Teaching Creative Writing Skills to Primary School Children in Hong Kong: Discordance Between the Views and Practices of Language Teachers

77 Volume 37 Number 2 Second Quarter 2003

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

W A I M I N G C H E U N GS H E K K A M T S E

H E C T O R W H T S A N G

Teaching Creative Writing Skills toPrimary School Children in Hong Kong:Discordance Between the Views andPractices of Language Teachers

Although creativity has been valued in ancient and contempo-rary Chinese literature, the degree to which creativity is valuedand incorporated into teaching by Chinese language teachersis not known. This information is important given that creativ-ity has been increasingly recognized in the education litera-ture as a component of effective writing. The purpose of thisstudy was to compare the views of Chinese language teachersin Hong Kong about creativity and the acquisition of creativewriting skills by primary school children, and their teachingpractices. A total of 449 Chinese language teachers, employedat primary schools throughout Hong Kong completed a sur-vey questionnaire. The 14-item questionnaire focused on teach-ers’ views of creativity, their perceptions of how to developstudents’ creativity, their awareness of creative writing strate-gies, and teaching practices related to creative writing. Withrespect to the definition of creativity, teachers identified imagi-nation foremost, followed by inspiration, and original ideas.Teachers identified developing students’ confidence, and pro-viding an open atmosphere as essential means of fosteringcreativity. Despite the apparent value of creativity expressedby the teachers and their familiarity with methods for enhanc-ing creativity, the majority reported using traditional methodsof teaching writing. Strategies are recommended for reconcil-ing this discrepancy, and promoting creative writing skills byprimary school teachers in Hong Kong and other Chinesespeaking societies.

Creativity has long been valued in Chinese literature. Datingback to the Jin Dynasty (265 - 420 A.D.), Lu Ji likened

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM77

78

Cheung — Teaching Creative Writing Skills

inspiration to a light, and that lack of such light adverselyaffected writing (Tse & Lam, 1992). Other well-known Chinesewriters such as Lu Xun (1921) and Lao Tse (Tse & Lam, 1992)have likened inspiration to pictures in the mind. More recently,Wang (1999) described inspiration as fleeting thoughtsoccurring when one is at the peak of artistic creation, and thatsuch inspiration gives rise to creativity. Inspiration, he believed,is a crystallization of prolonged hard work and a distillation ofcreativity.

Distinctions between Eastern and Western perspectives ofcreativity have been described (Sternberg, 1985; Yang &Sternberg, 1997; Tse & Lam, 1992; Wonder & Blake, 1992).Lubart (1999) described inner truth and self growth as theessence of creativity in Eastern cultures, which is distinctfrom the originality and product orientation of Western cultures.The source of inspiration according to respected Chinese writ-ers such as Liu Xie (465-522 A.D.) and Zhong Rong (502-519A.D.), includes nature and interpersonal, social and politicalinfluences.

Only since the 1970s has fostering creativity in school stu-dents received attention in the literature. In 1967, Parnes (1967)reported that only 5% of the time in American classrooms wasused to foster creative learning experiences. With respect tolanguage development, proponents of creativity in educationhave focused on strategies to promote creative writing. Writ-ing is currently viewed as a cognitive process (Benton et al.,1984; Bereiter, 1980; Emig, 1971; Pianko, 1979) rather thansimply an exercise of correct spelling, syntax, and grammar(Odell, 1980). This paradigm shift has given rise to process-oriented writing (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Bereiter & Scardamalia,1987) that incorporates creative writing skill. Consistent withthis development, Tse and Shum (2000) described creativityas one of six levels of language skill development. Thus, therole of language teachers can be viewed as procedural facilita-tors who apply creative writing strategies to enable students toretrieve, combine, and synthesize experiences, information andimages in novel ways.

Creativity has been increasingly valued as a means of suc-ceeding in life (Cole, Sugioka & Yamagata-Lynch, 1999). Withan increased interest in creativity, various investigators havedefined creativity and means of fostering its development ineducational settings. Vernon (1989) defined creativity as anindividual’s capacity to produce new or original ideas andinsights, restructuring ideas, and developing inventions or

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM78

Journal of Creative Behavior

79

artistic talent that are viewed by experts as being scientific,aesthetic, or of social or technological value. Creativity hasalso been defined as the production of novel thoughts, solutions,or products based on previous experience and knowledge(Carter, 1992). Clark (1992) provided the most comprehen-sive definition of creativity based on a circular model consistingof intuition, thought, senses and feeling.

Lin (1998) described an integral link between creativity andwriting based on the presumption that writing is a manifesta-tion of creativity. The process of writing can therefore be viewedas a primary means of fostering creativity in students, andaxiomatically, stimulating creativity and the generation of ideasis an effective means of teaching writing skills. The unique re-lationship between creativity and writing has been describedin the model of writing described by Hayes and Flower (1980).They viewed this relationship at multiple levels including thewriting environment and the writer’s memory. The process ofwriting consists of planning, translating, and reviewing. Ideageneration, organization, and goal setting are seen as sub-processes of preparing to write. The translation process pro-duces language corresponding to the ideas that are generatedand the goals that are set in the preparatory stage. The func-tion of idea generation is to retrieve from memory items thatare relevant to the writing task. Within this framework, creativ-ity also reflects those factors that enable the individual to gen-erate ideas. The resulting degree of creativity reflects the qualityof those factors that enable the generation of ideas. Investiga-tors concur that such a cognitive framework for fostering cre-ative writing skill in school children is superior to traditionalmethods (Long & Hiebert, 1985; Jampole et al., 1991; Jampoleet al., 1994; Lee, 1992; Tse & Wong, 1995).

