Conference Agenda

Recent OECD reports (OECD, 2023; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019) call for clear guidance for teachers on how to embed creativity and critical thinking in their everyday practice. They highlight the need for educators in a range of Higher Education disciplines, including Teacher Education, to re-design their courses and assessments with the intent of developing students’ creativity and critical thinking along with disciplinary content and skills. This paper describes a study which explores preservice-teachers’ engagement with a module on creativity in a post-primary Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programme in an Irish university.*

Creativity has emerged as a critical issue in education research, with increasing focus on how it can be developed and supported in schools and in teacher education (Helfand et al., 2016; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Central to this discussion is the concept of a creative mindset - a construct that plays a significant role in shaping teachers’ and students’ orientation towards creative practice. The term creative mindset refers to an individual’s belief about the nature of creativity itself (Karwowski, 2014; Karwowski et al., 2020), and has a significant impact on their openness to novel ideas and willingness to engage in creative behaviours (Beghetto & Karwowski, 2023). The concept draws on Dweck’s (2007) mindset theory, which distinguishes between fixed and growth mindsets, suggesting that individuals who believe creativity can be developed over time are more likely to embrace creative challenges and persist when faced with difficulty. Related to the concept of a creative mindset are the interrelated and overlapping constructs of creative identity, creative self-efficacy and creative self-regulation (Culpepper & Gauntlett, 2024; Huang, Lee, and Yang, 2019; Hass et al, 2016; Zielińska and Karwowski, 2022). Challenges can arise for teachers when they seek to foster creativity in their practice. Richardson and Mishra (2018) found a disconnect between the recognised importance of creativity and the systemic and pedagogical challenges teachers face in implementing it effectively. This is often exacerbated by the arts bias commonly associated with creativity in education (Glăveanu, 2014; Patston et al., 2018).

This paper explores preservice-teachers’ engagement with a module on creativity in post-primary education. The module aimed to foster a creative mindset among preservice-teachers through critical engagement with the theoretical underpinnings of creativity and a range of practical tools and strategies characteristic of creative learning environments. A key objective of the module was to demystify the concept of creativity and highlight the need for every teacher, regardless of their subject specialism, to foster creativity in the post-primary classroom. An interdisciplinary approach to creativity was embedded into the module design, whereby the overarching theme of creativity in education was applied to three separate strands within the module: a Digital Media strand, a Drama strand, and a Linguistic Responsiveness strand. This interdisciplinary approach provided a range of perspectives and distinct pedagogies to the overarching theme of creativity in post-primary education. Each strand offered a distinctive lens based on the respective fields of the lecturers.

The findings presented here are based on a study which explored the extent to which a module on creativity influences preservice-teachers’ identity and professional practice and how an interdisciplinary and participatory approach supports their development as creative teachers. The research questions are: (1) To what extent can a module on creativity influence preservice-teachers’ identity and professional practice? and (2) How might an interdisciplinary and participatory approach support the development of a creative mindset among this cohort?

_{*Post-primary Initial Teacher Education in Ireland refers to the programmes that prepare individuals to become qualified teachers at the secondary (post-primary) school level.}

