounce ideas about creativity. However, defining ‘what can be creative?’ presents difficulties; for instance, not all creative works are useful, and not all are aesthetically pleasing. Both usefulness and aesthetic value capture, in some sense, what creativity is about (Gabora, 2013).

On the other hand, who can be creative? is another question that emerges when creativity is being discussed. There are experts like Gardner (1993) and Csikszentmihalyi (1996b) who distinguished the society-changing innovation and problem-solving creativity for ordinary people. There are as well others who believe in the more egalitarian approach that we all have creative potential (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education [NACCCE]

1999; Craft 2000). This topic is debatable, according to different authors: "The reality is probably somewhere on a sliding scale between the two, in that we may all have some potential, but not everyone develops it" (Jesson, 2021, p. 7 ). A wealth of knowledge accumulated in the literature on creativity comes from studies of eminent people whose lives and accomplishments are considered as proof of their creativity: "Historiometric studies and research on socially recognized creativity have provided useful information that helps understand the dynamics of creative achievement" (Acar, 2020, p. 83 ).

Nevertheless, the misperception of creativity and all the misinformation about it is also a well-considered part of creativity research. In fact, it’s seen as one of the strongest factors of the devaluation of creativity. In aforementioned research from Plucker et al. (2004), states the preponderance of faulty prior conceptions about creativity creates an ambiance that severely restricts researchers' and practitioners' ability and devotion to study and apply creativity.

Consequently, associating various negative assumptions about creativity becomes the pitfall of the process of understanding creativity: "As a result, people who study problem-solving, abductive reasoning, cognitive flexibility, or functional fixedness would never dare utter the

“C-word,” yet they are essentially investigating aspects of creativity" (Plucker et al., 2004, p.

85). Hence, the potential expanse of creativity is being narrowed down.

The Impact Area

Human beings have been developing their creativity for the last two million years but only recently have decided to formally analyze the characteristics of this aspect of ourselves and what helps to promote it. (Jesson, 2021, p. 2).

Alongside many other factors, this backwardness has its consequences that unperceivedly inhibits our creativity. One of the most effective factors that feeds these obstacles is that creativity is not contextualized precisely to comprehend in which field creativity might penetrate.

To give illustrations of this misperception, we may start with the correlation between art and creativity. By the eighteenth century, as people became more interested in the possibilities involved in projects arising from the imagination, art was linked with the concept of creativity, although it was not until the twentieth century that it was linked with technology and the sciences (Jesson, 2021). Creativity researcher Teresa Amabile states that "we tend to associate creativity with the arts and to think of it as the expression of highly original ideas" (1998, p. 78).

Dictionaries often use originality interchangeably with creativity. Originality also may be considered a creative ability in the sense of one’s capability for uniqueness and nonconformity in thought (David, 2011, p. 172). However, it is not enough on its own and it does not emerge only in the scope of art.

This standpoint deprives other fields of creative limitlessness. Amabile’s investigations about creativity in business are evidence of the perception in organizations about the belief in the nonconcurrence between business and creativity. For instance, in her study (1998), Amabile has asked managers if there is any place they don't want creativity in their companies. About 80% of the time, they answer, "Accounting". Though creativity can benefit every function of an organization. It is a way of living, growing, and perceiving one’s world, as well as a way of thinking and solving problems (Davis, 1999).

In the course of time, creativity also started to be associated with other areas. Cropley in his research (2011) adduces to enucleate the changing understanding of creativity. To put a finer point on it, the study gives examples from history. The Chinese Emperor, Han Wud, during the first century BC, saw innovative administration as a force for improving his people’s well-being and was intensely interested in giving creative thinkers high ranks in the civil service.

Furthermore, at the end of the 15th century, Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes as founders of modern science, both saw scientific creativity as involving the harnessing of the forces of nature for the betterment of human development (Cropley, 2011). As another upgrowth in regard happened through the space race between Russia and the USA that took a role in changing the influences of creativity. Right after the Sputnik Shock, the emphasis shifted more strongly to areas like physical science and engineering, and creativity began to be seen as a way of keeping up with the race.