Factors that foster creative expression in students have beenof considerable interest to investigators in the field (Amabile,1983; Sternberg & Lubart, 1992; Ward, Smith & Finke, 1995;Ward, Smith & Finke, 1999). The teacher-student relationshiphas been a primary focus of attention (Fryer, 1996; Morganett,1991; Torrance & Goff, 1989). In their model of creative writ-ing, Tse (1993) and Tse and Lam (1992) described the role ofteacher as a principal environmental factor that set the tonein the classroom with respect to fostering creativity throughactive learning and encouragement. Teachers can also inad-vertently stifle creativity in their students because of inadequateskills to promote, support and importantly evaluate creativity(Torrance & Safter, 1986), and reluctance to use creative

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM79

problem solving strategies in the classroom (Torrance & Goff,1989). Despite the purported role of the teacher in fosteringcreativity in students, there has been a dearth of research stud-ies regarding teachers’ views and perceptions of creativity andits promotion in children (Fryer & Collings, 1991; Soh, 2000).One exception is a study by Fryer and Collings (1991) con-ducted in Britain. These investigators surveyed teachers regard-ing their views of creativity, i.e., definition, enabling andhindering factors, identification of creativity, teaching meth-ods, educational objectives, and preferred teaching styles. Inaddition, semi-structured interviews were conducted in a sub-sample of teachers. A wide range of definitions and percep-tions of creativity emerged. Imagination was rated most highlyby respondents as an integral feature of creativity (88.7%), fol-lowing by original ideas (80.1%), self-expression (73.7%), dis-covery (65.4%), and seeing connections (61.4%). Themajority of respondents (90%) believed that creativity couldbe fostered, and that the most effective means of achievingthis included building confidence (99% of respondents), fol-lowed by having a creative teacher (94%), exercising the rightto choose at home (93%), and involvement of students inselecting preferred learning methods (75%).

Several specific attributes of teachers that promote creativethought in their students have been described in the literature.Foremost, teachers must value creativity and understand itselements (Torrance, 1984; Weisberg, 1993). Parnes (1985)advocated that teachers need the capacity to positively andrespectfully accept every student’s potential for creativity, drawout ideas, and be tactful. Second, teachers must be enthusias-tic, dedicated, optimistic, flexible, spontaneous, and willing toput the students’ contribution ahead of their own. Third, teach-ers need to be “broad categorizers” and receptive to new ideaseven if they do not necessarily agree with their own. They needto model comfort with ambiguity, and some degree of risk tak-ing behaviours. Teachers need to tolerate differences of opin-ion, encourage students to trust their own judgement even if itis at odds with the majority, acknowledge all students have thecapacity to be creative, and they themselves need to serve asa stimulus for creative thinking though modeling and brain-storming (Cole, Sugioka, & Yamagata-Lynch, 1999).

With research trends in learning and teaching to meetcontemporary and future needs of society, there has been agrowing commitment to directly address the issues relatedto the promotion of creativity by the international education


80

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM80


81

community. Different countries are likely to be at differentstages of integration of fostering creativity particularly throughwriting skills. Consistent with this trust and based on a recentreview of school curriculum in Hong Kong (Curriculum Devel-opment Council, 2000), the fostering of creativity within thecurriculum has been identified as a primary goal in providingrequisite skills for students to be independent, creative life longlearners by the Hong Kong government of the Special Admin-istration Region. Hence, developing imagination and creativ-ity is a principal area within the Chinese language curriculumin Hong Kong and has constituted a relatively new area of re-search within Hong Kong education circles (Cheung, Tse &Tsang, in press).

The purpose of the present study was to examine the viewsand the practices of Chinese language teachers employed inprimary schools in Hong Kong, with respect to creativity andthe use of creative writing strategies in teaching Chinese writ-ing. The specific objectives included:

1. to describe the views of teachers regarding creativity,2. to describe teachers’ perceptions of how to develop

students’ creativity,3. to determine teachers’ awareness of creative writing strat-

egies,4. to describe current practices for teaching creative writ-

ing, and5. to make recommendations regarding creative writing

strategies that meet the needs of both the teachers andthe students.

With greater understanding of the views and practices ofprimary school teachers in Hong Kong regarding creativity andthe teaching of creative writing, appropriate strategies andtraining programs can be developed and recommended forteachers.

The research design of the present study resembled the sur-vey questionnaire study of British school teachers, conductedby Fryer and Collings (1991), and was adapted to the needs ofHong Kong.

Chinese language teachers employed in primary schools inHong Kong participated. Teachers were recruited from partici-pants at daylong workshops scheduled between June andAugust 1999. Most (41.2%) of the respondents were between

METHODResearch Design

Participants

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM81

TABL

E 1.

Con

tent

and

Aim

s of

Item

s in

the

Que

stio

nnai

re.

Item

Con

tent

Aim

s

1E

lem

ents

of c

reat

ivity

Und

erst

and

teac

hers

’ def

initi

on o

f cre

ativ

ity2

Des

crip

tions

of c

reat

ivity

Und

erst

and

teac

hers

’ per

cept

ion

of c

reat

ivity

3W

ays

to fo

ster

dev

elop

men

t of c

reat

ivity

Und

erst

and

how

teac

hers

per

ceiv

e w

ays

to fo

ster

deve

lopm

ent o

f cre

ativ

ity4

Cho

ice

of to

pics

in te

achi

ng o

f writ

ing

Kno

w w

heth

er th

ere

are

crea

tive

elem

ents

in th

eir

choi

ce o

fto

pics

for

writ

ing

5G

uida

nce

give

n by

teac

hers

inK

now

whe

ther

ther

e ar

e cr

eativ

e el

emen

ts in

gui

danc

ete

achi

ng w

ritin

ggi

ven

by te

ache

rs6

Plac

es fo

r w

ritin

gK

now

whe

ther

ther

e ar

e cr

eativ

e el

emen

ts in

the

writ

ing

envi

ronm

ent.