Scientific literacy involves understanding scientific concepts and processes and applying this knowledge in social, ethical, and environmental contexts (Roberts, 2007; Sadler & Zeidler, 2009). In this regard, socio-scientific issues (SSI) are recognized as effective tools for supporting student learning in science education (e.g., Rundgren et al., 2016; Sadler et al., 2016; Walker & Zeidler, 2007). SSI are open-ended, intricate, and often controversial dilemmas that lack clear-cut solutions (Sadler, 2004).
Based on various theoretical frameworks for SSI teaching (e.g., Levinson et al., 2017; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler, 2014), teachers identify topics involving scientific uncertainty and value conflicts, and encourage students to formulate open-ended inquiries that integrate scientific and ethical aspects. Students develop multiple perspectives by drawing on scientific, social, and political data within an argumentation model. They then make decisions by integrating scientific evidence with informal reasoning and evaluating the social consequences of their decisions. Thus, teachers' knowledge and skills in integrating SSI into instruction, and their pedagogical actions for engaging students in this process, are crucial (Alcaraz-Dominguez, 2024; Karisan & Zeidler, 2017).
However, previous studies revealed that both in-service teachers (ISTs) and pre-service teachers (PSTs) lack a conceptual understanding of SSI (Lee et al., 2006) and have limited content knowledge (Evagorou et al., 2014; Forbes & Davis, 2008; Lee et al., 2006). Teachers also perceive SSI as difficult to teach (Hestness et al., 2011) and face challenges to implement appropriate instructional (Kara, 2012; Lee et al., 2006) and assessment methods in classroom settings (Fensham & Rennie, 2013; Steffen & Hößle, 2017). Moreover, they feel unprepared to guide students (Evagorou, 2011) and respond to students' ideas (Forbes & Davis, 2008). Accordingly, professional development (PD) opportunities have focused on supporting teachers’ SSI-based instructional designs (e.g., Peel et al., 2018; Saunders & Rennie, 2013), particularly at the middle (Ekborg et al., 2013) and high school levels (Bossér et al., 2015). Nevertheless, PD initiatives on the primary education level remain limited (Kinskey, 2020).
Contemporary approaches to PD are more aligned with situative perspectives of learning and emphasize ongoing, learner-centered, and collaborative practices (Borko et al., 2010). As a form of researcher-practitioner partnership, co-design, grounded in the Scandinavian participatory design approach (Gomez et al., 2018; Roschelle et al., 2006), refers to innovative educational design efforts, such as curriculum or software design, in which teachers and multiple stakeholders (e.g., researchers, developers, and administrators) work together to tackle an authentic problem of practice (Gomez et al., 2018; Penuel et al., 2007). Through the design process, teachers are positioned as the active agents and co-creators of the curriculum (Goldman et al., 2019); they reflect on their current practices, enact and assess their designs, and gain new insights into teaching and learning that may lead to iterative re-design cycles (Couso, 2016; Handelzalts et al., 2019; Park & Coble, 1997). Thus, the co-design process can be characterized as a means for teacher learning (Voogt et al., 2016), and it is also promising in PST education (e.g., Agyei, 2012), yet little is known about how it works in SSI contexts (e.g., Huang & He, 2023), particularly at the primary education level. Moreover, there is still a need to unpack how practitioners experience the co-design process (Voogt et al., 2015). Thus, this study aims to enhance the authentic SSI-based instructional designs of third-year pre-service primary school teachers studying at a public university in Türkiye, within the context of a university course based on researcher-PST collaboration. Accordingly, the main research question is formulated as follows: “How does a university course based on co-design support PSTs’ knowledge and skills in teaching SSI within the scope of the primary school science curriculum?”

Background and Rationale

The ability to explain biological processes using appropriate academic language is a core component of scientific literacy in upper secondary education. However, classroom practice frequently reveals that students struggle to construct coherent written explanations and to use subject-specific terminology accurately. Instead of analytical and causal explanations, students often rely on everyday language, fragmented statements, or descriptive lists.

Although curricula emphasise academic literacy and scientific explanation, these skills do not develop automatically through content instruction alone. Students require explicit support in identifying key concepts and integrating them into structured written responses. This challenge is particularly evident in biology, where understanding depends on explaining mechanisms, relationships between structures and functions, and cause-effect links.

This study investigates a keyword-based text analysis approach combined with scaffolded writing tasks as a means of supporting students' academic writing in upper secondary biology. The intervention was embedded within a regular biology lesson and examined through a classroom-based action research design.

Theoretical Framework

The study is informed by three complementary theoretical perspectives, which are integrated into both the design of the intervention and the interpretation of findings rather than applied as separate frameworks.

Disciplinary and academic literacy research highlights that subject-specific writing must be explicitly taught, since academic language conventions differ substantially from everyday communication (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012; Moje, 2015). In biology, this includes using technical terminology, causal connectors, and analytical verbs. More recent scholarship has extended this to science education specifically, emphasising that writing in science is not merely a vehicle for communicating pre-formed understanding but a means of constructing it (Bazerman et al., 2017; Hand & Choi, 2010; Klein & Boscolo, 2016).

Scaffolding theory suggests that structured support enables learners to engage with tasks beyond their independent capability (Wood et al., 1976; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). Writing templates and guided prompts function as temporary supports that can be progressively reduced as students develop confidence and control over academic language. Recent work on writing-to-learn in science has reinforced the value of such scaffolded approaches, particularly in secondary contexts (Gillies, 2016; Bazerman et al., 2017).

Formative assessment theory informs the use of peer and self-assessment to promote reflection and metacognitive awareness (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Panadero & Jonsson, 2013). In this study, Bloom's taxonomy verbs were used as linguistic cues to guide students' evaluation of written responses and to support progression from descriptive to analytical explanations.

Schools have become important contexts for guiding students to develop self-understanding and explore life-related issues, with teachers serving as the most critical mediators in this process. In light of the inevitable reality of human mortality, education cannot avoid addressing this fundamental issue (McManus & Sally, 2019). Regardless of educational level, the exploration of life issues requires the active involvement of schools and educational professionals (Wango & Gwiyo, 2021). However, existing life education courses in teacher education programs tend to emphasize knowledge transmission and ethical discussions, while paying relatively little attention to learners’ lived experiences, and lack a curriculum model capable of integrating emotion, meaning, and practice.

The literature indicates that artistic creation grants learners freedom of creativity and expression, enabling them to effectively manifest their individuality and transcend differences in ethnicity, language, and culture (Vaartio-Rajalin et al., 2020). Furthermore, providing learners with opportunities for choice in artistic activities constitutes an educational practice that respects subjectivity and embodies person-centered principles (WHO, 2019; Ekman et al., 2011; McCormack & McCance, 2006). These findings motivate the present study to explore the potential of expressive arts–based life education. Through creative expression, individuals are not only able to clarify how they deal with difficult life events, but also to reinterpret or transform their identities, thereby facilitating identity development (Lilgendahl, 2015) and the reconstruction of personal narratives. Self-understanding is fundamentally an interpretive process that develops gradually throughout the narrative process. Students discover and construct the self through narrative practices (Ricoeur, 1992), engaging in an internalized storytelling process that supports continuous self-exploration and self-understanding (McAdams & McLean, 2013).

Building on these theoretical foundations, this study aims (1) to construct and articulate the core principles and pedagogical framework of an expressive arts–oriented life education curriculum, and (2) to investigate how pre-service teachers engage in the awareness, reflection, and integration of life meaning through participation in expressive arts activities. This study adopts Piggot-Irvine’s (2005) action research model as its primary methodological framework, combined with Lewin’s (1947) spiral conception of action research, to develop an action research model suitable for life education curriculum development. The researcher’s own teaching practice served as the research context, and two action research cycles were conducted through an iterative process of planning, action, observation, and reflection.

The first cycle implemented a preliminary curriculum design, while the second cycle involved curriculum revisions based on student feedback and classroom observations, resulting in a learning process characterized by repeated cycles of “theory–creation–teaching practice.” The participants consisted of eight pre-service teachers from the teacher education center at University A in Taiwan, who participated in an 18-week life education course (110 minutes per week). Data sources included students’ weekly post-class reflection worksheets, expressive arts activity worksheets, semi-structured interviews, the instructor’s teaching journals, and classroom video recordings. Data analysis was conducted primarily through thematic analysis, following the procedures proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006), and aligned with the research purposes to generate curriculum principles and pedagogical guidelines. In addition, a narrative integrative analysis was employed to examine how participants constructed life meaning and experienced transformation through their creative works.
(This research will be completed in June.)