Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared?
Creativity is now at days a valued quality in all its areas and most particulary in Education. However, there is still widespread ignorance of Creativity in the Formal Education’s field and a lack of scientific research about Creativity and Education, particularly in teacher training. In this articl...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://repositorio.cfe.edu.uy/handle/123456789/136 |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1868890154340450304 |
|---|---|
| author | Píriz Giménez, Nazira |
| author_browse | Píriz Giménez, Nazira |
| author_facet | Píriz Giménez, Nazira |
| author_role | author |
| collection | RIdAA-CFE |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv | Píriz Giménez, Nazira |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv | 2016-07-12 2019-09-13T18:15:03Z 2019-09-13T18:15:03Z 2019-09-13 |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv | pdf pp. 1436-1443 |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv | 2151-4771 http://repositorio.cfe.edu.uy/handle/123456789/136 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv | eng |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv | Scientific Research Publishing |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv | Creative Education, Published Online |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv | openAccess info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess cc by-nc-sa 4.0 |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv | Creative Education; 7 (2016) reponame:RIdAA-CFE instname:ANEP. Consejo de Formación en Educación instacron:ANEP. Consejo de Formación en Educación |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv | creatividad Formación de docentes Escuela creativa |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv | info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| description | Creativity is now at days a valued quality in all its areas and most particulary in Education. However, there is still widespread ignorance of Creativity in the Formal Education’s field and a lack of scientific research about Creativity and Education, particularly in teacher training. In this article, we will present a categorization of teachers in either promoters or hindering of Creativity, based on interview’s data. The study was narrowed to the training of teachers in Biologic Sciences of the two Institutions with more students of the country. From an interpretive paradigm and with a qualitative design, semi-structured interviews to students and teachers were made and analyzed by “content”. Results show that teachers that highly promote creativity tend to have a close relationship with the student, as well as affectionate, and they are also characterized by recognizing and accepting their own mistakes and limitations. On the other hand, creativity’s highly hindering techers tend to be structured, distant, and believe to be all-wise. Additionally, creativity’s promoting activities are only remarked by students with a close relationship with the professor. At the same time, an affectionate treatment from the student could lead to creativity’s promoting activities by teachers who would normally fit in the hindering type. Considering the previous observation, we propose that affection between students and teachers consists of an essential component of a creative classroom’s atmosphere, continuing and amplifying the systematic model of Csikszentmihalyi. Analogously to the conception that a creative product doesn’t emerge from an isolated person, it seems appropriate to affirm that a creativity’s promoting or hindering profile of a theacher also depends on the interaction with his environment. |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| format | article |
| id | anni_a3a2edfb5adfc13e6a5da2cba1dd3fd8 |
| identifier_str_mv | 2151-4771 |
| instacron_str | ANEP. Consejo de Formación en Educación |
| institution | ANEP. Consejo de Formación en Educación |
| instname_str | ANEP. Consejo de Formación en Educación |
| language | eng |
| network_acronym_str | anni |
| network_name_str | oai-lr-anni |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:repositorio.cfe.edu.uy:123456789/136 |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publishDateSort | 2016 |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv | Scientific Research Publishing |
| reponame_str | RIdAA-CFE |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv | |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv | |
| repository_id_str | |
| rights_invalid_str_mv | openAccess cc by-nc-sa 4.0 |
| spelling | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared?Píriz Giménez, NaziracreatividadFormación de docentesEscuela creativaCreativity is now at days a valued quality in all its areas and most particulary in Education. However, there is still widespread ignorance of Creativity in the Formal Education’s field and a lack of scientific research about Creativity and Education, particularly in teacher training. In this article, we will present a categorization of teachers in either promoters or hindering of Creativity, based on interview’s data. The study was narrowed to the training of teachers in Biologic Sciences of the two Institutions with more students of the country. From an interpretive paradigm and with a qualitative design, semi-structured interviews to students and teachers were made and analyzed by “content”. Results show that teachers that highly promote creativity tend to have a close relationship with the student, as well as affectionate, and they are also characterized by recognizing and accepting their own mistakes and limitations. On the other hand, creativity’s highly hindering techers tend to be structured, distant, and believe to be all-wise. Additionally, creativity’s promoting activities are only remarked by students with a close relationship with the professor. At the same time, an affectionate treatment from the student could lead to creativity’s promoting activities by teachers who would normally fit in the hindering type. Considering the previous observation, we propose that affection between students and teachers consists of an essential component of a creative classroom’s atmosphere, continuing and amplifying the systematic model of Csikszentmihalyi. Analogously to the conception that a creative product doesn’t emerge from an isolated person, it seems appropriate to affirm that a creativity’s promoting or hindering profile of a theacher also depends on the interaction with his environment.Scientific Research Publishing2019-09-13T18:15:03Z2019-09-13T18:15:03Z2016-07-122019-09-13info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionpdfpp. 1436-14432151-4771http://repositorio.cfe.edu.uy/handle/123456789/136Creative Education; 7 (2016)reponame:RIdAA-CFEinstname:ANEP. Consejo de Formación en Educacióninstacron:ANEP. Consejo de Formación en EducaciónengCreative Education, Published OnlineopenAccessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesscc by-nc-sa 4.0oai:repositorio.cfe.edu.uy:123456789/1362026-06-16T06:05:10Z |
| spellingShingle | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? Píriz Giménez, Nazira creatividad Formación de docentes Escuela creativa |
| status_str | publishedVersion |
| title | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? |
| title_full | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? |
| title_fullStr | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? |
| title_short | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? |
| title_sort | Profile of Promoters and Hindering Teachers Creativity: Own or Shared? |
| topic | creatividad Formación de docentes Escuela creativa |
| url | http://repositorio.cfe.edu.uy/handle/123456789/136 |