Examining Creativity Profiles among Pre-Service Elementary Teachers: Implications for Future-Oriented Teacher Education

Examining Creativity Profiles among Pre-Service Elementary Teachers: Implications for Future-Oriented Teacher Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Examining Creativity Profiles among Pre-Service Elementary Teachers: Implications for Future-Oriented Teacher Education Annas Solihin, Suryanti Suryanti, Neni Mariana, Wiryanto Wiryanto, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8637824/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Creativity represents a fundamental competency for 21st-century educators, particularly elementary teachers who shape foundational learning experiences. However, empirical characterization of creativity profiles among Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers remains limited, impeding the development of future-oriented teacher education programs. This study examines creativity dimensions—fluency, flexibility, and originality—among pre-service elementary teachers to inform pedagogical innovations in teacher preparation. Methods A cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted with 112 pre-service elementary teachers enrolled in Indonesian teacher education programs. Creativity was assessed using a validated instrument measuring three dimensions: fluency (idea generation capacity, 0–30 points), flexibility (perspectival diversity, 0–30 points), and originality (idea uniqueness, 0–30 points), yielding total creativity scores (0–90 points). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, categorical distribution analysis, and dimensional profiling. Results Mean creativity scores revealed differential dimensional development: fluency (M = 20.75, SD = 3.68), flexibility (M = 15.29, SD = 3.82), and originality (M = 13.46, SD = 3.76), with overall creativity M = 49.50 (SD = 11.18). Categorical distribution indicated 28.57% demonstrated low creativity capacity, 46.43% moderate, and 25% high capacity. Dimensional analysis revealed significant challenges: 50% exhibited low originality (unique idea generation), 48.21% demonstrated limited flexibility (single-perspective thinking), while only 23.21% showed low fluency. The descending pattern across dimensions (fluency > flexibility > originality) suggests systematic developmental gaps in higher-order creative thinking processes. Conclusions Pre-service elementary teachers demonstrate heterogeneous creativity profiles with particular deficits in originality and flexibility—dimensions critical for innovative pedagogy and adaptive teaching. These findings underscore the necessity for future-oriented teacher education programs that systematically cultivate creative thinking through divergent problem-solving, perspective-taking activities, and innovation-focused pedagogies. Implications extend to curriculum design, instructional strategies, and assessment frameworks in elementary teacher preparation programs seeking to prepare educators capable of fostering creativity in 21st-century learners. Creativity Pre-service teachers Elementary education Teacher education 21st-century skills Fluency Flexibility Originality Future-oriented education Indonesia Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background Creativity has emerged as a defining competency for 21st-century education, recognized globally as essential for navigating complex, rapidly evolving societal challenges [ 1 , 2 ]. In educational contexts, creativity encompasses not merely artistic expression but cognitive flexibility, divergent thinking, problem-solving innovation, and the capacity to generate novel, valuable solutions across domains [ 3 , 4 ]. For elementary teachers, creativity assumes dual significance: as a personal competency enabling adaptive, responsive pedagogy, and as a professional imperative for cultivating creative capacities in young learners during formative developmental periods [ 5 , 6 ]. Contemporary educational frameworks increasingly emphasize creativity as foundational to future-oriented learning [ 7 ]. The integration of creativity into teacher competency profiles aligns with broader calls for educational transformation that prepares students for uncertain futures characterized by technological disruption, environmental challenges, and evolving workforce demands [ 8 ]. Elementary teachers, positioned at the critical juncture of foundational skill development, require robust creative capacities to design engaging learning experiences, respond flexibly to diverse student needs, and model creative thinking processes for emergent learners [ 9 , 10 ]. Research on creativity in teacher education reveals concerning patterns. Studies across diverse contexts demonstrate that traditional teacher preparation programs often inadequately develop creative thinking competencies, prioritizing content delivery and standardized pedagogical approaches over innovation and adaptability [ 11 , 12 ]. Kaufman and Beghetto [ 13 ] argue that understanding creativity requires attention to temporal dimensions—how creative capacity develops and manifests across time—a consideration frequently absent in teacher education curricula. Similarly, dimensional analyses of creativity reveal that while educators may demonstrate adequate fluency in generating conventional ideas, they often exhibit deficits in flexibility (considering multiple perspectives) and originality (producing truly novel solutions)—the very dimensions most critical for innovative teaching [ 14 , 15 ]. Within Indonesian educational contexts, research examining creativity among pre-service elementary teachers remains notably limited. Existing international literature predominantly reflects Western educational systems and cultural frameworks, creating knowledge gaps regarding how creativity manifests within collectivist cultural contexts characterized by distinct pedagogical traditions, hierarchical educational structures, and specific social-emotional norms that may differentially influence creative expression [ 16 , 17 ]. Cultural psychology research suggests that collectivist contexts may emphasize different facets of creativity—such as collaborative innovation and contextual appropriateness—over individual originality, necessitating culturally grounded investigation [ 18 ]. The present study addresses these gaps by examining creativity profiles among Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers across three theoretically grounded dimensions: fluency (capacity to generate multiple ideas), flexibility (ability to shift perspectives and consider diverse approaches), and originality (capability to produce unique, innovative solutions) [ 19 , 20 ]. These dimensions, derived from classical creativity frameworks and validated across diverse populations, provide comprehensive assessment of creative thinking processes essential for effective teaching [ 21 ]. By mapping dimensional patterns and identifying specific developmental challenges, this research aims to inform the design of future-oriented teacher education programs that systematically cultivate creativity as a core professional competency. This investigation holds particular relevance for elementary teacher education reform in Indonesia and comparable contexts seeking to prepare educators capable of fostering 21st-century competencies. Understanding current creativity profiles provides empirical grounding for curriculum innovations, pedagogical interventions, and assessment frameworks that position creativity development as central rather than peripheral to professional teacher preparation. Moreover, these findings contribute to broader international discourse on creativity in education by offering culturally situated evidence from an underrepresented educational context. Methods Study Design and Participants This cross-sectional quantitative study examined creativity profiles among pre-service elementary teachers enrolled in undergraduate teacher education programs at Indonesian institutions during the 2024 academic year. A total of 112 participants (N = 112) completed creativity assessments. Participants represented diverse cohorts within elementary education programs, providing heterogeneous sampling across program years and prior academic backgrounds. Inclusion criteria required active enrollment in elementary teacher education programs; exclusion criteria eliminated participants with incomplete assessment data. Creativity Assessment Instrument Creativity was measured using a validated assessment instrument operationalizing three theoretically grounded dimensions derived from established creativity frameworks [ 19 , 21 ]. The instrument comprised scenario-based prompts requiring divergent thinking responses scored across dimensional criteria: Fluency (0–30 points) Assessed capacity to generate multiple distinct ideas in response to open-ended prompts. Higher scores indicated greater ideational productivity. Flexibility (0–30 points) Evaluated ability to shift perspectives and consider diverse conceptual approaches. Scoring considered categorical variety and perspectival breadth across responses. Originality (0–30 points) Measured uniqueness and innovation of generated ideas relative to conventional responses. Statistical rarity and conceptual novelty informed scoring criteria. Total creativity scores ranged from 0 to 90 points, representing composite creative capacity across dimensions. The instrument demonstrated adequate internal consistency and construct validity in pilot testing with comparable populations. Data Collection Procedures Data collection employed standardized administration protocols to ensure measurement consistency. Participants completed creativity assessments individually during designated instructional periods, with completion time averaging 45–60 minutes. Assessment administrators provided uniform instructions emphasizing the absence of correct answers and encouraging divergent, innovative thinking. Participants received assurance regarding confidentiality and voluntary participation, consistent with institutional ethical guidelines for educational research. Data Analysis Quantitative data analysis proceeded through multiple analytical stages: Descriptive Statistics Means, standard deviations, ranges, and distributional characteristics were computed for each creativity dimension and total scores. Categorical Classification : Total creativity scores were categorized using theoretically informed thresholds: Low (33–42 points, representing limited creative capacity), Moderate (43–60 points, indicating developing creativity), and High (61–72 points, demonstrating advanced creative thinking). These categories facilitate meaningful interpretation while acknowledging developmental continuity. Dimensional Profiling Specific performance patterns within each creativity dimension were analyzed to identify particular developmental challenges and strengths. This profiling enabled nuanced understanding beyond aggregate scores. All analyses were conducted using standard statistical software, with significance levels set at p < 0.05 where applicable. Missing data were handled through listwise deletion, though data completeness exceeded 98%. Ethical Considerations This study received ethical approval from institutional review boards at participating institutions. All participants provided informed consent after receiving detailed information regarding study purposes, procedures, voluntary participation, and data confidentiality. Participants could withdraw at any point without consequences. Data were de-identified prior to analysis, and individual assessment results remained confidential. Aggregate findings were shared with participating institutions to inform programmatic improvements. Results Descriptive Statistics and Overall Creativity Profiles Descriptive statistical analysis revealed nuanced patterns across creativity dimensions and overall creative capacity (Table 1 ). Mean scores demonstrated systematic variation across dimensions: fluency exhibited the highest mean (M = 20.75, SD = 3.68), followed by flexibility (M = 15.29, SD = 3.82), and originality (M = 13.46, SD = 3.76). This descending pattern suggests differential developmental trajectories, with participants demonstrating relative strength in generating multiple ideas but experiencing greater challenges in perspectival diversity and innovative thinking. Overall creativity scores (M = 49.50, SD = 11.18) positioned the sample within the moderate range, with substantial variability (Range: 33–72). The standard deviation of 11.18 points indicates considerable heterogeneity in creative capacity, underscoring the need for differentiated pedagogical approaches responsive to diverse developmental profiles. The observed range demonstrates that while some participants exhibited advanced creative thinking (approaching maximum scores), others demonstrated significant developmental needs requiring systematic intervention. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Creativity Dimensions (N = 112) Dimension Mean SD Min Max Range Fluency 20.75 3.68 15 28 13 Flexibility 15.29 3.82 10 23 13 Originality 13.46 3.76 8 21 13 Total Creativity 49.50 11.18 33 72 39 Categorical Distribution of Creativity Capacity Categorical distribution analysis (Table 2 ) revealed that 32 participants (28.57%) demonstrated Low creativity capacity, 52 participants (46.43%) exhibited Moderate creativity, and 28 participants (25.00%) displayed High creativity. The predominance of moderate-level creativity suggests that most pre-service teachers possess foundational creative capacities requiring systematic enhancement rather than fundamental development. However, the substantial proportion demonstrating low creativity (nearly one-third of the sample) highlights significant developmental needs that current teacher education programs may inadequately address. The relatively balanced distribution across categories, while showing modal concentration in the moderate range, indicates that teacher education programs encounter considerable diversity in students’ entering creative capacities. This heterogeneity suggests that one-size-fits-all approaches to creativity development may prove insufficient, instead requiring adaptive, personalized pedagogical strategies responsive to individual developmental trajectories. Table 2 Categorical Distribution of Creativity Capacity (N = 112) Category Score Range Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Description Low 33–42 32 28.57 Limited creative capacity Moderate 43–60 52 46.43 Developing creativity High 61–72 28 25.00 Advanced creative thinking Total 112 100.00 Dimensional Performance Patterns and Specific Challenges Detailed dimensional profiling (Table 3 ) illuminated specific creativity challenges and developmental needs. Within the fluency dimension, 33.93% of participants demonstrated high capacity (generating five or more distinct ideas), 42.86% showed moderate capacity (3–4 ideas), and 23.21% exhibited low fluency (≤ 2 ideas). This pattern suggests that while nearly one-quarter of participants struggle with basic ideational productivity, most demonstrate at least moderate capacity for generating multiple responses. Flexibility revealed more pronounced challenges. Only 12.50% of participants consistently explored three or more distinct perspectives in their responses, while 39.29% considered two perspectives, and a concerning 48.21% demonstrated single-perspective thinking. This predominance of limited perspectival flexibility represents a critical developmental gap, as teaching effectiveness fundamentally requires the capacity to consider diverse student viewpoints, cultural contexts, and alternative pedagogical approaches [ 22 ]. Originality presented the most significant challenge. Half of participants (50.00%) produced ideas characterized as lacking uniqueness or innovation, 41.07% generated moderately unique ideas, and merely 8.93% demonstrated consistently original, innovative thinking. This pattern aligns with research suggesting that while individuals can relatively easily generate multiple conventional ideas (fluency), producing truly novel solutions requires deeper cognitive engagement and tolerance for intellectual risk—capacities that traditional educational experiences often inadequately cultivate [ 23 , 24 ]. Table 3 Dimensional Performance Patterns (N = 112) Dimension / Performance Level High n (%) Moderate n (%) Low n (%) Fluency Generating ≥ 5 ideas 38 (33.93) 48 (42.86) 26 (23.21) Flexibility Exploring ≥ 3 perspectives 14 (12.50) 44 (39.29) 54 (48.21) Originality Unique and innovative ideas 10 (8.93) 46 (41.07) 56 (50.00) Dimensional Relationships and Hierarchical Patterns The systematic descending pattern across creativity dimensions—fluency > flexibility > originality—suggests hierarchical developmental relationships wherein more basic capacities (generating multiple ideas) develop more readily than higher-order competencies (producing innovative, perspectivally diverse solutions). This pattern resonates with cognitive development frameworks positing that creative thinking evolves from quantitative ideational production toward qualitative innovation and complexity [ 25 ]. The data imply that interventions targeting flexibility and originality may require more intensive, sustained pedagogical engagement than those addressing basic fluency deficits. Figure 1 presents the frequency distribution of total creativity scores across the sample of 112 pre-service elementary teachers. The histogram illustrates the spread of creativity scores ranging from 33 to 72 points, with bins of 5-point intervals. Visual representation reveals a roughly normal distribution pattern centered around the mean score of 49.50, though with slight positive skew indicating concentration in the moderate range. Color-coded regions (red for Low, yellow for Moderate, green for High creativity) facilitate immediate visual identification of categorical distributions, demonstrating that the majority of participants cluster within the moderate creativity range while smaller proportions occupy the extremes of low and high creative capacity. The distribution displayed in Fig. 1 reveals several important patterns. First, the concentration of scores in the 45–55 range (moderate category) confirms the descriptive statistical finding that most pre-service teachers possess foundational creative capacities. Second, the relatively symmetric distribution with slight positive skew suggests that while a baseline level of creativity exists across the sample, fewer participants demonstrate exceptionally high creative performance. Third, the visual representation makes evident the heterogeneity in creativity profiles, underscoring the necessity for differentiated pedagogical approaches in teacher education that can address diverse developmental needs across the creativity spectrum. Figure 2 provides a comparative visualization of mean performance across the three creativity dimensions: fluency, flexibility, and originality. The grouped bar chart format enables direct comparison of dimensional scores on a consistent 0–30 scale, making visible the systematic descending pattern wherein fluency (M = 20.75) exceeds flexibility (M = 15.29), which in turn exceeds originality (M = 13.46). Error bars representing ± 1 standard deviation illustrate the variability within each dimension, revealing relatively consistent dispersion across all three measures (SD ranging from 3.68 to 3.82). The horizontal reference line at the midpoint (15) facilitates interpretation of whether dimensional means fall above or below the scale center, indicating that fluency substantially exceeds this midpoint while flexibility approximates it and originality falls notably below, suggesting particular developmental challenges in innovative thinking. Figure 2 visually confirms the hierarchical developmental pattern discussed in the results section, wherein basic ideational production (fluency) appears more readily developed than perspectival diversity (flexibility) or innovative uniqueness (originality). This pattern has important pedagogical implications: while teacher education programs may adequately support the development of basic creative capacities such as generating multiple ideas, they appear less effective in cultivating higher-order creative competencies requiring cognitive flexibility and innovative synthesis. The relatively large gap between fluency and originality (7.29 points, representing approximately 24% of the scale range) suggests that interventions specifically targeting originality development may require substantially different pedagogical approaches than those addressing basic fluency. Furthermore, the similar standard deviations across dimensions indicate that heterogeneity in creative development exists consistently across all three components, rather than being concentrated in particular aspects of creativity. Discussion This study provides comprehensive empirical characterization of creativity profiles among Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers, revealing significant dimensional variations and developmental challenges with implications for future-oriented teacher education. The systematic descending pattern across creativity dimensions—fluency > flexibility > originality—alongside the predominance of moderate creativity capacity, suggests that while pre-service teachers possess foundational creative competencies, they demonstrate substantial deficits in higher-order creative thinking processes essential for innovative pedagogy. Dimensional Patterns and Developmental Implications The observed hierarchical pattern wherein fluency exceeds flexibility, which in turn exceeds originality, resonates with theoretical frameworks positing developmental progression in creative thinking [ 25 ]. Fluency, representing basic ideational productivity, appears more readily developed than flexibility (perspectival diversity) or originality (innovative uniqueness). This pattern may reflect educational experiences emphasizing convergent thinking and single-answer problem-solving over divergent exploration and innovative synthesis [ 26 ]. Traditional Indonesian educational contexts, characterized by teacher-centered instruction and standardized assessment, may particularly constrain opportunities for developing flexibility and originality [ 27 ]. The deficit in originality—with half of participants demonstrating low innovative thinking—represents particular concern for teacher education. Original thinking underlies teachers’ capacity to design novel learning experiences, adapt curricula creatively, and respond innovatively to emergent classroom challenges [ 28 ]. Research by Sbaih [ 29 ] demonstrates that mathematical creative thinking, closely related to pedagogical creativity, correlates significantly with academic achievement and problem-solving effectiveness. Similarly, Akpur [ 30 ] identifies openness to experience and emotional intelligence as critical predictors of creativity, suggesting that teacher education programs must attend to dispositional and socio-emotional dimensions alongside cognitive skill development. Flexibility Deficits and Pedagogical Implications The finding that nearly half of participants (48.21%) demonstrate single-perspective thinking represents a critical developmental gap. Teaching effectiveness fundamentally requires perspectival flexibility: understanding diverse student viewpoints, recognizing cultural variations in learning approaches, considering alternative pedagogical strategies, and adapting instruction responsively [ 31 ]. Redó et al. [ 32 ] identify flexibility as one of four core creativity dimensions (alongside fluency, originality, and elaboration) that distinguish high-ability learners, suggesting its centrality to advanced cognitive performance. Limited flexibility may impede teachers’ capacity to differentiate