The understanding of creativity was no longer largely confined to artistic branches and similar artistic/esthetic domains, but also included fields such as business, manufacturing, technology, medicine, administration, education, even defense, anti-terrorism, and law enforcement were. Its products are sometimes abstract and essentially psychological, such as communication of a feeling, arousal of esthetic admiration, provocation of a new way of looking at such things, or development of new understandings of experience or existence (Cropley, 2011, p. 359).

Additionally, the fields of creativity are bound up with one’s self. Emile Durkheim maintains the idea in education. Depending on the circumstances and the effects that will make the child feel, a child with innately strong imagination could be a painter or a poet, or an engineer with a creative spirit, or a dashing financier. Therefore, what is remarkable in this deviation is between the innate qualities and the specific form these qualities must take in order to be used in life.

(Durkheim, 2021[1922]). Creativity is possible in all areas of human activity and all young people and adults have creative capacities. Developing these capacities involves a balance between teaching skills and understanding, and promoting the freedom to innovate, and take risks (NACCCE, 1999, p. 10).

Creative Personality

The words to use for people who are good at creativity have changed their usage in direct proportion of studies in creativity. Neurobiologist Dr. Nancy Andreasen, in her book called ‘The Creating Brain’ (2005), outlines the development of creative concepts over the years. According to the book, the concept of creativity has been associated with being ‘genius’. Creativity as mentioned above was thought that comes as a gift from god. Thus, in Roman times,geniuswas used in everyday language to mean a god or spirit that is given to a person by birth and whose character will determine the future of that person. Later on, in the 17th century, people used this word to describe someone with extraordinary intelligence and creativity. After the 19th century, the genetic inheritance of creativity studies took place in academia, and in the near past, Lewis Terman had set out his investigation with the assumption whether ‘genius’ and ‘high intelligence’ are the same things. The book there follows the characteristics of a creative personality. The creative personality traits are openness to experience and adventure, rebelliousness, individuality, sensitivity, playfulness, persistence, curiosity, and simplicity.

Creative people tend to approach the world freshly and originally that is not shaped by prejudices. Besides, while orders and rules are giving a comfortable structure to the life of less creative people, it is being more difficult to perceive by creative individuals who tend to look at life with a different and new eye (Andreasen, 2005).

According to these characteristics, being a creative person does not accord solely with the outcome. A person may be low to high in general creativeness. One with a high level in general creativeness takes a creative approach to most aspects of life. This one is likely being confronted in the studies as little c and distinguished from the Big C: "It is a way of living, growing, and perceiving one's world, as well as a way of thinking and solving problems. Such a person is mentally healthy and self-accepting and grows toward self-realization" (Davis, 1999, p. 166). On the other hand, as for the Big C, it is being expected to change the paradigm in an area and inspire other people to follow new pathways (Cropley, 2011).

This stereotyping is very widespread in practice, especially among teachers who tend to believe that creativity is a rare trait that only a few students are endowed with (Fryer & Collings, 1991).

Exclusion of this aspect of creativity deprives people of the title of 'genius' who have not been evaluated to achieve creative success in a particular subject in school.

Demystification of the Concept

Research from Rehn and de Cock (2008) discusses the ontological problem of creativity. The authors state that in order for creativity to remain as 'creative', by its very nature and definition, it needs to go ‘beyond creativity’ and deconstruct it. Rickards and Cock (1999) called this the ontological paradox in creativity research. Subsequently, the definement of creativity demonstrates the impossibility of closure. Hence, an absolute definition for creativity is contrary to its own constitution. If we take into account this complexity, creativity should seek ways to establish a ground for each individual to perceive and be re-conceptualized by them for the sake of demystification.

