Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs About Creative Teachers and Good Teachers

Abstract

Preservice teachers’ beliefs play an important role in shaping their future instructional practices. While creativity is increasingly recognized as a key element in education, little is known about how preservice teachers perceive creative versus good teachers. The current study explored preservice teachers’ views on the characteristics associated with creative and good teachers, identifying both shared and unique attributes. A total of 438 preservice teachers participated in this study. The results revealed that preservice teachers value relationship building, professional competence, and creativity in both categories. Notably, the emphasis on creativity in both creative and good teachers suggests an evolving perspective on teaching that highlights the significance of fostering creativity in classrooms. Additionally, good teachers were associated with a wider range of social and personality traits, whereas creative teachers were characterized by a stronger focus on adaptability and leadership. The findings underscore the need for teacher education programs to adopt an integrative approach that values both teaching effectiveness and creativity, ensuring that future educators are well-prepared to meet the demands of 21st-century education.

1. Introduction

Creativity is increasingly recognized as a key component for both personal and social prosperity (Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Cachia & Ferrari, 2010). Within educational contexts, this has led to an increase in policy documents and curricula that prioritize creativity as a crucial student outcome (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010; Shaheen, 2010; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019; Wyse & Ferrari, 2015). To promote student creativity, teachers play an essential role in providing creative learning opportunities and nurturing students’ creative potential, which can be developed through appropriate instruction and guidance in the classroom (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Marcos et al., 2020; Rubenstein et al., 2013; Ruiz-del-Pino et al., 2022). However, despite the great emphasis placed on creativity, the implementation of creativity-fostering practices in the classroom remains a challenge (Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Gao & Hall, 2024; Sternberg, 2015).

Fostering students’ creativity requires teachers who themselves are creative (Henriksen & Mishra, 2015). The personal attributes and mindsets of teachers play an important role in shaping their instructional approaches to teaching creativity (Valckx et al., 2021; Paek & Sumners, 2019). Teachers’ beliefs not only influence how they perceive and interact with students but also determine the teaching practices they employ, serving as guiding principles that shape their goals, emotions, decisions, and actions (Anderson et al., 2022; James & McCormick, 2009; Pajares, 1992). Research has shown that changes in teachers’ beliefs can lead to shifts in their teaching behaviors or instructional practices, and vice versa (Anderson et al., 2022; Hall et al., 2021; Pajares, 1992). Therefore, teachers’ beliefs about creativity can serve as either a catalyst or a barrier to their development as creative teachers and the adoption of creativity-fostering practices in their classrooms.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest among researchers in understanding in-service K-12 teachers’ beliefs about creativity (Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Gao & Hall, 2024). Creative teachers are often described in terms of their personal characteristics, pedagogical and content knowledge, and their skills and abilities (Henriksen & Mishra, 2015; Lev-Zamir & Leikin, 2013). Based on responses from in-service teachers, some common characteristics of creative teachers include confident, determined, appreciative, imaginative, curious, reflective, expressive, open-minded, sociable, empathetic, able to choose appropriate material, and pedagogically flexible and original (Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Gao & Hall, 2024; Henriksen & Mishra, 2015; Lev-Zamir & Leikin, 2013). Furthermore, creative teachers are often associated with their enthusiasm in the classroom and their individual relationships with students (Morais & Azevedo, 2011). From the perspectives of in-service teachers, good teaching is inherently linked to fostering students’ creative capacities (Henriksen & Mishra, 2015).

However, little is known regarding preservice teachers’ beliefs about creativity in teachers. Unlike in-service teachers, preservice teachers have little classroom teaching experience and thus their beliefs represent an integration of the knowledge acquired from their teacher education program and their personal schooling experiences, which have the power to affect the decisions they make once they enter the classroom (Murphy et al., 2004; Wall, 2016). One of the primary goals of teacher education programs is to prepare preservice teachers to become good teachers through the teaching of new or refined pedagogical knowledge (Murphy et al., 2004; Bayrak-Ozmutlu, 2022).

Studies exploring preservice teachers’ perceptions of good teachers have found that the characteristics of good teachers are generally categorized into three main areas: personality traits, professional qualities, and attributes related to student–teacher relationships (Arnon & Reichel, 2007; Bullock, 2015; Lavy & Shriki, 2008; Murphy et al., 2004; Ruzgar, 2021). From the perspective of preservice teachers, good teachers are caring, kind, helpful, humorous, patient, passionate, understanding, friendly, engaging, empathetic, and enthusiastic. They are also seen as prepared, organized, creative, student-centered, dependable, reflective, and adaptable. Additionally, good teachers are believed to possess the ability to motivate students, maintain discipline, and build strong relationships with their students (Arnon & Reichel, 2007; Bullock, 2015; Lavy & Shriki, 2008; Murphy et al., 2004; Ruzgar, 2021).

