Early childhood teachers’ roles in fostering creativity through free play

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ciey20

International Journal of Early Years Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciey20

Early childhood teachers’ roles in fostering creativity through free play

Emel Tok

To cite this article: Emel Tok (2021): Early childhood teachers’ roles in fostering creativity through free play, International Journal of Early Years Education, DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2021.1933919 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1933919

Published online: 15 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 122

View related articles

View Crossmark data

(2)

Early childhood teachers ’ roles in fostering creativity through free play

Emel Tok

Faculty of Education, Department of Primary Education, Early Childhood Education Program, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey

ABSTRACT

This article aims to identify the correlation between early childhood teachers’ability to foster creativity through free play. A screening model is used in the study. The participants comprised 166 teachers of the foundation (early childhood) phase. The‘Teacher Roles in Free Play Scale’ and the ‘Creativity Fostering Teacher Index Scale’(CFTIndex) were used during data collection.

Thus, it found that co-player and onlooker-stage manager roles are preferred teacher roles during free play, whereas the least preferred roles are uninvolved and director roles. A correlation test was performed to find the relationship between teachers’ roles in free play and their scores of creativity-fostering behaviours. Accordingly, a statistically significant positive correlation was found between the mean scores of onlooker- stage manager, co-player, and leader sub-scales to teacher creativity-fostering behaviours. Further, there is a statistically significant negative correlation between teachers’uninvolved role and their creative-fostering behaviour scores. The relationship between teachers’ director roles and creativity-fostering behaviour scores are not statistically significant. Onlooker-stage manager and co-player roles were found to significantly predict creativity-fostering behaviours. The relationship between the teachers’ages, their professional experiences and class size, and the roles that encourage creative behaviour in free play are not statistically significant.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 9 July 2020 Accepted 9 May 2021

KEYWORDS Teachers’roles in play;

creativity; free play;

childhood creativity; early childhood education

Introduction

Creative thinking and play are a vital part of early childhood education. Given that early childhood education activities focus on play-based learning, creative thinking skills are critical to childhood development. Play and creativity are intertwined. Play allows children to display their creativity. Regarding this, teachers need to design appropriate learning environments to foster children’s creative imagination during free play.

Creativity in early childhood education

In terms of twenty-ﬁrst-century educational goals, creativity is a signiﬁcant skill. Creativ- ity generates various ideas, thoughts, concepts and alternatives (De Bono 1992).

CONTACT Emel Tok [email protected] Faculty of Education, Department of Primary Education, Early Childhood Education Program, Pamukkale University, Denizli 20070, Turkey

(3)

Originality is an essential part of the creative process (Runco and Jaeger2012; Mayersky 2015). People who think creatively often think differently. There are ways of thinking based on establishing a relationship between unrelated things. Creative thinking involves using different ways of thinking while producing or presenting ideas (Fox and Schirrma- cher2014). Creative thinking can be defined as developing unusual, unique, and novel ideas. It is the process of developing different products, inventing, exploring, imagining, assuming and predicting (Sternberg and Grigorenko2004). Explanations of the creative thinking process stress the importance of generating plentiful ideas towards problems and a synthesis of ideas, whereby individuals end up with a creative product. Conse- quently, learning environments are geared towards supporting creative thinking skills and enhancing creative performance (Aslan2001).

Children express their creativity themselves through thinking (Fox and Schirrmacher 2014). Creative thinking emerges when children use their imagination and curiosity drive to explore the environment. Therefore, it is critical to support and improve a child’s creative potential (Jeﬀrey and Craft 2004). Environmental conditions play a huge role in encouraging individuals’ creative thinking skills (Amabile 1993; Feldman 2006).

Researchers have found that creativity is aﬀected by social environments (Mullet et al.

2016; Cited in Kettler et al. 2018). Classroom activities should be organised to promote creative thinking (Amabile 1982; Fisher1995). The objective of having educational programmes that cultivate creative thinking is improving individuals’lifelong learning skills (Aslan2007).

In educational environments that improve creative thinking, children’s creative ideas are given importance and they can express their ideas freely. Children are given time to form their creative expressions. These educational environments are organised with supportive materials that allow children to have their own creative expression and make free choices (Fox and Schirrmacher2014).

‘Creative development encompasses art, craft and design and various forms of dramatic play and creative expression, all of which have traditionally formed a core part of early years provision. It emphasises the role of imagination and the importance of children developing a range of ways of expressing their ideas and communicating their feel- ings’(Craft2003, 145–146). Implementing teaching skills that enhance creativity in early childhood education is crucial for childhood development. Therefore, one of the fundamental principles of early childhood education is to promote creative thinking among children. Designing creative learning environments will facilitate a child’s creativity.

Play is the most signiﬁcant activity to boost creativity in educational environments.

Hence, teachers should incorporate play-based learning programs into the children’s activities (Starko 2005; Fleith 2000; Ranjan and Gabora 2013; MoNE 2013; Mayersky 2015; Bramwell et al.2011).

