Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 2017

VOL. 25, NO. 1, 73–86

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1217253

Teacher-directed versus child-centred: the challenge of

promoting creativity in Chinese preschool classrooms
Rebecca Hun Ping Cheung
Department of Early Childhood Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
It has been argued in the literature that it is harder for Asians than Westerners Creative pedagogy;
to think and act in a creative manner due to cultural influences and the teacher-directed; child-
discourses of creativity are always culture-specific. This study addresses centred; Chinese preschool
this issue by using a qualitative research approach, exploring and analysing classrooms; case study
the characteristic features of creative practice and its pedagogic practices
in a Chinese context. Case studies of three Chinese preschool classrooms
were reported. Interviews and observations were used as data sources.
Findings revealed that the Chinese teachers held similar perspectives about
creativity-fostering pedagogies but the three cases demonstrated different
interpretation of these pedagogies, ranging from being strongly teacher-
directed to strongly child-centred. A balance between teacher-directed
and child-centred was found to be more effective pedagogic practice in
the Chinese classroom. Results suggested that different creative pedagogies
might work for certain contexts and certain children. An awareness of both
cultural and contextual appropriateness is important for creativity reform in
the Chinese context. This offers useful insights when transplanting creative
pedagogies from other contexts, planning professional development
programmes to support a pedagogical shift from traditional pedagogic
practice to creativity-fostering pedagogic practice.

Introduction
There is a general acknowledgement that creativity is an important and integral component of educa-
tion (Craft 2005; Sawyer 2006). As a consequence, governments globally have sought to evolve policies
that recognises the importance of creativity within curriculum reforms (e.g., Curriculum Development
Council 2001; Ministry of Education 2002; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2004). Although crea-
tivity has been actively promoted in many societies, a number of commentators (e.g., Kim 2005; Ng 2001;
Rudowicz 2003) have noted that it is harder for Chinese than Westerners to think and act in a creative
manner due to cultural influences. Westerners live in a liberal individualist society that encourages cre-
ativity. Meanwhile, Chinese culture is more associated with collectivism, conformity, interdependence,
social harmony and social order that can act to suppress creative behaviours. Moreover, educational
policy on creativity within a number of Western contexts emphasises play-based and child-centred
approaches which are already well established and embedded in many Western early childhood cur-
ricula (e.g., the Early Years Foundation Stage in England; the HighScope early childhood curriculum in
the United States, the Reggio Emilia approach in Italy). In contrast, the early childhood curriculum in the
Chinese societies is usually prescribed and knowledge-oriented, with most advocating expository and

CONTACT  Rebecca Hun Ping Cheung  rcheung@eduhk.hk

© 2016 Pedagogy, Culture & Society
74    R. H. P. Cheung

rote-learning teaching styles (Li, Rao, and Tse 2012). Since many views on creativity reform in Chinese
societies are rooted in Western concepts and theories, Lau, Hui, and Ng (2004) stress that the discourses
of creativity should be culture-specific. The importance of empirical explorations of creativity across cul-
tures is stressed in order to differentiate the universal aspects (etic) from culture-specific ones (emic). This
paper goes on to argue that it is by appreciating these socio-cultural challenges, that it then becomes
possible to evolve appropriate and effective pedagogic practices that target and support creativity.
This paper is located within Hong Kong which is an interesting place to study creativity because it is
one of Asia’s major world cities and often perceived as an ‘East West meeting point’ (Mok and Cheung
2011). Having been a British colony, Western influences have impacted upon Hong Kong including
its education. There is, for example, policy and curriculum agreement that children should be active,
independent learners. Meanwhile, Confucian values that emphasise respect for teachers and higher
authorities, the use of teacher-directed approaches and hard work still predominate (Wong 2008).
Such practices run counter to and are unsupportive of creativity. It is against this intricate milieu that
this paper attempts to unravel some of the challenges associated with the development of creativity.
The paper is located within early years’ education because, as has been noted (Gardner 1993), the early
stages of education are seen as both critical and pivotal in terms of the development of creativity.
The current study was part of a Quality Education Project that sought to understand how preschool
teachers deal with creativity-fostering pedagogy in their classrooms. The paper begins by elaborating
further the contextual complexities of Hong Kong before moving to describe the theoretical framework
in which this study is situated. The methodological approach, including the methods that were used
are then described. An analysis of the data is then offered followed by a discussion that centres on the
findings. The paper concludes by highlighting that whilst creativity is possible there nevertheless have
to be degrees of sociocultural appropriateness.

Contextual influences on the development of creativity in Hong Kong early childhood

education
In general, there is agreement that early childhood education is significant in terms of the holistic
development of the child. However, the colonial government of the UK had a laissez-faire approach
to pre-primary services, as the care and education of children was viewed to be the responsibility of
the family (Pearson and Rao 2006). The government of Hong Kong has not supported pre-primary
education to the same extent as it has primary and secondary education, hence scant resources or
attention were directed towards it. The first pre-primary curriculum guide was introduced in 1996, in
which early childhood education was not recognised as basic education and its most important role
was seen as being to prepare children for primary education (Curriculum Development Council 1996).
Although the curriculum guide espoused Western views on early childhood education which stressed
a child-centred curriculum approach and all-round development, given the limited financial support
from the government, the early childhood curriculum was influenced by parents’ Confucian values
which emphasise academic achievement. Hence research (e.g., Chan and Chan 2003; Li and Wong
2008; Rudowicz and Hui 1998) showed that preschool teachers in Hong Kong put an emphasis on
academic success, rote-learning of factual knowledge and drilling of isolated skills and memorisation
and that lessons were teacher-directed with whole-class expository instruction and intensive drilling.
An academic orientated curricula was favoured and demanded (Chan and Chan 2003; Rao and Li 2009)
and children’s learning was perceived as ‘study’ and repeated practice (Wong 2008).
However, since 2000, early childhood education in Hong Kong has entered an exciting and challeng-
ing period. In its education reform, the Hong Kong Government has first acknowledged pre-primary
education as an important stage that lays the foundation for lifelong learning and whole person devel-
opment. The reforms highlight child-centred education and the development of creativity (Curriculum
Development Council 2001). To facilitate the ongoing enactment of the reform initiatives, a revised
pre-primary curriculum guide was published in 2006, which adopted ‘child-centeredness’ as the core
principle of the early childhood curriculum and ‘learning through play’ as the key teaching and learning
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society   75