Education plays a considerable role in the misperception of creativity. There is a grounded potential that is possessed by schools to create a perception about a certain subject or a matter of fact. In the case of creativity, due to the demystification for sense of creativity for each person, and emphasizing its importance, educational institutions might undertake this assignment for the children from a very early age: "As shown from the literature, the rhetorical stances held by teachers are to be taken into account for any possible policy or practices trying to foment creativity in learners, so as to have a shared consensus of what creativity is and what it implies for education" (Cachia & Ferrari, 2010, p. 23).

The report from Cachia and Ferrari (2010) examines how teachers in Europe perceive and understand creativity, fostering creativity through their teaching through an online survey.

Regardless of teachers' subject taught, grade levels, or experienced years in teaching; the report shows that one-fifth of their total (7659 people) respondents still believed that creativity was an inborn talent. Hence, the misconception about creativity cannot be developed. This study will be covered in more depth in the methodological section (pages from 46 to 49). In the following

sections, understanding creativity will be discussed regarding education and the teachers’

perception of creativity.

Understanding Creativity Through Education

How do we tend to let external factors shape our ideas, impressions and standpoints? This sanction also comprises the features of this efformation in our actions, routines, habits, and eventually all the concepts of life. The long-forgotten part of this efformation is humanity concedes to those external factors and becomes apt to obey unreflectively. Undoubtedly, the current education system takes a big part in this obedience. Even though the existing school system contains many features that contradict its own mission, yet is one of the most well-accepted channels of development of individuals and whole humanity. Besides the development, in the nature of its structure the purpose is not to provide education according to individuals, but to shape individuals according to the system with determined priorities. Since children are preoccupied with being successful in this structure at an early age, it deprives them of questioning, producing, discovering, in short, all necessary actions for self-actualization.

Naturally, they have a perception in our minds of embracing what the school likes and keeping a distance from what the school does not want.

In his book, Nikhil Goyal (2017) asserts the current education system was modeled on the Prussian military as the government wanted to train the population to be subservient and work in the factories unquestioningly during the industrial revolution. Taking today’s education into account, the general schooling system is not designed to pull children to work in factories, but to keep them obeying this set system and educate people in a way to become more obedient and submissive. Eventually, this authoritarian power structured system of education was accepted as a universal norm. Additionally, this system is not only telling how people need to succeed but also inculcates the manners of how to think and what to attach importance to. The disciplines at the top of the hierarchy are assumed in some ways to be innately more significant:

This assumption is not to do with economics: it has to do with cultural ideas about knowledge and intelligence. These ideas have dominated our ways of thinking for the past 300 years. If one pillar of conventional education is industrialism, the second is academicism. (Robinson, 2011, p. 64)

If the school as an educational institution still has the mission of preparing people for an unpredictable dynamic life, it is inadmissible to neglect creativity. Correspondingly, all organizations are competing in a world in which the ability to innovate and adapt to change is not a luxury: it is a necessity (Robinson, 2011). Starbuck (2012) states that the modern ethic demands from pupils today to learn how to learn. If they do so, the theory suggests that students in their adult lives will be better placed to handle this new world's advances and regressions with creative freedom: "Tapping into natural creativity and harnessing it is an excellent way to solve the problems of our twenty-first-century lives. Now more so than ever, because our world today is full of uncertainties" (Starbuck, 2012, p. 10).

To give illustrations for this, the worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 might be a prime example of the current century’s unpredictable problem. This unusual situation had caused notable alterations in educational regulations. Countless countries struggled with adaptation into an unknown and unpredictable way of education. This grapple is the consequence of an undynamic and invariable system.

