Cited by 32Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Teachers’ and Teacher Students’ Conceptions of Learning and Creativity

Open access
Vedenpää, Iida, Lonka, Kirsti·2014·Creative Education

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore what kinds of conceptions of creativity and learning Finnish teachers and teacher students expressed, and how these conceptions were related to the respondents’ epistemologies (conceptions of knowledge and learning). The participants (n = 89) answered an e-form, consisting of 3 open-ended questions (conceptions of learning, creativity and the connection between the two). In addition, there were 23 two-part Likert-type statements on epistemologies (Lonka et al., 2008) as well as 10 background questions. Mixed method approach was used to analyze the conceptions that the respondents’ expressed. Two qualitative categories of conceptions of learning came from previous research, Constructivity and active epistemology (Lonka, Joram, & Bryson, 1996). A new category also emerged: Collaborativity of learning. The answers about creativity were classified based on whether creativity was viewed as an inborn ability or something changeable, whether focus was on product or process, and whether creativity was seen as collaborative. The participants’ open-ended conceptions of learning reflected a view of learning as teacher-regulated assimilation, whereas their (structured) epistemologies higlighted reflection and deep-level learning. Creativity was viewed as something that can be improved, focusing on the collaborative process. A link between learning and creativity was identified. It shall be of interest to see, how such epistemic stands would be related to group work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4236/ce.2014.520203

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In pilot studies, teachers appeared very similar to medical students in terms of not tolerating long series of questions.

    “In our pilot studies it appeared that teachers were very similar to medical students in terms of not tolerating long series of questions (Lonka et al., 2008; Vedenpää and Lonka, 2014).”

    From Work Burnout and Engagement Profiles Among Teachers (2019) · cites this paper as Vedenpää and Lonka, 2014

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 32

Authors
Vedenpää, I., & Lonka, K.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Lonka, Kirsti
Venue
Creative Education
Published
2014
Volume
05
Issue
20
Pages
1821-1833
ISSN
  • 2151-4755 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-4771
OpenAlex
W2084544350
Cited by
32
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Creative Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Tekes (462054)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
conceptions of learning, conceptions of creativity, pre-service teachers, Finnish teachers, epistemology, constructivity, collaborative creativity, process versus product, teacher professional development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review