strategy. The document also set out important curricular elements related to creativity. These elements
include stimulating children’s creativity and imaginative powers, encouraging children to enjoy partic-
ipating in creative work, motivating them to learn, providing them with opportunities for independent
exploration and developing social relationships (Curriculum Development Council 2006).
The objective of developing children’s creativity through the early childhood curriculum has now
been in place for more than ten years, however changes have been slow. Cheng (2011a) pointed out
that a teacher-oriented and knowledge-transmitted mode of pedagogy is still identified from the
government’s inspection report. It reflects that early childhood education in Hong Kong still emphasises
teaching academic knowledge in a formal manner. For instance, Li (2003) reported that preschool
teachers perceived a good lesson as one in which the teacher completed the lesson plan and supervised
each child’s work. When children talked, teachers viewed it as a sign of ineffectiveness. Li and Wong
(2008) revealed that teachers were not able to provide a balance between structured teaching and child-
initiated learning, between whole-class teaching and small group or individual learning, and between
work and play. Cheung (2012) found that the teaching approach used by preschool teachers was mainly
teacher-centred, with most teachers providing explanations and instructions. Teachers tended to be
concerned with factual knowledge and training children to be well-mannered. Teacher control seemed
to be more important than children’s creativity. These findings suggested that the pedagogic practices
used in Hong Kong preschools ran counter to the recommendations in the pre-primary curriculum
framework (Curriculum Development Council 2006) and were unlikely to encourage creativity.
Grieshaber (2006) proposed that the challenge was not just to translate the policy into actual practice,
but that social and cultural factors also need to be taken into account. She suggested that the goal of
education reform in early childhood education could be achieved by getting the right combination of
old and new, tradition and innovation. It can be seen that promoting creativity in education created a
paradigm shift in Hong Kong challenging preschool teachers to move from teacher-directed to more
child-centred teaching approaches. To actualise creativity in education reform, there is a need to help
preschool teachers to become more aware of appropriate and effective ways of fostering creativity in
the Chinese preschool classroom. Before professional support can take place, as a first step there is a
need to grasp and gain insights into Chinese preschool teachers’ actual creativity-fostering practices in
the classroom. In turn, with a thoughtful, comprehensive and systematic inquiry into the socio-cultural
factor, this understanding may guide the development of appropriate and effective creativity-fostering
pedagogic practices in the Chinese preschool context.

Theoretical framework
As an aspect of education, creativity has been described in many ways. For many years it was seen as
the ability to produce work that is both original and valuable (e.g., Barron 1988; Sternberg and Lubart
1999). Recently, creativity is now also seen as the ability to respond creatively to changing situations, to
resolve problems and challenges, and to make a positive contribution (Creativity, Culture and Education
2009). Craft (2001) proposed that everyday problem solving and creative expression are particularly
applicable to the preschool setting because both capacities can be found in all children. She coined the
term ‘little-c creativity’. ‘Little-c creativity’ requires ‘possibility thinking’, that is, considering alternatives,
different possibilities and perspectives. Craft further elaborated that ‘little-c creativity’ can be shaped
and encouraged by fostering divergence as well as convergence in relation to problem-solving poten-
tial. Cropley and Cropley (2008) likewise considered that divergent thinking is critical for developing
creativity in the early years as it can facilitate children to explore a large number of possible ideas or
alternatives. The more children consider other viewpoints, the better are the solutions that can be
generated. Convergent thinking, on the other hand, is used to narrow the number of possible solutions
to a problem by applying logic and knowledge (Barak 2009; Guilford 1950).
Other important creativity-fostering pedagogies are proposed by Amabile (1996). She stressed that
intrinsic motivation plays a crucial role in developing creativity. In order to bolster intrinsic motivation,
pedagogies can challenge children where they are offered degrees of freedom as well as resources,
76    R. H. P. Cheung

teacher encouragement and support (Collins and Amabile 1999). In addition to motivational pedago-
gies, the significant role of play in relation to creativity in the early years is well documented (e.g., Craft
2007; Cremin, Burnard, and Craft 2006). In a playful context, creativity may flourish in an environment
of openness and spaciousness (Bancroft, Fawcett, and Hay 2008), where there is easy access to a wide
range of appropriate materials (Craft et al. 2007) and in instances that encourage imaginative play and
the independent choice of activities (Davies et al. 2013).
Besides the development of thinking strategies and motivational pedagogies, ideas evaluation is
also seen as important in the creative process (Charles and Runco 2000–2001; Cremin, Burnard, and
Craft 2006). By engaging children to review the possible outcomes of their ideas, children may foresee
both positive and negative aspects of actual implementation, thus helping children adjust and rea-
lign their ideas (Zeng, Proctor, and Salvendy 2011). In this present study, creativity was perceived as
a multicomponent process that includes motivation (intrinsic motivation and playfulness), thinking
processes (divergence and convergence) and evaluation (self-evaluation) all of which are important
for the development of children’s creativity.

Purposes of the study

The Curriculum Development Council (2001) in Hong Kong conceptualises creativity as ‘the ability
to generate original ideas and solve problems appropriate to the contexts’ (24). This conception is
grounded in a Western concept of creativity and suggests that creativity has two dimensions: orig-
inal ideas and context-appropriateness. A challenge that teachers in Hong Kong therefore need to
face is how to provide some room for creative activity in their formalised learning and teaching in
order to provide children with opportunities to generate original ideas in ways that are appropriate to
the contexts. The following questions are raised: Does teacher-directed pedagogy necessarily have to
impede the generation of original ideas that are appropriate to the contexts? What if teacher-directed
pedagogy was more appropriately applied in creativity-fostering practice? What are the issues facing
Chinese preschool teachers when moving their familiar teacher-directed practices towards the recom-
mended child-centred approaches? In order to gain insights into these questions, this study first aimed
to explore what kinds of creativity-fostering pedagogies were culturally and contextually appropriate in
Hong Kong preschool classrooms. Second, it aimed to examine the challenges that Chinese preschool
teachers faced in the promotion of creativity in their classrooms.