Previous studies have shown that preservice teachers identified creativity as a key characteristic of good teachers. This prompts several questions: Are good teachers also creative teachers in the opinion of preservice teachers? What are their perceptions of creative teachers? How does the profile of creative teachers compare to that of good teachers? To address these questions, the current study aims to explore preservice teachers’ beliefs about creative teachers and good teachers by identifying and comparing the characteristics of good teachers and creative teachers, respectively.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 438 preservice teachers (84% female) from a teacher preparation program at a major public university in the southeastern United States volunteered to participate in this study. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 21 years, and the majority (86%) self-identified as Caucasian. Approximately one-third of the participants majored in Secondary Education (31.3%), followed by Elementary Education (23.3%), Other (e.g., Agricultural Education, Modern Languages Education) (18.3%), Early Childhood Education (14.8%), Special Education (9.4%), and Middle Level Education (3%).

2.2. Measure

A self-developed survey containing 46 adjectives was used to examine preservice teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of creative and good teachers. The adjectives were derived from previous studies (e.g., Arnon & Reichel, 2007; Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Henriksen & Mishra, 2015; Lavy & Shriki, 2008; Lev-Zamir & Leikin, 2013; Murphy et al., 2004) as well as a pilot study in which 35 preservice teachers were asked to describe both creative teachers and good teachers. Participants completed the survey twice, first rating the extent to which each adjective described a creative teacher, and second revealing the extent to which it described a good teacher. A five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely well) was used for both ratings.

2.3. Data Collection

All the participants (i.e., preservice teachers) took a course on Educational Psychology, and they completed the survey regarding their perceptions of creative teachers and good teachers in a classroom setting as part of an in-class activity. Their original responses were used to complete an assignment. After the semester ended, their responses were de-identified and further analyzed to answer the research questions in this study, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB2025-0073) of the university where data were collected.

2.4. Data Analysis

Initial data analysis was conducted by examining descriptive statistics. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to provide evidence of internal consistency reliability for the survey. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to gain a deeper insight into the way in which preservice teachers in our sample construct creative and good teachers. Oblique rotation was selected based on the assumption that the underlying factors were likely correlated (Costello & Osborne, 2005). To determine the number of factors to extract, several criteria were followed, including the Kaiser–Guttman rule of eigenvalues greater than 1, the scree test, and the examination of communalities and factor loadings (Costello & Osborne, 2005). The analyses were conducted using SPSS 28.

3. Results

3.1. Top 5 and Bottom 5 Characteristics of Creative Teachers

Cronbach’s alpha for the creative teacher scale was 0.96, which showed evidence of excellent internal consistency reliability. Descriptive statistics revealed that preservice teachers value the following characteristics most in creative teachers: “Value students’ creativity” (M = 4.84), “Creative” (M = 4.80), “Open-minded” (M = 4.71), “Imaginative” (M = 4.65), and “Adaptive” (M = 4.64). In contrast, the items with the lowest mean values were “Authoritative” (M = 3.26), “Sensitive” (M = 3.65), “Affectionate” (M = 3.87), “Organized” (M = 3.97), and “Responsible” (M = 4.03). From preservice teachers’ perspectives, these were the characteristics least relevant to a creative teacher.

3.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.96, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² = 13,779.06, df = 1035, p < 0.001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The initial extraction yielded eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. However, Cattell’s (1966) scree test suggested a five-factor solution. An iterative process was employed to refine the factor structure. As suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), a minimum factor loading of 0.32 and above is necessary for an item to be considered interpretable. Therefore, two items with low factor loadings were removed from further analyses (items 31, 34). Additionally, based on Costello and Osborne’s (2005) recommendations, four items with low communalities (<0.4) (items 2, 3, 8, 45) and nine items with cross-loading at or above 0.32 on two or more factors (items 14, 16, 21, 24, 35, 36, 37, 44, 46) were also excluded. The iterative process resulted in a five-factor solution consisting of 31 items (see

Table 1. Factor structure of creative teachers.