7W

ord

requ

irem

ent

Kno

w w

heth

er th

ere

are

crea

tive

elem

ents

if th

ere

is w

ord

requ

irem

ent

8T

ime

requ

irem

ent

Kno

w w

heth

er th

ere

are

crea

tive

elem

ents

if th

ere

is ti

me

requ

irem

ent

9W

ays

of a

sses

smen

tK

now

whe

ther

ther

e ar

e cr

eativ

e el

emen

ts in

way

s of

asse

ssm

ent

10 -

11Te

ache

rs’ f

eedb

ack

to u

niqu

e id

eas

Kno

w w

heth

er th

ere

are

crea

tive

elem

ents

in w

ays

ofha

ndlin

g un

ique

idea

s12

Idea

s th

at te

ache

rs a

ppre

ciat

e in

writ

ing

Kno

w w

heth

er te

ache

rs a

sses

s cr

eativ

ity in

pup

ils’ w

ork

13Te

ache

rs’ v

iew

and

app

licat

ion

of v

ario

usU

nder

stan

d th

e aw

aren

ess,

app

licat

ion

and

need

s fo

rcr

eativ

e w

ritin

g st

rate

gies

trai

ning

of c

reat

ive

writ

ing

stra

tegi

es14

Ass

essi

bilit

y of

cre

ativ

ityU

nder

stan

d ho

w te

ache

rs v

iew

the

asse

ssib

ility

of c

reat

ivity

Con

tent

of q

uest

ions

bas

ed o

n th

e fo

llow

ing

sour

ces:

Ale

ncar

(19

93);

Che

n (1

995)

; Che

ung

(199

3); F

ryer

& C

ollin

gs(1

991)

; Lin

(19

98);

Tse

(19

93)


82

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM82


83

26 and 40 years of age. Some 37.8% were between 41 and 60years old, and the remaining 20.9% were less than 26 yearsold. Number of years of teaching experience varied amongrespondents. One-third (33.3%) had 16 or more years of teach-ing experience, 32.1% had five years or less, 20.3% hadbetween 6 to 10 years. The remaining 14.4% had between 11to 15 years of teaching experience.

Of the 480 questionnaires distributed, 449 (93.5%) werecompleted appropriately; 363 (80.8%) by female teachers, and86 (19.2%) by male teachers. The majority of respondents wereaged between 26 and 40 yrs. (41.2%). Of the remainder, 37.8%were between 41 and 60 yrs, and 20.9% were under 26 yrs.One-third of respondents had more than 15 years of teachingexperience, 32.1% had less than six years of experience, and20.3% had between 6 and 10 years. The remaining 14.4%has 11 to 15 years of experience. The majority (83.2%) had adiploma in education, 7.2% has a post-graduate certificate;5.8% held degrees in education, and the remaining 3.8% hasother teaching equivalent qualifications.

A questionnaire consisting of 14 items was designed for thestudy. The items focused on the teachers’ views of the compo-nents of creativity and means of fostering creativity, their cur-rent classroom practices and awareness of creative writingstrategies. Table 1 itemizes the content of specific questions,their rationale, and sources of the items selected.

The questionnaire was tested in a pilot study of 30 Chineselanguage teachers in three secondary schools in Hong Kong.All respondents understood all questions, thus no revision wasrequired with respect to the design or wording of the items.

The SPSS version 9 was used to analyze the data. The rawdata were summarized using frequency histograms. Cross-tabstatistics were used to analyze the demographic data. Chisquare tests were used to detect group differences in terms ofdemographic variables in categorical form. The p value wasset at 0.05.

The results are summarized in Table 2. Specifically, for eachresponse on the questionnaire the number of respondents andthe percentage this constituted of the entire sample, are shownin Table 2a for items 1 to 12 and 14, and in Table 2b foritem 13.

The majority of the respondents identified imagination (n =399; 88.9%), inspiration (n = 323; 71.9%), and original ideas(64.1%) as essential components of creativity. Others (46.1%)

Questionnaire

Statistical Analysis

RESULTS

Views of TeachersRegarding Creativity

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM83

Summary of Responses to Questionnaire (n and % Respondents).

Item Basis of Question Number of RespondentsNo. and Response n (%)

1. Elements of creativityImagination 399(88.9%)Inspiration 323(71.9%)Original ideas 288(64.1%)Self-expression 207(46.1%)Combining ideas 201(44.8%)Problem-solving ability 201(44.8%)Divergent thinking 192(42.8%)Discovery 180(40.1%)Invention 176(39.2%)Seeing connections 163(36.3%)Transformation 138(30.7%)Innovation 136(30.3%)Awareness of beauty 91(20.3%)Valuable ideas 90(20.0%)Convergent thinking 86(19.2%)Aesthetic products 62(13.8%)Tangible products 49(10.9%)Mysterious processes 43(9.6%)Others? 4(0.9%)

2. Descriptions of creativityis limitless 421(93.8%)can be developed 342(76.2%)Is the integration/synthesisof Human intelligence 261(58.1%)is defined by its creator 142(31.6%)is the same across cultures 71(15.8%)is the same in adults and children 61(13.6%)is like intelligence 56(12.5%)is a rare gift 52(11.6%)is defined by society 43(9.6%)Others? 4(0.9%)

3. Ways to foster development of creativityBuilding their confidence 397(88.4%)Providing a free atmosphere 373(83.1%)Allowing students to choose theirlearning approaches 364(81.1%)

TABLE 2a.


84

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM84


85

Not passing judgment but allowingroom for independent thinking 310(69.0%)The teacher being creative 242(53.9%)Others? 6 (1.3%)

4. Choice of topics1 only 336(76.2%)3 only 26(5.9%)4 only 19(4.3%)2 only 11(2.5%)Combination of two 37(8.4%)Combination of three or four 12(2.7%)

5 Guidance given to the studentsNo guidance is given and studentsare free rein to their imagination 375(85.0%)Students are provided with writingstrategies, but they will have to draftand compose on their own 53(12.0%)Students are given assistancethat is as actual as possible 49(11.1%)Student are guided on how toset the outline 27(6.1%)

6. Places for writinghome 35 (49.0)school: playground, library, special room 19 (26.8)places related to school activitieseg. destinations for picnic or visit 5 (7.0)places related to topic 5 (7.0)countryside 4 (5.6)any places 3 (4.2)park 1 (1.4)Chinese restaurant 1 (1.4)church 1 (1.4)school neighbourhood 1 (1.4)

