Creativity

Creativity is defined as the faculty to create or the creating capacity; produce something from scratch, or establishing, founding, introducing something for the first time, doing it or give life to it, according to the Spanish Royal Academy Dictionary (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española, RAE, 2014). These meanings permit to understand this quality as intrinsic to human species, which can be practiced in any of its multiple activities and dimensions of life. Additionally, this attribute has allowed humankind, along history, to evolve cognitively, to develop and progress in the complex sociocultural and technological system that has been built in our time, in a diachronic process, which continues its evolution at an accelerated pace, with unimagined limits, and whose consequences are still unpredictable. All this has been established under the principles of creativity and cooperation as fundamental factors so that humankind could survive, and, afterwards, to go up and position as the dominant species³ on earth ( ^{HARARI, 2015} ). Precisely, as each individual human being is a creative entity ( ^{COLOM; TOURIÑÁN, 2012} ), such capacity has been defined according to a great variety of notions in which reflection, philosophy or psychology and science can be circumscribed, as well as technology, economy – whose speech and lexicon are currently dominating de facto every area, including education, arts and culture.

Amabile (1996, apud FERNÁNDEZ et al ., 2012), indicates that innovation arises from creative ideas, so the engine in people and human teams of all creativity “[…] is the starting point of any innovative process, although […]creativity is necessary but not enough for innovation to be accomplished” (p. 25). Creating, in the opinion of ^{Marina and Marina (2013)} is intentionally producing valuable news, from imagination⁴ , which is the genesis of this process.

Creativity then, as posed by ^{De la Torre (1991)} , has changed from being a more psychological phenomenon, an individual attribute, to being a fact and social asset. It seems that, in every organization, for its validation and success, it is needed as an undeniable and central element, with the contribution everyone can make; such idea has been installed even as if it were a mantra (FERNÁNDEZ et al ., 2012). Undoubtedly, to make this creativity effective, it is indispensable to count with the conditions to propitiate it. ^{Marina and Marina (2013)} indicate that, in practice, there are two fundamental environments for creativity to be stimulated so it eventually flows: home and school.

In education, which is the base of the immersion and social consolidation of human beings, today it is normal to talk about creativity as an element necessary to innovate and, consequently, to succeed in the teaching-learning process. That is why the true creative capacity, to be effective, needs several stakeholders in that synergic objective which implies not only in a technical concept, but also praxis, which can involve a community and its educational center. That is what Casado, Llamas and López (2015) pose, when they mention that such process must be encouraged and worked from early age.

Another essential factor, which influences creativity and the possibility of being put into practice, is that ideal conditions for it are generated. These happen not only for a determined space which has environmental conditions, but rather by the social climate, guided by the affection and trust. Adaptability of the educational process to social changes, which are today marked by the digital irruption in every field – along with automation and robotization and, as the background, globalization – represents the biggest challenge for educational institutions and for teachers in this critical topic in the so called knowledge-based society ( ^{COLOM; TOURIÑÁN, 2012} ).

While many creative processes are implemented in the classroom, not all survive in time, as many times they depend on the effort of a teacher in particular ( ^{ACOSTA, 2018} ). ^{Bauman (2017)} , when analyzing the current status of education in postmodern society, explains that, despite the restless spirit of the majority of teachers, students are seen and deemed as “[…] human resource, raw material in function of the demands of the market” ( ^{GREENE, 2005} , p. 57). People are not always completely educated or protected, due to the barriers and artificial divisions created by human beings, which inevitably ends up in their exclusion with the consequential social inequities ( ^{BAUMAN, 2017} ).

If creativity, then, transformed into educational and pedagogical innovation, reaches structures, systems and upper tiers, it will be an important and concrete contribution to the different realities that comprise the social fabric of a society complete with the complexities we face today, as it occurs in the countries which have outstanding educational systems. In Chile, indeed, creativity is present in the spirit of the General Education Act (Ley General de Educación)⁵ ( ^{CHILE, 2009} ), both in general objectives as well in the specific purposes of each level. Thus, this task already implies, for ^{Marín and De la Torre (1991)} , systematizing the creative stimulation in education starting in three dimensions: the school curriculum, the student and the teacher with different capacities to be developed in the disciplines, through strategies implemented by the latter, in order to respond to the world’s current challenges.

