Generación de metáforas creativas y percepción de la creatividad de los futuros docentes

  1. Antonio Martín Ezpeleta
  2. Elia Saneleuterio
  3. Xavier Mínguez López
  4. Yolanda Echegoyen Sanz
Journal:
Revista complutense de educación

ISSN: 1130-2496,  1988-2793

Year of publication: 2024

Volume: 35

Issue: 3

Pages: 659-669

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/RCED.86027 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista complutense de educación

Abstract

The relevance granted by OECD to creativity is reflected in the assessment of creativity in the PISA tests in 2022, but also in its importance in the new Spanish educational law (LOMLOE, 2020). In the context of evaluating the creativity of the different agents of the educational system as a determining factor in the stimulation of creativity in the classroom, this study analyzes the ability to produce creative metaphors and its relationship with creative self-perception. This is an empirical ex post facto study with 438 teachers in training (in Primary Education and three linguistic specialties from the master’s degree in Secondary Education Teacher Training). The correlational study is based on data collected from the Kasirer and Mashal (2018) instrument and the K-DOCS test (Kaufman, 2012). The results show a medium level of creativity. Statistically significant differences have been found for the variables of gender (men have a higher perception of their creativity) and degree (philologists have a greater capacity of generating creative metaphors, their age is also a statistically significant variable: the capacity of generating creative metaphors increases with age). In addition, the correlation between metaphorical capacity and perception of creativity is demonstrated. The results show that the training of these future teachers has not been able to stimulate their creativity good enough. This will condition their ability to channel the creativity of their students, which is something required by the Spanish syllabus for all educational levels and subjects. As a possible solution, instructional changes in teacher training are proposed as the first step to improve the attention that creativity must have in the educational system.