instruction, recognize diverse student strengths, or adapt pedagogical approaches across varying contexts [ 33 ]. This concern assumes particular relevance in Indonesian educational settings characterized by increasing student diversity, multilingual classrooms, and calls for culturally responsive pedagogy. Hashim et al. [ 34 ] demonstrate that creative self-efficacy, ability, and environmental support interact to shape creative performance, indicating that flexibility development requires both individual competency cultivation and supportive institutional contexts that value perspectival diversity. Contextual and Cultural Considerations These findings must be interpreted within Indonesian cultural and educational contexts. Collectivist cultural frameworks may emphasize harmony, conformity, and respect for authority—values that can constrain individual creative expression while potentially fostering collaborative innovation [ 35 ]. Educational traditions emphasizing memorization, standardized testing, and teacher authority may inadequately develop divergent thinking capacities [ 36 ]. However, these same contexts also possess rich traditions of cultural creativity, contextual problem-solving, and adaptive innovation that could inform culturally grounded approaches to creativity development [ 37 ]. Alzoubi et al. [ 38 ] demonstrate that emotional creativity—the capacity for novel, appropriate emotional expression and understanding—significantly predicts creative performance. This suggests that Indonesian teacher education programs might productively integrate socio-emotional learning with creativity development, building on cultural strengths in relational understanding while cultivating individual innovative capacity. Such approaches could honor collectivist values while systematically developing creative thinking competencies. Implications for Future-Oriented Teacher Education These findings carry significant implications for redesigning elementary teacher education programs to systematically cultivate creativity. First, curriculum innovations should explicitly target flexibility and originality development through pedagogies emphasizing divergent problem-solving, perspective-taking exercises, and innovation-focused projects [ 39 ]. Karunarathne and Calma [ 40 ] propose comprehensive frameworks for assessing creative thinking in higher education, highlighting the importance of evaluating creative expression, knowledge creation, and problem-solving—dimensions that could inform teacher education assessment reform. Second, instructional strategies should model creative teaching practices, providing pre-service teachers with experiential understanding of how creativity manifests in pedagogical contexts [ 41 ]. This includes opportunities to observe, practice, and reflect on creative lesson design, adaptive instructional decision-making, and innovative problem-solving in authentic or simulated classroom settings. Research demonstrates that creative self-efficacy develops through successful creative experiences and supportive feedback [ 34 ], suggesting the importance of scaffolded creative challenges with constructive guidance. Third, assessment frameworks in teacher education should systematically evaluate creativity development alongside traditional academic competencies [ 40 ]. Current assessment practices often inadvertently constrain creativity by rewarding conformity and penalizing divergent thinking. Redesigned assessment approaches might include portfolios documenting creative growth, performance tasks requiring innovative problem-solving, and peer evaluation of creative pedagogical designs [ 42 ]. Fourth, institutional environments must support creativity through cultures valuing innovation, tolerating productive failure, and providing resources for creative exploration [ 34 ]. Environmental factors—including physical spaces, time availability, collegial support, and leadership encouragement—significantly influence creative development. Teacher education programs should cultivate creative climates through maker spaces, collaborative learning environments, and policies rewarding innovative thinking. Temporal Dimensions and Developmental Trajectories Kaufman and Beghetto [ 13 ] emphasize temporal dimensions in creativity development, distinguishing between past experiences shaping creative capacity, present manifestations of creativity, and future creative potential. This temporal framework suggests that teacher education interventions should address all three dimensions: examining and potentially reframing past educational experiences that may have constrained creativity, cultivating present creative competencies through targeted pedagogies, and developing future-oriented creative dispositions and self-efficacy. The substantial heterogeneity in creativity profiles observed in this study (SD = 11.18 for total creativity) indicates diverse developmental trajectories requiring differentiated approaches. Some participants may need foundational fluency development, others require flexibility enhancement, while still others are prepared for advanced originality challenges. Adaptive, personalized learning pathways responsive to individual creativity profiles may prove more effective than uniform interventions [ 43 ]. Limitations and Future Research Directions Several limitations warrant acknowledgment. First, the cross-sectional design precludes examination of creativity developmental trajectories across teacher education programs. Longitudinal investigations tracking creativity changes from program entry through graduation and into early teaching careers would illuminate developmental patterns and intervention effectiveness. Second, assessment relied on scenario-based divergent thinking tasks, which, while validated, may not fully capture creativity as manifested in authentic teaching contexts. Performance-based assessments evaluating creative lesson planning, adaptive instruction, or innovative problem-solving in practicum settings could provide complementary evidence. Third, the study examined creativity in isolation from other competencies. Research suggests that creativity interacts with cognitive abilities, personality traits, motivational factors, and socio-emotional competencies [ 30 , 38 ]. Integrated investigations examining relationships among creativity, self-regulated learning, emotional intelligence, and pedagogical knowledge could provide more comprehensive understanding of teacher competency development. Fourth, the Indonesian context, while offering valuable culturally situated evidence, limits generalizability to other national or cultural contexts. Comparative research across diverse settings could illuminate universal versus culturally specific creativity patterns. Future research should investigate intervention effectiveness through design-based studies developing and testing creativity-focused pedagogies in teacher education contexts. Additionally, qualitative investigations could explore how pre-service teachers conceptualize creativity, their perceived barriers to creative development, and experiences with creativity-supporting or creativity-constraining educational practices. Such research could inform culturally responsive, contextually appropriate innovations in teacher preparation. Conclusions This study reveals that Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers demonstrate heterogeneous creativity profiles with systematic deficits in flexibility and originality—the higher-order creative thinking dimensions most critical for innovative, responsive pedagogy. While nearly half exhibit moderate creativity capacity suggesting foundational competencies, substantial proportions demonstrate limited perspectival flexibility (48%) and inadequate originality (50%), constraining their preparation for 21st-century teaching demands. These findings underscore the imperative for transforming elementary teacher education from traditional knowledge transmission models toward future-oriented programs systematically cultivating creativity as a core professional competency. Such transformation requires curriculum innovations emphasizing divergent problem-solving, instructional strategies modeling creative pedagogy, assessment frameworks evaluating creativity development, and institutional cultures supporting innovation and productive risk-taking. The dimensional patterns observed—wherein basic ideational fluency develops more readily than perspectival flexibility or innovative originality—suggest that effective interventions must directly target higher-order creative capacities through sustained, intensive pedagogical engagement. Addressing these developmental needs holds particular urgency given elementary teachers’ foundational role in shaping young learners’ creative dispositions and capacities. By empirically characterizing creativity profiles and identifying specific developmental challenges, this research provides foundational evidence for redesigning teacher preparation programs capable of preparing educators who not merely transmit existing knowledge but innovatively co-construct learning experiences preparing students for uncertain, complex futures. Such future-oriented teacher education represents essential investment in educational quality, equity, and transformation aligned with global imperatives for creativity-centered 21st-century learning. Abbreviations SD Standard Deviation M Mean Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines for educational research at State University of Surabaya. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board (Reference: EDU-2024-087). All participants provided informed consent prior to data collection, and participation was voluntary. Data confidentiality was maintained throughout the research process. Consent for Publication Not applicable. This manuscript does not contain data from any individual person. Availability of Data and Materials The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are openly available in Figshare repository under https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31084009.v1 . The dataset includes raw creativity assessment scores, descriptive statistics, categorical distributions, and dimensional performance patterns from 112 pre-service elementary teachers. All data files contain de-identified participant information consistent with ethical research standards [44]. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Authors’ Contributions AS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Writing - Original Draft. S: Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing, Project Administration. NM: Validation, Writing - Review & Editing, Methodology. W: Writing - Review & Editing. GG: Writing - Review & Editing, Conceptualization. RE: Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing - Review & Editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the pre-service elementary teachers who participated in this study and the institutional support provided by State University of Surabaya. References Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st century learning. Washington DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills; 2019. World Economic Forum. The future of jobs report 2023. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2023. Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 3–15. Runco MA, Jaeger GJ. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Res J. 2012;24(1):92–6. 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 . Beghetto RA, Kaufman JC. Nurturing creativity in the classroom. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. Cropley AJ. Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Routledge; 2001. Voogt J, Roblin NP. A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. J Curriculum Stud. 2012;44(3):299–321. 10.1080/00220272.2012.668938 . Trilling B, Fadel C. 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009. Cremin T, Glauert E, Craft A, Compton A, Stylianidou F. Creative little scientists: Exploring pedagogical synergies between inquiry-based and creative approaches in Early Years science. Education 3–13. 2015;43(4):404–419. 10.1080/03004279.2015.1020655 Sawyer RK. The creative teaching and learning framework. In: Sawyer RK, editor. Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. pp. 1–18. Davies D, Jindal-Snape D, Collier C, Digby R, Hay P, Howe A. Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Think Skills Creativity. 2013;8:80–91. 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004 . Craft A. Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books; 2011. Kaufman JC, Beghetto RA. Where is the when of creativity? Specifying the temporal dimension of the four Cs of creativity. Rev Gen Psychol. 2022;27(2):194–205. 10.1177/10892680221142803 . Guilford JP. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967. Torrance EP. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel; 1974. Niu W, Sternberg RJ. Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. Int J Psychol. 2001;36(4):225–41. 10.1080/00207590143000036 . Lubart TI. Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 339–50. Nisbett RE. The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. New York: Free; 2003. Guilford JP, Creativity. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. J Creative Behav. 1967;1(1):3–14. 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x . Runco MA. Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Res J. 2010;22(4):401–5. 10.1080/10400419.2010.523393 . Kim KH. The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Res J. 2011;23(4):285–95. 10.1080/10400419.2011.627805 . Darling-Hammond L. Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2006. Amabile TM. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. J Personality Social Psychol. 1983;45(2):357–76. 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 . Csikszentmihalyi M, Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins; 1996. Piaget J. The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge; 2001. Robinson K. Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. 3rd ed. Chichester: Capstone; 2017. Lie A. Education policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia: Between the commitment to competence and the quest for higher test scores. TEFLIN J. 2007;18(1):1–14. Mullet DR, Willerson A, Lamb KN, Kettler T. Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Think Skills Creativity. 2016;21:9–30. 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001 . Sbaih A. Creative thinking in students of mathematics in universities and its relationship with some variables. Perspect Sci Educ. 2023;62(4):150–67. 10.32744/pse.2023.4.7 . Akpur U. Does creativity matter in personality traits and emotional intelligence? Psychology in the Schools. 2024. 10.1002/pits.23245 Tomlinson CA. The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. 2nd ed. Alexandria: ASCD; 2014. Redó N, Gutiérrez M, Cano J. Dimensions of creativity in secondary school high-ability students. Eur J Invest Health Psychol Educ. 2021;11(3):953–61. 10.3390/ejihpe11030070 . Gay G. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College; 2018. Hashim A, Aris S, Fook C. Assessing gender differences in creative self-efficacy, creative ability and creative environment dimensions among lower secondary school students. Asian J Univ Educ. 2022;18(4):979–90. 10.24191/ajue.v18i4.19993 . Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001. Dardjowidjojo S. English teaching in Indonesia. EA J. 2000;18(1):22–30. Haryatmoko. Cultural wisdom in Indonesian education. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama; 2015. Alzoubi A, Qudah M, Albursan I, Bakhiet S, Alfnan A. The predictive ability of emotional creativity in creative performance among university students. SAGE Open. 2021;11(2). 10.1177/21582440211008876 . Starko AJ. Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2018. Karunarathne W, Calma A. Assessing creative thinking skills in higher education: deficits and improvements. Stud High Educ. 2024;49(1):157–77. 10.1080/03075079.2023.2225532 . Jeffrey B, Craft A. Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Stud. 2004;30(1):77–87. 10.1080/0305569032000159750 . Plucker JA, Makel MC. Assessment of creativity. In: Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, editors. The Cambridge handbook of creativity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 44–68. Plambech T, van den Konijnendijk CC. The impact of nature on creativity – A study among Danish creative professionals. Urban Forestry Urban Green. 2015;14(2):255–63. 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.006 . Solihin A, Suryanti, Mariana N, Wiryanto, Gunansyah G, Ekawati R. Creativity assessment data of pre-service elementary teachers in Indonesia. Figshare. 2025. 10.6084/m9.figshare.31084009.v1 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8637824","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":591876598,"identity":"a226beab-5209-428f-a822-97fde41955eb","order_by":0,"name":"Annas Solihin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Surabaya","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Annas","middleName":"","lastName":"Solihin","suffix":""},{"id":591876599,"identity":"d042270a-4765-4c4d-b5f4-d2ca820d9e31","order_by":1,"name":"Suryanti Suryanti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Surabaya","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Suryanti","middleName":"","lastName":"Suryanti","suffix":""},{"id":591876601,"identity":"d5b5c4e7-8cef-4164-b9ed-0e29a599110d","order_by":2,"name":"Neni Mariana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Surabaya","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Neni","middleName":"","lastName":"Mariana","suffix":""},{"id":591876605,"identity":"3dc43acf-9a88-44c1-afef-ffa720fd5e59","order_by":3,"name":"Wiryanto Wiryanto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Surabaya","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wiryanto","middleName":"","lastName":"Wiryanto","suffix":""},{"id":591876606,"identity":"a81e533f-02f8-42be-8ad7-3436e2f28bba","order_by":4,"name":"Ganes Gunansyah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Surabaya","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ganes","middleName":"","lastName":"Gunansyah","suffix":""},{"id":591876607,"identity":"65d0d242-a6f8-4e2c-bd07-41c86ce031f0","order_by":5,"name":"Rooselyna Ekawati","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Surabaya","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rooselyna","middleName":"","lastName":"Ekawati","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-19 09:53:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8637824/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8637824/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102929884,"identity":"3096c84a-9b24-44f6-ac14-08123d525fa9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-18 14:41:52","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":805010,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Total Creativity Scores\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8637824/v1/bb18bae4d6d982aa9d382340.png"},{"id":102929895,"identity":"5a87dcef-7afc-44a4-89f8-c6779c7bb194","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-18 14:42:02","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":88250,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparative Dimensional Mean Scores\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8637824/v1/c1ae9ba7988685215637c4ba.png"},{"id":103388513,"identity":"ec5ef43c-4175-4e0e-b13c-d3b9538f13d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-25 07:13:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1661149,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8637824/v1/d23bccf8-e89e-4f6e-ba4b-487536144509.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Examining Creativity Profiles among Pre-Service Elementary Teachers: Implications for Future-Oriented Teacher Education","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eCreativity has emerged as a defining competency for 21st-century education, recognized globally as essential for navigating complex, rapidly evolving societal challenges [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. In educational contexts, creativity encompasses not merely artistic expression but cognitive flexibility, divergent thinking, problem-solving innovation, and the capacity to generate novel, valuable solutions across domains [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. For elementary teachers, creativity assumes dual significance: as a personal competency enabling adaptive, responsive pedagogy, and as a professional imperative for cultivating creative capacities in young learners during formative developmental periods [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary educational frameworks increasingly emphasize creativity as foundational to future-oriented learning [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. The integration of creativity into teacher competency profiles aligns with broader calls for educational transformation that prepares students for uncertain futures characterized by technological disruption, environmental challenges, and evolving workforce demands [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Elementary teachers, positioned at the critical juncture of foundational skill development, require robust creative capacities to design engaging learning experiences, respond flexibly to diverse student needs, and model creative thinking processes for emergent learners [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on creativity in teacher education reveals concerning patterns. Studies across diverse contexts demonstrate that traditional teacher preparation programs often inadequately develop creative thinking competencies, prioritizing content delivery and standardized pedagogical approaches over innovation and adaptability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Kaufman and Beghetto [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] argue that understanding creativity requires attention to temporal dimensions\u0026mdash;how creative capacity develops and manifests across time\u0026mdash;a consideration frequently absent in teacher education curricula. Similarly, dimensional analyses of creativity reveal that while educators may demonstrate adequate fluency in generating conventional ideas, they often exhibit deficits in flexibility (considering multiple perspectives) and originality (producing truly novel solutions)\u0026mdash;the very dimensions most critical for innovative teaching [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin Indonesian educational contexts, research examining creativity among pre-service elementary teachers remains notably limited. Existing international literature predominantly reflects Western educational systems and cultural frameworks, creating knowledge gaps regarding how creativity manifests within collectivist cultural contexts characterized by distinct pedagogical traditions, hierarchical educational structures, and specific social-emotional norms that may differentially influence creative expression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Cultural psychology research suggests that collectivist contexts may emphasize different facets of creativity\u0026mdash;such as collaborative innovation and contextual appropriateness\u0026mdash;over individual originality, necessitating culturally grounded investigation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study addresses these gaps by examining creativity profiles among Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers across three theoretically grounded dimensions: fluency (capacity to generate multiple ideas), flexibility (ability to shift perspectives and consider diverse approaches), and originality (capability to produce unique, innovative solutions) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. These dimensions, derived from classical creativity frameworks and validated across diverse populations, provide comprehensive assessment of creative thinking processes essential for effective teaching [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. By mapping dimensional patterns and identifying specific developmental challenges, this research aims to inform the design of future-oriented teacher education programs that systematically cultivate creativity as a core professional competency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis investigation holds particular relevance for elementary teacher education reform in Indonesia and comparable contexts seeking to prepare educators capable of fostering 21st-century competencies. Understanding current creativity profiles provides empirical grounding for curriculum innovations, pedagogical interventions, and assessment frameworks that position creativity development as central rather than peripheral to professional teacher preparation. Moreover, these findings contribute to broader international discourse on creativity in education by offering culturally situated evidence from an underrepresented educational context.