Methodology
This study aimed to provide a rich description of pedagogies used in Chinese preschool classrooms to
promote children’s creativity. Three research questions were formulated for this study:
RQ1: What constitutes creative practice in Hong Kong preschool classrooms?

RQ2: What kinds of creativity-fostering pedagogies are effective in Hong Kong preschool classrooms?

RQ3: What are the contextual factors that impede preschool teachers from promoting creativity in classrooms?
To address these research questions, a qualitative method was employed with results presented in
the form of case studies. This enabled the researcher to capture individual teacher’s specific creativi-
ty-fostering pedagogies, and further, to explore the effectiveness and the difficulties of implementing
these pedagogies.

Setting and sample

A purposive sampling approach was adopted with an attempt to obtain a diverse range of creative
practices used by the teachers. The criteria for selection included: (a) a teacher plans the curriculum
through an integrated approach; (b) a thematic session is scheduled in the daily routine, and (c) variety
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society   77

Table 1. Profile of participants.

Name Gender Education Years of teaching experience Teaching level
1. Mei Female Bachelor’s degree 1 K3 (ages 5–6)
2. Man Female Associate degree 11 K2 (ages 4–5)
3. Shan Female Associate degree 6 K1 (ages 3–4)

with regard to teacher’s teaching experience and teaching level. Teachers are expected to develop their
individual lesson plans, teaching materials and learning environments, and complete the activities
as scheduled. Based on this criteria, from among the 18 Chinese preschool teachers involved in
the Quality Education Project, three were selected as participants. After obtaining ethical approval by
the Institutional Ethics Committee, the principals of the targeted schools were contacted to explain the
purpose of the study and its methods. After obtaining permission from the principals, the researcher
met the teachers to explain the study in detail and to ask about their willingness to participate, and
then signed the consent forms. The profile of the three teachers is summarised in Table 1.

Data sources and analysis

Interviews and classroom observations were employed for data collection. The first interview took
place prior to classroom observations and focused on eliciting each teacher’s perspectives of creativ-
ity (What is creativity? Please give me some words that first come into your mind when you hear the
word ‘creativity’?), and effective creative pedagogy (What kinds of pedagogic strategies do you think
are best for developing creativity in your classroom?). This aimed to provide the researcher with an
understanding of the individual teacher’s current thoughts regarding the concepts of creativity and
effective creative pedagogy. Classroom observations followed in order to obtain direct information on
teachers’ actual creative pedagogic practices in the preschool classrooms. These were used as a source
of evidence to examine the features and the effectiveness of teachers’ creative pedagogic practices. All
the observation sessions were scheduled with the participants to ensure that developing creativity was
one of the objectives of the thematic activities observed. Non-participant classroom observations were
carried out during thematic activities. An observation protocol was developed to make observation
records along four areas of an activity including: classroom setting (e.g., room layout and set up, access
to materials), activity (e.g., introductory activity, whole class activity, group activity, individual activity,
concluding activity); pedagogic practice (e.g., encouragement and praise, questioning, challenge, use
of materials, instruction, scaffolding, interaction), and children’s creative behaviour (e.g., motivated,
asking questions, taking risk). In addition to the written record, each of the lessons was video-recorded
as supportive evidence of observation. A second interview was conducted after each observation where
teachers were encouraged to reflect on their pedagogic practices. Prompts included: What practices
had worked? What needed to be improved? What problems and difficulties had been encountered?
For data analysis, qualitative content analysis was used to describe phenomena. Firstly, the audio-
tapes of the first interviews were transcribed and transcriptions checked by the teachers before data
analysis proceeded. Then, text that appeared to be related to teachers’ views about creativity and cre-
ative pedagogy was highlighted and codes were generated in order to find the common and different
views of the teachers. To discover what kinds of creative pedagogic practices would be found in a
Chinese preschool classroom, the researcher read through all the observation protocols and the tran-
scriptions of the videotapes. The text that captured pedagogic practices were highlighted and assigned
codes (e.g., ask open-ended/closed question, give choices/give direct instruction). Codes were then
sorted into categories (e.g., questioning, interaction) based on how different codes were related and
linked. These emergent categories were used to organise and group codes into meaningful clusters.
Then, a theme for each category was developed (e.g., teacher-oriented/child-initiated, curriculum/time
aspect). Once a theme was identified, all data associated with it from different sources were pooled and
analysed. In this way, the researcher was able to develop quite comprehensive insights into the creative
78    R. H. P. Cheung

pedagogic practices of Chinese preschool teachers. Finally, the analysis of the second interview was
similar to that used for the first interview with respect to teachers’ personal reflection on the practices
and the difficulties encountered.

Results
In response to the research questions, the results are presented according to four major topics:
(a) preschool teachers’ perspectives regarding creativity and creative pedagogy; (b) creative practice in
Chinese preschool classrooms; (c) the association between a teacher’s pedagogic practice and children’s
learning experiences, and (d) challenges of promoting creativity in the Chinese preschool classrooms.

Preschool teachers’ perspectives regarding creativity and creative pedagogy

Teachers’ perspectives regarding creativity and creative pedagogy were revealed in the interview data.
‘Uniqueness’ was identified by all three teachers as being a significant element of creativity. It was also
noted that creativity included the capacity to ‘think quickly and respond quickly’ (Shan’s interview#1),
to ‘see things from different perspectives’ (Man’s interview#1), and have the capacity to use ‘elaboration’
(Mei’s interview#1).
Teachers’ perspectives concerning effective creative pedagogy are shown in Table 2. All three teachers
consistently perceived children’s interests and abilities to be important when designing creative prac-
tice. Whilst they suggested that creative pedagogies include elements such as questioning techniques,
timely scaffolding, and hands-on experience, one practitioner, Shan, was very concerned that the ‘limited
abilities’ of K1 children (ages 3–4) necessitated that she used demonstration in her pedagogy. On the
other hand, Man and Mei favoured a more child-centred pedagogy.