Item	Factor
	1	2	3	4	5
1. Approachable	0.61
5. Caring	0.84
7. Compassionate	0.86
13. Considerate	0.71
22. Kind	0.85
27. Friendly	0.87
32. Cheerful	0.63
33. Personal	0.71
38. Affectionate	0.85
39. Sensitive	0.79
40. Understanding	0.67
42. Trustworthy	0.72
43. Thoughtful	0.49
9. Responsible		0.60
11. Reliable		0.62
18. Determined		0.47
25. Dedicated		0.44
28. Knowledgeable		0.74
29. Organized		0.89
30. Resourceful		0.64
12. Artistic			0.65
15. Creative			0.70
17. Imaginative			0.86
26. Inventive			0.67
4. Adaptive				0.75
6. Open-minded				0.64
23. Flexible				0.34
10. Confident					0.82
19. Energetic					0.32
20. Courageous					0.50
41. Self-confident					0.80

) and accounted for approximately 65% of the variance. Reliability coefficients for the five factors ranged from 0.70 to 0.95, indicating acceptable to excellent reliability.

The first factor consists of 13 items and reflects relationship-building skills essential for creative teachers, including traits such as caring, compassionate, friendly, and affectionate. This factor emphasizes the importance of fostering a supportive and positive learning environment where students feel comfortable expressing themselves. The second factor, comprising seven items, focuses on professionalism and organizational skills, highlighting characteristics such as being organized, knowledgeable, and resourceful. Creative teachers should ensure that their teaching is effective and efficient in the classroom. The third factor, consisting of four items, captures characteristics directly tied to creativity, including being imaginative, creative, artistic, and inventive. Creative teachers should actively promote creativity in their students through imaginative and innovative approaches to teaching. The fourth factor includes three items and reflects the adaptability necessary for creative teachers, with items such as adaptive, open-minded, and flexible. Creative teachers should be open to change, embrace new ideas, and remain adaptable in their teaching to best support student learning. Finally, the fifth factor includes four items and represents the leadership qualities for guiding students. Characteristics in this factor include being confident, energetic, and courageous. Creative teachers are expected to exhibit self-confidence and assertiveness to foster a dynamic learning environment.

3.3. Top 5 and Bottom 5 Characteristics of Good Teachers

Cronbach’s alpha for the good teacher scale was 0.97, which showed evidence of excellent internal consistency reliability. The top five characteristics with the highest mean values were “Dedicated” (M = 4.70), “Helpful” (M = 4.65), “Knowledgeable” (M = 4.64), “Reliable” (M = 4.64), and “Trustworthy” (M = 4.63). These traits were identified by preservice teachers as the most important qualities of a good teacher. In contrast, items that had the lowest mean values were “Artistic” (M = 3.39), “Risk-taking” (M = 3.66), “Spontaneous” (M = 3.68), “Sensitive” (M = 3.79), and “Authoritative” (M = 3.84). From preservice teachers’ perspectives, these characteristics were perceived as least relevant to a good teacher.

3.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.97, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² = 16,085.86, df = 1035, p < 0.001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The initial extraction revealed five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. However, Cattell’s (1966) scree test suggested that a four-factor solution was also possible. An iterative process was followed to refine the factor structure. Three items were removed due to low factor loadings (items 14, 34, 42). Additionally, item 8 was excluded for having low communalities. Nine other items with cross-loading at or above 0.32 on two or more factors (items 2, 11, 12, 21, 24, 25, 27, 41, 45) were also removed. The iterative process resulted in a four-factor solution consisting of 33 items (see

Table 2. Factor structure of good teachers.

Item	Factor
	1	2	3	4
1. Approachable	0.62
4. Adaptive	0.71
5. Caring	0.90
6. Open-minded	0.87
7. Compassionate	0.87
13. Considerate	0.63
16. Patient	0.59
22. Kind	0.69
23. Flexible	0.54
40. Understanding	0.51
43. Thoughtful	0.41
3. Intelligent		0.59
9. Responsible		0.68
10. Confident		0.62
18. Determined		0.62
28. Knowledgeable		0.87
29. Organized		0.78
30. Resourceful		0.74
31. Passionate		0.45
36. Communicative		0.58
37. Respectable		0.62
19. Energetic			0.45
20. Courageous			0.52
32. Cheerful			0.72
33. Personal			0.63
35. Outgoing			0.77
38. Affectionate			0.85
39. Sensitive			0.78
44. Spontaneous			0.77
46. Humorous			0.69
15. Creative				0.66
17. Imaginative				0.60
26. Inventive				0.64

), which collectively accounted for about 66% of the variance. Reliability coefficients for the four factors ranged from 0.89 to 0.94.

The first factor includes 11 items that emphasize the relationship-building skills essential for good teachers. It features traits such as approachable, caring, and compassionate, as well as flexibility attributes such as open-minded and adaptive. Good teachers are characterized by their empathy, understanding, and ability to accommodate diverse student needs. The second factor, consisting of 10 items, focuses on professionalism and organizational skills, including characteristics such as being organized, knowledgeable, and resourceful. Good teachers are expected to manage their classroom effectively, demonstrate expertise, and maintain reliability. The third factor consists of nine items and reflects the positive personal and social qualities of good teachers, including being cheerful, sensitive, and humorous. It focuses on emotional expression and positivity and highlights a teacher’s ability to engage and energize students. Finally, the fourth factor includes three items and captures the creative qualities of good teachers. It emphasizes the importance of being imaginative and inventive, and the ability to inspire students through innovative teaching practices.

