Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Beliefs About Creativity at School: A Study in the Hispanic Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am really confused as to the purpose of this submission.  Why is a previous study, undertaken some 14-15 years ago, meaningful to repeat, when multiple new references have been added, yet these pay virtually no part in the discussion of the results.  

I really do not appreciate what the introduction is seeking to introduce, especially as it is claimed that creativity has gained increasing interest in the education community (I presume today rather than 14 years ago).  And is it really defining creativity that is the focus, or is it the enhancing of creativity?  And what is 'education in creativity'? - an expression only used in the introduction (alas without a reference)!

As I understand it, the study relates to concerns in teacher training. But it seems this is little discussed in the discussion section.  And yet the title of the paper relates to pre-service teachers ! Surely the paper needs to point towards ways to support pre-service teachers and how this can take place. I suggest that saying the outcomes of the study (using the same instrument) are similar to those in a previous study is not helpful. As far as I am aware the previous study uses an instrument that had not been validated and the sample size can give rise to reliability concerns.

I am afraid I need to recommend that this paper is rejected.  I do not see how it adds to the research literature. 

The title is put forward as - Pre-service teachers' conceptions about creativity at school: a study in the Hispanic context   But is it about conceptions or beliefs?

The abstract gives a poor impression, seeing the study as examining prospective science teachers' views when, in practice, it seems the study is a comparison comparing views with the views of a different set of pre-service students on a previously developed instrument some 14 years ago.  The abstract suggests there is an adaptation, but is that actually correct? And itis suggested the findings align with previous international studies (Do you mean this, or is the alignment only with the previous Cypriot study?)  And what exactly is 'emerging' (your word) from this repeat study. The abstract also claims the study underscores the role of the classroom environment in fostering creativity, yet this paper introduced multiple creativity references, many post-dating the derivation of the instrument and hence their value (virtually all seem to be omitted from any reference in your discussion section!!)

I suggest the introduction is seen as poor, serving more as a literature review (and pointing out multiple articles that post-date the original study) rather than putting forward the concerns that are leading to the necessity to repeat the study (with or without modifications).  The introduction does give a concern, recognising that it is essential to reconsider teacher training to effectively promote creativity among students. But does the study actually address this problem?  In fact, should this be the focus of the study?

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 refer to a literature review So why is this part of the aspects identifying the problems with creativity, ie the problem, especially with pre-service teachers?   This is much more about giving a wider background related to creativity. 

From section 1.3 the aim of the study is indicated as elucidating perspective teachers' perceptions of creativity in teaching and learning, during initial training, and to identify factors that, in their view, influence classroom practices that enhance creativity.    OK. But what do sections 1.1 and 1.2 contribute to this?  Section 1.3 follows on from the introduction and gives the Hypothesis, or if appropriate the Research Question(s).                     

            The present study is indicated as elucidating perspective teachers' perceptions of creativity in teaching and learning during initial training,  and  to identify factors that, in their view, influence classroom practices that enhance creativity.    OK    I see this as a meaningful research aim (but is it during, or at the end of initial training?).  And to follow upon this aim is your hypothesis the most appropriate? And is a hypothesis (hypotheses) more appropriate than a research question (questions) ?

And once the hypotheses. or research questions are identified, the literature  background can follow focusing on developments related to creativity since the Cypriot study.

The methodology and results (and analysis) seem to be the most logical sections, but the instrument used needs justification and certainly how the validity and reliability of the study is attained is needed as an addition.   All of the results/analyses need to be discussed in the follow-up discussion section.

This leads to the discussion which relates to 4.1 Conceptions of Creativity, 4.2 Individual Differences in Creativity 4.3  Factors influencing the Manifestation of Creativity and 4.4 Facilitating Creativity.

Here the finding from the study are important, as are the data from the earlier study. But how do the findings relate to the literature - is there general agreement, are their divergences that are of importance, are other factors having an impact, etc. Thus this section is a discussion  on what are the findings, is there general agreement with the literature, is the literature consistent, is more data required, etc.   Basically, all literature cited can be expected to be included in the discussion section - if not, why include the reference(s) in the 1st place?     

And then comes the conclusion  relating to and supporting, or answering the hypotheses, or research questions and then other aspects as appropriate e.g. limitations.