Creative practice in Chinese preschool classrooms

In regard to the classroom setting, Man and Shan acknowledged that space was crucial in creative
practice (i.e., allowing freedom to move around). While Mei didn’t change the physical environment in
her classroom, Shan set up an open space in her classroom for children to explore and to perform, and
Man moved her lesson to an open area of the school.
All three teachers used a mixture of whole-class and small-group/individual activities in their creative
practice, and employed a storytelling approach to start the lessons, which aimed to provide a mean-
ingful context to introduce the creative task (see Table 3). However, some differences were observed
in the development of follow up activities.
Mei, for example, focused more on checking whether the children understood the story and that
the children were developing an understanding of certain concepts. Question-and-answer strategies
were employed within the pedagogy as well as completion of assigned tasks. Thus, 50% of the lesson
was teacher-directed whilst the creative task which was scheduled at the end of the lesson occupied
30% of the lesson time. The remaining 20% was dedicated towards activity organisation.
Meanwhile, Man made use of the scenario of a story to bring out the creative task. This was followed
by a guided self-exploratory activity. Through trial-and-error pedagogy, children executed their own
ideas with the best idea being selected by themselves as the solution. In all, child-centred activity
occupied 60% of the lesson time. An evaluation then followed in which Man guided each group to
critique their own ideas. This took approximately 20% of the lesson time.
Shan also used a story to bring alive an event for her children. The creative tasks concerning the
event were then introduced. She set up an open area in the classroom and provided rich resources for
the children, who engaged in free exploration. Then each group dressed up and performed a dance.
No evaluation followed, and in all, 80% of the lesson time was child-centred.
The observation data showed that to a large extent, Mei and Shan’s perspectives about creative
pedagogy were not reflected in their teaching. While Mei stated she favoured a more child-centred
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society   79

Table 2. Chinese preschool teachers’ beliefs of effective creative pedagogy.

Mei K3 (ages 5–6) teacher
(interview#1)
Creative practice • The activity developed should be
design based on the lesson theme and
objectives
• Children’s interests and abilities
should be considered so that the
teacher could design a challenging
but achievable creative task for them
• The activity should provide oppor-
tunities for both the teacher and the
children to unleash creativity
Man K2 (ages 4–5) teacher Shan K1 (ages 3–4)
(interview#1) teacher (inter-
view#1)
• The creative task should be aligned • Children’s interests
with children’s life experience, as and abilities should
children may not be interested be the focus, espe-
and involved in a topic they do not cially for K1 classes,
know about as children’s abilities
• Children’s interests and abilities are limited
should be considered
• The teacher needs to be familiar
with the topic

Creative pedagogic • The teacher’s questioning technique
practices perceived is important. It is used to understand
as effective children’s thinking and stimulate
children to expand their thinking
• The teacher needs to observe
children and give appropriate scaf-
folding accordingly
• The teacher should ask more • More demonstra-
open-ended questions and should tions should be pro-
not seek correct answers vided. As the ability
• The teacher should build up chil- of K1 children is
dren’s confidence, then encourage limited, demonstra-
them to explore, to think and to tions may trigger
express themselves by manipulat- their creativity
ing a variety of materials
• The teacher should be flexible and
respect the children by adjusting
her instructions according to
children’s abilities and needs
• There should be less explanation
and more time for hands-on expe-
rience and sharing

Table 3. Observations of creative practices in the three classrooms.

Mei K3 (ages 5–6) teacher
Setting The teacher organised the
activities within a normal
classroom setting. For whole-
class activity, each child sat
on a mat in the whole group
area. For individual activity,
children returned to their
seats
Introductory The teacher used a picture book
activity to tell a story (Le Meilleur
ami de Suzette), then asked
questions about the story
Whole class/group/ • Children were asked to match
individual activity the footprints to the animals
(a duck and a goose), then tell
the differences between the
footprints
• Children were asked to make
use of one footprint to create
a picture
Man K2 (ages 4–5) teacher
The teacher organised the activities in
an open area beside the classroom
to ensure sufficient space was
provided to work out a solution. A
scenario in the story (a big tree with
balloons on the top) was set up to
arouse children’s excitement
The teacher used a picture book to tell
a story (Red Balloon), then asked the
children to help the bear to get back
the red balloon from the tree
• The teacher provided a variety of
materials (umbrellas, bean bags,
blocks, plastic tubes) and asked the
children to work in pairs to explore
which material worked and which
didn’t work
• Each group was asked to select the
best method to get the balloon and
show it to their peers
Shan K1 (ages 3–4) teacher
The teacher moved the
desks and the chairs to the
back to create a space for
performance
The teacher used the ppt to
tell a story (The caterpillar’s
new cloth), then explained
what kinds of insects joined
caterpillar’s party
• Children worked in pairs.
One child created the
dance steps of an insect;
the other decorated the
dance dresses (the teacher
provided a variety of
materials)
• Each group dressed up and
performed their own dance

Concluding activity The teacher asked the children to The teacher asked the chil-
comment on their methods and dren to make special poses
suggest ways for improvement and took photos
80    R. H. P. Cheung

pedagogy, her actual practices were mainly teacher-centred. She tended to be more concerned with
expected learning outcomes. Shan stressed the limited abilities of K1 children, but her practices were
mostly open-ended and didn’t give clear focus to the creative task. In contrast, Man’s pedagogic prac-
tices were aligned with what she thought. She used minimally structured activities to engage children
in free exploration with a number of materials and also helped children focus on the target outcome.
She also provided the children with opportunities for sharing, self-expression and self-evaluation.

The association between teacher’s pedagogic practice and children’s learning

experience
Observation data demonstrated that there were differences in children’s learning experiences when
different creative pedagogic practices were employed (see Table 4).
The observation data documented in the three classrooms show how teachers’ pedagogic practices
foster the varied aspects of children’s learning experience. There were differences in evidence of creative
behaviours among the three classrooms.

Product-focused approach
In Mei’s classroom, there were more signs of passive learning and product-focused creativity. Children
followed instructions to give answers, complete the worksheet and do a drawing. Creative learning
was only exhibited in an open-ended drawing activity. There was less scope for children to choose or
to take initiatives.

Table 4. Children’s learning experiences in the three classrooms.

