The presentation is a part of a current doctoral project at Karlstad University in Sweden. The study covers the conceptualization of creativity in Swedish preschools. 

In contemporary society creativity is recognized as a vital and highly valued competence (Craft & Jeffrey, 2008; Eckhoff, 2011). While widely accepted, concepts of creativity are often subject to multiple interpretations. In the educational context, these notions are often not sufficiently reflected upon by the practitioners, which may potentially limit pedagogical practice. There is, therefore, a need to synthesize and make visible the current evidence base regarding educators’ beliefs on creativity. 

Despite the importance of early childhood education, pedagogical research on creativity, both nationally and internationally, has primarily focused on school and older children. Moreover, the research covers mostly the aspects of teaching and creativity but often neglects the practitioners’ understanding of the concept (Leggett, 2017). The aim of the presented literature review is to identify and map the available recent empirical evidence base on in-service preschool teachers’ beliefs about creativity and thereby identify gaps in the research knowledge. 

Systematic Mapping and Analysis of Research Topographies (SMART) method was used to conduct the research (Nilholm, 2017). Selected studies include peer-reviewed empirical qualitative and quantitative research published in scientific journals from 2010 to 2022. 

Findings suggest that creativity is generally highly valued by educators, and educators hold complex and democratic views on creativity. However, there exists incongruence between teachers’ positive beliefs about creativity and their actual pedagogical practices. Educators’ beliefs are also found to be highly dependent on context. The results of the literature review also highlight gaps in knowledge where future research is needed which is the current doctoral project aims to address. 

The study is relevant in the context of Nordic educational research, as it is expected to contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of creativity and its role in early childhood education. Consequently, it will both challenge and provide some guidance on the development of pedagogical practices. 

Craft, A., & Jeffrey, B. (2008). Creativity and performativity in teaching and learning: Tensions, dilemmas, constraints, accommodations and synthesis. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 577-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802223842 

Eckhoff, A. (2011). Creativity in the early childhood classroom: Perspectives of preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(3), 240-255. 

Leggett, N. (2017). Early childhood creativity: Challenging educators in their role to intentionally develop creative thinking in children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(6), 845-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0836-4 

Nilholm, C. (2017). Smart: ett sätt att genomföra forskningsöversikter (1 uppl.). Studentlitteratur. 

Denna presentation, som ingår i ett pågående doktorandprojekt vid Karlstads universitet, behandlar förskollärarnas föreställningar om barns kreativitet inom svensk förskola. Trots att kreativitet anses vara en viktig kompetens i dagens samhälle, förblir begreppet ofta oreflekterat i utbildningssammanhang, vilket kan begränsa pedagogiska praktiker (Beghetto, 2010; Skiba m.fl., 2010). Syftet med studien är därmed att bidra med kunskap kring förskollärarnas föreställningar om barnens kreativitet i svensk förskola samt att fördjupa förståelse för kreativitet som ett socialt konstruerat fenomen.

Studien använder sig av fokusgrupper som huvudsakliga metod. Studien bygger på social representationsteori (SRT), som används för att analysera hur förskollärare gemensamt konstruerar och tolkar begreppet kreativitet.

I presentationen redovisas preliminära resultat från den första fokusgruppen. Analysen har hittills identifierat några relationella kategorier som visar hur förskollärarna kollektivt formar och delar en gemensam förståelse av kreativitet inom förskolekontexten. Studiens resultat förväntas bidra till en djupare förståelse av barns kreativitet i svenska förskolor och därmed ge vägledning för utveckling av pedagogiska praktiker.

Referenser

Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in classroom. I J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Red.), The Cambringe handbook of creativity (ss. 447-463). Cambridge University Press. 

Skiba, T., Tan, M., Sternberg, R. A., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Roads not taken, new roads to take. I R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Red.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (ss. 252-269). Cambridge University Press. 

The presentation is based on a current doctoral project conducted and approved by Karlstad University in Sweden. The study covers the conceptualization of creativity in Swedish preschools. 

Though widely accepted, the notion of creativity is often misinterpreted and, regarding the educational context, unreflected by the practitioners, which potentially restrains pedagogical practice. The aim of this study is to explore teachers’ perspectives on children’s creativity in Swedish preschools as well as to contribute to the broader understanding of creativity as a social constructed notion.

Csikszentmihalyi’s (2006) system model for creativity is used as the theoretical framework for the study with some adjustments made to be applicable to the preschool context. According to the model, creativity occurs in a community of people when a person makes a change in a domain. This change needs to be accepted by the experts within the domain, so called gatekeepers. Based on the model the preschool is seen as a domain with specific norms, values, tools and practices, children are regarded as creative individuals who produce potential innovations. Practitioners form the social system, the community of practice who evaluates innovations and retain the selected ones. 

Four preschools in the middle of Sweden are participating in the study. The field work has three stages. The first stage involves semi-structured focus-group interviews with 4-6 participants from the same preschool in each group. The topic of conversation is the practitioners’ general thoughts on the notion of creativity in early childhood education settings. During stage two the practitioners in each focus-group use digital blog to provide examples on children’s creativity in preschool and to reflect on whether children’s creative actions are seen as something positive and therefore accepted and encouraged or challenging and therefore restricted or dismissed. Stage three includes stimulated recall focus-group interviews based on the practitioners’ observations.

Relationships and tensions between the preschool as a domain, practitioners as experts and children as creative individuals are analyzed in the study. The findings are expected to contribute to a broader understanding of children’s creativity in Swedish preschools and therefore to provide some guidance on the development of pedagogical practice.

Despite the importance of early childhood education, the research on creativity both nationally and internationally has mostly been focusing on schools and elder children. Moreover, the research covers mostly the aspects teaching and creativity but not the understanding of the concept by the practitioners (Leggett, 2017; Linge, 2012). The study has relevance to Nordic educational research since it is expected to contribute to more knowledge on the understanding of the concept of creativity and its place in early childhood education.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). A Systems Perspective on Creativity. I J. Henry (Red.), Creative Management and Development (3 uppl.). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213704 

Leggett, N. (2017). Early childhood creativity: Challenging educators in their role to intentionally develop creative thinking in children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(6), 845-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0836-4 

Linge, A. (2012). Att undervisa för kreativitet: En litteraturöversikt. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 17(3-4), 253-263.