Participants

The group of participants in this investigation are all professionals enrolled in the Master’s Degree Program: first cohort corresponding to 2018, and second cohort, 2019. The total group was comprised of 25 professionals who work as teachers in the educational field.

Regarding both cohorts, the origin of the participants variable corresponds to Ñuble and Biobío regions. With respect to the academic training, 4 of them are high-school teachers, 11 work in primary education, 6 are from special education, 2 are from preschool education, 1 is an Engineering teacher and 1 is a psychologist.

As for their specialization or majors, they are the following: 6 have a major in Language And Communication; 3 have a major in Social Sciences and History; 4 have majors in Mental Deficiency; 2 have a major in English; 2 in Natural Science and Biology; 1 has a major in the First Cycle; 1 has a major in Business Administration; 1 has a major in Physical Education; 1 with a major in Music and 4 have no major. The average years of experience for both cohorts is 7.85 years; therefore, it is a relatively young group with respect to their work experience.

Data collection instrument and analysis procedures

For the data collection, a questionnaire with open questions was used, which was validated by an expert committee. The instrument was comprised by eleven questions related to creativity, pedagogical innovation and educational innovation, and their experiences in the classroom with respect to these topics. For the sociodemographic data, the program files were consulted. Regarding the data obtained, the percent analysis was done related to the obtained answers to the most important questions, coherent with the purposes of the study.

Description and analysis of the data

The collected data are described and analyzed below, considering the order of the concepts reviewed: creativity, pedagogical innovation and educational innovation.

In Graph 1 , with respect to the relative question if there are currently signs of creativity and new ways to do educational activities, the results obtained show that 68% of teachers expressed that they observe a high rate of creativity and new ways to develop activities in their educational contexts. However, 22 % of teachers did not answer this question, which implies that a significant percent of participants is not aware or does not even have an opinion about this trait. In turn, 10 % expresses that they have no evidence about creative work in the education centers. Both percentages allow us to infer that creativity is not a totally visible for teachers in educational centers. The percent that represents 68 % of those who observe and practice creativity match what Casado (2015).

Source: Data from the research.

Graph 1 Presence of Creativity in School Activities 

Regarding the meaning of the term Pedagogical Innovation, 100 % of participating teachers have clarity about the concept, stating it refers to a significant in the teaching work, transcending in time. This relates to the transforming processes in the classroom, focused on the improvement of educational processes developed there, and at the same time with the methodological change in the teaching-learning process, emphasizing the importance this dimension has in the teaching practice. Pedagogical innovation, then, implies the change in the habitual practices by more flexible dynamics, where students are the genuine protagonists and the teachers are basically guides in the learning. It also implies considering the interest of students, their histories and particularities (EDUCACIÓN 2020, 2018).

With respect to the question about the autonomy for the development of innovative work, Graph 2 shows that 76% of teachers affirm to have autonomy to develop methodological innovation in the classroom, because managing teams have been visionary, allowing them to act with a certain degree of flexibility. On the other hand, 8% of teachers answers that they have no autonomy to develop methodological innovation in the classroom. 16 % does not respond nor justifies about this question. Both percentages presuppose the absence of this trait to introduce changes in the pedagogical practices. In this respect, it must be noted that the Ministry of Education proposes to schools a guide which allows, from the managing teams, to help pedagogical innovation through the Design Thinking methodology ( ^{CHILE, 2009} ), in order to identify the possibilities for pedagogical innovation which normally arise not from brilliant ideas under optimal conditions, but through the identification of unsolved problems which require solutions not seen before. In this field, for example, it is outstanding the experience of San Nicolás High School in Ñuble region, Chile, which has raised as a paradigm of good academic results, despite its extremely vulnerable condition and low previous performance results, after educational curricular redesign which allowed pedagogical innovation to make it outstanding and become a reference with an important presence of arts in the classroom (CHILE, 2015).

Source: Data from the research.

