Teachers’ and Teacher Students’ Conceptions of Learning and Creativity
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- Scientific Research Publishing, Inc.
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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