7. Word limit imposedDefinitely 53 (12.0)Usually 336 (76.4)Usually not 40 (9.1)Never 11 (2.5)

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM85

8. Time requirementHand in at once after the bell has rung 92 (20.9%)Hand in as early as possible afterthe lesson 283 (64.3%)Allow them to finish at home 41 (9.3%)

9. Ways of assessmentBy the teacher 430 (96.6)By teacher and pupils 3 (0.7%)By pupils themselves 1 (0.2%)

10. Invite students to read workswith unique ideasNever 40 (9.0)Seldom 270 (60.8)

11. Post up works with unique ideasNever 60 913.5)Seldom 232 (52.3)

12. Ideas that teacher appreciatecreative 161 (44.0)original 116 (31.7)positive value system 61 (16.7)writer’s style 38 (10.4)reasonable 32 (8.7)systematic 29 (7.9)fluent 25 (6.8)imaginative 15 (4.1)novel 14 (3.8)not the same 12 (3.3)vivid 11 (3.0)substantial 9 (2.5)full of emotions 8 (2.2)humorous 7 (1.9)conform to the tradition 3 (0.8)different from tradition & notbounded by culture 3 (0.8)more ideas than others 2 (0.1)integration of ideas 2 (0.1)

14. Assessibility of creativityCan be assessed 232 (56.2)Cannot be assessed 106 (25.7)Not sure 75 (18.2)


86

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM86


87

TAB

LE 2

b.U

nder

stan

ding

, Use

and

Per

cept

ion

of C

reat

ive

Teac

hing

Str

ateg

ies

and

Com

posi

te M

etho

ds b

y Te

ache

rs.

Sum

mar

y of

Res

pons

es (

n an

d %

of R

espo

nden

ts)

to It

em 1

3 of

Que

stio

nnai

re.

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f Met

hod

Use

of

Met

hod

Per

cept

ion

of M

etho

d

Stra

tegy

Meth

odNo

Who

leSo

me

Neve

rSh

ould

beNo

Shou

ld no

tFa

milia

rUn

fam

iliar

know

ledge

met

hod

used

aspe

ct(s

) use

dus

edpr

omot

edpr

efer

ence

be p

rom

oted

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

n%

Asso

ciatio

nSt

ory-t

elling

271

60.4

%14

732

.7%

143.1

%19

643

.7%

166

37.0

%67

14.9

%31

971

.0%

109

24.3

%1

0.2%

Pictu

re w

riting

366

81.5%

6013

.4%6

1.3%

337

75.1%

8719

.4%9

2.0%

365

81.3%

6213

.8%3

0.7%

Fairy

tale

163

36.3%

204

45.4%

5812

.9%77

17.1%

153

34.1%

191

42.5%

208

46.3%

208

46.3%

81.8

%

Fable

177

39.4

%19

543

.4%

5712

.7%

9320

.7%

155

34.5

%17

839

.6%

214

47.7

%20

345

.2%

92.

0%

Cont

inuat

ion o

f sto

ry32

572

.4%

9320

.7%

132.

9%23

351

.9%

147

32.7

%52

11.6

%31

870

.8%

106

23.6

%3

0.7%

Music

Com

posit

ion21

4.7%

144

32.1%

263

58.6

%5

1.1%

255.

6%39

287

.3%

123

27.4

%26

559

.0%

398.

7%

Imag

inat

ionGu

ided

Fant

asy

8619

.2%20

144

.8%13

931

.0%42

9.4%

125

27.8%

258

57.5%

214

47.7%

197

43.9%

153.3

%

Perso

nal a

nalog

y26

057

.9%

130

29.0

%35

7.8%

193

43.0

%16

236

.1%70

15.6

%30

267

.3%

109

24.3

%9

2.0%

Crea

tion

of st

ory p

lot24

654

.8%

141

31.4

%40

8.9%

171

38.1%

173

38.5

%80

17.8

%27

962

.1%13

630

.3%

92.

0%

If pr

ovoc

ation

291

64.8

%10

723

.8%

276.

0%22

449

.9%

140

31.2

%61

13.6

%30

868

.6%

107

23.8

%6

1.3%

Inven

tive

think

ing15

735

.0%

177

39.4

%91

20.3

%85

18.9

%15

534

.5%

183

40.8

%22

349

.7%

182

40.5

%16

3.6%

Conv

erge

ntPr

oblem

-solvi

ng20

545

.7%

159

35.4

%62

13.8

%11

224

.9%

191

42.5

%12

227

.2%28

864

.1%12

327

.4%11

2.4%

thin

king

Cras

hing

elem

ents

7917

.6%

158

35.2

%18

741

.6%

347.6

%13

129

.2%

256

57.0

%15

935

.4%

220

49.0

%41

9.1%

Grou

p re

lay20

445

.4%

164

36.5

%56

12.5

%10

924

.3%

191

42.5

%12

427

.6%

239

53.2

%16

737

.2%

143.1

%

Meta

phor

& an

alogy

139

31.0

%18

841

.9%

9521

.2%

8518

.9%

162

36.1%

173

38.5

%20

946

.5%

199

44.3

%11

2.4%

Dive

rgen

tMo

ther

them

e & so

nth

inki

ngsu

btop

ic15

935

.4%15

033

.4%11

625

.8%95

21.2%

115

25.6%

214

47.7%

208

46.3%

190

42.3%

245.3

%

brain

storm

ing13

730

.5%

168

37.4%

118

26.3

%69

15.4

%15

534

.5%

197

43.9

%21

648

.1%18

541

.2%18

4.0%

Mind

map

9922

.0%

159

35.4

%16

436

.5%

5211

.6%

127

28.3

%24

153

.7%

186

41.4

%19

844

.1%35

7.8%

Flue

nt id

ea11

325

.2%

171

38.1%

139

31.0

%66

14.7

%15

334

.1%20

144

.8%

197

43.9

%20

345

.2%

184.