Play and creativity

Play is essential to childhood life. In addition to being the most effective way to encourage learning, it is the medium through which children can best express themselves. Many definitions of play have been identified in literature. The most highlighted aspects are that play should be freely chosen and open-ended. These definitions point to the importance of play in knowledge construction and learning (Cutter-Mackenzie et al.2014). In-

(4)

play deﬁnitions also state that the play is intrinsic motivation and involves voluntary participation and entertaining. Play is self-directed and controls itself, allowing the players to know and discover themselves. It is shaped and changed by the imagination of the children, which is associated with real-life experiences. The life experiences are associated with imagination to give rise to a known environment (Bredekamp 2015; Schousboe and Winther-Lindqvist2013; Sheridan, Harding, and Meldon-Smith 2002; Fleer2009;

Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg1983). The children are active when playing and use creative skills to create social order (Sheridan, Harding, and Meldon-Smith2002; Saracho 2002). They will start, run, and develop the play according to their own purposes (Moyles 2010). Children are active, explore their environments, and construct their learning and learning forms when playing (Brooker 2005). Piaget believes that play is a natural part of a child. In that same vein, Bruner deﬁnes play as a space through which a child engages in new experiences (cited Sheridan, Harding, and Meldon- Smith2002; cited Saracho2002). Vygotsky expresses play as the creation of a situation based on imagination. The situation created is associated with real-life experiences (cited Devi, Fleer, and Li2018).

Pretend play is an expression of creative thinking. It has a direction that supports cognitive, aﬀective processes, which are essential to creative thinking. Fantasy and symboli- sation are intrinsic elements of this process (Russ1998,2003). Pretend play objects and actions are transformed symbolically. Social interaction and negotiation take place in these plays based on children’s improvised (Bergen 2002). Play allows children to use their imagination, develop new ideas, and thus, hone their creative skills (Saracho 2002; Russ, Robins, and Christiano1999; Russ and Schafer2006). Therefore, it is important to set up creative thinking environments that enable children to express themselves (Weisberg1993).

Pretend play is included in free play. Children actively participate in free play. They determine the rules of the play they create and choose whom they will play with. They make changes related to the play if they want. During free play, children acquire cognitive skills, as well as social-emotional skills (problem-solving, cooperation, empathy, and self- regulation). Free play is dynamic and signiﬁcant to the mental and physical health of children. It is useful for all aspects of children’s lives, including education (Murray2018;

Ashiabi2007; Tassoni and Hucker2005).

Many research theories address the creative aspect of free play in this respect (Mayersky 2015; Hoﬀmann and Russ 2012; Trawick-Smith 2013; Berk 2013; Mellou 1995; Holmes et al.2015; Bramwell et al.2011).

Play in learning centres, which are one of the free play spaces, is an integral part of early childhood education. The early childhood education programme of the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) in Turkey defines learning centres as ‘play spaces where different materials are used in daily education life’. These learning centres house the following activities: block, music, art, science, mathematics, and dramatic plays (MoNE 2013). Teachers play a fundamental role in designing and organising these learning centres. Teachers should frequently change learning materials used in learning centres to pique children’s interests and encourage them to explore different activities (Perry 1997; Henniger 1999). The Turkish ECE curriculum (curriculum booklet and curriculum activity book) prepared by the Turkish Ministry of Education (MoNE2013) explains teachers’roles in learning centres as follows: to arrange learning

(5)

centres according to children’s needs and interests and to add, remove and replace learning materials as part of the requirements of the education plan.

Teachers should motivate and support children to take part in free play to improve their creative mindsets and thinking skills. There is a positive relationship between pretend play and creative thinking, so early childhood teachers who encourage free play help children stimulate creativity (Hoﬀmann and Russ2012).

Teachers’roles in play

Research has found that teachers’ roles in creativity-fostering behaviours, such as encouraging children to think about playing and designing appropriate learning environments that allow children to make choices about their own learning methods are con- sidered facilitative roles. Teachers serve many roles and thus help children develop themselves. The main objective here is to motivate children to engage in play and ensure that they continue playing (Bredekamp 2015). Teachers’serve as facilitators at learning centres (Curtis1998). In the study conducted by Devi, Fleer, and Li (2018), it was concluded that the roles teachers assumed when they were involved in children’s play included asking questions, observing children in play, acting as narrators of the observed play, and organising play activities by providing materials.

Teachers’ roles are often deﬁned as follows: stage manager, coplayer, play leader, director and uninvolved (Enz and Christie1993). The characteristics of these roles will be analysed below.

Stage Manager: The stage manager role includes making props and materials accessi- ble for children. The teacher helps children organise the play set. Teachers do not take an active role in playing. In some cases, teachers make theme-related script suggestions during the play, but children will ultimately decide whether to apply these suggestions.

Coplayer: Teachers participate in play when invited by the children. Teachers assume a minor role compared to the children’s major roles and participate in the children’s play ﬂow. Children control the play.