Graph 2 Autonomy for Innovative Work 

With respect to the question about what positive aspects are present in the educational institution where they work in terms of methodology, Graph 3 shows in the first place that 76% answers that in their institution there are positive aspects regarding methodological innovation in the classroom work. This percentage implies that teachers perceive that in their institution there are adequate conditions to develop innovation in their diverse school activities as a support to managing administration, freedom to innovate, independent to the school curriculum, support with concrete and technological material (laboratories), among others. Only el 2% of teachers answer that there are no positive aspects regarding methodological innovation. Finally, a not minor percentage (22 %) does not answer the question.

Source: Data from the research.

Graph 3 Positive Attitude towards Innovative Work 

In this topic, it must be noted the study by ^{Díaz-Barriga (2010)} , who points out in a critical way how responsibility of innovation in many cases is endorsed to the teacher, not always considering the conditions of the environment – socioeconomic and cultural – in which he/she works; consequently, having the willingness for methodological innovation appears as a positive element, as long as it also exists the possibility to carry them out, and above all, the willingness of the managing team.

Regarding the question if they perceive a commitment by change in the pedagogical innovation by teachers, graph n° 4 shows that 72 % of teachers showed a high commitment with change to innovate in the school, which is demonstrated with the incorporation of collaborative work, reflecting processes, attendance to training courses, new strategies as games and the implementation of new IT. In this case, the responsibility and predisposition to innovation falls in each teacher, as he/she can promote and propagate the enthusiasm among his/her colleagues. ^{Tejada (1995)} points out certain characteristics that each teacher should have in this respect, starting precisely with the innovative spirit, along with other capacities such as flexibility, teamwork capabilities, technological knowledge, believing in his/her profession and having a sense of responsibility and commitment.

Source: Data from the research.

Graph 4 Commitment with Innovative Change 

26 % expressed that they don’t perceive commitment in certain teachers. When asked about reasons, they claim resistance to change, the effort transformations imply, teachers’ age, successful results with traditional methodologies and reluctance (by unawareness or mistrust) to the use of IT. 4% does not answer the question.

With respect to the question if he/she knows any level of participation of other actors: parents and community in terms of pedagogical innovation, Graph 5 shows that 68% of teachers considers to be aware there are other actors contributing to pedagogical innovation in their educational institution, such as Parent Centers (CGPA), student councils, learning communities, extracurricular workshops and student committees. This percent is consistent with studies such as that by ^{Sánchez (2016)} , which reveals that learning communities can influence in pedagogical innovation with elements such as reflection, deprivatization of the class, a focus on the students’ learning, collaboration and guidelines and values shared which impact if they establish in a good way an improvement in the learning processes, from these experiences. An important percent of teachers participating in this study understand and values this bond between innovation and the incorporation of other actors that can participate of the teaching-learning process, including students and their environment, the school community, as well as openness of the classroom – which had previously been an intimate and hermetic space – which indicates a good prospect respect to the deepening of pedagogical innovation. Notwithstanding this answer, the levels of participation of these instances are varied, as they depend on the characteristics and policies of the educational center and their holders, which in many cases respond to religious guidelines of different orientations or to corporate, business, ideological spheres, which expand this dimension.

Source: Data from the research.

Graph 5 Participation of Community in Pedagogical Innovations 

On their part, 8% of teachers claimed that they didn’t know the different external stakeholders who support the innovation activities in the school process and 24% – quite considerable – did not answer the question, which can be understood as this factor simply not being visible or deemed insignificant.

Relating to the identification of two school situations which are associated to educational innovation, there is a great variety of answers in which the methodological and didactic aspects predominate over who actually understand educational innovation correctly, which is established at institutional, educational community or system level. Indeed, educational innovation must be worked to be incorporated to the degree programs of the institution. However, in most cases, as it appears in the answers of the surveyed, they are isolated activities, which are not part of a planning in order to fulfill formative objectives (ZABALZA, 2003-2004). UNESCO states that

[…] structures and micropolitical processes are critical for change and innovation, as well as stability and preservation of school centers. Educational research shows that both the converging and divergent processes, as well as the structures shape the political ‘state’ of a school organization”. (2016, p. 24.).