Teacher Creative pedagogic practices
Mei The teacher recalled the story by ques-
tioning
An integrated matching activity was used
for concept development
Children were given the freedom to
construct a picture using the footprint of
a duck/goose to stimulate imagination
and elaboration
Man The teacher expanded children’s ideas by
allowing hands-on experimentation to
work out a solution with the materials
provided
The teacher created opportunities for
self-assessment by asking each group to
present the best solution
The teacher created opportunities for
evaluation through open discussion
Shan The teacher used open-ended activity and
free exploration to create opportunities
for children to make their own choices
and decisions
The teacher used a performance activity to
value children’s creativity
Children’s learning experience
Passive and receptive learning: The children sat in rows on the floor.
They looked at the teacher, listened quietly and gave answers to the
teacher’s questions
Individual learning: Children completed the task at their own desks
independently in a short time and submitted them to the teacher
Creative thinking: Children were restricted to using coloured pencils
and drew whatever they liked at their own desks independently.
They didn’t talk very much when they drew. Most children con-
structed a single object, such as a flower or a fish. They didn’t add
details to their drawings and rushed to submit their pictures to the
teacher
Possibility thinking: Children worked together to look for solutions by
manipulating the materials. Each group was restricted to choosing
one material each time to try out different ideas, such as connect-
ing the plastic tubes to become a long stick or using the blocks to
extend the length of the umbrella. They showed eagerness to try
out different ideas and took the initiative to ask for the materials
they wanted. Some children challenged the ideas of others during
the activity
Critical thinking: Each group was very concerned with presenting well
and strived to find the best solution through discussion
Reflective thinking: After each group had presented their solution,
each group verbalised its methods and reflected on its effective-
ness. They also received comments from others
Creative thinking: One group of children responded enthusiastically.
They selected the materials they wanted and put them on the dress-
es freely without concrete meaning or purpose. The other group
of children wandered around the room to create their dance. After
a while, many children appeared to become stuck or to run out of
ideas and looked to the teacher for new ideas and suggestions
Appreciation: Each group dressed up and performed its dance in front
of the teacher and their classmates. Children’s efforts and ideas
were praised by the teacher
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society   81

Hands-off approach
Shan was more concerned with the creative process, rather than the product. She provided a richly
resourced learning environment for children to play in and explore but did not take a proactive role in
supporting or extending children’s ideas. By exposing children to the child-led creative task, children
showed eagerness and involvement at the beginning of the activity. However, without clear direction
or challenge, children became bored and even frustrated with experiences that only involved free
exploration, due to their limited ideas and skills.

Teacher-guided approach
Creative learning in Man’s classroom was guided by the teacher through planned hands-on experimen-
tation, problem solving, discussion and collaborative work. Man set up a structured play environment
for problem solving where children were given opportunities to play freely with the materials and create
their own solutions. Children persisted with the creative task and were able to stay focused on a goal.
They displayed a willingness to take risks and to learn from their mistakes. Even though only limited
materials were given, children could generate numerous creative solutions. They often interacted with
their peers and were passionate about expressing their ideas.

Challenges of promoting creativity in the Chinese preschool classrooms

Even though the teachers were positive about promoting creativity in their classrooms, they expressed
the many challenges that they encountered which affected their creative pedagogic practice. They cited
time, space, large class size, content-oriented curriculum and limited knowledge of creative pedagogy
as some of the challenges. Time restrictions and the structured curriculum were the two main challenges
identified by all three teachers.

Time restriction
One prominent constraint identified was time constraints. All three teachers commented that they
were constrained by the amount of time available for creative activity.
Although I know giving children adequate time to explore, think, discuss and share are important in creative activity,
I always keep an eye on the time. I am expected to follow the timetable so I need to make sure we can complete
an activity in 30 minutes as scheduled. (Mei’s interview#2)

As the activity time is limited, it is difficult to take care of individual needs, to give individual scaffolding and to
challenge the children. (Shan’s interview#2)

Even though the children have unlimited imagination and want to share their ideas, I need to stop them due to
the limitation of time. (Man’s interview#2)
Teachers perceived that lack of time was a critical factor because it influenced the quality of ped-
agogic practices which have been deemed to be conducive to creativity, such as timely individual
scaffolding, teacher-student interaction, discussion and expression (Cheng 2011b; Craft, McConnon,
and Matthews 2012). The observation also noted a tension between creativity and productivity in the
highly structured daily schedule. Although the children were engaged during the creative tasks, they
needed to rush to produce a product or solution for the given task in a fixed timeslot.

Structured curriculum
All three teachers highlighted that the prescriptive and overloaded curriculum hindered the develop-
ment of creativity in their classrooms.
82    R. H. P. Cheung

In our school, we did collaborative lesson planning and my teaching needed to follow a prescribed lesson plan.
There was too much content that needed to be covered so that I didn’t have much freedom and time to promote
creativity. (Mei’s interview#2)

I need to accomplish all the pre-planned activities in a day as scheduled. Even though I noticed children’s interest,
I still needed to continue and move along with the prescriptive curriculum. (Man’s interview#2)

The school curriculum was overloaded with too many expected outcomes or propositional knowledge which took
up a great deal of learning time. I could hardly allocate any time for creative activity. (Shan’s interview#2)
The tension between meeting the expected outcomes of the prescribed curriculum and responding
to children’s interests and ideas was another significant factor inhibiting creativity in the preschool
classrooms. The implementation of creative practice was greatly affected by the prescribed teaching
and learning contents and the fixed daily schedule.

Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the characteristic features of creative pedagogic practices and effec-
tive creativity-fostering pedagogies in the Chinese preschool classrooms. Further, contextual factors
were explored to complement the understanding of the complex nature of promoting creativity in the
Chinese preschool classrooms. Three teacher cases were selected and their perspectives about creative
practice and actual pedagogic practices were examined.
A common perspective about creativity held across all three teachers was uniqueness, which is one
of the important components of creativity stated in the Education Reform. Certainly, uniqueness is
important in creativity and this conception is widely recognised. However, a creative product or idea
cannot be merely unique; it must also be appropriate (Curriculum Development Council 2001; Sternberg
and Lubart 1999). If the teachers did not recgnise that the creative product or idea was relevant to, or
useful for, the creative task, it might raise issues about the quality of children’s creative learning (Beghetto
2005). Moreover, it is also important to include everyday problem solving and creative expression (little-c
creativity) in conceptualising creativity in the early years. In regard to teachers’ perspectives about
effective creative pedagogy, teachers displayed limited knowledge of creative pedagogic strategies.
A good understanding of creative pedagogy is deemed as a critical factor in actualising creativity in
the classroom (Cheung 2012; Hui et al. 2015; Lin 2012). It is suggested that teachers need to be made
aware of the varied conceptions of creativity and creative pedagogic strategies in order to widen their
knowledge in both theory and practice.
All three teachers held similar rather than different perspectives on creativity and creative pedagogy.
However, their actual creative pedagogic practices were found to be different rather than similar. Despite
all three teachers making use of a storyline to derive the creative tasks in order to provide a meaningful
context for creative learning, the types of creative tasks differed quite noticeably. Mei adopted a more
product-focused approach. She took control of the whole learning process to ensure the flow of the
lesson as scheduled and the attainment of the predetermined learning objectives, leaving just the last
activity for creativity. Children were expected to dash off a creative product in a singular free drawing
activity. In contrast, Shan employed a hands-off approach. After telling the story, she dedicated a great
amount of lesson time to free exploration, giving the greatest degree of freedom for children to create
on their own. However, few children did well with this ‘anything goes’ type of approach. Most children
quickly ran out of ideas and their activity became routine and repetitive. Man used a teacher-guided
approach, employing a series of teacher-led activities over the creative process. Children were limited
to choosing one material each time to work out a solution. But the children were allowed the freedom
to experiment and to try out different ideas in order to keep their focus on exploring possibilities rather
than playing with the materials. This was followed by performance of the best ideas then evaluation.
Children showed eagerness and engagement throughout the whole process and came up with a lot
of ideas. They persisted in their task and strived for the best solution.
In facilitating creativity in the Chinese preschool classroom, the findings of this study revealed that
two opposite poles, highly structured and too much freedom, are likely to be seen as less effective
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society   83

creative pedagogies in the Chinese preschool classrooms. It is not surprising that too many structured
activity might hinder children’s creativity as many researchers showed evidence that a teacher-directed
and product-oriented teaching approach limited scope to demonstrate creativity (e.g., Craft 2005;
Cropley 2001). Conversely, unstructured and completely child-centred activity might also led to repe-
tition or aimlessness activity in this study as some children quickly ran out of ideas. Although research
in Western countries (e.g., Amabile and Gryskiewicz 1989; Cropley 2001) identified that creativity might
flourish in an atmosphere of freedom, autonomy, sufficient resources, and encouragement, this study
found that merely giving children freedom to explore ideas, such as in Shan’s classroom, might end
up stifled creativity. Li, Rao, and Tse (2012) proposed that Chinese teachers should adapt, rather than
directly transplanting, Western pedagogies. Cultural appropriateness should be seriously considered
when choosing the pedagogies to be adapted. Given the influence on the Chinese culture of collec-
tivism, conformity, and interdependence, Chinese children learn to draw satisfaction from conforming
to the expectations of teachers and show less willingness to depart from conventionally accepted
thinking and behaviour (Ng 2001; Saeki, Fan, and Van Dusen 2001). If a creative task is simply ‘anything
goes’, Chinese children may not easily adapt this new style of learning and coming up with ideas that
are innovative and new. At the same time, the Chinese teachers may not be knowledge enough to use
effective scaffoldings to facilitate children’s creativity during the creative process. It was found that
preschool teachers in Hong Kong are capable of providing a rich and stimulating learning environment
for children to explore and to create, but they are less likely to take proactive roles in offering scaffolding
and support during the creative process.
Man applied a balance between teacher-directed and child-led activities. The children were sup-
ported by the teacher-directed activities to try out their ideas with a variety of thought-provoking
materials before coming up with a child-led creative solution. It was evident that her children became
more confident to express their creative ideas and to be successful in problem-solving. Besides building
up self-confidence, creativity-relevant knowledge and skills are also fundamental to fostering creativity
(Csikszentmihalyi 1996). Children, especially young children, cannot create and develop creativity from
nothing. They need to learn the necessary skills to be creative before they can get started. For instance,
the children in Shan’s classroom might need help to master the skills necessary to perform a dance or
to decorate dresses. According to Sawyer (2004), a good balance between structure and freedom is
crucial in creative practice. On the one hand, children do benefit from free exploration or unstructured
activities with a Piagetian approach (Piaget 1964). On the other hand, with respect to Vygotsky (1978),
a teacher may set up the expectation and goals for learning and give guidance or challenges to chil-
dren. In addition to children’s unfolding natural development and learning, teachers may also need to
consider optimal ways and means of supporting and structuring in order to facilitate the achievement
of a successful creative outcome and attaining the proximal zone of development (Berk and Winsler
1995). Different pedagogies may work for certain contexts and certain children, finding the appropriate
creative pedagogy is challenging for the Chinese preschool teachers and is a matter of judgement, trial
and reflection in order to adjust teachers’ creative practices toward a proper balance between structure
and freedom which is appropriate to the children in their classrooms. This echoes Grieshaber’s (2006)
challenge, i.e., getting the right combination of old and new, traditional and innovative approaches
that take account of the local context.
Although the three teachers valued creative pedagogies, such as timely scaffolding and hands-on
experience, were crucial in creative practice, the adaptation of those pedagogies was uneven across
the three teachers. Mei is the youngest and has the highest qualification among the three teachers.
To ensure the flow of the lesson, she employed the most common pedagogic practice in Hong Kong
early childhood settings, that is, utilising structure and product-oriented activities, which were the
predominant teaching mode (Cheung 2012; Li 2003). Children’s creative learning experience was only
observed in a 10-min free drawing activity. In contrast, Man was the most experienced teacher. In her
classroom, children were given freedom to experiment with ideas in a series of teacher-directed activi-
ties. It was found that this pedagogic practice made the creative task clear and also focused the children
so that they could generate numerous ideas in a short period of time. On the other hand, she set up the
84    R. H. P. Cheung