Play Leader: Teacher takes on an active role to improve play and create or add new materials and activities. The leader may also introduce new scenarios and plot conﬂicts. The teacher aﬀects the plot during the play.

Director: Teachers with this role have full control of the play. They manage casting (deciding who gets which roles) and deal actively with every step of playﬂow.

Uninvolved/Safety Monitor: Teachers do not participate in the play at all. Children are warned verbally to control potentially dangerous behaviour. Teachers engage in other tasks while the children play.

Some studies divided these roles into two groups, namely facilitative and precarious roles. Accordingly, facilitator roles include content onlooker, stage manager, coplayer, and play leader roles. Precarious roles include uninvolved, director, and redirector roles (Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005). As noted above, play in learning centres facilitates creativity. Hence, teachers’ approaches during play will impact children. It is, therefore, important to identify the relationship between early childhood teachers’

roles in learning centres and their creativity-fostering behaviours. This study aims to examine this relationship in the context of free play. I will investigate the levels of preschool teachers ‘creative-fostering behaviours’ surrounding free play roles, as well as

(6)

creative -incentive behaviours. Simultaneously, the relationship between the ages of teachers, their professional experiences and class size, and the roles that encourage creative behaviour in free play were examined.

Materials and methods

A screening model was used for this study to investigate early childhood teachers’ creative-fostering behaviours and their roles in free plays. Screening models are

‘research models which aim to describe a past or present situation, as it exists’ (Karasar 1998, 77).

Participants

A total of 166 early childhood teachers participated in the study. These teachers worked in nursery classes aﬃliated with independent pre-schools and primary schools. The teachers were 97% female and 3% male. These teachers’work experience ranged from 1 to 34 years. The number of children in their classes ranged from 7 to 29 children. The number of female teachers was higher than that of male teachers. Further, most classes housed 21–29 children (54.8%). The ‘Years of teaching experience’ category ranged from 6 to 10 years of experience (32.9%) is the highest variable.

For this study, permission was obtained from the Provincial Directorate of National Education, which is aﬃliated with the Ministry of National Education. In the study, the purpose of the research was stated to the teachers and that they could participate on a voluntary basis. The forms applied in the research were strictly conﬁdential. All participants were given the right to withdraw.

Research on Turkeys southwest region is in diﬀerent areas located in a city’s kinder- gartens and applied to kindergarten teachers. The research was conducted between March 2018 and June 2018.

One personal form and two scales/indexes were used in the study. The personal form provided brief information on the teacher’s age, level of education, teaching experience in years, and the number of children in their class. Further, the teacher roles in free play scale and the creativity-fostering teacher index scale (CFTIndex) were used.

Teacher Roles in Free Play

This scale was developed by Ivrendi (2017). The scale involves teachers’preferred roles in free play activities (Enz and Christie1993; Johnson, Christie, and Wardle2005). The scale encompasses 19 items, using a 5-point Likert-type scale. It is a frequency scale, and items are scored in the intervals of never and always. Further, it provides ﬁve sub-scales as follows: director, play leader, uninvolved, onlooker-stage manager, and coplayer. The Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.82 for the overall scale, 0.86 for the director sub-scale, 0.86 for the leader sub-scale, 0.76 for the uninvolved scale, 0.71 for the onlooker and stage manager sub-scales, and 0.57 for the coplayer sub-scale. Factor loadings ranged from 0.566 to 0.904.

(7)

Creativity Fostering Teacher Index

This 6-point Likert-type scale was developed by Soh (2000).It consists of 45 items. The scale was used to study 117 teachers from China, Malaysia, India, Eurasia, and other countries. As a result of the factor analysis, 9 sub-scales were identified, namely, indepen- dency, integration, motivation, judgement,flexibility, evaluation, interrogation, opportu- nity, and disappointment. The factor loadings of the items ranged from .52 to .85. The lowest explained variance (47.19%) is in the subdimension of evaluation, and the highest (65.00%) is in the subdimension of disappointment. The lowest correlation (.48) is between interrogation and motivation and the highest (.82) is between opportu- nity andflexibility. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was found to be .96. Scores were compared between female and male teachers and Chinese and Non-Chinese teachers. A statistical analysis was implemented and significant differences were found (cited in Dikici2013).

The scale was adapted into Turkish by Dikici (2013). According to the explanatory factor analysis performed, the Turkish version of the scale consisted of 33 items and 9 subdimensions on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy)value of the scale is .925. After Varimax rotation, factor loadings ranged between .392 and .779. The lowest Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient for the sub-dimensions was found to be .57 and it was .94 for the overall scale. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, bestfit measures revealed the accep- tablefit and the bestfit for the scale.

Data analysis

The SPSS software package was used to perform data analysis. Correlation coefficient was classified as follows:r= 0.00–0.25 (very weak),r= 0.26–0.49 (weak),r= 0.50–0.69 (mod- erate),r= 0.70–0.89 (strong), andr= 0.90–1.00 (very strong). A significance level of 0.05 was accepted.

