The Two-way Model of Creativity

Creativity is a term that has proven difficult to define. The field of English language teaching (ELT) especially struggles with this concept, often treating it as an axiom that eludes clear definition or a notion that everyone has an implicit understanding of. In other pieces of research, creativity is equated with divergent thinking as evidenced and measured by performance on different standardized creativity tests. In contrast to these views, this paper argues that sound research begins with a clear definition of key terms; as such, there is a need to establish a suitable model of creativity specifically for the field of ELT. After a review of notable existing views and definitions, a new model for creativity in ELT is outlined. The two-way model of creativity proposes that certain conditions enable creativity through specific tasks that allow for creativity to emerge. This will produce creative results that eventually have a reactive effect on the conditions.


Introduction
To provide the basis for any sound piece of research, a firm theoretical background needs to be established. This starts with defining the basic terms used, an endeavour which proves surprisingly difficult when discussing creativity. The importance of the concept is beyond doubt as it is considered one of the aims of education (Plucker et al., 2011) and as such, it is present in the national curricula of all European Union member states (Wyse & Ferrari, 2015). Creativity is also considered a key competency for lifelong learning (European Comission, 2019) and a 21st century skill that has undeniable importance in life for all human beings. (European Commission, 2019).
The difficulty in the area arises from the fact that even though people have an implicit understanding of the concept, creating a universal definition seems impossible (Pugliese, 2010). Indeed, many authors note that creativity is slippery and elusive in nature, something that causes serious difficulties in creating a suitable, allencompassing definition (Pugliese, 2010;Ryhammer & Brolin, 1999). While creating a universally applicable definition might well prove impossible, any sound piece of research should adopt a definition that suits the purpose of said research as well as being relevant and usable in the specific field the researcher works in. It is also necessary to have at least some degree of agreement within a specific field about basic definitions in order to make meaningful connections between different research endeavours.
There is no such consensus about creativity in the field of English language teaching (ELT) at the moment. Even though several books about creativity concentrating on EFL teaching were published; some partly research-oriented (Jones, 2016;Jones & Richards, 2016), others more practical (Maley & Kiss, 2018, Maley & Peachey, 2015Pugliese, 2010;Xerri & Vassallo, 2016); the approach most often adopted by the authors is to circumvent the problem. While all of these works describe, often at great length, the different approaches and takes on creativity, they do not attempt to create a definition or model that could be used for various research purposes in the field, which is a gap in the existing body of creativity literature. In order to offer a possible solution, this paper will attempt to review the most important theories concerning creativity then propose a general model of creativity specifically for the field of ELT.

Creativity and the person
The study of the creative person has been an area of interest since the early twentieth century in an approach called the psychosomatic approach, in which Sigmund Freud studied eminent creative people like Leonardo da Vinci or Shakespeare (Pugliese, 2010). Csikszentmihályi (1996) also studied exceptional creative people and based on this, proposed some characteristics of creative individuals: creative people are energetic, focused, playful yet disciplined, sensitive, open to experience, exhibit characteristics of both introversion and extraversion, and resist rigid gender stereotypes.
The link between personality and creativity has been investigated quantitatively as well, for example, Eysenck (1993) argued that there is a link between the continuum of psychoticism and creativity. This continuum in non-pathological people means personality traits such as impulsivity, risk taking, and aggressiveness. Eysenck draws the conclusion that creative children are most likely those that will cause problems for the teacher and the school system.
Connected to this, the idea of who can be creative should be pursued in some detail. It is quite a natural leap in logic to think of famous artists and creators when thinking of creativity, yet everyday people do exhibit creativity in their daily life, for example, when modifying a recipe during cooking or painting as a hobby. Indeed, children display creativity in learning. To explain this, the question of creative magnitude needs to be discussed. Some creative works are objectively valued and appreciated, like the works of famous artists, while other displays of creativity are more subjective and possibly relevant only to the person, yet also creative. This idea is shown in the Big-C and little-c distinction (Csikszentmihályi, 1996;Richards, 2007;Stein, 1953). A good example of Big-C creativity is a Da Vinci painting, while little-c creativity can be exemplified by the painting created by the author of this paper as a hobby. This dichotomy was expanded by Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) who introduced mini-c to describe the creativity inherent in the learning process, which is subjective and does not necessarily result in a tangible product, and Pro-C which serves as a midpoint between Little-C and Big-C creativity. Mini-c creativity is by definition intrapersonal and subjective, and it also means a lack of comparison to others' creative potential and products. It emphasizes "the importance of recognizing the creativity inherent in students' unique and personally meaningful insights and interpretations as they learn new subject matter" (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p.5). Runco (2003) also comments on this: "creative expression is sometimes personal and not easily compared with normative standards" (p.318). Because of this, Runco emphasizes the importance of the creative potential and that creativity does not need to be expressed in a socially accepted way in order to be considered creative.