0%

Flex

ible i

dea

9621

.4%

194

43.2

%13

129

.2%

5913

.1%16

135

.9%

199

44.3

%21

347

.4%

187

41.6

%18

4.0%

Origi

nalit

yOr

igina

l idea

132

29.4%

195

43.4%

9621

.4%75

16.7%

179

39.9%

167

37.2%

234

52.1%

170

37.9%

153.3

%

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM87

believed self-expression was an essential component, combin-ing ideas (44.8%), problem-solving ability (44.8%), divergentthinking (42.8%), discovery (40.1%), invention (39.2%), see-ing connections (36.3%), transformation (30.7%), and inno-vation (30.3%). Less commonly selected items were awarenessof beauty (20.3%), valuable ideas (20.0%), convergent think-ing (19.2%), aesthetic products (13.8%), tangible products((10.9%), and mysterious processes (9.6%).

When asked about descriptors of creativity, the majority ofrespondents identified ‘being limitless” (n = 397; 93.8%). Otheritems included “can be developed” (n = 342; 76.2%), and“integration or synthesis of human intelligence” (n = 261;58.1%). Some of respondents identified “creativity is definedby its creator (n = 142; 31.6%). Other items reported as de-scriptors of creativity included “same across culture” (n = 71;15.8%), “same in adults and children” (n = 61; 13.6%), “likeintelligence” (n = 6; 12.5%), “a rare gift” (n = 52; 11.6%),and “defined by society” (n = 43; 9.6%). The remaining fourrespondents (0.9%) reported other descriptors. Compared withinexperienced teachers, experienced teachers were more likelyto report that “creativity is the sum of human intelligence” (chisquare =13.0; df = 3, p < 0.01).

Unlike the previous two questions, nearly all of the choicesprovided by question 3 were endorsed by over 50% of therespondents. “Building students’ confidence” (n = 397; 88.4%and “providing a free atmosphere” (n = 364; 81.1%) were con-sidered by a majority of the respondents as ways to promotestudents’ creativity. Other items were “not passing judgementbut allowing room for independent thinking” (n = 310; 69.0%)and “the teacher being creative” (n = 242; 53.9%). Another 6(1.3%) respondents selected the item “others” in this question.

Respondents with more teaching experience identified theimportance of encouraging students to experience their ownsphere of thinking without teacher intervention (chi square =4.11, df = 1, p < 0.05). Respondents with 6 to 10 years of expe-rience however preferred having a creative teacher as the meansfor developing creativity in writing when compared with respon-dents belonging to other groups of teaching experience (chisquare = 9.31, df = 3, p < 0.05).

Questions 4 to 12 focussed on the daily practices of teach-ers in teaching writing. Question 4 asked how writing topicsare assigned. Over three quarters (n = 336; 76.2%) of therespondents preferred the traditional means of assigning a titleto the students, which requires all students to write on the same

Teachers’Perceptions of How

to DevelopStudents’ Creativity

Description ofCurrent Practices for

Teaching CreativeWriting


88

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM88


89

topic. Some 26 (5.9%) of the respondents assign a generaltheme and have the students select their own specific title oftheir essay. Another 19 (4.3%) assign a topic but permit thestudents to use different titles related to the main topic. Only11 (2.5%) assign a number of titles and permit the students toselect one. Some 37 (8.4%) selected two of the above fouroptions and the remaining 12 (2.7%) selected three to fouroptions available in this question.

Question 5 asked about the types of instructions given tothe students during writing sessions by the respondents.Almost half (n = 205; 45.7%) of the respondents selected theoption that students are given specific assistance includinginstructions on the theme, structure, and sometimes relevantvocabulary.

Another 178 (39.6%) selected the option that instructionsare given on writing the outline only. Reasons for using an out-line were elaborated upon by 178 respondents. Many of them(n = 39) believe that this enables the students to write system-atically, 20 of them intended to let the students grasp the con-tent and structure of writing, and 17 of them explained thatmany of the students were just beginning to learn to write.

Some 142 (31.6%) give instructions only on writing strate-gies and students then write on their own. Among these 142respondents who provided writing strategies to students, 59(41.6%) wanted the students to write creatively and freely, and16 of them (11.3%) believed that this leads to higher thinkingand stimulates the imagination.

The remaining 20 (4.5%) respondents endorsed that noinstruction would be given normally and the students areencouraged to write freely. Some 13 respondents explainedthat they allow students to write creatively and freely; 6 statedthey did not wish to constrain students’ thinking.

Experienced respondents prefer to give students specificinstructions with respect to writing assignments (chi square =7.29, df = 1, p < 0.01). Similarly, older respondents reportedthe same (chi square = 4.5, df = 1, p < 0.05). On the contrary,a higher proportion of respondents with less experience giveinstructions only on the outline of the essay (chi square = 7.67,df = 3, p < 0.05).

In response to question 6, most respondents (n = 375;84.1%) reported requiring creative writing assignments be com-pleted in the classroom. The remaining 71 (15.9%) respondentsresponded that not all writing is restricted to the classroom.When these 71 respondents were asked about the places for

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM89

conducting writing sessions other than the classroom among,half of them chose home, and 19 (25.3%) the playground,library or special rooms at school. Only a few selected otherplaces that these.

Question 7 asked whether the respondents impose a wordlimit to essays. The majority (n = 336; 76.4%) of themresponded that they “usually” did. Another 53 (12.0%) “always”did. Some 40 (9.1%) responded that they “usually did not”impose a word limit. Only 11 (2.5%) stated that they “never”impose a word limit.

When asked about deadlines for submitting essays in ques-tion 8, over half (n = 283; 64.3%) of them responded that theyrequire students to submit their assignments after school.Ninety-two (20.9%) of them require to hand the assignment inafter the class. Only 41 (9.3%) permitted to students to submitit the next day. Another 21 (4.8%) selected any two of the abovethree options and 3 (0.7%) opted for all three choices. Com-pared with younger and older teachers, respondents betweenthe ages of 26 and 40 years were stricter with respect to requir-ing their students to submit their essays (chi square = 13.83,df = 6, p < 0.05).