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Design and Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis cross-sectional quantitative study examined creativity profiles among pre-service elementary teachers enrolled in undergraduate teacher education programs at Indonesian institutions during the 2024 academic year. A total of 112 participants (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;112) completed creativity assessments. Participants represented diverse cohorts within elementary education programs, providing heterogeneous sampling across program years and prior academic backgrounds. Inclusion criteria required active enrollment in elementary teacher education programs; exclusion criteria eliminated participants with incomplete assessment data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCreativity Assessment Instrument\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCreativity was measured using a validated assessment instrument operationalizing three theoretically grounded dimensions derived from established creativity frameworks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. The instrument comprised scenario-based prompts requiring divergent thinking responses scored across dimensional criteria:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFluency (0\u0026ndash;30 points)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessed capacity to generate multiple distinct ideas in response to open-ended prompts. Higher scores indicated greater ideational productivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFlexibility (0\u0026ndash;30 points)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluated ability to shift perspectives and consider diverse conceptual approaches. Scoring considered categorical variety and perspectival breadth across responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eOriginality (0\u0026ndash;30 points)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasured uniqueness and innovation of generated ideas relative to conventional responses. Statistical rarity and conceptual novelty informed scoring criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal creativity scores ranged from 0 to 90 points, representing composite creative capacity across dimensions. The instrument demonstrated adequate internal consistency and construct validity in pilot testing with comparable populations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection Procedures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection employed standardized administration protocols to ensure measurement consistency. Participants completed creativity assessments individually during designated instructional periods, with completion time averaging 45\u0026ndash;60 minutes. Assessment administrators provided uniform instructions emphasizing the absence of correct answers and encouraging divergent, innovative thinking. Participants received assurance regarding confidentiality and voluntary participation, consistent with institutional ethical guidelines for educational research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative data analysis proceeded through multiple analytical stages:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans, standard deviations, ranges, and distributional characteristics were computed for each creativity dimension and total scores.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCategorical Classification\u003c/b\u003e: Total creativity scores were categorized using theoretically informed thresholds: Low (33\u0026ndash;42 points, representing limited creative capacity), Moderate (43\u0026ndash;60 points, indicating developing creativity), and High (61\u0026ndash;72 points, demonstrating advanced creative thinking). These categories facilitate meaningful interpretation while acknowledging developmental continuity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDimensional Profiling\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecific performance patterns within each creativity dimension were analyzed to identify particular developmental challenges and strengths. This profiling enabled nuanced understanding beyond aggregate scores.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted using standard statistical software, with significance levels set at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 where applicable. Missing data were handled through listwise deletion, though data completeness exceeded 98%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received ethical approval from institutional review boards at participating institutions. All participants provided informed consent after receiving detailed information regarding study purposes, procedures, voluntary participation, and data confidentiality. Participants could withdraw at any point without consequences. Data were de-identified prior to analysis, and individual assessment results remained confidential. Aggregate findings were shared with participating institutions to inform programmatic improvements.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Overall Creativity Profiles\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistical analysis revealed nuanced patterns across creativity dimensions and overall creative capacity (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Mean scores demonstrated systematic variation across dimensions: fluency exhibited the highest mean (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.75, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.68), followed by flexibility (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.29, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.82), and originality (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.46, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.76). This descending pattern suggests differential developmental trajectories, with participants demonstrating relative strength in generating multiple ideas but experiencing greater challenges in perspectival diversity and innovative thinking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall creativity scores (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49.50, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.18) positioned the sample within the moderate range, with substantial variability (Range: 33\u0026ndash;72). The standard deviation of 11.18 points indicates considerable heterogeneity in creative capacity, underscoring the need for differentiated pedagogical approaches responsive to diverse developmental profiles. The observed range demonstrates that while some participants exhibited advanced creative thinking (approaching maximum scores), others demonstrated significant developmental needs requiring systematic intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Creativity Dimensions (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;112)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFluency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOriginality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Creativity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCategorical Distribution of Creativity Capacity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCategorical distribution analysis (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that 32 participants (28.57%) demonstrated Low creativity capacity, 52 participants (46.43%) exhibited Moderate creativity, and 28 participants (25.00%) displayed High creativity. The predominance of moderate-level creativity suggests that most pre-service teachers possess foundational creative capacities requiring systematic enhancement rather than fundamental development. However, the substantial proportion demonstrating low creativity (nearly one-third of the sample) highlights significant developmental needs that current teacher education programs may inadequately address.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relatively balanced distribution across categories, while showing modal concentration in the moderate range, indicates that teacher education programs encounter considerable diversity in students\u0026rsquo; entering creative capacities. This heterogeneity suggests that one-size-fits-all approaches to creativity development may prove insufficient, instead requiring adaptive, personalized pedagogical strategies responsive to individual developmental trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategorical Distribution of Creativity Capacity (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;112)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScore Range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency (n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u0026ndash;42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited creative capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloping creativity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61\u0026ndash;72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvanced creative thinking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDimensional Performance Patterns and Specific Challenges\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetailed dimensional profiling (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) illuminated specific creativity challenges and developmental needs. Within the fluency dimension, 33.93% of participants demonstrated high capacity (generating five or more distinct ideas), 42.86% showed moderate capacity (3\u0026ndash;4 ideas), and 23.21% exhibited low fluency (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;2 ideas). This pattern suggests that while nearly one-quarter of participants struggle with basic ideational productivity, most demonstrate at least moderate capacity for generating multiple responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexibility revealed more pronounced challenges. Only 12.50% of participants consistently explored three or more distinct perspectives in their responses, while 39.29% considered two perspectives, and a concerning 48.21% demonstrated single-perspective thinking. This predominance of limited perspectival flexibility represents a critical developmental gap, as teaching effectiveness fundamentally requires the capacity to consider diverse student viewpoints, cultural contexts, and alternative pedagogical approaches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOriginality presented the most significant challenge. Half of participants (50.00%) produced ideas characterized as lacking uniqueness or innovation, 41.07% generated moderately unique ideas, and merely 8.93% demonstrated consistently original, innovative thinking. This pattern aligns with research suggesting that while individuals can relatively easily generate multiple conventional ideas (fluency), producing truly novel solutions requires deeper cognitive engagement and tolerance for intellectual risk\u0026mdash;capacities that traditional educational experiences often inadequately cultivate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimensional Performance Patterns (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;112)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension / Performance Level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFluency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGenerating\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;5 ideas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38 (33.93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48 (42.86)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26 (23.21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExploring\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3 perspectives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 (12.50)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44 (39.