Creative Thinking and Physical Education: A Study on the Creative Thinking Tendencies of Preservice Teachers

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the creative thinking (CT) tendencies of physi-cal education and sports (PES) teacher candidates and to analyze the effects of various demographic variables on these tendencies. The study sample consisted of 365 PES teacher candidates enrolled in the faculties of sports sciences at various state universi-ties in Turkey. The "Marmara Creative Thinking Tendencies Scale" (MCTTS), consisting of six subscales, was used as the data collection tool in the study. The analysis results revealed that the prospective teachers’ overall CT tendencies clustered at a high level (X̄=96.47). In analyses conducted by variable, a marginal difference in favor of first-year students was detected in the curiosity dimension based on class level. The most striking finding of the study was a statistically significant difference in favor of large cities (d > b) in the courage sub-dimension based on place of birth and upbringing (p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant differences were found in total scores or sub-dimensions based on gender or the type of sport actively practiced (individu-al/team). The findings indicate that the cultural capital provided by the place of resi-dence plays a decisive role in the development of creative potential and the courage to take risks. Consequently, curriculum revisions focused on “non-linear pedagogy” and “game-based learning” are necessary in physical education faculties to support the tendencies toward courage and innovation among candidates, particularly those from rural and district backgrounds. These revisions are a strategic necessity to enhance the cognitive agility of future teachers.

Keywords

• cognitive flexibility
• courage
• cultural capital
• sports pedagogy
• creativity disposition

Ethical Statement

The Non-Interventional Research Ethics Committee of XXX University unanimously decided, via its decision dated January 30, 2025, and numbered E-30603717-050.04-2500007878, that the research complies with ethical principles. Within the scope of the study, participants were provided with the necessary information about the study, volun-tary participation was the basis, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. The confidentiality of participants’ personal information was protected, and the data collected was used solely for scientific purposes.

Yaratıcı Düşünme ve Beden Eğitimi: Öğretmen Adaylarının Yaratıcı Düşünme Eğilimleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Bu araştırma, beden eğitimi ve spor (BES) öğretmeni adaylarının yaratıcı düşünme (YD) eğilimlerini belirlemek ve çeşitli demografik değişkenlerin bu eğilimler üzerindeki yansımalarını analiz etmek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın örneklemini, Türkiye'deki farklı devlet üniversitelerinin spor bilimleri fakültelerinde öğrenim gören 365 BES öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak altı alt boyuttan oluşan "Marmara Yaratıcı Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği" (MYDEÖ) kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının genel YD eğilimlerinin yüksek bir düzeyde (X̄=96,47) kümelendiğini ortaya koymuştur. Değişkenler bazında yapılan incelemelerde, merak boyutunda sınıf düzeyine göre birinci sınıflar lehine sınırda bir farklılık saptanmıştır. Araştırmanın en dikkat çekici bulgusu olarak cesaret alt boyutunda doğup büyünülen yerleşim yerine göre büyükşehir lehine (d > b) istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık tespit edilmiştir (p<0,05). Buna karşın, toplam puan ve alt boyutlarda cinsiyet ile aktif olarak uğraşılan spor branşı (bireysel/takım) değişkenlerine göre anlamlı bir farklılaşma saptanmamıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, yaratıcı potansiyelin ve risk alma cesaretinin geliştirilmesinde yerleşim yerinin sağladığı kültürel sermayenin belirleyici bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, spor bilimleri fakültelerinde özellikle taşra ve ilçe kökenli adayların cesaret ve yenilik arayışı eğilimlerini destekleyen, "doğrusal olmayan pedagoji" ve "oyun tabanlı öğrenme" odaklı müfredat revizyonlarının yapılması gerekmektedir. Bu revizyonlar geleceğin öğretmenlerinin bilişsel çevikliğini artırmak adına stratejik bir zorunluluktur.

Keywords

• Bilişsel Esneklik
• Cesaret
• Kültürel Sermaye
• Spor Pedagojisi
• Yaratıcılık Eğilimi.

Ethical Statement

Munzur Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu’nun 30.01.2025 tarih ve E-30603717-050.04-2500007878 sayılı kararı ile araştırmanın etik ilkelere uygun olduğuna oy birliği ile karar verilmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında katılımcılara çalışma hakkında gerekli bilgilendirmeler yapılmış, gönüllü katılım esas alınmış ve katılımcılardan bilgilendirilmiş onam alınmıştır. Katılımcıların kişisel bilgilerinin gizliliği korunmuş ve elde edilen veriler yalnızca bilimsel amaçlarla kullanılmıştır.

References

1. Alipour, Z., Shamsipour Dehkordi, P., & Entezari, M. (2023). The effect of games based on divergent and convergent thinking on motor competence and creativity in children aged 7-8 years. Acta Gymnica, 53, Article e2023.003. https://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2023.003
2. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429501234
3. Aslan, B., & İnce, M. (2025). Teachers’ creative thinking tendencies and their creativity-fostering classroom practices in STEM education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 83(4), 461-479. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/25.83.461
4. Aydeniz, M. (2017). Eğitim sistemimiz ve 21. yüzyıl hayalimiz: 2045 hedeflerine ilerlerken, Türkiye için STEM odaklı ekonomik bir yol haritası [Politika raporu]. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
5. Büning, C. & Lausberg, H. (2023), Divergent Motor Learning Programs Improve Motor and Figural Creativity in University Sports Students. J Creat Behav, 57, 661-673. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.609
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Erkan Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289
7. Calderón, A., Scanlon, D., MacPhail, A., & Moody, B. (2021). An integrated blended learning approach for physical education teacher education programmes: teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(6), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1823961
8. Cengiz, C., Güler, D., Güler, Y., & Tuncel, S. (2023). The effect of design thinking on the creative thinking of physical education and sports teachers. African Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.111.23.009

9. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827506
10. Deng, Q., Zheng, B., & Chen, J. (2020). The relationship between personality traits, resilience, school support, and creative teaching in higher school physical education teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568906
11. Dupri., Nazirun, N., & Candra, O. (2021). Creative thinking learning of physical education: Can be enhanced using discovery learning model?. Journal Sport Area, 6(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.25299/sportarea.2021.vol6(1).5690
12. Fouda, F. A. (2016). The Potential of Collaborative E-Portfolios for Enhancing the Creative Teaching Skills of Pre-Service Business Education Teachers. International Journal of Technology Diffusion (IJTD), 7(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTD.2016010101
13. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference (14th ed.). Routledge.
14. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
15. Jin, Y., & Song, P. (2019, June). Exploration on implementing quality-oriented education in physics teaching in university. In 2nd International Seminar on Education Research and Social Science (ISERSS 2019) (pp. 590-593). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/iserss-19.2019.235
16. Kaplan, D. (2019) Creativity in Education: Teaching for Creativity Development. Psychology, 10, 140-147. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.102012
17. Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
18. Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychological science, 24(5), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457784
19. Kozikoğlu, İ., & Küçük, B. A. (2020). The Investigation of the Relationship between Teachers’ Creative Thinking Tendencies and Individual Innovativeness Characteristics. Journal of Education and Future, 17, 25-37. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.437852
20. Lamanauskas, V. (2023). Ugdymas kaip ateities žmogaus kūrimas: keletas štrichų [Education as creation of a future human: A few lines]. Education Policy, Management and Quality, 15(1), 4-7. https://doi.org/10.48127/spvk-epmq/23.15.04
21. Maslow, A. H. (1959). Cognition of being in the peak experiences. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 94(1), 43-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1959.10532434
22. Memmert, D. (2011). Sports and creativity. In Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 373-378). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-375038-9.00207-7
23. Ørbæk, T., & Engelsrud, G. (2021). Teaching creative dance in school – a case study from physical education in Norway. Research in Dance Education, 22(3), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2020.1798396
24. Özenli T. & Yakıcı, H.B. (2025). Examination of Relations Between Creative Thinking Dispositions, Psychological Flexibility and Self-Compassion Levels of Special Education Teacher Candidates. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Faculty of Education Journal (AKEF), 7(2), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.38151/akef.2025.154
25. Özgenel, M., & Çetin, M. (2017). Marmara yaratıcı düşünme eğilimleri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 46(46), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.335087
26. Özgül, F. (2020). Are critical thinking tendencies of the physical education teacher candidates differ from mathematics and literature? International Journal of Sports and Physical Education (IJSPE), 6(4), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-6380.0604004
27. Özkal, N. (2014). Relationships between teachers creativity fostering behaviors and their self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(18), 724-733. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2014.1816
28. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
29. Rudd, J., Renshaw, I., Savelsbergh, G. J., Chow, J. Y., Roberts, W., Newcombe, D., & Davids, K. (2021). Nonlinear pedagogy and the athletics skills model: The importance of play in supporting physical literacy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003025375
30. Saputro, I. N., Mahfud, T., Sari, A. I., & Sukatiman, S. (2023). Promoting creative professional behavior of future educators: The role of social capital, motivation and self-efficacy. Integration of Education, 27(3), 390-402. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.112.027.202303.390-402
31. Sungur, N. (1997). Yaratıcı düşünce. Evrim Yayınevi.
32. Suyono, S., Tukiran, T., & Yuliaturosida, E. (2025). Exploring project-based learning for enhancing creative thinking in high schools: A bibliometric analysis and literature review. Educational Process: International Journal, 18, e2025480. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.17.480
33. Şahin Zeteroğlu, E., Doğan, Y., ve Taner Derman, M. (2012). Determining the opinions of preschool and primary school teacher candidates on creativity and metaphorical perception. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 3135-3152.
34. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
35. Tendinha, R., Alves, M. D., Freitas, T., Appleton, G., Gonçalves, L., Ihle, A., Gouveia, É. R., & Marques, A. (2021). Impact of Sports Education Model in Physical Education on Students’ Motivation: A Systematic Review. Children, 8(7), 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8070588
36. Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. (1996). Thinking dispositions: A review of current theories, practices, and issues. Project Zero, Harvard University.
37. Tocci, N., Scibinetti, P., Mazzoli, E., Mavilidi, M. F., Masci, I., Schmidt, M., ve Pesce, C. (2022). Giving ideas some legs or legs some ideas? Children’s motor creativity is enhanced by physical activity enrichment: Direct and mediated paths. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 806065. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.806065
38. Ulu-Kalin, Ö., & Kumandaş-Öztürk, H. (2024). Classification of Higher-Order Thinking Skills of the Teachers Based on Institution, Seniority, and Branch with Discriminant Analysis. Behavioral Sciences, 14(8), 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080626
39. Xiong, Y., Xi-yang, S., Xue-qian, L., Wang, P., & Zheng, B. (2020). The influence of self-efficacy and work input on physical education teachers’ creative teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02856
40. Yıldız, L., Zırhlıoğlu, G., Yalçınkaya, M., & Güven, Ş. (2011). Beden eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının yaratıcılık ve problem çözme becerileri. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(özel), 18-36. https://izlik.org/JA48JD26UK
41. Yu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2023). Factors Affecting Teaching Ability of Physical Education Teacher Trainees and Development Strategies. Curriculum and Teaching Methodology, 6(3), 108-114. https://doi.org/10.23977/curtm.2023.060320