On the other hand, more effective outcomes were achieved in other educational facilities which fundamentally embrace creativity and creative thinking more than formal schools. This can be associated with unfailing features of formal schools, such as their adherence to rules and procedures, their protocols, lack of resources and time, and the goals and priorities they adopt, which play an indirect or direct role in constriction creativity (Acar, 2020b). As an informal organization Zarmanazan Creative Summer Camp, can be a prime example in this regard. This camp "gathers children, teenagers, and young adults together for three weeks to live, create and take part in various workshops adapted to their age and interests." (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation et al., 2019, p. 1). Under the pandemic conditions, workshops were held online for different countries with different time zones. In consideration of the principles of the camp that embraces creative thinking, the well-adaptation of the present workshops into creative experimental virtual workshops was inevitable. Despite the deficiency of presence, creative ways were sought for each workshop to take advantage of the state of being far and apart. In other words, unexpected crises turned into various opportunities. For instance, remotely collaborative

creations such as creating a new song, conducting an experiment or making movies might be enriched by using childrens' own items from their houses. Which also shows children that learning and creating under unusual conditions may be possible depending on whether being open to innovative ways or not. After all, all these solutions require adaptive flexibility which touches upon the problem-solving feature of creative thinking. In the future sections, differential features of the camp will be given more elaborately (see also Appendix D for further information links).

The Role of Creativity in Education

It is believed a long-standing system would not fall effortlessly into a fractal system where its values are not open to dispute and/or reshape. On the other hand, in the structure of human life, there are unpredictable, ever-changing regulations that conflict with stable systems. Cropley in their research (2011) states creativity requires even defying the norms of society. In the case of ongoing educational norms, creativity will threaten its paradigmatic conception that desires to dispose of children instead of helping them develop their ideas, imagination, and creative thinking skills. Besides, any innovative move in education would provoke diversity and different perceptions of things. Jesson observes "some teachers and politicians fear that if we teach pupils to think and behave originally: we may start to lose control of them in school, and later in society." (2021, p. 7).

Regarding the contrary relation between education and creativity Craig & Deretchin concludes

"educational practices have been geared toward overcoming any type of diversity that is not meeting contemporary societal standards" (2021, p. 111). Despite this, the aforementioned features of creativity involve needed innovative outcomes that the school might need. Therefore, as the schools embrace creativity in their functioning system, in return, creativity might be extended the boundaries of schools and help them to transform into a more fractal and dynamic structure. The report from National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE, 1999) -a.k.a. The Robinson Report- states issues of creativity concern the whole of education. They are influenced by much more than the shape and content of the formal school

curriculum. These influences include methods of teaching; the ethos of schools, including the relationships between teachers and learners.

There are experts who are not only trying to define creativity but also have/had been giving speeches, publishing researches or books about the defects of the traditional schools, and defending the crucial benefits of creativity inducing in the educational curriculum for children even at a very early age. For instance: "from Vygotsky (2004) to Sawyer (2006a), Amabile (1989), and Robinson (2011) argue for the immense benefits of creativity for learning" (Cachia

& Ferrari, 2010, p. 15). Researches show that once education embraces the usage and process of creativity correctly, and makes account of it, the result will reflect on curriculum, children’s daily activities, assessments, as well as personal and interpersonal development. Because academic education is not sufficient by itself and no longer guarantees success in the future or personal achievement: "Society needs and values more than academic abilities. Children and young people have much more to offer" (Robinson et al., 1982, p. 5). Therefore, creativity and creative thinking in education might assist children to reach their hidden or suppressed potential. In the coming sections, the benefits, misperceptions, obstacles, and practices of the creative process in traditional education will be briefly discussed.

Understanding 4P's of Creativity within Education

To be more precise on the education-enhancing trait of creativity, the 4P's of creativity, as a newsworthy approach of creativity, may lead to a better understanding. E. Paul Torrance, who elevated the discussion about the proper place of creativity within education, even focused on the 4 ‘P’s’ of creativity in his work (Plucker et al., 2011). In his study, Rhodes draws a conclusion of four different strands of creativity which are Person, Process, Press, Product and they only operate functionally as united four strands. In each disclosure of the strands, it is possible to concretize the benefit of creative thinking enhancement in the schools:

Person: Implies information about the “personality, intellect, temperament, physique, traits, habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems, defense mechanisms, and behavior” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 307). When it comes to creativity and personality there are common perspectives such as thinking that creative people have similar personality features supporting their creative behaviors. Or, creative individual traits are the same in each creative domain. However, these formative perspectives of a creative person smother the creative developments and outcomes.