Bibliographic References

  • Alfonso-Benlliure, V., y Mínguez-López, X. (2022). Literary Competence and Creativity in Secondary Students. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 97, (36.3), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i36.3.96542
  • Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
  • Amabile, T., y Pratt, M. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
  • Baer, J. (2012). Domain Specificity and the Limits of Creativity Theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.002
  • Baer, J., y Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310
  • Bergs, A. (2019). What, if anything, is linguistic creativity? Gestalt Theory, 41(2), 173-183. https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2019-0017
  • Bermejo, M. R., Hernández, D., Ferrando, M., Soto, G., Sainz, M., y Prieto, M. D. (2010). Creatividad, inteligencia sintética y alta habilidad. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 13(1), 97-109. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=217014922010
  • Chan, S., y Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and Environmental Factors Affecting Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003
  • Cohen J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum
  • Corbalán, J. (2022). Creatividad. Desafiando la incertidumbre. Prisanoticias Colecciones.
  • Cotter, K. N., y Silvia, P. J. (2019). Ecological assessment in research on aesthetics, creativity, and the arts: Basic concepts, common questions, and gentle warnings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000218
  • Echegoyen-Sanz Y., y Martín-Ezpeleta, A. (2021). Creatividad y ecofeminismo en la formación de maestros. Análisis cualitativo de cuentos digitales. Profesorado. Revista de Curriculum y Formación del Profesorado, 25(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v25i1.15290
  • Elisondo, R. C., Soroa, G., y Flores, B. (2022). Leisure activities, creative actions and emotional creativity. Thinking skills and Creativity, 45, 101060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101060
  • Estes, Z., y Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_2
  • Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., y Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, Hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060-1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.035
  • Furnham, A., Zhang, J., y Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). The relationship between psychometric and selfestimated intelligence, creativity, personality, and academic achievement. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 25, 119-145. https://doi.org/10.2190/530V-3M9U-7UQ8-FMBG
  • Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., y Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. En Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., y Kokinov, B. N. (Eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science (pp. 199—253). MIT Press
  • Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3-14.
  • Heidemeier, H., y Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.94.2.353
  • Holyoak, K. J., y Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15, 332-340. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197035
  • Huang, P.-S., Peng, S.-L., Chen, H.-C., Tseng, L.-C., y Hsu, L.-C. (2017). The relative influences of domain knowledge and domain-general divergent thinking on scientific creativity and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.001
  • Kandemir, M. A., y Kaufman, J. C. (2019). The Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale: Turkish Validation and Relationship to Academic Major. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 1002-1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.428
  • Kasirer, A., y Mashal, N. (2016). Comprehension and generation of metaphors by children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 32, 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2016.08.003
  • Kasirer, A., y Mashal, N. (2018). Fluency or similarities? Cognitive abilities that contribute to creative metaphor generation. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446747
  • Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-Reported Differences in Creativity by Ethnicity and Gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065-1082. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1255
  • Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the Muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (KDOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029751
  • Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., y Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: A structural model for self-reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 19-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01310.x
  • Kenett, Y. N., Gold, R., y Faust, M. (2018). Metaphor comprehension in low and high creative individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 482. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00482
  • Landa, R. J., y Goldberg, M. C. (2005). Language, social, and executive functions in high functioning autism: A continuum of performance. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 557-573 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-0001-1
  • Levorato, M. C., y Cacciari, C. (1995). The effects of different tasks on the comprehension and production of idioms in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 261-283. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1995.1041
  • Levorato, M. C., y Cacciari, C. (2002). The creation of new figurative expressions: psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Journal of Child Language, 29, 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1017}S0305000901004950
  • Liu, X., Gu, J., y Xu, J. (2023). The impact of the design thinking model on preservice teachers’ creativity self-efficacy, inventive problem-solving skills, and technology-related motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09809-x
  • LOMLOE (2020). Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2020-17264
  • Marina, J. A., y Marina, E. (2013). El aprendizaje de la creatividad. Ariel.
  • Martin, I., y McDonald, S. (2003). Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language, 85, 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00070-1
  • Martín-Ezpeleta, A., Fuster García, C., Vila Carneiro, Z., y Echegoyen Sanz, Y. (2022). Leer para pensar creativamente (el COVID-19). Relaciones entre lectura y creatividad en maestros en formación. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 97(36.3), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i36.3.96581
  • Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., y Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.10.005
  • Melogno, S., Pinto, M. A., y Levi, G. (2012). Metaphor and metonymy in ASD children: A critical review from a developmental perspective. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1289—1296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.04.004.
  • Merrotsy, P. (2013). A note on big-C creativity and little-c creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(4), 474-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.843921
  • Norbury, C. F. (2005). The relation between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005x26732
  • OCDE (2019). PISA 2021 creative thinking framework (third draft). OECD publishing.
  • Park, M., Lee, J., y Hahn, D. (2002). Self-reported creativity, creativity, and intelligence. Poster presented at the American Psychological Association, Chicago. https://www.sumc.lt/index.php/se/article/view/1884
  • Pont-Niclos, I., Martín-Ezpeleta, A., y Echegoyen-Sanz, Y. (2024a). Assessing the Linguistic Creativity Domain of Last-Year Compulsory Secondary School students. Education Sciences, 14(2), 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020153
  • Pont-Niclos, I., Martín-Ezpeleta, A., y Echegoyen-Sanz, Y. (2024b). Scientific and Linguistic Creative Domains in Secondary Education. A Case Study in Spain. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 13(1), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2024.1.201
  • Pretz, J. E., y McCollum, V. A. (2014). Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035597
  • Qian, M., Plucker, J. A., Yang, X. (2019). Is creativity domain specific or domain general? Evidence from multilevel explanatory item response theory models. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100571
  • Reiter-Palmon, R., Morral, E., Kaufman, J. C., y Santo, J. B. (2012). Evaluation of Self-Perceptions of Creativity: Is It a Useful Criterion? Psychology Faculty Publications, 19. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/psychfacpub/19
  • Rubenstein, L. D., Ridgley, L. M., Callan, G. L., Karami, S., y Ehlinger, J. (2018). How teachers perceive factors that influence creativity development: Applying a Social Cognitive Theory perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.012
  • Runco, M. y Pritzker, S. (Ed., 2020). Encyclopedia of creativity (3.a Ed.). Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Sánchez, A., Font, V., y Breda, A. (2022). Significance of creativity and its development in mathematics classes for preservice teachers who are not trained to develop students’ creativity. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 34(4), 863-885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00367-w
  • Suryandari, K. C., Rokhmaniyah, y Wahyudi (2021). The effect of scientific reading based project model in empowering creative thinking skills of preservice teacher in elementary school. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1329-1340. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.3.1329
  • Torrance, P. (1966). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Directions Manual and Scoring Guide. Personnel Press.
  • Winner, E., McCarthy, M., y Gardner, H. (1980). The ontogenesis of metaphor. En Honeck, R. P. y Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.). Cognition and figurative language (pp. 341-347). Erlbaum.
  • Yates, E., y Twigg, E. (2017). Developing Creativity in Early Childhood Studies Students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 42-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.001
  • Zhao, M., Meng, H., Xu, Z., Du, F., Liu, T., Li, Y., y Chen, F. (2011). The neuromechanism underlying verbal analogical reasoning of metaphorical relations: An event-related potentials study. Brain Research, 1425, 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.09.041
Data source: Dialnet