expectations and goals for the creative task and gave guidance and challenges to facilitate children’s
thinking (divergence and convergence). The third teacher, Shan, taught the youngest children (ages
3–4) in this study. She changed her familiar teacher-directed approach to a completely child-centred
approach and set up a rich environment for children to explore by themselves. The teacher stood back
and served as an observer, supporter and facilitator. The results suggested that although all teachers
in the study held similar perspectives of creative pedagogy, the observation data indicate that there
are differences when putting ideas into practice. The effect varies among creative pedagogic practices
(i.e., mainly teacher-directed, mainly child-centred, and their combination). On the basis of the find-
ings, pedagogic practice was found to be more effective in the Chinese preschool classrooms when
teacher executes a role of facilitator with a guided approach, helping children develop their ideas in
a purposeful way.
Taking the results from the three cases, it was found that what teachers thought and what they actu-
ally did in the classroom were not aligned. This misalignment may result from the influence of contextual
factors which may either support or hinder the three teachers in putting their thoughts into practice.
The pressure of insufficient time and the need to teach a prescriptive and overloaded curriculum were
quoted as major barriers to the promotion of creativity in the classrooms. Concerning the school cur-
riculum, the three teachers mentioned that they were expected to follow a prescriptive curriculum with
predetermined objectives that should be achieved and contents that should be covered, with as little
change as possible. However, there is agreement in the literature that a prescriptive curriculum hinders
creativity (Craft 2005; Office for Standards in Education 2003). When teachers are under pressure to
follow the prescribed curriculum, it is more difficult for them to adapt to educational change and foster
creativity in their classrooms. The pressure that teachers are under to follow the prescribed curriculum
as closely as possible certainly also has an impact on the time that can be made available to creative
practice. Although all three teachers understood that considerable time was required for children to
generate, explore and develop ideas, the fixed timeslot in the daily schedule sometimes forced them
to use a teacher-directed approach in order to complete an activity in a short time. Researchers (e.g.,
Amabile 1996; Craft 2000; Davis 1999) have suggested that creative processes are a function of available
time. Therefore, to foster creativity in Chinese preschool classrooms, the rigid school curriculum and
daily schedule may need to undergo a thorough review so that teachers are allowed to make flexible
use of the school curriculum and time. Again, a balance between structure and freedom is the key.

Conclusion
This qualitative study provides a rich description of the complexities inherent in Chinese preschool
teachers’ creative practice. The findings from the study extend our understanding of the nature and
manifestations of creative practice and the issue of the appropriateness of creative pedagogic practice
in Chinese preschool settings. A good balance between structure and freedom is stressed and it is not
only reciprocal but also involves contextual factors.
There are two main implications arising from this study. First, while the development of creativity is,
and will likely continue to be, a vital policy underpinning the reform process in education, sociocultural
appropriateness should be seriously considered, especially when creative pedagogies mostly originate
from Western studies. Directly transplanting Western creative pedagogy into Eastern contexts may be
problematic due to the East–West cultural differences. Second, a supportive educational environment
is crucial. If policy makers and school leaders are aware of the tensions (e.g., such as time/timetable,
structure/freedom) that teachers encounter during implementing creative lessons, they should provide
support and work together with the teachers to help actualise creativity in the classrooms, instead of
placing the burden on the shoulders of the teachers alone.
As the present study took place within a particular Chinese context, the findings may not be applica-
ble or transferable to other preschool settings with different contextual factors. Future study exploring a
larger population of preschool teachers with varied cultural backgrounds may help to gain more insight
into universal trends (etic) and culture-specific variations (emic) in creative pedagogy. One important
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society   85

tension raised by this study is how to get the balance right between structure and freedom in creative
practice. Future research to extend this line of study may provide more information to explore the
right balance. It is also recommended that research should examine the effectiveness of child learning
stemming from teacher-directed versus child-centred creative pedagogic practices. This would provide
a more holistic view of creative pedagogy.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., and N. Gryskiewicz. 1989. “The Creative Environment Scales: Work Environment Inventory.” Creativity Research
Journal 2 (4): 231–253.
Bancroft, S., M. Fawcett, and P. Hay. 2008. Researching Children Researching the World: 5x5x5=Creativity. Stoke-on-Trent:
Trentham Books.
Barak, M. 2009. “Idea Focusing versus Idea Generating: A Course for Teachers on Inventive Problem Solving.” Innovations
in Education and Teaching International 46 (4): 345–356.
Barron, F. 1988. “Putting Creativity to Work.” In The Nature of Creativity, edited by R. J. Sternberg, 76–98. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A. 2005. “Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity?” The Educational Forum 69: 254–263.
Berk, L., and A. Winsler. 1995. Scaffolding Children’s Learning: Vygotsky and Early Childhood Education. Washington, DC:
National Association for The Education of Young children.
Chan, L., and L. Chan. 2003. “Early Childhood Education in Hong Kong and Its Challenges.” Early Child Development and
Care 173 (1): 7–17.
Charles, R. E., and M. A. Runco. 2000–2001. “Developmental Trends in the Evaluative and Divergent Thinking of Children.”
Creativity Research Journal 13 (3&4): 417–437.
Cheng, P. W. D. 2011a. “Learning through Play in Hong Kong: Policy or Practice?” In Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early
Childhood Education, edited by S. Rogers, 100–111. London: Routledge.
Cheng, V. M. Y. 2011b. “Infusing Creativity into Eastern Classrooms: Evaluations from Student Perspectives.” Thinking Skills
and Creativity 6 (1): 67–87.
Cheung, H. P. R. 2012. “Teaching for Creativity: Examining the Beliefs of Early Childhood Teachers and Their Influences on
Teaching Practices.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 37 (3): 43–51.
Collins, M. A., and T. M. Amabile. 1999. “Motivation and Creativity.” In The Handbook of Creativity, edited by R. J. Stemberg,
297–312. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Craft, A. 2000. Creativity across the Primary Curriculum: Framing and Developing Practice. London: Routledge.
Craft, A. 2001. “Little C Creativity.” In Creativity in Education, edited by A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, and M. Leibling, 45–61. London:
Continuum.
Craft, A. 2005. Creativity in Schools. London: Routledge.
Craft, A. 2007. “Possibility Thinking in the Early Years and Primary Classrooms.” In Creativity: A Handbook for Teachers, edited
by A. G. Tan, 231–249. Singapore: World Scientific.
Craft, A., T. B. Cremin, Pamela Burnard, and K. Chappell. 2007. “Teacher Stance in Creative Learning: A Study of Progression.”
Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2): 136–147.
Craft, A., L. McConnon, and A. Matthews. 2012. “Child-initiated Play and Professional Creativity: Enabling Four-year-olds’
Possibility Thinking.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (1): 48–61.
Creativity, Culture and Education. 2009. Culture and Creative Learning: A Literature Review. England: Arts Council, Creative
Partnerships.
Cremin, T., P. Burnard, and A. Craft. 2006. “Pedagogy and Possibility Thinking in the Early Years.” Thinking Skills and Creativity
1: 108–119.
Cropley, A. J. 2001. Creativity in Education and Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Cropley, A. J., and D. H. Cropley. 2008. “Resolving the Paradoxes of Creativity: An Extended Phase Model.” Cambridge Journal
of Education 38 (3): 355–373.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Curriculum Development Council. 1996. Guide to the Pre-primary Curriculum. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Curriculum Development Council. 2001. Learning to Learn: Life-long Learning and Whole-person Development. Hong Kong:
Curriculum Development Council.
Curriculum Development Council. 2006. Guide to the Pre-primary Curriculum. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
86    R. H. P. Cheung