Schools' role here is to reveal among the students the fact that "there are personality attributes that creative individuals share and those attributes can be nurtured when environments are conducive to creativity" (Kim, 2020, p. 517).

Process: Traditional schools tend to focus on the learning outcome more than the learning process. Additionally, the sense of achievement in the schools is based mostly on the result itself regardless of the acquisitions throughout the learning path. Consequently, creative achievements as well get their share from this perception and highlight the outcome more than the creative process. In fact, "the Process approach seeks to capture motivation, perception, learning, thinking, and communicating" (Rhodes, 1961, p. 308) and these are some of the crucial components of holistic and sustainable developed education. On the other hand, researchers and educators have questioned whether individuals go through a similar process to generate creative ideas, or if it is the opposite that the creative process is different for each person. It is available to reach studies about the quest. Whether it is different or not, schools are responsible for paving all the way to reach a state where students are available to receive creative consciousness.

Press: Rhodes referred to Press as a term that alludes to the relationship between human beings and their environments (Kim, 2020, p. 517). In Creativity studies, one of the prevalent quests is how the social environment bears upon creativity. To enable pupils to develop their creative potential, certain environmental conditions need to be met. Investigations into the circumstances which enable or hinder or even block creative development have revealed many impediments to pupils’ creative development (Jeson, 2021). The mentioned environment facilitates conditions, creative process, and the product. Under an educational institution, this environment may include physical conditions and motivational support which are also variable for each person. One may be productive in a silent crowded environment, the other may be alone with music. Or, one can

be sensitive about a hard criticism while the other can get strength from it. Surely, providing this proper environment is additionally among schools’ duties by considering "the pressure of the environment can either promote or obstruct creativity"(Cropley, 2011). On the other hand, it is demanding to meet all the necessary conditions for each student in the classroom. Therefore,

"Educators must have clear objectives and objective assessments that encourage students to engage their innovative and adaptability capacities, which are the benchmarks of creativity"

(Kim, 2020, p. 518).

Product: Rhodes refers to Products as tangible forms manifested from ideas that are thoughts that are communicated through various mediums (Rhodes, 1961). Creative products may be novels, inventions, poems, artworks, designs, scientific articles or they may take another form such as performance (Kim, 2020). Since the product may not be predictable, students may need a clear guideline to discover the most productive way they can feel the flow.

In his studies E. Paul Torrance reviewed 142 studies describing efforts to teach creativity, and he concluded that various creativity development exercises did increase student creativity within educational settings. These exercises include divergent thinking, training in the creative problem-solving model, being trained in creative art or writing, sustaining a creative climate and using various workbooks or programs. "As a result of this work, he proposed that creative thinking be rewarded in schools because it allowed students to understand how better to achieve their potentialities" (Plucker et al., 2011, p. 436).

Creative Teaching

After addressing the misconceptions as interference to the development of creativity, it is necessary to mention the role of education in contextualizing creativity. For Sharp (2005), the current myths about creativity affiliated with teachers lead to a shared misunderstanding of the issue. This circular fallacy is being inculcated from teacher to student, student to society, and eventually society to again teacher. Therefore, teachers' perception of creativity is the start point of all. Their inquiry about whether creativity comes inherently or not brings along the question of whether creativity can be taught.

Can Creativity Be Taught?

The report (1999) by NACCCE in the UK argues that a national strategy for creative and cultural education is essential to that process. It is said:

Creativity can be ‘taught’. Teachers can be creative in their own teaching; they can also promote the creative abilities of their pupils. The roles of teachers are to recognize young people’s creative capacities; and to provide the particular conditions in which they can be realized. Developing creativity involves, amongst other things, deepening young people’s cultural knowledge and understanding. This is essential both in itself and to promote forms of education which are inclusive and sensitive to cultural diversity and change(p.11).

