Adolescents’ perceptions of how teachers encourage creativity in the context of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme

Abstract

This article describes findings from a case study that aimed to understand adolescents’ perceptions of how teachers encourage creativity across the curriculum. Four broad categories of creativity-fostering teaching practices emerged. These were disciplinary understanding (D), empowerment (E), relevance (R), and creative metacognition (M). This categorisation led directly to the development of the ‘DERM model’ that aims to provide teachers with guidance for encouraging creativity in the classroom.

International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme: a systematic review

“…The country with the highest concentration of research is the USA, with four papers included in the review (Karnes & Nugent, 2003; Kauffman, 2005; Quaynor, 2015, Solano-Campos, 2017). They are followed by Turkey (O’Boyle, 2009; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011; Tugluk, 2020) and Australia (Law et al, 2012; Lebreton, 2014; Walsh & Casinader, 2019) with three publications each. Spain is represented in two publications (Steffen & Bueno-Villaverde, 2018; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018).…”

“…Most of the articles included in the review (fourteen out of a total of twenty-one) use a qualitative methodology for the collection and subsequent analysis of data. One of the most commonly used data collection instruments is the semi-structured interview (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Palmer, 2016; Savage & Drake, 2016; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Quaynor, 2015; Law et al, 2012; O’Boyle, 2009; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011), and subsequently conducting a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) from which independent categories of analysis emerge (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Focus groups are also used in two articles (O’Boyle, 2009; Sperandio & Kong, 2018), as well as direct observation by researchers of the development of classes in the different educational centres in which the research is conducted (Quaynor, 2015; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Kauffman, 2005; Palmer, 2016).…”

“…One of the most commonly used data collection instruments is the semi-structured interview (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Palmer, 2016; Savage & Drake, 2016; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Quaynor, 2015; Law et al, 2012; O’Boyle, 2009; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011), and subsequently conducting a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) from which independent categories of analysis emerge (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Focus groups are also used in two articles (O’Boyle, 2009; Sperandio & Kong, 2018), as well as direct observation by researchers of the development of classes in the different educational centres in which the research is conducted (Quaynor, 2015; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Kauffman, 2005; Palmer, 2016). Those investigations that include among their objectives knowing aspects related to curriculum design and school organisation have also used the analysis of the different documents that the school has made available (Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; O’Boyle, 2009; Karnes & Nugent, 2003).…”

“…Focus groups are also used in two articles (O’Boyle, 2009; Sperandio & Kong, 2018), as well as direct observation by researchers of the development of classes in the different educational centres in which the research is conducted (Quaynor, 2015; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Kauffman, 2005; Palmer, 2016). Those investigations that include among their objectives knowing aspects related to curriculum design and school organisation have also used the analysis of the different documents that the school has made available (Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; O’Boyle, 2009; Karnes & Nugent, 2003). One article uses an ethnographic method for data collection and analysis (Roiha & Sommier, 2021) and another includes graphical representation as a method for obtaining information that would be more difficult to obtain in other ways (Ellingson, 2017) from teacher participants of some dilemmas they have encountered in enquiry processes with students (Twigg, 2010).…”

“…Law et al (2012) focus their research on information provided by students’ families. The rest of the articles obtain data from different types of participants, adding to the students and teachers the perspectives of PYP Coordinators and school administrators (Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Quaynor, 2015; Savage & Drake, 2016) and even the students’ families (O’Boyle, 2009; Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018). Except for the work of Sperandio & Kong (2018), which obtains data from 122 IB schools in different countries around the world, the rest of the articles show the results obtained in a single school or in a small number of them, which is to be expected due to the qualitative typology of most of the studies, as they do not seek to generalise the results but to deepen the knowledge of the object of study, as pointed out by Sparkes & Smith (2014).…”