With respect to the question “what difference do you see between a simple methodological improvement and an educational improvement?”, graph n° 6 shows that – in opinion of the participants – innovations contribute to the quality improvement, whereas simple methodological improvement is just a temporary modification. 52% argues that innovation includes new activities with new strategies characterized by being profound and sustainable in time, which implies that teachers are aware that one of the characteristics of innovation is its permanence, as it should be the result of a way to work adopted by the educational institution. Del Moral, Villalustre and Neira (2014) point this out in a study that evaluates the incorporation of IT as educational innovation, emphasizing that this is not about solely incorporating technologies in the classroom, but in its didactic use to improve learning y, hence, its insertion in the school curriculum. Similarly, the results shown demonstrate that teachers are concerned about including in their school job educational situations that are both motivating and attractive for students. 20% claims that reflection is a distinctive trait in innovation, which is also indicated by ^{Ortega (2014)} , who states that in an era of permanent changes, specialists in education are required, having the capacity to reflect on innovation, and innovating. Other 18% adds that innovating reinforces significant learnings. Finally, 8% of teachers argue that innovations are only transformations, without valuing them.

Source: Data from the research.

Graph 6 Innovations and Educational Improvement 

With respect to the participation as a professional teacher in educational innovation instances, graph nº 7 shows that the sum of the first eight categories (96%) indicates that the participation is heterogeneous in activities of this nature. These activities are: supporting activities with individual resources, talent shows for children with special needs (NEE in its Spanish acronym), reading-improving programs, theater in the classroom, story-telling, project methodologies, activities with the use of IT, participation in the organization of educational activities with the community, activities to foster collaborative and participative work, as well as school work supporting programs. This is important, as in this percent aspect many initiatives stand out, such as co-teaching, the support from guide teachers and the exchange of teachers in different grades, the creation of models of small and medium-size businesses (PYMEs), a small science laboratory, different ways for entrepreneurship and the application of new school evaluation systems. While all these examples given by each surveyed teacher are remarkable, once again, it is necessary to emphasize that they must be incorporated as an permanent working strategy, since they are frequently left unfinished, without a reflection and/or following stage, whether it is of the strategy implemented, or the capacity of the institution to incorporate such changes, ending up with innovation interrupted and demotivated teachers ( ^{LÓPEZ et al., 2019} ). 4%, of teachers did not answer this question. On this point, Marcelo, Mayor and Gallego (2010), in their study of educational innovations in Spain, point out that the origin of changes in this topic is encouraged in a 42.6% by teachers, a 42.9% by needs shared by group and only in a 26.6% by the managing team, confirming their previously stated claim about how hardly innovative schools are.

Source: Data from the research

Graph 7 Professional Participation in Educational Innovation 

With respect to the question that mentions the differences existing between an improvement in pedagogical innovation and an advancement in educational innovation, the results show a wide range of answers, indicating a certain difficulty to distinguish both concepts. There is no clarity in the similitudes and differences between both definitions. Some say that the distinction between both is temporary, others mention a difference related to methodological aspects. Only a minimum percentage can correctly distinguish both phenomena. Perhaps this confusion is explained, as it was previously mentioned, because studies take for granted that the concepts must be clearly differentiated per se, as terminology uses them indistinctly. It is emphasized, on the other hand, the research made by ^{Mykhailyshyn and Kondur (2018)} , who begin their study by making this concept distinction:

Es necesario distinguir entre los conceptos “innovaciones educativas” e “innovaciones en educación”. La innovación en educación es un concepto más amplio que la innovación educativa. Incluyen innovaciones educativas, científicas y tecnológicas, infraestructurales, económicas, sociales, legales, administrativas y otras. Las innovaciones educativas se entienden como un procedimiento o método de actividad educativa que difiere significativamente de la práctica establecida y se utiliza para aumentar el nivel de eficiencia en un entorno competitivo. Las innovaciones educativas incluyen la innovación pedagógica, la innovación científica y metodológica, la innovación educativa y tecnológica⁷ . (p. 9).

Referring to what the authors suggest, it is emphasized the need to establish a clear distinction between both concepts, as it becomes evident that, according to this study, teachers and educational centers ignore it.