Journal Archive

This study involved twelve elementary school teachers working in the Seoul metropolitan area. Participants were recruited on a voluntary basis, with attention to ensuring diversity in gender, age, teaching experience, and grade level. Teaching careers ranged from less than five years to more than twenty years, and both male and female teachers were represented. To reflect differences in instructional contexts, teachers from both lower grades (Grades 1–3) and upper grades (Grades 4–6) were included.

Participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure variation in instructional contexts and experiences, and subsequently expanded via snowball referrals to identify additional information-rich cases.

All ethical considerations were carefully observed. Prior to participation, teachers were fully informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights, and each provided written informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed through the use of pseudonyms and coded identifiers. While formal IRB review was not pursued, the study adhered to institutional and national ethical standards for minimal-risk interview research (voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality). Data management procedures included secure storage of de-identified transcripts on an encrypted drive with access restricted to the research team.

A summary of participants’ demographic characteristics is presented in Table 1.

The primary method of data collection in this study was semi-structured in-depth interviews. Based on the guiding research questions, the researcher developed an interview protocol consisting of open-ended items, while follow-up and probing questions were flexibly employed depending on the flow of conversation. This approach enabled an in-depth exploration of teachers’ perceptions of creativity as well as the anti-creativity contexts they encountered in classroom practice.

Each teacher participated in at least two interviews, each lasting approximately 45–60 minutes. A total of 24 interviews were conducted in quiet and accessible locations such as teachers’ offices, cafés, or via online video conferencing platforms. The interviews were conducted between April and June 2024.

The interviews were organized around three guiding research aims:

• • How do teachers perceive “creative students” in the classroom, and which student behaviors are more valued?
• • How do teachers experience the gap between the policy discourse of creativity and the realities of classroom practice?
• • What structural and cultural factors constrain the enactment of creativity in elementary classrooms?

Although the interview protocol provided a general framework, the interviews were conducted flexibly in order to allow participants to share their experiences in a natural flow of conversation. Following the principles of qualitative inquiry, the researcher encouraged open narratives and employed exploratory and follow-up questions to capture richer stories and contextual meanings. The interview guide was piloted with two non-participant teachers to refine question wording and sequencing; minor adjustments were made to enhance clarity and alignment with the research questions.

Probing questions were used to elicit richer and more detailed narratives. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Teachers’ expressions were preserved as closely as possible, though filler words and repeated utterances were removed where they did not affect meaning. In addition to interview transcripts, supplementary materials (e.g., lesson plans, student worksheets, school-level documents on creativity initiatives) were systematically collected and catalogued. These materials were integrated into analysis as triangulation evidence: for example, lesson plans were used to corroborate reports of pre-learning demands; school documents informed interpretations of evaluation cultures. Where interview accounts and documents diverged, targeted probes were incorporated into second-round interviews to clarify discrepancies.

Data were analyzed using Giorgi’s (2009) descriptive phenomenological method. The analytic procedure followed Giorgi’s four core stages, operationalized into clearly auditable steps as follows:

• ① Sense of the Whole (Holistic Reading) – All transcripts were read repeatedly to grasp the overall sense of teachers’ experiences with creativity and anti-creativity, while adopting a phenomenological attitude (epoché) toward preconceived assumptions.
• ② Delineation of Meaning Units – Segments pertaining to creativity, classroom management, parental expectations, and institutional constraints were marked as meaning units. For instance, “Creative students are good, but when they disrupt the flow of the lesson, I have to control them” was delineated as an instance of ambivalence toward creative behaviors.
• ③ Phenomenological Transformation – Meaning units expressed in the participants’ natural attitude were transformed into phenomenologically sensitive statements relevant to educational practice (e.g., “positive valuation of creativity” and “emphasis on order” reframed as “preference for conformity in everyday routines”).
• ④ Structural Synthesis – Transformed meanings were synthesized into an invariant structure describing essential tensions (e.g., “ideal of creativity vs. classroom constraints”).
• ⑤ For reporting clarity, a final step of textual description was prepared, organizing themes and subthemes with illustrative quotations while maintaining participants’ voices.

Bias-mitigation and transparency. To minimize researcher bias, analytic memos and reflexive journals were maintained throughout to document decisions and bracket assumptions; a versioned codebook was iteratively developed. Two peer researchers independently coded an initial subset of transcripts to refine the codebook; discrepancies were resolved through negotiated agreement. The first author then applied the stabilized codebook to the full data set, with periodic peer audits to review category boundaries and negative cases.

Integration of supplementary materials. Documentary sources were entered into a cross-case matrix alongside interview-derived codes to examine convergence/divergence. Documentary confirmation strengthened category warrants; non-confirming instances were retained as negative cases and explicitly discussed during peer debriefings.

To strengthen analytic transparency, the process of meaning unit analysis was conducted in a manner resembling open coding. Each statement was first treated as a discrete meaning unit and provisionally labeled to capture its significance. These units were then iteratively compared across all twelve teachers to identify recurring patterns (commonalities) and contrasting cases (differences). Through this constant comparison process, categories were clustered in a way similar to axial coding, highlighting both the structural tensions that were widely shared and the unique perspectives tied to teaching experience, grade level, or professional background. By explicitly documenting both convergences and divergences, the analysis ensured that the final themes reflected not only generalized structures but also the variations among individual teachers’ experiences.

Several strategies were employed to enhance the rigor and trustworthiness of the study. Peer debriefing involved two researchers (a doctoral candidate in elementary education and an assistant professor specializing in creativity education) who independently coded a subset of transcripts, compared interpretations, and refined the codebook through consensus. Subsequent periodic audits reviewed 25% of coded segments to check category drift and ensure consistency of application.