In order to achieve these goals, first, as educators they must grip the importance and benefits of creative thinking themselves. If educators from the ground up, consider creative peopletalented inherently, would have caused the exclusion of those students who have creative potential but yet couldn’t find themselves to process their creativity in any subject. In other words, they would be preconceived through their teachers and deprived of creative development. Believing oneself does not have creative abilities implies avoidance of the fact it can be developed. Once educators embrace creativity themselves, then it would be possible to facilitate others' creative development. "Teachers cannot develop the creative abilities of their pupils if their own creative abilities are suppressed" (NACCCE, 1999, p. 103).

It is just as crucial that educators find ways to convey this awareness among children after they are convinced that creativity is something that can be taught and developed. As is creativity usually, it contains within itself several misapplications in the field of education. In the coming section, it will be briefly discussed, what are the misapplications and what are the points that worth attach importance to.

Today, Creativity in the Schools

Robinson (2011) indicates that people ask how to promote creativity and innovation but stifle the processes and conditions that are most likely to bring it about. He pushes this idea ahead with the assumption that the rationalist tradition has distorted the idea of creativity in education and unbalanced the development of millions of people. The result is that other important abilities are overlooked or marginalized. This neglect affects everyone, therefore, widening the meaning of creativity on education institutions' doorstep is of prime importance. And, this widening may start out by demystifying the purpose of creativity and removing the misassumptions.

Cognitive Ability. There is a mentionable debate about which cognitive ability creativity links to. At some length, creativity was thought of as a domain-general skill. The cognitive skills underlying creativity were therefore assumed to be largely the same regardless of domain. That belief about the nature of creativity only began to change toward the end of the 20th century (Baer, 2020). According to NACCCE (1999), the literature and many of the practical programs on creative thinking suggest that there are general skills that can be used across many different fields.

Creative Disciplines and Curriculum. Besides the type of cognitive ability, which field embraces creativity within itself is also the main abstruseness of creativity in mainstream education. The understanding that esteems creativity is related only to art, creates a pitfall of creativity that is very important to confront. Understanding creativity as relevant for the arts only allows for teachers' withdrawal from an engagement in developing students' creative potential across the curriculum (Kampylis, et al., 2009). On the other hand, the hierarchical order among the disciplines is deepening the pitfall indirectly. The report of the Gulbenkian Commission (1996) discusses the state of social science and suggests new approaches for enhancement of these disciplines. The report states during the development of the disciplines, the fact that experimental and empirical studies took a central place in the vision of science caused the natural sciences to be positioned in a different place from the social and human sciences. There was a hierarchy of the natural sciences, the quest for certain knowledge, that placed it above the imagined and

increasingly imaginary. The promises of the natural sciences to achieve practical results paved the way for them to find social and political support. This not only allowed these sciences to progress and spread faster than other sciences but also created the illusion that natural sciences could contribute more to human life. Undoubtedly, this illusion was reflected in the curriculum of educational institutions that aimed to teach the basics of science.

This consequence still lingers in traditional schools today. Disciplines regarded as literacy and numeracy, have major importance than other classes that are assumed as creative classes. As a matter of fact, the classification of any discipline is unnecessary. Each of them can foster each other via making connections through creative thinking. The NACCCE (1999) supports the need for high standards of literacy and numeracy which can also enhance creative abilities: equally creative teaching and learning can enhance literacy and numeracy. These are complementary abilities, not opposing objectives.

In the book Cultivating Curious and Creative Mindsby Craig et al. (2011) we see that alongside creativity and creative thinking; the notion of “aesthetic consciousness” is as well conventionally connected with the arts. They suggest using the arts as the basis for the development of aesthetic consciousness; it should be understood from the outset that the arts are not synonymous with such consciousness. According to Sir Ken Robinson (RSA ANIMATE: Changing Education Paradigms, 2010), aesthetic experience is one in which your senses are operating at their peak.

Cropley observes that "over the centuries since, painters, sculptors, poets, musicians, writers, actors, and other workers in the creative arts, as well as critics and scholars have frequently discussed creativity from an esthetic point of view, mainly focusing on works of art" (2011, p.