Question 9 examined the methods used by the teachers toevaluate essays. Almost all (n = 430; 96.6%) of the respon-dents grade the essays themselves. Only 3 (0.7%) respondentsreported grading the essay with the students, and 1 (0.2%)permitted students to grade their own work. The remaining 11(2.5%) chose a combination of the first option and one otheroption.

When asked whether they read essays with creative ideas tothe class in Question 10, most (n = 270; 60.8%) reported “sel-dom” doing this. Another 40 (9.0%) “never” do this. This rea-sons for not reading the essays to the class included limitedtime and tight curriculum (n = 217; 36.8%) and that few com-positions had original ideas (n = 29; 9.4%). Some 40 (9.0%)responded that they read essays to the class “fairly often”. Only32 (7.2%) reported doing this “frequently”. The reasons forreading the essays to the class included permitting the stu-dents to learn from each other (n = 53; 36.8%), provide effec-tive feedback to students (n = 26; 18.1%) and encouraging thecreativity of students (n = 21; 14.6%).

Question 11 was a related question regarding whether therespondents would post writings with creative ideas in the class-room. Over half of them (n = 232; 52.3%) “seldom” would dothis, and 60 (13.5%) would “never” do this. Only 85 (19.1%)


90

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM90


91

do this “fairly often” and 63 (14.2%) do this “frequently”. Olderrespondents tended to be more willing that their youngercohorts to displays students’ essays (chi square 21.18, df = 9,p < 0.05).

When asked about what attracts them to a student’s work,respondent listed creative ideas (n = 161; 44.0%), original ideas(n = 116; 31.7%) and ideas reflecting positive values (n = 61;16.7%).

Question 13 consisting of three sub questions examined theteachers’ awareness of creative writing strategies, specifically,the teacher’s understanding, and use of different creative writ-ing strategies, and whether each method is promoted (Table2b). Some 366 (81.5%) of the respondents identified “picturewriting” as the most familiar method of creative writing.Another five methods were familiar to over half of respondents.These included “continuation of story” (n = 325; 72.4%), “ifprovocation” (n = 260; 57.9%), “story telling” (n = 271; 60.4%),“personal analogy” (n = 260; 57.9%), and “creation of storyplot” (n = 246; 54.8%). Strategies that were least familiar tothe respondents included “music composition” (n = 263;58.6%), “crashing elements” ( n = 187; 41.6%), and “flexibleideas” (n = 131; 29.2%).

Respondents reported applying the creative writing strate-gies which they reported being familiar with. The six most fre-quently used strategies were comparable to those bestunderstood, namely, picture writing, confirmation of story, ifprovocation, story telling, personal analogy, and creation ofstory plot. Similarly, the methods that were least understood,namely, music composition, crashing elements and flexibleideas, were the least used.

With respect to which strategies should be promoted, thosereported to be most familiar were also viewed as requiring fur-ther promotion. In addition, some methods that were notfamiliar to the respondents were identified as warranting pro-motion. These methods included “group relay” (n = 239;53.2%), “problem solving” (n = 288; 64.1%) and “original idea”(n = 234; 52.1%). Few respondents (less than 10%) reportedthat none of the strategies should be promoted. Most of therespondents stated “no preference” whether any of the meth-ods should or should not be promoted even though they didnot understand or had not used the method.

Teachers with less experience responded that the methodof originality training should be promoted to develop creativ-ity in students (chi square = 7.47, df = 2, p < 0.05). This notion

Teachers’ Awarenessof Creative Writing

Strategies



37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM91

was shared by younger respondents (chi square = 6.49, df = 2,p < 0.05).

Question 14 asked about whether creativity can be evalu-ated. Over half (n = 232; 56.2%) believed that it can be, and106 (25.7%) believed that it cannot be. The remaining 75(18.2%) respondents were undecided. More experienced teach-ers believed that creativity can be evaluated compared withless experienced teachers (chi square = 6.02, df = 2, p < 0.05).

Most respondents (n = 309; 70.1%) “seldom” or “never” readout compositions even though they may have original ideas.The main reason cited was insufficient time. Also, they (9.4%)perceived that original ideas occur rarely. However, 144 teach-ers used this method arguing that students learn from eachother (36.8%), provide feedback (18.1%), and encourage cre-ativity (14.6%).

The cohort of primary school teachers in Hong Kong exhib-ited both similarities and differences with respect to creativitycompared with a British cohort (Fryer, 1991). Comparable to88.7% of respondents in the British study, 88.9% of respon-dents in our Hong Kong cohort associated creativity with imagi-nation. Similarly, 64.1% of Hong Kong respondents associated“original ideas” with creativity compared with 73.7% of theBritish teachers (Fryer, 1991). Some 42.8% of our respondents,compared with 53.8% of the British teachers, identified “diver-gent thinking” as a defining element of creativity. However,according to Hocevar (1981), “divergent thinking” is the mostcommon operational definition of creative thinking. Themajority of the Hong Kong cohort (71.9%) also associated“inspiration” with creativity which is markedly higher than theBritish cohort (46.6%).

These differences could be explained on the basis of cul-ture. Flower (1981) has disputed the notion that the art of writ-ing cannot be learned because it is dependent on inspiration.Our data supported this. Although in our cohort, 71.9%believed inspiration to be a defining element of creativity, 76.2%believed that creativity can be developed.

The most profitable techniques to develop students’ creativ-ity were thought to be building confidence, providing a freeatmosphere, and allowing students to choose their learningapproaches. Only half of teachers thought that being a cre-ative teacher can foster creativity. Teachers appeared morewilling to encourage creativity in their students than perhapsperceive it in themselves.

DISCUSSIONViews of Teachers

Regarding Creativity

Teachers’Perceptions of

How to DevelopStudents’ Creativity


92

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM92


93

Experienced teachers promoted students’ having their ownspheres of thought. Such an open attitude may reflect trial anderror accumulated over years of experience, as well as profes-sional maturity and self-confidence.

Most teachers preferred to set specific writing topics for allstudents. This practice however contradicts their belief thatchoosing one’s own topic fosters greater creativity in writingexpression.