Results

Teachers’creativity-fostering behaviour scores and roles in free play scores were ident- iﬁed in the study. The scores of the Creativity Fostering Teacher Index (CFT Index) were based on the total scores of the scale items. Mean scores of the frequency degrees regarding the sub-scales of teachers’roles in free play scale were calculated.Table 1pre- sents the scores.

Table 1.Descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables of teachers’roles in free play and the creativity fostering teacher index (CFTIndex).

Variables M SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. CFT Index 144.37 12.70 103–165 1 .002 −280** .277** .493** .484**

2. Director 1.85 0.693 1–5 1 .060 .431** .069 −.015

3. Uninvolved 2.31 0.573 1–4 1 −.180* −.348** −.276**

4. Play Leader 3.30 0.686 2–5 1 .364** .245**

5. Onlooker-stage manager 3.92 0.590 2–5 1 .495**

6. Co-player 4.00 0.691 2–5 1

N= 166; *p< .05, **p< .01.

(8)

The result of the descriptive statistics is that the most preferred teachers’roles in free play were co-player and onlooker-stage manager. The least preferred teachers’roles were uninvolved and director roles.

Correlational analysis was performed to identify the relationship between teachers’

roles in free play and their scores of creativity-fostering behaviours. Table 1 shows that there is a positive relationship between the mean scores of the onlooker-stage manager (r= .493,p< 0.01), coplayer (r= .484,p< 0.01) and leader sub-scales (r= .277, p< 0.01) and teachers’ creativity-fostering behaviours. This relationship is statistically signiﬁcant.

Further, a negative relationship between teachers’uninvolved roles and their creative fostering behaviours scores was found. This correlation is statistically signiﬁcant (r=

−.280, p< 0.01). In other words, higher scores of uninvolved teachers correlate to lower scores of creative-fostering behaviours. When scores of creative fostering behaviours increase, the scores of uninvolved teachers’roles decrease.

The relationship between teachers’ director roles and creativity-fostering behaviour scores are not statistically signiﬁcant (r= .002,p> .01).

To determine the eﬀect of free play roles on creativity-fostering behaviour, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were carried out. In these analyses, free play roles were used as predictor variables and creativity-fostering behaviour was used as a criterion variable. Roles with the highest correlation and lowest correlation are included in the model, respectively. For each regression analysis, the onlooker-stage manager role was entered during theﬁrst step, because this role had a higher correlation than other roles. Onlooker-stage manager and coplayer roles were entered into the second model.

Onlooker-stage manager, coplayer, and leader roles were entered into the third. Onloo- ker-stage manager, coplayer, leader, and uninvolved roles were entered in the fourth model. Betas (B) and standardised betas (β) are observed inTable 2.

Looking at the Model 1 (Table 2), it is observed that the onlooker-stage manager role accounted for 24.3% of the total variance (F(1.164) = 52.722;p< .05, adjustedR² = .239).

In Model 2, onlooker-stage manager and coplayer roles accounted for a total variance increase of 32%. This model was statistically signiﬁcant.R² = 320, F (2.163) = 38.306,p

< .05, adjustedR² = .311. In this model, coplayer roles accounted for 7.6% of unique variance in creativity-fostering behaviour. This increase is statistically signiﬁcant (ΔR²

= .076,p< .01).

Table 2.Hierarchical multiple regression analysis with free play roles as predictor variables and the creativity fostering teacher index as a criterion variable.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variables B β B β B β B β

(Constant) 102.727 92.641 90.191 97.327

Onlooker-stage manager 10.613 .493* 7.224 .336* 6.608 .307* 6.139 .285*

Co-player 5.850 .318* 5.710 .311* 5.508 .300*

Leader 1.647 .089 1.568 .085

Uninvolved −1.832 −.083

R² 0.243 0.320 0.327 0.332

ΔR² 0.243* 0.076* 0.007 0.006

*p< .01.

(9)

Leader and uninvolved roles are not significant predictors of either Model 3 or Model 4. Even though the role of leader was defined as a facilitating and supportive role, it was concluded that there was no significant predictor in this study. As expected, the uninvolved role was not a meaningful predictor.

In the ﬁndings (Table 3), the relationship between the ages of teachers, their professional experiences and the number of children in their classes, and the roles that encourage creative-fostering behaviour in free play were examined. In the correlation test, a signiﬁcant relationship was not found between the roles of leader, co-player, and onlooker-stage manager.

Discussion and conclusion

The data of this study supports that onlooker-stage manager and coplayer roles signiﬁ- cantly correlate to creativity-fostering behaviours. However, the leader role was not found to be a meaningful predictor. However, these three roles are described as facilitating roles that encourage creativity-fostering behaviour in previous works (Johnson, Christie, and Wardle2005)

The onlooker-stage manager role predicted a 24.3% increase in creativity-fostering behaviour and was the highest predictor. The coplayer role predicted a 7.6% increase in creativity-fostering behaviours. Onlooker-stage manager and coplayer roles predicted a total of 32% increase in creativity-fostering behaviours. As an onlooker, the teacher pays attention to the child while playing and provides verbal and non-verbal signs of approval to convey important messages during play(Ivrendi 2016). In the coplayer role, teachers allow children to guide the ﬂow of the play. Upon children’s invitation, the teacher plays a minor role during the play (Enz and Christie1993). These approaches are akin to creativity-fostering behaviours. It is essential for teachers to value creative ideas and monitor children’s interests. Teachers should hone a child’s need to have freedom of choice, independence, decision-making, and behaving in a way that they are naturally inclined (Fisher 1995; Mayersky 2015; Fox and Schirrmacher 2014).

During the cultivation of creativity, co-player roles had a signiﬁcant impact in fostering creative thinking (Enz and Christie1993). Fox and Schirrmacher (2014) highlight the importance of the co-player role in child-led play for developing the creative expression of children.

A teacher in the leader role will intervene in a child’s play when the child loses interest or has diﬃculty getting started. This intervention involves expanding the play, prompting thinking, and encouraging the development of new ideas. This allows the child to

Table 3.Descriptive statistics and correlations between measured variables.

Variables M SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 35.9 6.24 23–54 – .884** .140* −.037 −.115 .047 −.108

2.Experience 12.59 6.65 1–34 – – .168* −.038 −.104 .064 −.089

3. Class size 20.29 4.53 7–29 – −.078 −.150 047 .069

4.CFT Index 144.37 12.70 103–165

5. Play Leader 3.30 0.686 2–5

6. Onlooker-stage manager 3.92 0.590 2–5

7. Co-player 4.00 0.691 2–5

*p< .05, **p< .01.

(10)

continue playing (Ivrendi 2016). In terms of creativity-fostering behaviours, teachers’ directives and asking questions helps children generate and stimulate creative ideas.

Besides these factors, teachers should allocate suﬃcient time to children, and provide the correct environment and materials (Fisher1995; Craft2003,2007; Fisher2012; Stern- berg and Grigorenko2007; Mayersky2015; Fox and Schirrmacher2014).

Enz and Christie (1993) contend that the leader role is the most eﬀective tool to ensure teacher involvement, because it allows children to use their own imaginations. However, this study indicated that the leader role was not a meaningful predictor of creativity. In this sense, this result is partially inconsistent with those of other studies.

Another finding revealed that there was no statistically significant relationship between the director role and creativity-fostering behaviours. ‘In the structured and teacher-directed play situations, the teachers’dominant roles were reflected from how they decided children’s roles and actions through non-negotiable instructions’(Utami, Fleer, and Li 2020, 12). When environments are completely constructed by teachers, research suggests that this will impede creativity (Fox and Schirrmacher2014; Robinson and Aronica2015; Starko2005; Tegano, Moran III, and Sawyers1991). This is because the teacher who assumes a director role plays a simple and repetitive role (Enz and Chris- tie1993). Thisfinding is consistent with previous studies.

Further, this study found a statistically significant negative correlation between the uninvolved role and the teachers’ creativity-fostering behaviour. This role was never expected to be a predictor to creativity-fostering behaviours. In the uninvolved role, the teacher does not participate in play at all. When necessary (e.g. when children are fighting), the teacher warns the children verbally. The uninvolved role is the least effective role. It is observed that children cannot sustain creative ideas in plays when a teacher is uninvolved (Enz and Christie1993).

Another ﬁnding is that there is no statistically signiﬁcant relationship between teachers’ roles regarding creativity encouragement behaviours in free play and teachers’

age, professional experience, and class size in their classes. A previous study found a similar result for no significant difference in free play roles according to professional experience. However, in another finding of the same research, it is contrary to the result that teachers with more than 20 students in their class prefer the role of co- players (Ivrendi2017). It is also against the research that teachers with more teaching professional experience show more play interactions (Trawick-Smith and Dziurgot 2010). In another study, although it was observed that experienced teachers used facilitative roles more frequently, this was not the case in the present study (Enz and Christie 1997). The expected professional experiences were higher, in that they differed in environments where the number of children was also low. However, one of the reasons for such a result in this study is related to the characteristics of the research group.

It is emphasised that teachers should take on an active role during the process of fostering creative behaviours. Teachers should organise learning environments that pique children’s interest and support their creativity. Open-ended questions should be asked to urge children to think. Teachers’open-ended questions are of the utmost importance to the creativity process (Csikzentmihalyi1996; Williams et al.2002; Fisher2012; Starko 2005). Teachers involve children in their play by including their own imaginations and ensuring that they take part in the play. The teacher’s design of the play supports both the

(11)

children’s freedom and their own. Teachers’active participation in pretend play supports the potential development of children in their play (Utami, Fleer, and Li2020).

Given the researchfindings, there is a relationship between facilitative roles in free play and creativity-fostering behaviours. Organising play opportunities is a key component to teachers’creativity-fostering behaviours (Tegano, Moran III, and Sawyers 1991; Craft 2007). The researchfindings are consistent with other studies and theoretical explanations in showing that play and creative thinking are evaluated in tandem (Saracho2002; Craft 2003; Russ and Schafer 2006; Russ, Robins, and Christiano 1999; Hoffmann and Russ 2012; Trawick-Smith 2013; Berk 2013; Mellou 1995; Hoffman 2013). Teachers can develop plays together with children and be sensitive regarding developing the themes of the play. Being in the play physically and psychologically as an active play partner of the teacher expanded the children’s play and improved the children’s understanding. It also enriched the distribution of roles and imaginary experiences. The teacher can continue to learn but can stay in the play. This is important in terms of recognising the children’s point of view and supporting them through play (Devi, Fleer, and Li2020,2018).

Teachers play a vital role in children’s creativity and imagination. Playing is an activity through which children can hone their creative skills. Teachers should allow children to make independent, free choices, as well as motivate them to think for themselves during playtime. Teachers’positive roles support the creative thinking process.

Limitations

In the study, onlooker-stage manager and co-player roles were observed as predictors.

However, this study does not contain detailed information about what behaviours these roles include, such as which roles have behaviours that encourage creative thinking.

For this reason, more in-depth investigation is needed. The measurement tools used in this study were applied by evaluating the teachers themselves. However, this is also an important limitation because it does not include information about which roles associate with which behaviours of teachers in free play and speciﬁcally, which behaviours encourage creative thinking.

The present study was limited to the opinions of those teachers who participated in it. It is recommended that further studies be conducted to observe and measure children’s creativity levels and teachers’ behaviours. Furthermore, it would be useful to organise in-service training for teachers on using diﬀerent teachers’ roles during play for creativity-fostering behaviours. Through interviews, a mixed-method study can be performed for this purpose. In studies where observations, interviews, and scale applications will be carried out together, researching the consistency between the teacher’s views and practices could reveal the subject in more detail. Regarding this situation, Devi, Fleer, and Li (2018) reported that teachers expressed their beliefs about the importance of play in exploring children’s thoughts, ideas and interests and developing their imaginations. However, it was found that the teachers spent minimal time for children’s play.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

(12)

ORCID

Emel Tok http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5970-8693

References

Amabile, Teresa M.1982.“Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology43 (5): 997–1013. Accessed 6 October 2019.https://

psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-20083-001.

Amabile, Teresa M.1993.“What Does a Theory of Creativity Require? Commentary‘Creativity and Personality: Suggestions for a Theory’by H. J. Eysenck.”Psychological Inquiry4: 179–181.

Ashiabi, Godwin S.2007.“Play in the Preschool Classroom: Its Socioemotional Signiﬁcance and the Teacher’s Role in Play.” Early Childhood Education Journal 35: 199–207. doi:10.1007/

s10643-007-0165-8.

Aslan, A. Esra.2001.“Conceptual Dimensions of Creativity (In Turkish).”Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal2 (16): 15–21.

Aslan, A. Esra.2007.“YaratıcıDüşünce Eğitimi [Creative Thinking Education].”Inİlköğretime Genel Bir Bakış[An Overview of Primary Education], edited by Ayla Oktay and Özgül Polat Unutkan, 75–99.İstanbul: Morpa.

Bergen, D. 2002. “The Role of Pretend Play in Children’s Cognitive Development.” Early Childhood Research & Practice4 (1): 1–12.

Berk, Laura E. 2013. Bebekler ve Çocuklar-Doğum Öncesinden Orta Çocukluğa [Infants and Chıldren Prenatal Through Middle Childhood]. Translation from 7th ed. Translation Editor, Nesrin Işıkoğlu Erdoğan. Ankara: Nobel.

Bramwell, Gillian, Rosemary C. Reilly, Frank R. Lilly, Neomi Kronish, and Revathi Chennabathni.

2011.“Creative Teachers.”Roeper Review33 (4): 228–238. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.603111.

Bredekamp, Sue.2015.Erken Çocukluk Eğitiminde Etkili Uygulamalar[Eﬀective Practices in Early Childhood Education). Translation from 2nd ed. Translation Editor, Hatice Z.İnan and Taşkin İnan. Ankara: Nobel.

Brooker, Liz. 2005. “Learning to Be a Child: Cultural Diversity and Early Years Ideology.”In Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education, edited by Nicola Yelland, 115–130. Berkshire:

McgrawHill Education.

Craft, Anna.2003.“Creative Thinking in the Early Years of Education.”Early Years23 (2): 143– 154. doi:10.1080/09575140303105.

Craft, Anna.2007.“Creativity and Possibility in the Early Years.”Accessed 20 January 2019.http://

www.tactyc.org.uk/pdfs/Reﬂection-craft.pdf.

Csikzentmihalyi, Mihaly.1996.Creativity. New York: Harper Perennial.

Curtis, Audrey.1998.A Curriculum for the Preschool Child. London: Routledge.

Cutter-Mackenzie, Amy, Susan Edwards, Deborah Moore, and Wendy Boyd. 2014. Young Children’s Play and Environmental Education in Early Childhood Education. [Adobe Digital Editions Version] SpringerLink. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03740-0.

De Bono, Edward.1992.Serious Creativity. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Devi, Anamika, Marilyn Fleer, and Liang Li. 2018. “‘We Set Up a Small World’: Preschool Teachers’ Involvement in Children’s Imaginative Play.”International Journal of Early Years Education26 (3): 295–311. doi:10.1080/09669760.2018.1452720.

Devi, Anamika, Marilyn Fleer, and Liang Li.2020.“Preschool Teachers’Pedagogical Positioning in Relation to Children’s Imaginative Play.”Early Child Development and Care.

Dikici, Ayhan.2013.“The Adaptation of Creativity Fostering Primary Teachers Index Scale into Turkish.”Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice13 (1): 307–324.

Enz, Billie, and James F. Christie.1993. “Teacher Play Interaction Styles and Their Impact on Children’s Oral Language and Literacy Play.”ED 366 015.

Enz, Billie, and James F. Christie.1997.“Teacher Play Interaction Styles: Eﬀects on Play Behavior and Relationships with Teacher Training and Experience.” International Journal of Early Childhood Education2: 55–75.

(13)

Feldman, David H.2006.“The Development of Creativity.”InHandbook of Creativity(9th print- ing), edited by Robert Sternberg, 169–188. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, Robert.1995.Teaching Children to Think. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.

Fisher, Robert.2012.Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom. 3rd ed. London:

Continuum.

Fleer, Marilyn.2009.“A Cultural-Historical Perspective on Play: Play as a Leading Activity Across Cultural Communities.” InPlay and Learning in Early Childhood Settings, edited by Ingrid Pramling-Samuelsson and Marilyn Fleer, 1–17. Netherlands: Springer.

Fleith, Denise. 2000. “Teacher and Student Perceptions of Creativity in the Classroom Environment.”Roeper Review22 (3): 148–153. doi:10.1080/02783190009554022.

Fox, Jill E., and Robert Schirrmacher.2014.Çocuklarda Sanat ve Yaratıcılığın Gelişimi[Art and Creative Development for Young Children]. Translation from 7th ed. Translation Editor Neriman. Aral & Gökhan Duman. Ankara: Nobel.

Henniger, Michael L.1999.Teaching Young Children. U.S.A: Prentice Hall.

Hoﬀman, Eva V.2013.“The Relationship Between Pretend Play and Creativity.”InThe Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination, edited by Marjorie Taylor, 403–416. U.K:

Oxford University Press. Accessed 19 May 2020.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-01006- 026.

Hoﬀmann, Jessica, and Sandra Russ.2012.“Pretend Play, Creativity, and Emotion Regulation in Children.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6 (2): 175–184. doi:10.1037/

a0026299.

Holmes, Robyn, Lynn Romeo, Stephanie Ciraola, and Michelle Grushko.2015.“The Relationship Between Creativity, Social Play, and Children’s Language Abilities.”Early Child Development and Care185 (7): 1180–1197. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.983916.

Ivrendi, Asiye.2016.“Oyunda Öğretmen Rolleri ve Oyunun Desteklenmesi”[Teacher Rolles and Support in Play].” In Çocuk ve Oyun [Children and Play], edited by Meral Ören, 70–91.

Eskişehir: Anadolu University.

Ivrendi, Asiye.2017.“Early Childhood Teachers’Roles in Free Play.”Early Years.

Jeﬀrey, Bob, and Anna Craft.2004.“Teaching Creatively and Teaching for Creativity: Distinctions and Relationships.”Educational Studies30 (1): 77–87. doi:10.1080/0305569032000159750.

Johnson, James E., James Christie, and Francis Wardle. 2005. Play, Development, and Early Education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Karasar, Niyazi. 1998. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi[Scientiﬁc Research Methodology]. Ankara:

Nobel.

Kettler, Todd, Kristen N. Lamb, Amy Willerson, and Dianna R. Mullet. 2018. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Creativity in the Classroom.” Creativity Research Journal 30 (2): 164–171.

doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1446503.

Mayersky, Mary.2015.Creative Activities and Curriculum for Young Children. 11th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Mellou, Eleni.1995.“Review of the Relationship Between Dramatic Play and Creativity in Young Children.”Early Child Development and Care112 (1): 85–107. doi:10.1080/0300443951120108.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlıı (MoNE) (Ministry of National Education). 2013. Preschool Education Curriculum(In Turkish). Ankara: MEB.

Moyles, Janet.2010.“Practitioner Reﬂection on Play and Playful Pedegogies.”InThinking About Play: Developing A Reﬂective Approach, edited by Janet Moyles, 13–28. U.K: Mcgraw-Hill Education.