Thus overall, I see this study needs a rewrite so that it is about the need to reflect on how and in what aspects there a current need to support pre-service teachers in appreciating the need for creativity and the developing of creativity in others.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

By and large the English is fine.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the referee’s thorough evaluation. We have carefully addressed all of the referee’s comments, as detailed in the attached response document. Additionally, the manuscript has been fully revised and restructured in accordance with the feedback. We are now submitting a well-prepared version that carefully attends to all requested aspects. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Dear authors and editor,

Thank you very much for involving me in the review process of this work. I have enjoyed reading it very much. First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the work, I think the research is interesting and offers an opportunity for the reader to reflect on how trainee teachers see the world. However, I think there are certain aspects that should be addressed to improve the understanding of the work and the impact it can have from the perspective of the academic community and from the practice of initial teacher education. I have marked my suggestions throughout the pdf in the form of comments as I believe this is the most convenient way for all involved to work. I will briefly comment here on the points I consider most important.

1) I think it is necessary for the authors to provide a definition of creativity in the introduction. It can either be the one they have in mind when developing the work or one that is derived from the literature. I think it is necessary to have this "expert" definition so that the reader is clear about what is meant by creativity and can compare it with the answers of the participants in order to gain perspective.

2) I believe that some methodological aspects such as the criteria for the selection of the sample or the text mining processes used need to be further detailed.

3) I think it is necessary to restructure the Results section as I found it complicated to read and understand. The continuous alternation of tables and text makes it difficult to read fluently and makes you lose the perspective and the main thread of the work.

4) Reviewing the discussion, I miss some interpretation of the data in the sense of what the results we have obtained may mean, why we may have obtained these results, what contextual factors may have influenced the work, what contextual factors may have caused the results to be different from those of other studies, and, above all, what do these results imply for educational practice or for the training of science educators? I would like to see more clearly what is the authors' contribution to the literature beyond stating this is what the literature says, this is what was done in the Cyprus study with these results and this is what we have obtained, which coincides in certain aspects with the Cyprus study.

 

I understand that if these aspects are addressed, the work is of adequate interest and quality to be published.

Again, my sincere thanks for involving me in the process.

Kind regard

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the referee’s thorough evaluation. We have carefully addressed all of the referee’s comments, as detailed in the attached response document. Additionally, the manuscript has been fully revised and restructured in accordance with the feedback. We are now submitting a well-prepared version that carefully attends to all requested aspects. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study examined the views of prospective science teachers in Colombia on creativity using a mixed methods approach that combined qualitative and quantitative techniques. The research adapted an instrument previously developed by Diakidoy and Kanari to explore prospective teachers' beliefs about creativity. The study contributes to the understanding of how prospective science teachers conceptualize creativity, which is relevant for developing teacher education programs that foster creative skills in science teaching.

 

In the theoretical framework of the paper, the authors cite a sufficient number of studies to argue for the aim of their work “to elucidate teachers' perceptions of creativity in science teaching and learning during initial training, and to identify factors that, in their opinion, influence classroom practices that enhance creativity.” (lines 130-131). However, section 1.3 of Objectives and Hypotheses mentions a hypothesis that refers to the studies of Diakidoy and Kanar. Concerning the hypothesis of the work, it would be advisable for the authors to establish a clear hypothesis about the conclusions they have reached from these studies. Formulate a hypothesis: “The conceptions about creativity in science of future Colombian teachers will be similar to those obtained by Diakidoy and Kanari. Although it cannot be definitively supported, it is also expected that the thinking of these science teachers in training shows ideas about school creativity very similar to those obtained in other international studies conducted with in-service teachers of different specialties (lines 141-143) do not make it easy for the reader to understand the starting hypothesis of the work. The authors talk about it in this section, when it would be advisable to do so in the theoretical framework “This research showed that prospective teachers often link creativity primarily to artistic endeavors and consider creative outcomes as novel, although not necessarily appropriate. Since then, similar research has been conducted in a variety of countries and cultural settings. The current study replicates Diakidoy and Kanari's work in the Latin American context, where research on this topic remains scarce (lines 133-137).