Respondents reported providing a relatively high amountof instruction to their primary school aged students. Almosthalf of the participants provide specific instruction includingtheme, structure and related vocabulary. Teachers appearedconcerned about the quality of the students’ essays. They wantto help their students who have low writing ability or beginnerwriters needing to finish the task on time. In a few cases (1.5%of respondents), respondents were constrained by schoolpolicy vis a vis providing specific instruction. Some 39.6% pro-vided instruction on writing the outline to enable the student towrite more systematically.

None of the teachers chose to give an outline or specifichelp that will encourage creativity or stimulate thinking. Onlyteachers who do not provide instruction or provide writing strat-egies do so to provide students with the opportunity to writefreely and creatively, and stimulate thinking and imagination.

Inconsistent with providing a free, enabling writing environ-ment, was the finding that most teachers provided motivatingcues. The teachers’ overriding concern was that the studentsprovide a final essay within class time. The processes ofwriting which help students develop creativity are not paidadequate attention. Some teachers obstruct this process withthe provision of excessive guidelines thus depriving the stu-dents of the opportunity to generate their own ideas and settheir goals.

Tse (1993) have previously reported that the teaching ofwriting in Hong Kong fails to encourage creativity. The teach-ing methods are teacher rather than student guided which mayreflect the conception that writing is a means of evaluationrather than a means of learning. Language teachers tend tofocus on the technical aspect of composition such as gram-mar, syntax, vocabulary and presentation. Lin (1998) claimedthat this approach limits imagination and constrains creativityin children resulting in greater teacher dependence.

Based on the present findings, students write in a constrainedsituation. The majority of writing assignments are completed

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM93

within the classroom which may hinder creativity. If studentsare allowed to complete their writing outside the classroom,this was usually attributed to having to complete outstandingwork at home. This finding suggests that teachers may not beaware of environmental determinants of creative writing.

Teachers’ awareness of creative writing strategies waslimited. Although the majority of teachers’ had not had broadexposure to the increasing number of strategies available toteachers to promote creativity and creative writing strategies,the teachers favoured multiple strategies for fostering theseattributes. In terms of readiness to change theory, this findingsupports that the majority of teachers would be receptive tocontinuing education on this topic.

Teachers’ actual use of creative writing strategies was alsolimited. The reasons for the discrepancy between teachers’views and practices regarding creativity and teaching writingskills warrant detailed study in order to enhance teachers’ skillsin fostering creative thought and expression. Some explana-tions may include lack of exposure to creative, experientiallearning environments as students themselves, lack of supportin the school system to effect creative teaching styles, the needto adhere to strict curriculum guidelines, expectations of thestudents, expectations of the parents and lack of comfort inteaching in a more open unstructured style.

With respect to external constraints on writing assignments,most teachers absolutely or usually impose a requirement onthe number of words in a student’s written assignment thatmay be another factor constraining creative writing. This sup-ports the notion that writing is a means of evaluation ratherthan a learning opportunity. The time limit that teachers tendedto impose on their students writing assignments may blockcreativity and idea generation given that the student will tendto focus on the time constraint.

Based on the results of our study, we recommend basicteacher training courses and continuing education course thatwould:1. train primary school teachers about strategies for stimulat-

ing creativity and creative expression in writing that includeproviding an environment and an experiential elementwhich would increase the level of comfort of the teacher inteaching in an open unstructured style.

2. train teachers how to promote increased risk-takingbehaviours in their students in terms of thinking “outsidethe box”, and creating a safe environment where students

Teachers’ Awarenessof Creative Writing

Strategies



Recommendationsfor Promoting

Creative Writing


94

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM94


95

will not be criticized for thinking abstractly, unconvention-ally or creatively.

3. train teachers how to evaluate creativity and creative con-tributions as it is logistically easier to evaluate using tradi-tional methods which have more black and white answers.

4. train teachers how to model creative expression andthought.

Finally, for teachers to practice creative teaching styles tostimulate creative output in their students, the teachers needto work in an environment that enables them to teach in a moreopen, less structured framework. This can best be achievedwith the support of the government, school administration, fel-low teachers, and parents.

The survey questionnaire of primary school teachers and theirviews and practices of teaching creative writing to Hong Kongchildren identified some discrepancies between the views ofthese teachers regarding creativity, and their classroom envi-ronment and teaching practices. For example, teachers tendedto structure assignments, restrict writing to the classroom, andfocus on word limits. The results supported that creativity andits promotion is multifaceted, and that basic teacher trainingand post-graduate continuing education of teachers in HongKong needs to address the various components of creativity,namely, environmental factors, cognitive styles and taskrequirements. Studies of teaching training are needed todetermine the degree to which skills in fostering creativity instudents, is addressed, and how this can best be achieved.Teachers who were well versed in creative teaching strategieswere more willing to implement them in their classrooms whichsupports that promoting training in creative writing for theteachers may foster their imparting these skills to students.Optimal training strategies directed at teachers to promote cre-ative writing warrant further study. This training needsalso to address changing parents’ expectations, and ways ofreassuring parents that their children are receiving qualityeducation despite what may appear as a less structured class-room environment and less structured expectations of thestudents. For optimal benefit, the teachers themselves mustwork in an environment that supports creative teaching andlearning strategies.

CONCLUSION

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM95

ALENCAR, E. M. L. (1993). Thinking in the future: the need to promotecreativity in the educational context. Gifted Education International,9, 93-96.

AMABILE, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. NY: Springer-Verlag.

BENTON, S. L., KRAFT, R. G., GLOVER, J. A., & PLAKE, B. S. (1984).Cognitive capacity differences among writers. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, 820-834.

BEREITER, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R.Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 73-93). Hillsdale,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

BEREITER, C. & SCARDAMALIS, M. (1987). The psychology of WrittenComposition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

CARTER, M. (1992). Training teachers for creative learning experience.Exchange, 5, 38-40.

CHEN, L. O. (1995). Inspiring the creativity of children. Hong Kong: GreenBud Education Centre.