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54 (48.21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOriginality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnique and innovative ideas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 (8.93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46 (41.07)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56 (50.00)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDimensional Relationships and Hierarchical Patterns\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe systematic descending pattern across creativity dimensions\u0026mdash;fluency\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;flexibility\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;originality\u0026mdash;suggests hierarchical developmental relationships wherein more basic capacities (generating multiple ideas) develop more readily than higher-order competencies (producing innovative, perspectivally diverse solutions). This pattern resonates with cognitive development frameworks positing that creative thinking evolves from quantitative ideational production toward qualitative innovation and complexity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The data imply that interventions targeting flexibility and originality may require more intensive, sustained pedagogical engagement than those addressing basic fluency deficits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the frequency distribution of total creativity scores across the sample of 112 pre-service elementary teachers. The histogram illustrates the spread of creativity scores ranging from 33 to 72 points, with bins of 5-point intervals. Visual representation reveals a roughly normal distribution pattern centered around the mean score of 49.50, though with slight positive skew indicating concentration in the moderate range. Color-coded regions (red for Low, yellow for Moderate, green for High creativity) facilitate immediate visual identification of categorical distributions, demonstrating that the majority of participants cluster within the moderate creativity range while smaller proportions occupy the extremes of low and high creative capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe distribution displayed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e reveals several important patterns. First, the concentration of scores in the 45\u0026ndash;55 range (moderate category) confirms the descriptive statistical finding that most pre-service teachers possess foundational creative capacities. Second, the relatively symmetric distribution with slight positive skew suggests that while a baseline level of creativity exists across the sample, fewer participants demonstrate exceptionally high creative performance. Third, the visual representation makes evident the heterogeneity in creativity profiles, underscoring the necessity for differentiated pedagogical approaches in teacher education that can address diverse developmental needs across the creativity spectrum.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e provides a comparative visualization of mean performance across the three creativity dimensions: fluency, flexibility, and originality. The grouped bar chart format enables direct comparison of dimensional scores on a consistent 0\u0026ndash;30 scale, making visible the systematic descending pattern wherein fluency (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.75) exceeds flexibility (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.29), which in turn exceeds originality (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.46). Error bars representing\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 standard deviation illustrate the variability within each dimension, revealing relatively consistent dispersion across all three measures (SD ranging from 3.68 to 3.82). The horizontal reference line at the midpoint (15) facilitates interpretation of whether dimensional means fall above or below the scale center, indicating that fluency substantially exceeds this midpoint while flexibility approximates it and originality falls notably below, suggesting particular developmental challenges in innovative thinking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e visually confirms the hierarchical developmental pattern discussed in the results section, wherein basic ideational production (fluency) appears more readily developed than perspectival diversity (flexibility) or innovative uniqueness (originality). This pattern has important pedagogical implications: while teacher education programs may adequately support the development of basic creative capacities such as generating multiple ideas, they appear less effective in cultivating higher-order creative competencies requiring cognitive flexibility and innovative synthesis. The relatively large gap between fluency and originality (7.29 points, representing approximately 24% of the scale range) suggests that interventions specifically targeting originality development may require substantially different pedagogical approaches than those addressing basic fluency. Furthermore, the similar standard deviations across dimensions indicate that heterogeneity in creative development exists consistently across all three components, rather than being concentrated in particular aspects of creativity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides comprehensive empirical characterization of creativity profiles among Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers, revealing significant dimensional variations and developmental challenges with implications for future-oriented teacher education. The systematic descending pattern across creativity dimensions\u0026mdash;fluency\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;flexibility\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;originality\u0026mdash;alongside the predominance of moderate creativity capacity, suggests that while pre-service teachers possess foundational creative competencies, they demonstrate substantial deficits in higher-order creative thinking processes essential for innovative pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDimensional Patterns and Developmental Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed hierarchical pattern wherein fluency exceeds flexibility, which in turn exceeds originality, resonates with theoretical frameworks positing developmental progression in creative thinking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Fluency, representing basic ideational productivity, appears more readily developed than flexibility (perspectival diversity) or originality (innovative uniqueness). This pattern may reflect educational experiences emphasizing convergent thinking and single-answer problem-solving over divergent exploration and innovative synthesis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Traditional Indonesian educational contexts, characterized by teacher-centered instruction and standardized assessment, may particularly constrain opportunities for developing flexibility and originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe deficit in originality\u0026mdash;with half of participants demonstrating low innovative thinking\u0026mdash;represents particular concern for teacher education. Original thinking underlies teachers\u0026rsquo; capacity to design novel learning experiences, adapt curricula creatively, and respond innovatively to emergent classroom challenges [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Research by Sbaih [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrates that mathematical creative thinking, closely related to pedagogical creativity, correlates significantly with academic achievement and problem-solving effectiveness. Similarly, Akpur [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] identifies openness to experience and emotional intelligence as critical predictors of creativity, suggesting that teacher education programs must attend to dispositional and socio-emotional dimensions alongside cognitive skill development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFlexibility Deficits and Pedagogical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding that nearly half of participants (48.21%) demonstrate single-perspective thinking represents a critical developmental gap. Teaching effectiveness fundamentally requires perspectival flexibility: understanding diverse student viewpoints, recognizing cultural variations in learning approaches, considering alternative pedagogical strategies, and adapting instruction responsively [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Red\u0026oacute; et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] identify flexibility as one of four core creativity dimensions (alongside fluency, originality, and elaboration) that distinguish high-ability learners, suggesting its centrality to advanced cognitive performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited flexibility may impede teachers\u0026rsquo; capacity to differentiate instruction, recognize diverse student strengths, or adapt pedagogical approaches across varying contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. This concern assumes particular relevance in Indonesian educational settings characterized by increasing student diversity, multilingual classrooms, and calls for culturally responsive pedagogy. Hashim et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrate that creative self-efficacy, ability, and environmental support interact to shape creative performance, indicating that flexibility development requires both individual competency cultivation and supportive institutional contexts that value perspectival diversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eContextual and Cultural Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings must be interpreted within Indonesian cultural and educational contexts. Collectivist cultural frameworks may emphasize harmony, conformity, and respect for authority\u0026mdash;values that can constrain individual creative expression while potentially fostering collaborative innovation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Educational traditions emphasizing memorization, standardized testing, and teacher authority may inadequately develop divergent thinking capacities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. However, these same contexts also possess rich traditions of cultural creativity, contextual problem-solving, and adaptive innovation that could inform culturally grounded approaches to creativity development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlzoubi et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrate that emotional creativity\u0026mdash;the capacity for novel, appropriate emotional expression and understanding\u0026mdash;significantly predicts creative performance. This suggests that Indonesian teacher education programs might productively integrate socio-emotional learning with creativity development, building on cultural strengths in relational understanding while cultivating individual innovative capacity. Such approaches could honor collectivist values while systematically developing creative thinking competencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Future-Oriented Teacher Education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings carry significant implications for redesigning elementary teacher education programs to systematically cultivate creativity. First, curriculum innovations should explicitly target flexibility and originality development through pedagogies emphasizing divergent problem-solving, perspective-taking exercises, and innovation-focused projects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Karunarathne and Calma [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] propose comprehensive frameworks for assessing creative thinking in higher education, highlighting the importance of evaluating creative expression, knowledge creation, and problem-solving\u0026mdash;dimensions that could inform teacher education assessment reform.