Davies, D., D. Jindal-Snape, Chris Collier, Rebecca Digby, Penny Hay, and A. Howe. 2013. “Creative Learning Environments
in Education – A Systematic Literature Review.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 8: 80–91.
Davis, G. A. 1999. “Barriers to Creativity and Creative Attitudes.” In Encyclopedia of Creativity. Vol. 1, edited by M. A. Runco
and S. R. Pritzker, 165–174. Boston, MA: Academic Press.
Gardner, H. 1993. Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity. New York: Basic Books.
Grieshaber, S. 2006. “Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow: Globalization and Early Childhood Education in Hong Kong.” Hong Kong
Journal of Early Childhood 5 (2): 14–22.
Guilford, J. P. 1950. “Creativity.” American Psychologist 5: 444–454.
Hui, A. N. N., B. W. Y. Chow, A. Y. T. Chan, B. H. T. Chui, and C. T. Sam. 2015. “Creativity in Hong Kong Classrooms: Transition
from a Seriously Formal Pedagogy to Informally Playful Learning.” Education 3–13 43(4): 393–403.
Kim, K. H. 2005. “Learning from Each Other: Creativity in East Asian and American Education.” Creativity Research Journal
17 (4): 337–347.
Lau, S., A. N. N. Hui, and G. Y. C. Ng. 2004. “Creativity: A Meeting between the East and the West.” In Creativity, edited by S.
Lau, A. N. N. Hui, and G. Y. C. Ng, 1–8. Singapore: World Scientific.
Li, Y. L. 2003. “What Makes a Good Kindergarten Teacher? A Pilot Interview Study in Hong Kong.” Early Child Development
and Care 173 (1): 19–31.
Li, H., N. Rao, and S. K. Tse. 2012. “Adapting Western Pedagogies for Chinese Literacy Instruction: Case Studies of Hong
Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore Preschools.” Early Education and Development 23: 603–621.
Li, H., and N. C. M. Wong. 2008. “Implementing Performance Indicators of Early Learning and Teaching: A Chinese Study.”
International Journal of Early Years Education 16 (2): 115–131.
Lin, Y. S. 2012. “Adopting Creative Pedagogy into Asian Classrooms? Case Studies of Primary School Teachers’ Responses
and Dilemma.” Journal of Education and Learning 1 (2): 205–216.
Ministry of Education. 2002. The White Paper on Creative Education. Taipei: Taiwan Ministry of Education.
Mok, K. H., and Anthony B. L. Cheung. 2011. “Global Aspirations and Strategising for World-class Status: New Form of Politics
in Higher Education Governance in Hong Kong.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33 (3): 231–251.
Ng, A. K. 2001. Why Asians Are Less Creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice-Hall, Person Education Asia.
Office for Standards in Education. 2003. Expect the Unexpected: Developing Creativity in Primary and Secondary Schools.
London: HMSO.
Pearson, E., and N. Rao. 2006. “Early Childhood Education Policy Reform in Hong Kong: Challenges in Effecting Change in
Practices.” Childhood Education 82 (6): 363–368.
Piaget, J. 1964. “Part I: Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget Development and Learning.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 2 (3): 176–186.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. 2004. The National Curriculum. London: Department for Education and Skills & QCA.
Rao, N., and H. Li. 2009. “Quality Matters: Early Childhood Education Policy in Hong Kong.” Early Child Development and
Care 179 (3): 233–245.
Rudowicz, E. 2003. “Creativity and Culture: A Two Way Interaction.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47 (3):
273–290.
Rudowicz, E., and A. Hui. 1998. “Hong Kong Chinese People’s View of Creativity.” Gifted Education International 13: 159–174.
Saeki, N., X. Fan, and L. V. Van Dusen. 2001. “A Comparative Study of Creative Thinking of American and Japanese College
Students.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 35: 24–36.
Sawyer, R. K. 2004. “Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation.” Educational Researcher 33:
12–20.
Sawyer, R. K. 2006. “Educating for Innovation.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (1): 41–48.
Sternberg, R. J., and T. I. Lubart. 1999. “The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms.” In Handbook of Creativity, edited
by R. J. Sternberg, 3–15. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wong, Margaret N. C. 2008. “How Preschool Children Learn in Hong Kong and Canada: A Cross‐cultural Study.” Early Years
28 (2): 115–133.
Zeng, L., R. W. Proctor, and G. Salvendy. 2011. “Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests be Trusted in Measuring and
Predicting Real-world Creativity?” Creativity Research Journal 23: 24–37.
Copyright of Pedagogy, Culture & Society is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.