Primary School Teachers’ Creative Self-Perception and Beliefs on Teaching for Creativity

Abstract

The recent Spanish education law, LOMLOE, highlights the importance of integrating creativity into all subjects in Primary Education. Teachers play a crucial role in this process, yet often lack adequate training, and research on their beliefs about creativity remains limited. This study examines the creative self-perception of Spanish in-service Primary Education teachers and their beliefs about teaching for creativity, using two previously validated instruments. The findings reveal a moderate self-perception of creativity across various domains, with significant gender differences, as well as a positive attitude towards teaching for creativity. No significant differences were found based on age or years of teaching experience, suggesting a static nature within the teaching profession, misaligned with emerging educational challenges. The correlational analysis indicates a positive relationship between creative self-perception and different dimensions of teaching for creativity, highlighting the importance of support from educational institutions. These findings advocate for continuous teacher training and resources to strengthen creativity-focused teaching practices.

1. Introduction

Creativity, defined as the ability to generate ideas, solutions, or products that are both novel and valuable (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), is essential for adapting and thriving in an ever-evolving world. Future generations will need skills in innovation, exploration, and navigating uncertainty to tackle the unforeseen challenges of the 21st century (Beghetto, 2021; Herianto et al., 2024; Jirout & Matthews, 2022; Scott-Barrett et al., 2023; Thornhill-Miller et al., 2023). As a unique human trait present at varying levels across individuals, creativity has fueled scientific, technological, and social advancements throughout history (Acar et al., 2021; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). It represents a significant milestone in cultural evolution, seen in early expressions like cave paintings, and goes beyond creativity driven purely by survival needs (Fogarty et al., 2015; Pugno, 2024). Additionally, creativity is closely linked to psychological well-being, acting as a protective factor for humanity (Conner et al., 2018; Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009). Creativity is also a fundamental part of daily life, with individuals regularly engaging in creative tasks—even if these do not amount to publicly recognized achievements (Benedek et al., 2020). This form of “little-c” creativity is especially relevant in education, where the emphasis is less on identifying creative geniuses (“Big-C” creativity) and more on fostering everyday problem-solving skills (Craft, 2003).

Creativity evolves dynamically throughout life, shaped by cognitive, emotional, and social development as well as individual experiences (Glăveanu, 2013). In childhood, creativity is often characterized by imaginative play and exploration, while in adolescence, creativity becomes more sophisticated, integrating abstract reasoning, self-expression, and the influence of social and educational contexts (Barbot et al., 2015). Thus, the OECD (2021) has long stressed the importance of enhancing creativity within educational systems. The PISA 2022 exams assessed creative thinking for the first time, revealing average results, with Spain’s performance slightly above the median, reflecting a score of around five out of ten. These findings highlight the potential within educational systems to foster greater creativity, as students struggle to channel their creative abilities, likely due to limited experience with problem-solving in academic settings (Mullet et al., 2016; Rubenstein et al., 2013). However, some authors, such as Doyle (2017) and Chemi and Du (2018), argue that the teaching–learning process is inherently creative and naturally stimulates creativity.

Patston et al. (2021) argue that educational systems are still far from fully committing to bringing creativity into classrooms, despite its prominence in educational policies and its institutionalization as an academic discipline in higher education, including degree programs in creativity now offered in numerous universities worldwide (Aktas, 2022). However, there are signs of gradual integration, as exemplified in Spain, where the recent educational reform, LOMLOE, mandates that “creativity will be addressed across all subjects” (BOE, 2020, p. 122874). This cross-disciplinary approach aligns with research advocating for the comprehensive integration of creativity throughout the curriculum (Albar & Southcott, 2021).

The individual and societal benefits of creativity are so significant that fostering it in classrooms has become a global priority for educators, as highlighted by Skiba et al. (2010). Doron’s research (Doron, 2016) demonstrates that creativity can be cultivated and enhanced in the short term through specific interventions and training. Accordingly, education holds a vital role in nurturing creative and innovative thinking to equip students for the complex challenges of the 21st century (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010).