358 ). Although art branches and outcomes may be given this result, however, they are not the single field to provide this experience. John Dewey (1934) made a great effort to make the case that we can live aesthetically in many situations that have nothing to do with art. This treatment might be applied to creativity and creative thinking which may be possible with a broader approach to the relevant matter.

Broadening creativity’s scope in education might help to release the sense of thinking and acting which might lead to finding alternatives for unshrinking paradigms of various systems. "Creative work is possible in all the various modes of thought and action of which human beings are capable" (Robinson et al., 1982, p. 32). Giving a new meaning to a concept in philosophy;

putting forward a new hypothesis in any branch of science; benefiting from a different method of a mathematical problem; or adding new interpretations to the events in history... All these processes' paths cross the creative path. This requires a more flexible and fractal sense of curriculum. Due to creating this flexibility and, more importantly, creating ties between disciplines; increasing the role and sphere of influence of creative thinking may support the purpose.

For this reason and in terms of our general educational principles, it is not enough to promote creative activity only within one or other parts of the curriculum. As Robinson et al. state that

"the need and the opportunities for a creative activity must be seen as central to all work in schools" (1982, p. 32).

Creative Training

Come to think of creativity in the schools, teacher training is worth mentioning. In their review, Gitz-Johansen (2016) investigates Carl Jung's contributions from analytical psychology to the field of education. According to research, Jung considers teacher development from a psychological aspect: not just intellectually but about developing oneself as a person in order to not transfer the adult’s own recognized problems onto children. He adds that the development of one's own personality is also their task in order to positively influence pupils' development.

Mentioned training can easily be reflected in the development of creativity. Studies show that personal characteristics play a fundamental part in determining the creativity of an individual.

Therefore teachers need to be able to do more than provide inspiring lessons and learning opportunities: developing characters who are able to respond creatively to life’s challenges has to be a high priority (Jeson, 2021). The NACCCE observes "the new provisions in initial teacher

training present serious difficulties to the future of creative and cultural education. Urgent action is needed to ensure a continuing supply of appropriately trained teachers" (1999, p. 12).

The importance of developing curious and creative minds has existed in the field of education for close to a century. Yet, the idea has never been fully embraced or enacted in ways that would fuel large-scale educational and societal change (Craig et al., 2011, p.

45).

In the survey of Cachia & Ferrari (2010) more than half of the teachers surveyed (56%) remarked that creativity was not covered in their teaching training. This implies the attention attached to creativity in education is neglected in teacher education programs. In order to increase the presence and effect of creativity in education, beginning with teacher education is essential. As they stated "teacher training is central to promoting creativity in education. It raises awareness of the importance of creativity for learners and should support teachers in implementing creative and innovative pedagogies and practices in their teaching" (Cachia &

Ferrari, 2010, p. 47).

Enhancement of Creativity

The effort to find an ultimate answer to this question, it will be in contradiction with developmentally appropriate education. At the base of the traditional school, every question has its own one answer that is wrong. People tend to believe that every problem has one formulating solution. However, it does not. For an educator, every problem related to a student is conceptual.

While looking for a solution, the teacher should consider all the factors of the problem (Krishnamurti, 2008). Primarily, it ought to be understood that it is necessary to get the conditions right to teach creatively. Starbuck (2012) states, creative teaching does not have to involve spending lots of time preparing things like playing cards or PowerPoint presentations; it is more about how the educator approaches teaching a topic. Accordingly, the question here is how it is possible to find the right conditions? Robinson, in his book (2011, p.219) where he discusses what leaders should do to promote creativity, states there is no single strategy or template, mainly because all creative cultures are unique, but there are principles that apply to

the most effective creative organizations. His suggestive first step is to facilitate the creative abilities of every member of the organization. As finding ways to develop the creative skills and attitudes of children in school is crucial for motivating and enabling them to learn in an enjoyable and personal way (Jeson, 2021). Studies about the development of creativity in education mostly confront with following points that are crucial:

Academy: as the development of a person is based upon standard academic duties, it might be difficult for both students and teachers to correlate themselves with the process. According to Beghetto (2020) in this regard, there is evidence that some educators hold a contradictory view, which may be a result of the perceptions they hold and contextual pressures they face. Moreover,

"there is evidence that even prospective teachers tend to view creativity as being incompatible with academic learning" (Beghetto, 2020, p. 418). Alongside the misperceptions about creativity;

the intensive and compulsory curriculum, lack of time, or obligation of the academic testing system might force this understanding about creativity among the educators. Nevertheless, creative practices can be conducted within the context of educational environments. Creativity researchers have long recognized that subjective forms of creativity appear anytime someone has new and personally purposeful insights, interpretations, or experiences (Beghetto, 2020). The challenge here is that students need to have opportunities to receive feedback from their superiors on their own unique conceptions. This utilizes both the learning and creative process.

Feedback: As previously discussed creativity might boost in different fields with different degrees. This feature of creativity complicates the assessment of creative production in education based on K12 system evaluation. In this system, teachers tend to think highly of "qualities such as doing work on time and being courteous or good-natured" (Plucker et al., 2011, p. 437).

However, effective teachers know how to discover the hidden traits of students and cherish them.

Their values are different and they have a more effective approach. An important function of such an approach is that people choose to offer them a positive perspective on themselves, for instance, the view that their ideas are not crazy but creative. This recognition can help to foster the courage to deviate from what everyone else is doing, among other things by offering an opportunity to test the limits of the acceptable without risk or feelings of guilt (Cropley, 2011).

Freedom: In the 1980s Gangster rappers brought a breath of fresh air to the Music world. The freedom in their songs was touching upon the problems that were unspoken in society (see Appendix D for further information). In other words, rap allowed freedom for thoughts to turn into voices. Regardless of the field where freedom is recognized, revolutions will shift in a positive direction. Consciousness will be increased with no restriction or censorship. Thoughts will diversify the environment. As educators, it is important to offer creative individuals this safe space to reveal this diversity in all fields. They must feel free to break the rules without sanctions. The task is not simply to let anything happen in the name of self-expression or creativity. Neither is it to impose rigid structures of ideas and methods upon the children. The need is for a difficult balance of freedom and authority (Robinson et al., 1982).

Motivation: One of the important components in this regard is task motivation that might support the creative act in its presence or absence. Studies about the correlation between motivation and creativity often cite Teresa Amabile in respect thereof. Amabile (1983) considers intrinsic motivation as one of the components of the creative process. She describesintrinsictask motivation as a passion that leads to undertaking a task or solving a problem because it is interesting, involving, personally challenging, or satisfying; in other words, the motivation for one's creative act comes from oneself. When the source of motivation is somewhere else but self is called extrinsic motivation and "as research has shown, salient extrinsic motivators can undermine intrinsic motivation, their presence or absence in the social environment is critically important" (Amabile, 2011, p. 136). Describing present extrinsic motivation in Amabile's studies, it is exemplified with money in business. She states money doesn't help to motivate workers since "it leads people to feel that they are being bribed or controlled" (Amabile, 1998, p. 79).

When it comes to creativity in education, assessments of creative acts with grades, obligations, time limitations and such settings do not prompt students to find their work interesting. On the other hand, the absence of extrinsic motivations might also adversely affect creative acts. Such as; the freedom of creative manners, feedback to encourage students' sense of self-efficacy concerning creativity (Plucker et al., 2011), motivating physical environment, and the like.

Meeting all the conditions to provide these and stimulating the intrinsic motivation of the students are under the responsibility of educators.

Convincingly, many factors must be considered pertaining to enhancing creativity in schools.

Creative achievement involves knowledge, control, and discipline combined with the freedom and confidence to experiment (NACCCE, 1999). Beghetto (2013) suggests teachers to examine researchers in the field of creativity studies; how creativity has been conceptualized, how it might complement their academic aims and responsibilities, and how to strike a better balance of knowing when, how, and why to support creative expression in the context of their other academic aims.