Mullet, Diana R., Amy Willerson, Kristen N. Lamb, and Todd Kettler.2016.“Examining Teacher Perceptions of Creativity: A Systematic Review of the Literature.”Thinking Skills and Creativity 21: 9–30. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001.

Murray, Jane.2018.“The Play’s the Thing.”International Journal of Early Years Education26 (4):

335–339. doi:10.1080/09669760.2018.1527278.

Perry, Rosemary. 1997. Teaching Practice: A Guide for Early Childhood Students. London:

Routledge.

(14)

Ranjan, Apara, and Liane Gabora.2013. “Creative Ideas for Actualizing Student Potential.”In Teaching Creatively and Teaching Creativity, edited by Mary B. Gregerson, Heather Snyder, and James C. Kaufman, 119–131. New York: Springer.

Robinson, Ken, and Lou Aronica.2015. Yaratıcı Öğrenciler [Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revoluaiton That’s Transforming Education]. Translated by Dilek Boyraz.İstanbul: Sola.

Rubin, K., G. Fein, and B. Vandenberg. 1983. “Play.” In Handbook of Child Psychology:

Socialisation, Personality and Social Development, edited by E. M. Hetherington, Vol. 4, 693– 774. New York: Wiley.

Runco, Mark A., and Garett J. Jaeger. 2012.“The Standard Deﬁnition of Creativity.”Creativity Research Journal24 (1): 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.

Russ, Sandra W. 1998. “Play, Creativity, and Adaptive Functioning: Implications for Play Interventions.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 27 (4): 469–480. doi:10.1207/

s15374424jccp2704_11.

Russ, Sandra W. 2003. “Play and Creativity: Developmental Issues.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research47 (3): 291–303. doi:10.1080/00313830308594.

Russ, Sandra W., Andrew L. Robins, and Beth A. Christiano.1999.“Pretend Play: Longitudinal Prediction of Creativity and Aﬀect in Fantasy in Children.”Creativity Research Journal 12 (2): 129–139. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_5.

Russ, Sandra W., and Ethan D. Schafer.2006.“Aﬀect in Fantasy Play, Emotion in Memories, and Divergent Thinking.” Creativity Research Journal 18 (3): 347–354. doi:10.1207/

s15326934crj1803_9.

Saracho, Olivia.2002.“Young Children’s Creativity and Pretend Play.”Early Child Development and Care172 (5): 431–438. doi:10.1080/03004430214553.

Schousboe, Ivy, and Ditte Winther-Lindqvist. 2013. “Introduction: Children’s Play and Development.” In Children’s Play and Development, edited by Ivy Schousboe and Ditte Winther-Lindqvist, 1–11. Dordrecht: Springer.

Sheridan, Mary D., Jackie Harding, and Liz Meldon-Smith.2002.Play in Early Childhood from Birth to Six Years. Revised and Updated by Jackie Harding and Liz Meldon-Smith. London:

Routledge.

Soh, Kay-Cheng.2000.“Indexing Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior: A Preliminary Validation Study.”Journal of Creative Behaviour34 (2): 118–134.

Starko, Alane J.2005.Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. 3rd ed. Mahwah, N.J.:

Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Sternberg, Robert J., and Elena L. Grigorenko.2004.“Successful Intelligence in the Classroom.”

Theory into Practice43 (4): 274–280. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4304_5.

Sternberg, Robert J., and Elena L. Grigorenko. 2007. Teaching for Successful Intelligence, To Increase Student Learning and Achievement. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.

Tassoni, Penny, and Karen Hucker.2005.Planning Play and the Early Years. Oxford: Heinemann.

Tegano, Deborah W., James D. Moran III, and Janet K. Sawyers. 1991. Creativity in Early Childhood Classrooms. U.S.A: A National Education Association Publication.

Trawick-Smith, Jeﬀrey.2013.Erken Çocukluk Döneminde Gelişim, Çok Kültürlü Bir BakışAçısı [Early Childhood Development A Multicultural Perspective]. Translation from 5th ed.

Translation editor, Berrin Akman. Ankara: Nobel.

Trawick-Smith, Jeﬀrey, and Tracy Dziurgot.2010.“Untangling Teacher–Child Play Interactions:

Do Teacher Education and Experience Inﬂuence‘Good-Fit’ Responses to Children’s Play?” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 31 (2): 106–128. doi:10.1080/

10901021003781148.

Utami, Ade W., Marilyn Fleer, and Liang Li.2020.“Shift in Teachers’Pedagogical Practices in Play-Based Programme in Indonesia.”International Journal of Early Years Education28 (4):

397–412. doi:10.1080/09669760.2020.1777846.

Weisberg, Robert W.1993.Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. New York: Freeman.

Williams, Wendy M., Faith Markle, Melanie Brigockas, and Robert J. Sternberg.2002. Creative Intelligence for School. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.