 

In the methodological section, the authors make clear the type of analysis they carried out with a questionnaire implemented in the two large universities located in 148 major cities of Colombia “The sample was composed of future teachers, students of first (1st, 2nd and 3rd) and last semester (8th, 9th and 10th) of two specific university careers in science education for 151 high school students. education. Of these, 52 were taking the Bachelor's Degree in Natural Sciences 152 in Chemistry (27 females and 25 males), and 100 were taking the Bachelor's Degree in Physics and Mathematics (33 females and 67 males) (line 152-153). They give some examples of the type of questions and explain the type of response expected in the two sections of the questionnaire. In addition, they include some type of validation of the instrument when translating it from English to Spanish, although they do not mention validation of the questionnaire in general, which would be advisable. Although the authors have used the questionnaire used by Diakidoy and Kanari, the authors mention having added 6 items to sociodemographic information.

 

In the results section, the authors propose tables where they compare their results on creativity based on Diakidoy and Kanari's study. The meaning of the tables is not very clear; the relationship between the study of Diakidoy and Kanari and the results obtained by them is not fully understood (Table 3). In fact, in this section, the authors do not talk about the results they obtained but explain the methodology they used to create the items. They talk about results in the discussion section, leaving aside the interpretation of the results obtained. Questions such as Perceptions of creativity, Individual differences in creativity, or Factors that influence the manifestation of creativity are only presented in numerical terms, but the descriptive analysis is not accompanied by an interpretation and reading of the results by the authors based on the theoretical framework they have created.

 

The part of the work that could be improved lies in this last section and in the conclusions, where it is recommended that the authors take up the objective of the work and the hypotheses and offer a theoretical model based on the data they have obtained and the previous research they have cited in the theoretical framework to support the thesis of their work.

Author Response

 

We are deeply grateful for the referee’s comprehensive and insightful evaluation. The thoughtful feedback provided has enabled us to make significant improvements to the manuscript. We have meticulously addressed each of the referee's comments, as outlined in the attached response document. Furthermore, we have undertaken a thorough revision and restructuring of the manuscript, including refining the objectives and introducing new research questions to enhance the study's coherence and depth. The revised version we now submit reflects careful attention to every requested detail.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has now been developed further with stated research questions.  But alas, in putting forward the so-called 5 RQs, the number of sub-components included very much increases the actual questions to be answered!! In fact, in seeking to answer the RQs, the results section becomes long and unwieldy and actually not all RQs are actually answered (as is expected explicitly in the conclusion section).   While the discussion points out the diversity of responses from other countries, the east-west comments do not seen to give a useful base for a country such as Columbia.

The results section gave extensive insights and the different % responses by the Columbian future teachers, deviated from the comparison from the original Cypriot questionnaire on which the study was based. This was perhaps not surprising because the actual instrument and the way it was administered was not indicated in the methodology, nor was it accessible as an open source.  As a result the results became very unwieldy, seemingly pointed to the diversity in responses that were made without appropriate guidelines, as could be given, for example, in an interview style of data collection.

I recommend that the article requires simplification.  If RQ 1 is the major focus, then the 3 questions that this is encompassing are really the major focus of the whole study, perhaps supplemented with the first part of RQ3 or the first part of RQ4.  This then can allow attention to be placed on how to further promote the concept of creativity inline with the literature ideas and clarified, in the conclusion, alongside the explicit answers to the stated research questions.

Terms such as creative behaviors, school environment and prior knowledge need introducing before they are used in research questions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

By and large the quality of the English is acceptable. Line 53 (Up to our knowledge) is an exception and I wonder about surprisingness

Author Response

 Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your recommendations, and we believe the revisions have enhanced the clarity and robustness of our work. We trust that the manuscript now meets the expectations and standards required for publication.

Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the review of the authors I consider that the article has improved considerably. They have included some hypotheses linked to the work (and not only to the study of Diakidoy and Kanar) which helps a lot in the understanding of the work. Likewise, they specify the validation, although they do not specify the type of verification that has been carried out, i.e., they speak of improvement of the questionnaire but do not specify what improvements have been made: “Based on the feedback, minor modifications were made to the instructions to enhance clarity” (line 221). Perhaps it would be useful to include an example of questions, the results and discussion part has been clarified, in conceptual terms, expanding and connecting the concept of creativity to the previous theoretical analysis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your recommendations, and we believe the revisions have enhanced the clarity and robustness of our work. We trust that the manuscript now meets the expectations and standards required for publication.

Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf