Creativity and Preservice Teachers: A Literature Review of an Underexplored Field (2014–2024)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is timely and important. The introduction mentions creativity as a skill and as an attribute – this seems like a debate to explore. The authors’ own conceptualization of creativity should be stated more directly. Table 4 farther along is helpful. A preview of the many facets of definitions in the Introduction would help frame the review for the reader. At the end of section 1, I suggest explaining what the analytical framework will be – this is shown under Results but may be helpful stated earlier.
Three RQs are noted. RQ2 and RQ 3 are important questions to pose. Another RQ related to how creativity has been studied would add to the three RQs stated. However, results are organized differently. I suggest showing how each result connects to one or more RQs.
Figure 2 is helpful in showing how the search progressed. The PRISMA flow chart seems to be Figure 3 but is labeled as Figure 2. This is an interesting display. Unfortunately, it is hard to read many of the keywords. Can these be presented in a table or appendix?
Section 3.2 is unclear in terms of the research process and RQs.
The Discussion includes the sentence, “These considerations also raise critical questions about how creativity is currently incorporated into teacher training curricula.” This is a great observation. In the Results, descriptions of a few key studies, showing how creativity is incorporated, and how creativity was studied, would be interesting and useful.
The Discussion addresses limitations. Implications and next steps could also be noted.
The topic of creativity is fascinating, and I learned much from your manuscript. I left with more questions, though, about how creativity is part of teacher training. I encourage you to identify trends and provide implications for researchers and teacher educators.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for reading our article and providing insightful comments. We are grateful for your contribution, and we are confident that it will enhance the quality of the article. As a result of your feedback, we have made several modifications to the text and hope we have met your expectations. Please find below our response to your comments, point by point.
Comment 1
The topic of the paper is timely and important. The introduction mentions creativity as a skill and as an attribute – this seems like a debate to explore. The authors’ own conceptualisation of creativity should be stated more directly. Table 4 further along is helpful. A preview of the many facets of definitions in the Introduction would help frame the review for the reader. At the end of Section 1, I suggest explaining what the analytical framework will be – this is shown under Results but may be helpful to state earlier.
Response 1
We agree with you regarding the importance of stating our conceptualisation of creativity earlier. It can now be found on page 1. Additionally, we have rewritten the gap to make it clearer and more explicit.
Comment 2
Three RQs are noted. RQ2 and RQ3 are important questions to pose. Another RQ related to how creativity has been studied would add to the three RQs stated. However, the results are organised differently. I suggest showing how each result connects to one or more RQs.
Response 2
We agree with this comment, but we have chosen to describe different ways of studying creativity as part of RQ2. In the context of this RQ, we have described, for example, strands, levels, and different conceptualisations of the idea. We would have liked to expand our analysis of methodological issues, but the corpus does not allow us to draw strong conclusions due to its unevenness (in terms of methods, quality, and foci). Please note that word limitations have constrained us as well. Nonetheless, we have reorganised the results and explicitly connected them to our RQs. You can observe this in the new subtitles for each section.
Comment 3
Figure 2 is helpful in showing how the search progressed. The PRISMA flow chart seems to be Figure 3 but is labelled as Figure 2. This is an interesting display. Unfortunately, it is hard to read many of the keywords. Can these be presented in a table or appendix?
Response 3
Thank you for noting our mistake. The figure has been relabelled, and a table of the keywords has been added to the Appendix.
Comment 4
The Discussion addresses limitations. Implications and next steps could also be noted. I encourage you to identify trends and provide implications for researchers and teacher educators.
Response 4
We agree with this comment. As a result, we have reorganised the Discussion, limitations, and future research sections. Please see the revisions on page 18.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I share the views of the authors surrounding creativity and PSTs and thank them for undertaking this important work.
This high-quality paper makes an important contribution, and I appreciate the thorough approach and attention to detail within the work.
I do not have any suggestions for this work, but I believe a focus for future work could be the impact of creativity and the ability to exercise creativity in the professional context and the influence on job satisfaction and longevity in the profession.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for reading and providing insightful comments on our article. We are grateful for your contribution, and we are confident that it will enhance the quality of this article. As a result of your feedback, we have made several modifications to the text and hope we have met your expectations. Please find below our response to your comments, point by point.
Comment 1
I believe a focus for future work could be the impact of creativity and the ability to exercise creativity in the professional context and the influence on job satisfaction and longevity in the profession.
Response 1
Thank you for your excellent comments on our article. We agree with your suggestion and have reorganised the discussion, the conclusion, and the section on future research. Therefore, we have included your insightful recommendation for next steps on this fascinating topic.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe SLR is about Creativity and Preservice Teachers. Using PRISMA, the authos found 4 highlights such as beliefs about creativity, personal characteristics, creative processes, and teaching for creativity. The paper are useful for educational sciences, and specific creativity researh. While this paper presents a relevant discussion on the need for more, the paper still requires structural rework before it can before publication. Below I give some suggestions or issues this paper struggles with.
Some improvement:
- There is no need to add a zero (0) before the introduction section title (e.g., "0. Introduction").
- The introduction effectively highlights the importance of creativity in education and the need to focus on preservice teachers. However, it does not explicitly state the specific research problem or gap in the existing literature. The research gap should be more clearly defined.
- The introduction presents multiple ideas, including teacher creativity, preservice teacher challenges, and systematic reviews, but the transitions between these topics need to be explained in more detail for better coherence.
- The statement, "This highlights the importance of enhancing teacher training programmes and addressing the specific needs of preservice teachers (PSTs)..." lacks clarity regarding how the study contributes to the field. The relevance and contribution of this research should be explicitly stated.
- Figure 1 is unclear. For example, in the lower corner of Phase 3, there are three separate corners—what do they represent? It should be clarified whether they belong to Phase 3 or not.
- The authors state, "We selected the Web of Science (WoS) digital library for the search because...". Why was only WoS chosen? Why not include other platforms like Scopus, which sometimes index journals not covered by WoS? A justification is needed.
- The study focuses on works published between 2014 and 2024. Is there a specific reason for selecting this time frame? Please clarify.
- In Figure 2, the record exclusions (e.g., n=755) should be justified with specific reasons, such as duplication, irrelevant methodology, or other factors. Similarly, for n=534, the reasons for exclusion need to be specified.
- The statement, "The authorship analysis reveals the existence of 76 authors in total. As can be seen in the table," does not reference a specific table. The correct table should be cited for clarity.
- Figure 2 and the VOSviewer visualization are not meaningful in their current form. The PRISMA diagram represents a flowchart, whereas VOSviewer is used for network analysis. The figure should be revised with an appropriate title that accurately reflects its content.
- The research questions (RQs) are clearly stated, but the results section does not sufficiently address RQ1. Where are the findings on the leading journals, institutions, and countries? A trend analysis of the systematic literature review (SLR) could be presented using diagrams or other visualizations. Similarly, the response to RQ2 is unclear—where is this information presented? The results for RQ3 should also be clarified. To improve clarity, subtitles should be added to align with each RQ.
- The discussion section needs to be more explicitly structured around the research questions. The key findings related to each RQ should be discussed and compared with relevant literature where possible.
- In the "Conclusions and Limitations" section, the third paragraph should be moved to the beginning, as it better serves as the main conclusion. The first and second paragraphs primarily discuss implications and should be moved to the last section. The fourth paragraph, which addresses limitations, should be placed under a separate section titled "Limitations and Future Research."
- Conclusion is should be clear, see RQs.
Check of the grammar
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for reading and providing insightful comments on our article. We are grateful for your contribution, and we are confident that it will enhance the quality of this article. As a result of your feedback, we have made several modifications to the text and hope we have met your expectations. Please find below our response to your comments, point by point.
Comment 1
There is no need to add a zero (0) before the introduction section title (e.g., "0. Introduction").
Response 1
Thank you for noting this. We have renumbered our sections in accordance with your suggestion. Please note this change on page 1.
Comment 2
The introduction effectively highlights the importance of creativity in education and the need to focus on preservice teachers. However, it does not explicitly state the specific research problem or gap in the existing literature. The research gap should be more clearly defined.
Response 2
We agree with this comment. The gap has been rewritten, and we have now stated that: “we identify a gap in the existing literature concerning the limited understanding of the role creativity plays in the education of future teachers, their initial professional practice, and the formation of their professional beliefs.”
Comment 3
The introduction presents multiple ideas, including teacher creativity, preservice teacher challenges, and systematic reviews, but the transitions between these topics need to be explained in more detail for better coherence.
Response 3
Modifications have been introduced on page 1. As you will note, we have strengthened the relevance of the section, which has improved its flow and coherence.
Comment 4
The statement, "This highlights the importance of enhancing teacher training programmes and addressing the specific needs of preservice teachers (PSTs)..." lacks clarity regarding how the study contributes to the field. The relevance and contribution of this research should be explicitly stated.
Response 4
We agree with this suggestion. The relevance is now stated as follows: “In this context, this study is relevant as it explores the different understandings of creativity, which may play a critical role in equipping future teachers to adequately face the aforementioned global challenges, and highlights the importance of enhancing teacher training programmes to address the specific needs of preservice teachers (PSTs) (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Lawson et al., 2015), an underexplored area in teacher education literature.” Please see it on page 1.
Comment 5
Figure 1 is unclear. For example, in the lower corner of Phase 3, there are three separate corners—what do they represent? It should be clarified whether they belong to Phase 3 or not.
Response 5
We believe this may be an exportation mistake. The new version includes all figures corrected.
Comment 6
The authors state, "We selected the Web of Science (WoS) digital library for the search because...". Why was only WoS chosen? Why not include other platforms like Scopus, which sometimes index journals not covered by WoS? A justification is needed.
Response 6
We have added a justification for our decision. Please check it on page 5: “Accordingly, The Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection was selected as the primary database due to its rigorous inclusion criteria, which assess journals based on 28 quality and impact indicators. This selection ensures that the sources included in this study meet high scholarly standards, thereby enhancing the reliability and credibility of the review. Additionally, the research team had greater institutional access to WoS compared to alternative databases, facilitating a more comprehensive and systematic data collection process. Furthermore, databases such as Scopus were deliberately excluded to prevent potential duplication of records and overlapping journal entries, thereby maintaining the integrity and precision of the dataset.”
Comment 7
The study focuses on works published between 2014 and 2024. Is there a specific reason for selecting this time frame? Please clarify.
Response 7
Yes. We now clarify it on page 6: “Works published between 2014 and 2024, as the most comparable prior reviews (Davies, 2014; Mullet, 2016) did not account for the last decade.”
Comment 8
In Figure 2, the record exclusions (e.g., n=755) should be justified with specific reasons, such as duplication, irrelevant methodology, or other factors. Similarly, for n=534, the reasons for exclusion need to be specified.
Response 8
Thank you for this comment. We have re-plotted Figure 2. You can check the modified version on page 7.
Comment 9
The statement, "The authorship analysis reveals the existence of 76 authors in total. As can be seen in the table," does not reference a specific table. The correct table should be cited for clarity.
Response 9
Thank you for noting this. We have corrected this on page 8.
Comment 10
Figure 2 and the VOSviewer visualisation are not meaningful in their current form. The PRISMA diagram represents a flowchart, whereas VOSviewer is used for network analysis. The figure should be revised with an appropriate title that accurately reflects its content.
Response 10
Thank you for this comment. We have corrected this on page 9.
Comment 11
The research questions (RQs) are clearly stated, but the results section does not sufficiently address RQ1. Where are the findings on the leading journals, institutions, and countries? A trend analysis of the systematic literature review (SLR) could be presented using diagrams or other visualisations. Similarly, the response to RQ2 is unclear—where is this information presented? The results for RQ3 should also be clarified. To improve clarity, subtitles should be added to align with each RQ.
Response 11
We agree with this comment. We have introduced new information that addresses RQ1. New subtitles have been added to better align the results with each RQ.
Comment 12
The discussion section needs to be more explicitly structured around the research questions. The key findings related to each RQ should be discussed and compared with relevant literature where possible.
Response 12
A completely new discussions section has been introduced. The corrected version explicitly discusses the findings related to each RQ. Please see it on page 17.
Comment 13
In the "Conclusions and Limitations" section, the third paragraph should be moved to the beginning, as it better serves as the main conclusion. The first and second paragraphs primarily discuss implications and should be moved to the last section. The fourth paragraph, which addresses limitations, should be placed under a separate section titled "Limitations and Future Research."
Response 13
We followed this suggestion. The new organisation is available on page 18.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your challenge to revise the manuscript. I am pleased to see that your manuscript has now been improved.