CHEUNG, W. M., TSE, S. K., & TSANG, H. W. H. (in press). Developmentand validation of the Chinese creative writing scale for primary schoolstudents in Hong Kong. Journal of Creative Behavior.

CLARK, B. (1992). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of childrenat home and at school. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

COLE, D. G., SUGIOKA, H. L., & YAMAGATA-LYNCH, L. C. (1999).Supportive classroom environments for creativity in higher education.Journal of Creative Behavior, 33 (4), 277-293.

CSIKSZENTMIHALYI (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems viewof creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp. 325-339). Cambridge University Press.

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (2000). Learning to learn: Theway forward in curriculum development consultation document.HKSAR: the Printing Department

EMIG, J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana,IL: NCTE.

FLOWER, L. (1981). Problem solving strategies for writing (third edition).U.S.A.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

FRYER, M. (1996). Creative teaching and learning. Glasgow: AthenaeumPress.

FRYER, M., & COLLINGS, J. A. (1991). British teachers’ views of creativity.Journal of Creative Behavior, 25 (1), 75-81.

GUILFORD, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

HAYES, J.R., & FLOWER, L.S. (1980). The Cognition of Discovery: Defininga Rhetorical Problem. College Composition and Communication, 31,21-31.

HOCEVAR, D. (1981). Measurement of Creativity: Review and Critique.Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(5), 450-464.

JAMPOLE, E., KONOPAK, B.C., READENCE, J.E., & MOSHER, E.B. (1991).Using Mental Imagery to enhance gifted elementary students’ CreativeWriting. Reading Psychology, 12, 183-197.

REFERENCES


96

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM96


97

JAMPOLE, E., MATHEWS, F.N. & KONOPAK, B.C. (1994). AcademicallyGifted Students’ Use of Imagery for Creative Writing. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 28, 1-15.

LIN, J. P. (1998). A creative writing classroom. Taipei: Psychological Press.

LONG, S. & HIEBERT, E. H.(1985). Effects of Awareness and Pratice in MentalImagery on Creative Writing of Gifted Children. In R. Lalik, (ed.) Issuesin Literacy: A research Perspective(pp.381-395). New York: NationalReading Conference.

LUBART, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Handbook of Creativity (pp.339-350). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

MORGANETT, L. (1991). Good teacher-student relationships: A key elementin classroom motivation and management. Education, 112, 260-264.

ODELL, L. (1980). Teaching writing by teaching the process of discovery:An interdisciplinary enterprise. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive process in writing (pp. 139-154). Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

PARNES, S. J. (1967). Creative behaviour guidebook. U.S.: C. Scribner’sSons.

PARNES, S. J. (1985). A facilitating kind of leadership. New York: Bearly,Buffalo.

PIANKO, S. (1979). A description of the composing process of the collegefreshman writer. Research in the teaching of English, 13, 5-22.

SOH, K. C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A prelimi-nary validation study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 118-134.

STERNBERG, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of humanintelligence. NY: Cambridge University Press.

STERNBERG, R. J. & LUBART, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativityand its development. Human Development, 34, 1-32.

STERNBERG, R. J. & LUBART, T. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: Aninvestment approach to creativity. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 1(1), 1-5.

STERNBERG, R. J. & LUBART, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivatingcreativity in a culture of conformity. NY: Free Press.

STERNBERG, R. J. & LUBART, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. AmericanPsychologist, 51, 677-688.

TORRANCE, E. P. (1984). Mentor Relationships: How they aid creativeachievement, endure, change, and die. NY: Bearly, Buffalo.

TORRANCE, E. P., & GOFF, K. (1989). A quiet revolution. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 23 (2), 136-144.

TORRANCE, E. P., & SAFTER, H. T. (1986). Are children becoming morecreative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 1-13.

TSE, S. K. (1993). The Composing Process of Hong Kong Primary SchoolPupils Writing in English and in Chinese. Ph.D Thesis. Nottingham:The University of Nottingham.

TSE S. K. & CHEUNG S. M. (1993). Research on the difficulties of writingin secondary school students. Curriculum Forum, 3, 49-55.

TSE, S. K. & LAM, S. S. (1992). New concepts in writing. Hong Kong:Longman.

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM97

TSE, S. K. & SHUM W. C. (2000). Teaching Chinese Language writing insecondary school: theory and design. Hong Kong: Hong KongEducation Department.

TSE, S. K. & WONG, W. P. (1995). Learning effectively and happily:creative writing. In S. K. Tse (Ed), Reading and writing (pp.192-222).Hong Kong: Green Bud Education Centre.

VERNON, P.E. (1989). The Nature-Nurture Problem in Creativity. In J.A.Glover(ed.) Handbook of Creativity. New York: Plenum Press.

WANG DADONG (1999). Creative power and inspiration. Gifted EducationInternational, 13:3, 265-268.

WARD, T. B., SMITH, S. M. & FINKE, R. A. (1995). Creativity and the mind:discovering the genius within. NY: Plenum Press.

WARD, T. B., SMITH, S. M. & FINKE, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp189-212). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

WEISBERG, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. NewYork: Freeman.

WONDER, J., & BLAKE, J. (1992). Creativity East and West: Intuition vs.logic. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 172-185.

YANG, S. Y. & STERNBERG, R. J. (1997). Taiwanese Chinese People’sconceptions of intelligence. Intelligence, 25, 21-36.

Wai Ming Cheung, B.A., M.Ed., Ph.D. candidateShek Kam Tse, Ph.D.Hector WH Tsang, Ph.D.

Please address all correspondence to Hector Tsang, Department ofRehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HungHom, Hong Kong; phone (852) 2766 6750; fax (852) 2330 8656;[email protected]

We would like to express our sincere gratitude towards Dr. Elizabeth Deanwho are visiting professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciencesof The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for her help in addressing thequeries raised by the reviewers of the Journal of Creative Behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:


98

37-2-03 pages.p65 3/20/03, 8:35 AM98

Documents

Teaching Creative Writing Skills to Primary School Children in Hong Kong: Discordance Between the Views and Practices of Language Teachers