In this context, the conclusions of Marquis and Henderson (2015) are particularly pertinent, underscoring the importance of teachers who are well prepared to support the mission of fostering creativity and who have sufficient autonomy to establish creative learning environments. Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity represent distinct yet complementary approaches: the former emphasizes the use of imaginative strategies to make learning both enjoyable and effective, while the latter focuses on cultivating students’ creative thinking and behaviors (Jónsdóttir, 2017).

Several researchers highlight a gap between the skills and knowledge acquired in schools and those required in the workplace and society, suggesting a need to cultivate lifelong learners rather than merely well-informed individuals (González-Salamanca et al., 2020). Encouraging curiosity, which thrives on uncertainty, is essential for training effective learners (Jirout & Matthews, 2022). Evidence shows that students are more likely to maximize their creative potential when they receive support and stimulation not only at school but also at home (Runco, 2014). In any case, teachers play an essential role in shaping students’ education and nurturing their creativity. Cropley (1997) proposes specific guidelines for teachers to stimulate creativity, such as encouraging independent learning, as creativity requires a certain level of autonomy; adopting a cooperative and socially integrative teaching style to facilitate collaborative learning; promoting mastery of factual knowledge as a foundation for divergent thinking, since creativity does not arise from a void; and refraining from judging students’ ideas prematurely, allowing them to be fully developed and clearly articulated. Similarly, Soh (2017) underscores the importance of cultivating self-assessment skills, helping students apply their own standards and build self-confidence, along with providing targeted didactic materials and resources to support creative growth.

Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between creativity and teachers. These reveal that most educators view creativity as a skill that can be cultivated and developed through education (So & Hu, 2019), rather than as an innate talent limited to “geniuses” (Rubenstein et al., 2018), as Csíkszentmihályi (1996) describes in his theory of creative flow. This term refers to a state of deep focus and enjoyment during a task, often associated with optimal performance and creativity. In educational settings, fostering flow in both teachers and students can enhance creative thinking and problem-solving. However, a major barrier to incorporating creativity in classrooms stems from teachers’ own beliefs (their creative self-perception and teacher self-efficacy, the social importance of creativity, or the student creative potential), which significantly shape their instructional practices (Maggioni & Parkinson, 2008; Mullet et al., 2016). This is crucial because, while some implicit beliefs may support creative development, most tend to inhibit it (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). When not grounded in scientific evidence, these beliefs can lead teachers to mistakenly believe they are fostering creativity, when they may be unintentionally stifling it (Skiba et al., 2010). Therefore, addressing these implicit beliefs is essential to ensure teachers receive comprehensive training, not only on the scientific foundations of creativity (Anderson et al., 2022; Katz-Buonincontro et al., 2020; Mullet et al., 2016; Skiba et al., 2010), but also on effective methods for nurturing it in the classroom (Benedek et al., 2021).

McLure et al. (2024) emphasize the limited opportunities for both in-service and pre-service teachers to engage with creativity-related training, primarily due to gaps in curricula and professional development programs. Consequently, it is unsurprising that many teachers feel unprepared to integrate creativity into their daily instruction, often depending on arts or humanities teachers to fulfill this role within schools (Skiba et al., 2010). The common tendency to associate creativity solely with artistic talent, known as “art bias,” represents a persistent misconception that, according to Patston et al. (2018), is gradually receding, though some research suggests that this bias remains prevalent (Karwowski et al., 2020).

These findings underscore the need to support teachers who often face challenges in fostering creativity within educational environments that may not actively encourage it (Akyildiz & Çelik, 2020; Rubenstein et al., 2018) and that may lack a robust conceptual framework for understanding creativity (Grigorenko, 2019). While some educators believe that creativity can be nurtured in all students, others regard it as an innate quality unique to certain individuals (Katz-Buonincontro et al., 2020; Mullet et al., 2016). This implicit belief—that creativity is inherent—leads some teachers to doubt students’ potential for developing creative skills, thereby limiting the ways creativity is incorporated into classroom practices (Paek & Sumners, 2019). Additionally, equating creativity solely with “genius” and referencing only eminent figures as exemplars can foster a perception of creativity as a fixed, unchangeable trait, which may discourage individuals from recognizing or cultivating their own creative capacities (Karwowski et al., 2020). Gender stereotypes also shape teachers’ perceptions of creativity, influencing how they view creative students. Creative boys are often characterized as impulsive, independent, bold, risk-taking, spontaneous, and self-confident, whereas creative girls are more frequently described as calm, diligent, systematic, rule-abiding, and conforming (Gralewski, 2019). These differing perceptions underscore the need for enhanced professional support to help teachers understand creative thinking more comprehensively and learn strategies for fostering it in all students—a process commonly referred to as “teaching for creativity” (McLure et al., 2024).

Wigfield and Eccles’ expectancy-value theory posits that individuals’ motivation and performance are influenced by their expectations of success and the value they assign to a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In the context of education, teachers who perceive creativity as valuable are more likely to engage in practices that foster it in their classrooms. Understanding these motivational dynamics is crucial for designing interventions that enhance teachers’ ability to nurture creativity in students. On the other hand, Sternberg’s implicit theory of creativity emphasizes how personal beliefs and perceptions shape behaviors and judgments regarding creativity (Sternberg, 1985). For teachers, these implicit beliefs can either support or inhibit the implementation of creative teaching practices. Teachers who view creativity as an innate trait rather than a skill that can be cultivated may unconsciously limit students’ creative opportunities. By addressing and reshaping such beliefs, educators can create more inclusive and effective environments for fostering creativity. Numerous studies have examined how schooling and learning environments influence creativity. Pedagogical approaches and educational methods impact creativity directly or indirectly through motivation and well-being. Recent studies have highlighted the benefits of alternative pedagogies, emphasizing individual initiative and action-based learning, such as Montessori schools in Primary Education (Besançon & Lubart, 2008) and Waldorf schools in Secondary Education (Besançon et al., 2015).

In Spain, studies on teachers’ beliefs or self-perception of creativity are limited; a comprehensive evaluation covering all educational levels, as has been conducted in other countries, has yet to be carried out (Cheung, 2012; Mullet et al., 2016; Soeharto et al., 2024). Furthermore, in-service teachers have received far less attention than trainee teachers (Martín-Ezpeleta et al., 2022, 2024; Echegoyen-Sanz & Martín-Ezpeleta, 2021) or Secondary Education teachers (Pont-Niclòs et al., 2024a). This study aims to address this gap and promote an educational debate on the need for targeted professional development initiatives to enhance teachers’ capabilities in fostering creativity. In this context, the primary objective of the present study is to examine Primary Education teachers’ perceptions and beliefs regarding teaching for creativity and their own creativity across various domains. The four specific objectives are formulated as research questions:

(a)

What is the self-perception of primary school teachers in different creative domains?

(b)

What are their beliefs regarding the various aspects of teaching for creativity?

(c)

What differences in perceptions and beliefs exist concerning teachers’ gender, age, or years of experience?

(d)

How are creative self-perception and beliefs about teaching for creativity related to each other?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The participant selection process for this study aimed to ensure a diverse and representative sample of Primary Education teachers from various backgrounds while maintaining a focus on the research questions related to creativity in teaching. The study sought to explore teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about teaching for creativity and their creative self-perception across multiple domains, and as such, it was important to include a broad range of participants who would reflect different experiences, perspectives, and contexts within Primary Education. To achieve this, we selected teachers from a set of twelve primary schools, chosen based on a combination of criteria that allowed for both diversity (in educational contexts, teacher demographics, and regional representation) and logistical feasibility.

Thus, the study participants included 110 in-service primary school teachers from 12 different educational institutions (encompassing both public and private schools in rural and urban areas) located in eastern Spain. The teachers had an average age of 44.63 years (SD = 9.79). The gender distribution reflected that of the Primary Education teaching population in Spain; 78.1% female and 21.9% male. To examine the influence of age on the various variables studied, participants were divided into four age groups: under 35, 36–45, 46–55, and over 56 years. Additionally, participants were categorized by years of teaching experience: less than 5 years, 5–10 years, 11–20 years, and more than 20 years. The demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

		Absolute Frequency	Relative Frequency (%)
Gender	Male	26	23.6
	Female	84	76.4
Age	≤35	17	19.8
	36–45	29	33.7
	46–55	24	27.9
	≥56	16	18.6
Years of experience	<5	10	9.1
	5–10	15	13.6
	11–20	41	37.3
	>20	44	40.0

.

2.2. Instruments

Teachers’ self-perception of creativity was assessed using the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (Kaufman, 2012), chosen for its validated use across diverse cultural contexts. It includes 50 items across 5 distinct creativity domains: Everyday (11 items), Scholarly (11 items), Performance (10 items), Scientific/Mechanical (9 items), and Artistic (9 items). Participants were asked to compare themselves with peers of similar age and life experiences, evaluating their creative performance in specific tasks, such as “writing a poem” (Performance), “solving math puzzles” (Scientific/Mechanical), “writing a letter to the editor” (Scholarly), “teaching someone how to do something” (Everyday), and “sketching a person or object” (Artistic). For each task, participants rated how creatively they perform these activities relative to their peers on a 5-point Likert scale. The reliability of the Spanish translation, assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, revealed excellent internal consistency across domains, as follows: Everyday (α = 0.809), Scholarly (α = 0.841), Performance (α = 0.880), Scientific/Mechanical (α = 0.901), Artistic (α = 0.870), and the overall score (α = 0.922).

Teachers’ perceptions of various aspects of teaching for creativity were evaluated using the Teaching for Creativity Scales (Rubenstein et al., 2013), a 34-item instrument utilizing a 5-point Likert scale, divided into four subdimensions: Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) (13 items), Environmental Encouragement (EE) (6 items), Societal Value (SV) (9 items), and Student Potential (SP) (6 items). Reliability analysis of the Spanish translation, conducted with Cronbach’s alpha, demonstrated good internal consistency for all subdimensions: Teacher Self-Efficacy (α = 0.862), Environmental Encouragement (α = 0.825), Societal Value (α = 0.785), and Student Potential (α = 0.731).

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

The teachers completed the paper-based questionnaires without a time limit. The questionnaires included an initial section for sociodemographic data, followed by a second section containing the validated instruments described earlier. Data collection was conducted in accordance with the procedures established by the Ethics Committee of the University of Valencia. Consequently, all teachers were informed about the scope of the study and the data anonymization protocol, and they provided written informed consent to participate.

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (version 26). Specifically, means and standard deviations were calculated for each dimension of the questionnaires. The normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The expressive, scientific–mechanical, and overall creative self-perception domains, as well as the teacher self-efficacy dimension, exhibited normal distributions, whereas the everyday, academic, and artistic domains, along with the school support, social value, and student potential dimensions, showed non-normal distributions. To examine significant differences by gender, t-tests (for normally distributed data) and Mann–Whitney U tests (for non-normally distributed data) were applied. For analyzing differences based on age group, years of experience, or school type, one-way ANOVA (for normal distributions) and Kruskal–Wallis H tests (for non-normal distributions) were used. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed to examine correlations between variables. In all cases, the significance level was set at 0.05. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’ g, and the magnitude of effect sizes was evaluated according to Cohen’s classification for the behavioral sciences (Cohen, 1988). To address the limitations associated with small subgroup sizes and to improve the robustness of the statistical analyses, we employed bootstrapping techniques. In this study, we generated 1000 bootstrap samples from the original dataset, with each sample drawn randomly with replacement. Key statistics were recalculated for each sample, and robust confidence intervals were derived using the bias-corrected accelerated method. This approach improves the reliability and interpretability of the results.

3. Results

The teachers’ creative self-perception across the various domains is presented in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of creative self-perception across different domains.

Creative Domain	Min.	Max	Median	Mean	SD
Everyday	2.73	5.00	3.82	3.88	0.44
Scholarly	2.27	4.64	3.55	3.56	0.50
Performance	1.00	5.00	3.05	3.08	0.84
Scientific/Mechanical	1.11	5.00	2.78	2.85	0.87
Artistic	1.33	5.00	3.67	3.64	0.73
Global	2.22	4.62	3.43	3.42	0.46

. As shown, teachers perceive themselves as moderately creative in all the domains studied. The highest scores are obtained in the Everyday domain, followed by the Artistic and Scholarly domains. The Performance and Scientific/Mechanical domains received lower scores, with the latter scoring below 3. These findings suggest that while teachers feel confident in everyday and artistic creativity, there may be less confidence in technical and expressive areas, highlighting potential areas for targeted professional development.

In all domains and global creative self-perception, male teachers scored higher than female teachers. The results of the inferential statistical tests showed that these differences were statistically significant in the Scholarly domain, U = 712.00, p = 0.007 (M_male = 3.79, SD = 0.46; M_female = 3.49, SD = 0.48), with a moderate effect size (g = 0.44); the Performance domain, t(108) = 3.41, p < 0.001 (M_male = 3.54, SD = 0.72; M_female = 2.93, SD = 0.82), with a large effect size (g = 0.81); the Scientific-Mechanical domain, t(108) = 4.49, p < 0.001 (M_male = 3.47, SD = 0.98; M_female = 2.66, SD = 0.74), with a large effect size (g = 0.81); and in global creative self-perception, t(108) = 4.01, p < 0.001 (M_male = 3.71, SD = 0.43; M_female = 3.33, SD = 0.43), with a moderate effect size (g = 0.43). These results suggest that male teachers may have greater confidence in their creativity, potentially influenced by societal norms or biases. Interestingly, no significant differences were found based on age or years of teaching experience, indicating a static trend in creative self-perception over time.

The descriptive statistics for the different dimensions of teaching for creativity are shown in

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the different dimensions of teaching for creativity.

	Min.	Max	Median	Mean	SD
Teacher self-efficacy	2.62	4.77	3.85	3.87	0.45
Environmental encouragement	1.33	5.00	4.00	3.85	0.77
Societal value	2.78	5.00	4.56	4.48	0.47
Student potential	2.67	5.00	4.50	4.36	0.54

. It is evident that the mean scores obtained are moderate to high across all dimensions, with average scores above 3.80 points in all cases, the highest being for the social value dimension (4.48 points). Regarding the standard deviations, the results indicate that perceptions are consistently positive in terms of the social value of creativity and the creative potential of students. However, school support and teacher self-efficacy exhibited greater variability, particularly institutional support, which may reflect differences in the perceived support experiences across the various schools.

When analyzing the results for the environmental encouragement variable across the different educational institutions studied, it is evident that all institutions reported average scores above 3.5 (out of 5), except for one school that received a mean score of 3.30. Four schools scored above 4 points. The results of the Kruskal–Wallis H test (11, 110) = 1051.00, p = 0.000 confirmed that the differences observed between schools were statistically significant. This variation indicates that institutional support plays a critical role in fostering creative teaching practices. On the other hand, no statistically significant differences were found based on gender, age, or years of teaching experience for any of the teaching for creativity dimensions.

Table 4. Bivariate correlations between global creative self-perception (CSP) and the dimensions of teaching for creativity.

	CSP	TSE	EE	SV	SP
CSP	1	0.433 *** (<0.001)	0.100 (0.297)	0.295 ** (0.002)	0.130 (0.175)
TSE		1	0.274 ** (0.004)	0.265 ** (0.005)	0.227 * (0.017)
EE			1	−0.005 (0.958)	0.057 (0.553)
SV				1	0.472 *** (<0.001)

* Significant correlations at the 0.05 level; ** significant correlations at the 0.01 level; *** significant correlations at the 0.001 level.

presents the Spearman correlation coefficients between teachers’ creative self-perception and the various dimensions of teaching for creativity. Teachers’ creative self-perception showed a moderate positive correlation with their creative self-efficacy (r = 0.433, p < 0.001) and correlated positively, although weaker, with societal value (r = 0.295, p = 0.002). Teachers’ creative self-efficacy also exhibited a moderate positive correlation with the school climate for creativity (r = 0.274, p = 0.004), emphasizing the importance of institutional support in enhancing teacher confidence. The strongest correlation was observed between the social value of creativity and students’ creative potential (r = 0.472, p < 0.001), underscoring the role of valuing creativity in recognizing and nurturing students’ creative abilities.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine Primary Education teachers’ perceptions and beliefs regarding teaching for creativity and their own creativity across various domains.