Member checks were conducted with three participating teachers (senior, junior, and administrative-role teachers) who reviewed preliminary thematic summaries for accuracy and completeness and suggested clarifications that were incorporated into the final themes. When feasible, excerpts they flagged as potentially ambiguous were revisited against the original audio to preserve nuance.

Expert review from two external professors (elementary education; counseling/creativity education) assessed conceptual clarity and warranted claims based on the presented evidence; their feedback informed tightening of category definitions and alignment between themes and research questions.

Triangulation was achieved by cross-checking interview accounts with lesson plans and school documents (methodological triangulation) and by involving multiple analysts (investigator triangulation). Divergent cases were retained and discussed to avoid premature closure (negative case analysis).

Researcher reflexivity was supported through maintenance of a dated audit trail (decision logs, memoing records) and reflexive journals to monitor assumptions and potential biases throughout collection and analysis. These materials form a chain of evidence linking raw data to reported themes.

The first author is a faculty member in counseling/education with prior experience supporting teacher professional development but holds no supervisory or evaluative relationship with the participating elementary teachers. This positioning affords contextual understanding of school practices while maintaining outsider neutrality during analysis. The peer coders (a doctoral candidate in elementary education and an assistant professor in creativity education) provided complementary perspectives that helped surface and check the first author’s assumptions. All researchers explicitly engaged in reflexive memoing and bracketed prior beliefs about “creativity” to reduce interpretive bias.

Teachers consistently affirmed creativity as an important educational value but revealed ambivalence in practice. Many preferred compliant students who contributed to order over those who expressed originality.

“I like creative children, but when their comments disrupt the flow of the lesson, I have no choice but to control them. After all, I have to manage the whole class.” (Teacher F, 5 years, lower grade)

Career stage influenced this perception. Senior teachers (15+ years, upper grades) emphasized classroom stability:

“With so many students to manage, compliance ensures efficiency.” (Teacher D, 15 years, Grade 6)

In contrast, novice teachers expressed both the benefits and challenges of creative behaviors:

“Creative ideas are refreshing, but sometimes I don’t know how to respond without losing control.” (Teacher K, 3 years, Grade 1)

Scope: This theme addresses teachers’ perceptions and classroom-level tensions (valuation of creativity vs. preference for conformity), without detailing structural constraints (see Theme 3).

Teachers recognized that national curricula emphasized autonomy and inquiry but reported that daily instruction often reverted to standardized routines.

“It would be great if children had more time to discuss freely, but since we have to follow the prescribed curriculum, I usually guide them toward similar answers.” (Teacher C, 12 years, Grade 3)

Younger teachers voiced frustration at limited autonomy, while experienced teachers described adaptation strategies:

“I know inquiry is important, but realistically I redirect discussions into structured outcomes.” (Teacher I, 16 years, Grade 6)

Teachers also valued play and inquiry but admitted shifting toward structured lessons when accountability pressures mounted:

“Free inquiry takes too much time, and parents want visible results, so I use more task-based lessons.” (Teacher K, 3 years, Grade 1)

Scope: This theme illustrates how institutional demands are felt in day-to-day instruction (autonomy vs. standardization; inquiry vs. accountability). Specific structural pressures such as parental expectations and administrative workload are detailed in Theme 3.

All teachers identified systemic and cultural pressures that constrained creativity. These included parental expectations, curriculum acceleration, an achievement-oriented culture, administrative workload, and a school environment that stigmatizes failure.

Parental Expectations and Pre-Learning

Upper-grade teachers highlighted curriculum acceleration:

“Because we must finish the textbook quickly, I often skip creative activities.” (Teacher H, 13 years, Grade 3)

Lower-grade teachers emphasized parental skepticism:

“Parents feel uneasy when we do creative activities since they don’t see a link to grades.” (Teacher J, 20 years, Grade 4)

Achievement-Oriented Culture

Teachers described an evaluation culture centered on test scores:

“School evaluations are based on results, so even creative lessons are judged by measurable outcomes.” (Teacher D, 15 years, Grade 6)

Administrative Workload

Administrative responsibilities consumed energy and limited experimentation. Novice teachers felt overwhelmed:

“I want to try new ideas, but paperwork drains me.” (Teacher A, 3 years, Grade 1)

Veteran teachers described standardization as a pragmatic compromise:

“I rely on ready-made programs—it’s survival.” (Teacher E, 18 years, Grade 4)

Failure Stigma and Risk Aversion

Several teachers noted that risk-taking was discouraged:

“When children fail, it should be natural. But parents and schools don’t accept it, so I avoid risky lessons.” (Teacher F, 5 years, Grade 2)

Summary: These constraints formed a persistent backdrop against which teachers negotiated creativity in practice (see Theme 4).

Despite shared constraints, teachers differed markedly in their enactment of creativity education.

Some novice teachers relied on standardized programs to reduce risk:

“Honestly, with so much parental pressure, I just stick to the workbook.” (Teacher A, 3 years, Grade 1)

In contrast, mid-career and senior teachers sometimes sustained small-scale creative practices:

“Even though it’s difficult, I include short inquiry projects so children can think in their own ways.” (Teacher L, 17 years, Grade 5)

Teacher background and professional identity shaped these differences. For example, Teacher L had prior experience in a creativity research project, which supported her persistence. Conversely, Teacher K (3 years, Grade 1) described feeling conflicted—valuing creativity but defaulting to structured tasks due to uncertainty in managing diverse responses.

Scope: This theme focuses on variation in enactment and coping strategies; references to constraints are made only as context (see Theme 3).

Taken together, these four themes reveal both shared structural barriers and teacher-specific variations that jointly shape the enactment of creativity education.