4. Discussion

The current study explored preservice teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of creative teachers and good teachers. The results indicated that preservice teachers view these two concepts as different but interconnected (see Figure 1). The top five characteristics identified for each group showed no overlap. For creative teachers, preservice teachers prioritized traits such as valuing students’ creativity, being creative, open-minded, imaginative, and adaptive. In contrast, characteristics such as dedicated, helpful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy were emphasized for good teachers. However, when examining the bottom five characteristics for creative and good teachers, there were some shared perceptions, with sensitive and authoritative being seen as the least relevant qualities for both. This overlap may suggest that preservice teachers do not see these traits as vital for good teaching or creativity.

The exploratory factor analyses further revealed how preservice teachers perceive creative and good teachers. A five-factor structure emerged for creative teachers, which included relationship-building skills, professionalism, and characteristics directly tied to creativity, adaptability, and leadership. For good teachers, a four-factor structure was identified, reflecting the relationship-building skills, professionalism and organizational skills, positive personal and social qualities, and creativity. These findings are consistent with the existing literature, which has generally categorized good teacher traits into personality traits, professional qualities, and attributes related to student–teacher relationships (Arnon & Reichel, 2007; Bullock, 2015; Lavy & Shriki, 2008; Murphy et al., 2004; Ruzgar, 2021). The addition of creative qualities as a distinct factor in the current study underscores the growing recognition of creativity as an integral aspect of good teaching (Bullock, 2015; Ruzgar, 2021).

When comparing the characteristics of creative and good teachers, it is evident that preservice teachers valued the need for relationship building, professional competence, and creativity in both groups. Common characteristics considered essential for relationship building include being approachable, caring, compassionate, considerate, kind, understanding, and thoughtful. Traits considered key for professionalism are being responsible, determined, knowledgeable, organized, and resourceful. Important qualities for creativity include being creative, imaginative, and inventive. The emphasis on creativity in both creative and good teachers points to an evolving understanding of teaching, highlighting the significance of creativity in classrooms. It is also worth noting that within the creativity factor, “artistic” was identified as a trait for creative teachers but not for good teachers. This aligns with previous research suggesting that teachers often associate artistic expression with creative teachers (Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Gao & Hall, 2024).

Despite the shared emphasis on relationship building, professionalism, and creativity, there were also notable differences in preservice teachers’ beliefs about creative and good teachers. A broader range of social and personality traits such as being cheerful, outgoing, and humorous were captured for good teachers. In contrast, preservice teachers placed a stronger focus on adaptability and leadership for creative teachers. Although traits related to adaptability (i.e., adaptive, open-minded, and flexible) were also recognized for good teachers, they did not form a distinct factor as they did for creative teachers. Instead, they were included under relationship building for good teachers. This suggests that adaptability is more explicitly linked to creativity than to the broader concept of being a good teacher. The additional focus on confidence and leadership for creative teachers may further imply that fostering creativity in the classroom can be challenging, and creative teachers must be able to navigate uncertainty and manage classroom dynamics in a way that nurtures creativity.

Implications and Future Research

The shared characteristics that preservice teachers associate with both creative and good teachers highlight the need for teacher education programs to address these qualities during preparation. Specifically, programs should continue to emphasize the development of personal and professional attributes that contribute to effective teaching, ensuring preservice teachers acquire the essential pedagogical and content knowledge necessary for classroom success. Furthermore, teacher preparation programs should cultivate the mindset and personal qualities that foster creativity by incorporating training designed to encourage creativity development. This might involve promoting skills such as flexibility, adaptability, and open-mindedness. By adopting an integrative approach that values both teaching effectiveness and creativity, teacher education programs can better prepare future educators to meet the demands of 21st-century education.

Future research could consider a qualitative approach to further explore the findings, examining how preservice teachers’ personal experiences and educational training shape their perceptions of creative and good teachers. Additionally, future research could investigate how these beliefs evolve over time, particularly as preservice teachers gain more classroom teaching experience, to better understand how practical experience influences their definitions of creative and good teachers.

In conclusion, the current study offers valuable insights into preservice teachers’ beliefs and deepens our understanding of their perceptions regarding the characteristics of creative and good teachers. By identifying the different yet related nature of these two concepts, this study highlights the increasing recognition of creativity as an essential component of teaching.