The results show a moderate level of creative self-perception across the various creativity domains, with the highest scores observed in the Everyday domain, followed by the Scholarly and Artistic domains, while the Performance and Scientific/Mechanical domains received lower scores. These results are similar, although somewhat higher, than those obtained from Spanish Secondary Education teachers (Pont-Niclòs et al., 2024a) and the general population in Spain (Elisondo et al., 2022). Similar trends have also been observed among German citizens (Brauer et al., 2022), Turkish university students (Kandemir & Kaufman, 2019), and U.S. university students (Lee & Portillo, 2022). It is worth noting that self-perception varies among people and through life based on experiences and the interplay between individual and environmental factors (Markus & Wurf, 1987); thus, the lowest creative self-perception in the Scientific/Mechanical domain suggests that teachers may need specific training and resources in this area to enhance their confidence and creative skills. Promoting creativity in the scientific field is particularly relevant given the current emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education (Pont-Niclòs et al., 2024b; Zhang et al., 2024).

The analysis of the different dimensions of teaching for creativity shows that Primary Education teachers’ perceptions are positive in all areas, with the social value of creativity being the highest-rated dimension. Wigfield and Eccles’ expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and Siegle and McCoach’s achievement goal model (Siegle & McCoach, 2005) suggest that valuing something is a key component of motivation, which is necessary for action. Several studies have demonstrated the effect of valuing an outcome on performance (Rubenstein et al., 2012; Siegle et al., 2010), suggesting that for teachers to promote creative development within their classrooms, they must first believe that creativity is valuable and worth fostering. The results of this study indicate that, in this regard, Primary Education teachers show a favorable disposition towards teaching for creativity. The creative potential of students is also viewed positively and with little variability among Primary Education teachers. This is important because the belief that individuals are either born creative or not has been described (Plucker & Beghetto, 2003; Plucker et al., 2004) as the biggest obstacle to creativity development. If teachers believe that students lack the capacity to grow creatively, they are unlikely to prioritize fostering creativity in the classroom.

Statistically significant differences between male and female teachers were found in most creativity domains (Scholarly, Performance, and Scientific/Mechanical), as well as in global creative self-perception, with higher scores observed for men. In other studies, men also scored higher in the Scientific/Mechanical domain (Elisondo et al., 2022; Kaufman, 2006; Kaufman et al., 2009; Pont-Niclòs et al., 2024a), though in those studies, women scored higher in the Artistic domain. The results of this study support the theory that women tend to underestimate their abilities in general (Furnham, 2001; Kaufman, 2019). However, no gender differences were found across the different dimensions of teaching for creativity. These results align with findings from other studies, such as Soeharto et al. (2024), which found no gender differences among pre-service teachers in any dimension of the same questionnaire; Cheung (2012), who verified that both men and women equally incorporate creative elements into their teaching activities; or He and Wong (2021), who also reported similar results regarding creative self-efficacy.

The influence of teaching experience on perceptions of creativity in previous research is unclear (Mullet et al., 2016). While some studies suggest that less experienced teachers tend to have a more sophisticated and balanced view of creativity, other research indicates that perceptions of creativity are similar among both pre-service and in-service teachers, with age and years of experience not significantly impacting the implementation of creative teaching in the classroom (Grigorenko, 2019). The results of the present study show no differences in creative self-perception or in the different dimensions of teaching for creativity based on age or years of teaching experience. This is consistent with findings from Spanish (Pont-Niclòs et al., 2024a) and U.S. (Kettler et al., 2018) secondary school teachers. These results suggest a generally static nature of professional development concerning creativity, highlighting the need for training, support, and development programs that promote the integration of creativity within the educational system (Cheung, 2012). Therefore, further efforts are needed in teacher training, curriculum design, and educational programs, aimed not only at improving the creative competencies of both teachers and students but also at shedding light on their relevance in the current educational and societal paradigm (Harris & De Bruin, 2018; Hernández-Torrano & Ibrayeva, 2020; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019).

The sociocultural theory of creativity emphasizes the importance of environmental and contextual variables in the development of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Csíkszentmihályi, 1996). Studies suggest that the school environment, particularly one that supports creativity, can enable teachers to enhance students’ creativity and contribute to their willingness to implement creative teaching practices in the classroom (Huang & Lee, 2015; Huang et al., 2022). A classroom climate conducive to creativity is essential for fostering teachers’ willingness to teach for creativity, as teachers’ perceptions of the school climate can influence their self-efficacy and confidence in implementing creative instruction (Rubenstein et al., 2018). The results of the present study confirm this, as a positive and moderate correlation was found between teachers’ creative self-efficacy and environmental support for creativity in the educational institution. This suggests that an institutional environment that supports creativity can positively influence teachers’ perceptions of their own creative abilities.

Statistically significant correlations have been found between teachers’ creative self-perception and their creative self-efficacy. This suggests that teachers who perceive themselves as creative feel capable of applying and developing their creativity in teaching. Teachers’ creative self-perception also positively correlates with students’ creative potential, indicating that teachers who see themselves as creative are also more likely to recognize the creative potential of their students. Additionally, there is a moderate positive correlation between the social value of creativity and students’ creative potential. This relationship implies that when teachers perceive creativity as valuable in society, they may be more inclined to recognize and nurture their students’ creative potential, aligning with Sternberg’s implicit theory of creativity (Sternberg, 1985), which posits that teachers’ beliefs influence their ability to identify and value their students’ creativity.

The presented results contribute to fulfilling the above-stated main objective, although it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the study. First, the use of quantitative self-report scales to assess creativity-related constructs is a notable limitation. While these scales offer a useful means of gauging teachers’ perceptions, they may not fully capture the complexity of participants’ actual creative abilities or beliefs. Self-report measures are susceptible to biases such as social desirability bias, where participants might provide responses they believe are expected or socially acceptable, or due to differences in self-awareness (Kimberlin & Winterstein, 2008). In particular, the dimensions most susceptible to biases are those that relate to personal characteristics, values, and beliefs that are socially valued or perceived as positive in the educational context, such as creative self-perception, the social value of creativity or students’ creative potential. Future studies could benefit from integrating qualitative methods, such as interviews or observational data, to complement the quantitative findings and offer a richer, more nuanced understanding of the psychological factors that influence teachers’ perceptions of creativity.

Additionally, although the sample size of this study was sufficient and drawn from a diverse set of twelve educational institutions, its regional specificity and relatively modest size limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of Spanish primary school teachers. To enhance the robustness of the results and reduce the risk of Type II errors, bootstrapping techniques were applied. However, further research should aim for larger and more geographically representative samples to support broader conclusions.

5. Conclusions

In general, the results of the present study provide strong arguments for advocating continuous support in training and resources to strengthen teaching for creativity. Once educational debates and curricula acknowledge the importance of the construct of creativity and its transdisciplinary nature, teachers will need tools to refine their technical conceptualization of creativity and improve their creative self-efficacy. More importantly, they must reflect on how to channel their students’ creativity into classroom practices that have proven effective, recognizing that these models need to be adapted to specific audiences and contexts. Teacher training institutions have a clear task ahead, as do in-service teacher training courses, which must be sensitive to the fact that teachers need to be aware that there are practices they are already implementing that are ideal for channeling creativity. However, these practices can always be enriched, and, more importantly, the educational system must be structured around true attention to the most crucial competencies, including creativity, which is now universally recognized as essential. Additionally, a Creative School Plan is needed to help organize actions within schools (and high schools) aimed at fostering creativity, supporting a cross-cutting, well-structured, and ongoing approach. None of this will be possible if teachers do not enhance their ability to observe and creatively stimulate creativity in the classroom.