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, instructional strategies should model creative teaching practices, providing pre-service teachers with experiential understanding of how creativity manifests in pedagogical contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. This includes opportunities to observe, practice, and reflect on creative lesson design, adaptive instructional decision-making, and innovative problem-solving in authentic or simulated classroom settings. Research demonstrates that creative self-efficacy develops through successful creative experiences and supportive feedback [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], suggesting the importance of scaffolded creative challenges with constructive guidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, assessment frameworks in teacher education should systematically evaluate creativity development alongside traditional academic competencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Current assessment practices often inadvertently constrain creativity by rewarding conformity and penalizing divergent thinking. Redesigned assessment approaches might include portfolios documenting creative growth, performance tasks requiring innovative problem-solving, and peer evaluation of creative pedagogical designs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth, institutional environments must support creativity through cultures valuing innovation, tolerating productive failure, and providing resources for creative exploration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Environmental factors\u0026mdash;including physical spaces, time availability, collegial support, and leadership encouragement\u0026mdash;significantly influence creative development. Teacher education programs should cultivate creative climates through maker spaces, collaborative learning environments, and policies rewarding innovative thinking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTemporal Dimensions and Developmental Trajectories\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eKaufman and Beghetto [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] emphasize temporal dimensions in creativity development, distinguishing between past experiences shaping creative capacity, present manifestations of creativity, and future creative potential. This temporal framework suggests that teacher education interventions should address all three dimensions: examining and potentially reframing past educational experiences that may have constrained creativity, cultivating present creative competencies through targeted pedagogies, and developing future-oriented creative dispositions and self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe substantial heterogeneity in creativity profiles observed in this study (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.18 for total creativity) indicates diverse developmental trajectories requiring differentiated approaches. Some participants may need foundational fluency development, others require flexibility enhancement, while still others are prepared for advanced originality challenges. Adaptive, personalized learning pathways responsive to individual creativity profiles may prove more effective than uniform interventions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations warrant acknowledgment. First, the cross-sectional design precludes examination of creativity developmental trajectories across teacher education programs. Longitudinal investigations tracking creativity changes from program entry through graduation and into early teaching careers would illuminate developmental patterns and intervention effectiveness. Second, assessment relied on scenario-based divergent thinking tasks, which, while validated, may not fully capture creativity as manifested in authentic teaching contexts. Performance-based assessments evaluating creative lesson planning, adaptive instruction, or innovative problem-solving in practicum settings could provide complementary evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the study examined creativity in isolation from other competencies. Research suggests that creativity interacts with cognitive abilities, personality traits, motivational factors, and socio-emotional competencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Integrated investigations examining relationships among creativity, self-regulated learning, emotional intelligence, and pedagogical knowledge could provide more comprehensive understanding of teacher competency development. Fourth, the Indonesian context, while offering valuable culturally situated evidence, limits generalizability to other national or cultural contexts. Comparative research across diverse settings could illuminate universal versus culturally specific creativity patterns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should investigate intervention effectiveness through design-based studies developing and testing creativity-focused pedagogies in teacher education contexts. Additionally, qualitative investigations could explore how pre-service teachers conceptualize creativity, their perceived barriers to creative development, and experiences with creativity-supporting or creativity-constraining educational practices. Such research could inform culturally responsive, contextually appropriate innovations in teacher preparation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study reveals that Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers demonstrate heterogeneous creativity profiles with systematic deficits in flexibility and originality\u0026mdash;the higher-order creative thinking dimensions most critical for innovative, responsive pedagogy. While nearly half exhibit moderate creativity capacity suggesting foundational competencies, substantial proportions demonstrate limited perspectival flexibility (48%) and inadequate originality (50%), constraining their preparation for 21st-century teaching demands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings underscore the imperative for transforming elementary teacher education from traditional knowledge transmission models toward future-oriented programs systematically cultivating creativity as a core professional competency. Such transformation requires curriculum innovations emphasizing divergent problem-solving, instructional strategies modeling creative pedagogy, assessment frameworks evaluating creativity development, and institutional cultures supporting innovation and productive risk-taking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dimensional patterns observed\u0026mdash;wherein basic ideational fluency develops more readily than perspectival flexibility or innovative originality\u0026mdash;suggest that effective interventions must directly target higher-order creative capacities through sustained, intensive pedagogical engagement. Addressing these developmental needs holds particular urgency given elementary teachers\u0026rsquo; foundational role in shaping young learners\u0026rsquo; creative dispositions and capacities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy empirically characterizing creativity profiles and identifying specific developmental challenges, this research provides foundational evidence for redesigning teacher preparation programs capable of preparing educators who not merely transmit existing knowledge but innovatively co-construct learning experiences preparing students for uncertain, complex futures. Such future-oriented teacher education represents essential investment in educational quality, equity, and transformation aligned with global imperatives for creativity-centered 21st-century learning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eSD\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eM\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines for educational research at State University of Surabaya. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board (Reference: EDU-2024-087). All participants provided informed consent prior to data collection, and participation was voluntary. Data confidentiality was maintained throughout the research process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This manuscript does not contain data from any individual person.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are openly available in Figshare repository under https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31084009.v1 . The dataset includes raw creativity assessment scores, descriptive statistics, categorical distributions, and dimensional performance patterns from 112 pre-service elementary teachers. All data files contain de-identified participant information consistent with ethical research standards [44].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Writing - Original Draft. S: Supervision, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Project Administration. NM: Validation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Methodology. W: Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing. GG: Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Conceptualization. RE: Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge the pre-service elementary teachers who participated in this study and the institutional support provided by State University of Surabaya.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePartnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st century learning. Washington DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Economic Forum. The future of jobs report 2023. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSternberg RJ, Lubart TI. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 3\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunco MA, Jaeger GJ. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Res J. 2012;24(1):92\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/10400419.2012.650092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10400419.2012.650092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeghetto RA, Kaufman JC. Nurturing creativity in the classroom. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCropley AJ. Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Routledge; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVoogt J, Roblin NP. A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. J Curriculum Stud. 2012;44(3):299\u0026ndash;321. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00220272.2012.668938\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220272.2012.668938\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrilling B, Fadel C. 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCremin T, Glauert E, Craft A, Compton A, Stylianidou F. Creative little scientists: Exploring pedagogical synergies between inquiry-based and creative approaches in Early Years science. Education 3\u0026ndash;13. 2015;43(4):404\u0026ndash;419. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03004279.2015.1020655\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03004279.2015.1020655\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSawyer RK. The creative teaching and learning framework. In: Sawyer RK, editor. Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. pp. 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavies D, Jindal-Snape D, Collier C, Digby R, Hay P, Howe A. Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Think Skills Creativity. 2013;8:80\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCraft A. Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books; 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaufman JC, Beghetto RA. Where is the when of creativity? Specifying the temporal dimension of the four Cs of creativity. Rev Gen Psychol. 2022;27(2):194\u0026ndash;205. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/10892680221142803\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10892680221142803\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuilford JP. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorrance EP. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel; 1974.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiu W, Sternberg RJ. Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. Int J Psychol. 2001;36(4):225\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00207590143000036\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00207590143000036\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLubart TI. Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 339\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNisbett RE. The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. New York: Free; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuilford JP, Creativity. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. J Creative Behav. 1967;1(1):3\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunco MA. Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Res J. 2010;22(4):401\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/10400419.2010.523393\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10400419.2010.523393\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim KH. The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Res J. 2011;23(4):285\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/10400419.2011.627805\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10400419.2011.627805\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDarling-Hammond L. Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2006.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmabile TM. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. J Personality Social Psychol. 1983;45(2):357\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCsikszentmihalyi M, Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins; 1996.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiaget J. The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson K. Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. 3rd ed. Chichester: Capstone; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLie A. Education policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia: Between the commitment to competence and the quest for higher test scores. TEFLIN J. 2007;18(1):1\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMullet DR, Willerson A, Lamb KN, Kettler T. Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Think Skills Creativity. 2016;21:9\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSbaih A. Creative thinking in students of mathematics in universities and its relationship with some variables. Perspect Sci Educ. 2023;62(4):150\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.32744/pse.2023.4.7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32744/pse.2023.4.7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkpur U. Does creativity matter in personality traits and emotional intelligence? Psychology in the Schools. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/pits.23245\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pits.23245\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTomlinson CA. The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. 2nd ed. Alexandria: ASCD; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRed\u0026oacute; N, Guti\u0026eacute;rrez M, Cano J. Dimensions of creativity in secondary school high-ability students. Eur J Invest Health Psychol Educ. 2021;11(3):953\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/ejihpe11030070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ejihpe11030070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGay G. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHashim A, Aris S, Fook C. Assessing gender differences in creative self-efficacy, creative ability and creative environment dimensions among lower secondary school students. Asian J Univ Educ. 2022;18(4):979\u0026ndash;90. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.24191/ajue.v18i4.19993\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24191/ajue.v18i4.19993\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofstede G. Culture\u0026rsquo;s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDardjowidjojo S. English teaching in Indonesia. EA J. 2000;18(1):22\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaryatmoko. Cultural wisdom in Indonesian education. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlzoubi A, Qudah M, Albursan I, Bakhiet S, Alfnan A. The predictive ability of emotional creativity in creative performance among university students. SAGE Open. 2021;11(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/21582440211008876\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440211008876\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStarko AJ. Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarunarathne W, Calma A. Assessing creative thinking skills in higher education: deficits and improvements. Stud High Educ. 2024;49(1):157\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03075079.2023.2225532\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2023.2225532\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJeffrey B, Craft A. Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Stud. 2004;30(1):77\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/0305569032000159750\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0305569032000159750\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlucker JA, Makel MC. Assessment of creativity. In: Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, editors. The Cambridge handbook of creativity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 44\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlambech T, van den Konijnendijk CC. The impact of nature on creativity \u0026ndash; A study among Danish creative professionals. Urban Forestry Urban Green. 2015;14(2):255\u0026ndash;63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSolihin A, Suryanti, Mariana N, Wiryanto, Gunansyah G, Ekawati R. Creativity assessment data of pre-service elementary teachers in Indonesia. Figshare. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.6084/m9.figshare.31084009.v1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6084/m9.figshare.31084009.v1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Creativity, Pre-service teachers, Elementary education, Teacher education, 21st-century skills, Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, Future-oriented education, Indonesia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8637824/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8637824/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreativity represents a fundamental competency for 21st-century educators, particularly elementary teachers who shape foundational learning experiences. However, empirical characterization of creativity profiles among Indonesian pre-service elementary teachers remains limited, impeding the development of future-oriented teacher education programs. This study examines creativity dimensions\u0026mdash;fluency, flexibility, and originality\u0026mdash;among pre-service elementary teachers to inform pedagogical innovations in teacher preparation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted with 112 pre-service elementary teachers enrolled in Indonesian teacher education programs. Creativity was assessed using a validated instrument measuring three dimensions: fluency (idea generation capacity, 0\u0026ndash;30 points), flexibility (perspectival diversity, 0\u0026ndash;30 points), and originality (idea uniqueness, 0\u0026ndash;30 points), yielding total creativity scores (0\u0026ndash;90 points). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, categorical distribution analysis, and dimensional profiling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean creativity scores revealed differential dimensional development: fluency (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.75, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.68), flexibility (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.29, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.82), and originality (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.46, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.76), with overall creativity M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49.50 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.18). Categorical distribution indicated 28.57% demonstrated low creativity capacity, 46.43% moderate, and 25% high capacity. Dimensional analysis revealed significant challenges: 50% exhibited low originality (unique idea generation), 48.21% demonstrated limited flexibility (single-perspective thinking), while only 23.21% showed low fluency. The descending pattern across dimensions (fluency\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;flexibility\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;originality) suggests systematic developmental gaps in higher-order creative thinking processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-service elementary teachers demonstrate heterogeneous creativity profiles with particular deficits in originality and flexibility\u0026mdash;dimensions critical for innovative pedagogy and adaptive teaching. These findings underscore the necessity for future-oriented teacher education programs that systematically cultivate creative thinking through divergent problem-solving, perspective-taking activities, and innovation-focused pedagogies. Implications extend to curriculum design, instructional strategies, and assessment frameworks in elementary teacher preparation programs seeking to prepare educators capable of fostering creativity in 21st-century learners.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Examining Creativity Profiles among Pre-Service Elementary Teachers: Implications for Future-Oriented Teacher Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-18 14:39:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8637824/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"13c6c486-4be2-4278-a923-e91b2b1ad09d","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-25T07:12:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-18 14:39:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8637824","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8637824","identity":"rs-8637824","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}