Creativity as a kind of thinking
The concept that creativity is mental process or a way of thinking is another idea that has been around for a long time. Wallas (1926Wallas ( /2014 considered creativity mostly as a problem-solving process and proposed a fourstage model of the creative process: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. In the preparation stage, the creative person collects all the available information. This is followed by a hiatus, the incubation phase, in which conscious consideration of the problem is paused to be replaced by unconscious processes. In the illumination stage, the person suddenly realizes that they have the solution, which seems to have materialised from nowhere. In the verification stage, the person consciously checks, considers, describes, and discusses the idea. However, it is obvious that not all creative acts are focused on problem solving and consequently do not follow the process outlined above. Another suggestion that the creative process is in essence a kind of thinking was established by Guilford (1950), who laid the foundations of the psychometric approach to creativity and also created a still-used model of creativity that proposes three components: fluency (how many new ideas a person may produce in a given time), flexibility (the ease of changing mindsets), and originality (the unusual and unconventional nature of ideas). Guilford (1968) also created the often-used distinction between convergent and divergent thinking, the former being the kind of thinking which connects one correct solution for one problem, the latter allowing many possible ideas and solutions and is also the kind of thinking responsible for creativity. Based on these, the idea arose that creativity is a measurable skill and thus creativity tests like Torrance's Tests of Creative Thinking (1974) were created. Creativity has also been described as an associative process. Mednick (1962) describes the creative solution as a result of necessary associative elements coming into contact. This might happen accidentally, because of the similarity of the associative elements, or by mediation of common elements. Koestler (1989) also studied the creativity as an associative process and proposed the term bisociation, which means combining elements from two unrelated matrices will result in novel insights. One example of this process is humour: the audience of the joke is led to expect a certain follow-up (one matrix based on the other). However, the punchline replaces this matrix with an unrelated and unexpected one, resulting in creativity and comical effect.

Complex models of creativity
Some theories emphasize that creativity is more complex than a simple mental process or a phenomenon that can be evaluated based on a tangible result. Csikszentmihályi (2014) in his Systems View of Creativity emphasizes the role of society in creativity. Society's openness to new ideas varies according to era and geographical location, for example "a hundred years ago, every aspiring artist in Europe dreamed of being in Paris, where the field of art had the greatest financial clout, as well as being numerically the largest and most sophisticated" (p. 53). He also mentions important and privileged people, the gatekeepers of creativity, in the environment who have great influence on what will be accepted as creative, for example "during the Renaissance, the attention of a pope, or his mistress, was enough to select out the work of a young artist and slate it for preservation" (p. 52). Simonton (1975) examined the historical fluctuation of creativity through generations and came to the conclusion that political fragmentation (the existence of a large number of independent states) has a beneficial influence while political instability (coups and assassinations) are detrimental. Amabile's (1983Amabile's ( , 1996 componential model posits that creativity is made up of domain relevant skills, creativity relevant skills, task motivation, and the social environment. As such, it summarizes many of the ideas proposed by other models and definitions. This model merits further discussion. Domain relevant skills are the content knowledge necessary for creativity to appear. Creativity relevant skills includes "cognitive style, application of heuristics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways, and working style" (Amabile, 1983, p. 67). Amabile (1983) claims that this component depends on training and experience in idea generation. Task motivation is the third element in the model, Amabile (1983) claims that intrinsic motivation is beneficial, while extrinsic motivation impedes creativity. Extrinsic rewards and evaluation or the expectation of evaluation inhibit creativity while task interest positively effects it. This is in line with motivation studies: extrinsic reward or punishment can negatively influence intrinsic motivation (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). The last component is the social environment: culture, society, people, and the physical environment.

The bottom line in defining creativity
Even though creating a simple definition for such a complex term as creativity, as we have seen so far, might not always be possible, some kind of definition is certainly necessary for research purposes. In order to prove certain connections or logical relationships, researchers might claim that creativity is divergent thinking as measurable by creativity tests as seen in, for example, Albert & Kormos (2004) and Ottó (1998). However, the different ways of tackling creativity described so far point to this view being a grave oversimplificationcreativity is more complex than a simple skill which is easily measured by a standardized test.
A complex definition is better suited in order not to lose fragments of reality by simplification. A definition like Amabile's componential model (1983) tries to account for as many aspects and factors of creativity as possible. While this might seem like an advantage at first, the caveat of adopting such a model also lies in its broad and general nature. To put it more simply, such a model cannot serve as the basis of empirical research, especially in a field like ELT that has its own very special circumstances.
To follow this line of thought, a good model of creativity should avoid oversimplification, be reasonably and cautiously complex, and be specific to the field of application. In the following section, the two-way model of creativity is outlined, which was designed specifically with these criteria in mind.

The two-way model of creativity in ELT
Creativity is a complex phenomenon: certain conditions enable creativity to arise in a sufficient task which leads to tangible or intangible results. These results then have a reactive effect on the conditions of creativity.

•
Conditions: These conditions enable creativity to arise. These conditions are knowledge, creativityrelevant mental skills, motivation, and context. o Knowledge: Language knowledge for students, methodological knowledge for teachers. o Creativity-relevant mental skills: this is analogous with Amabile's (1983) creativity relevant skills categorya way of thinking, a cognitive style that may be improved by practice and experience.

Reactive effect
o Motivation: whether intrinsic or extrinsic, some kind of motivation is necessary in order to successfully execute a task. o Context: context includes several factors such as a supportive and non-judgemental environment, an appreciative culture that encourages creativity both formally (educational policy) and informally (a value appreciated by society). Other contextual factors include the physical environment, conducive beliefs, and time and space for creativity in the teaching process. • Task: if the necessary conditions are met, creativity will arise in a task that allows for it. The task needs to be a type that allows for creativity, one that allows for more than one good solution yet established adequate creative limits (Tin, 2013).

•
Results: The results that arise are not to be confused with the classic discussion of the creative productthe results may be tangible, e.g., the poem written in English by students, or intangible: the learning process they undergo while trying to write a poem.

•
Reactive effect: These results have a reactive effect on the conditions, for example, if students write the poem, their motivation can increase due to having enjoyed the task, group cohesion could improve which will result in a better context for creativity, and through practice they will improve both in English language knowledge and in creativity relevant mental skills.

Conditions Results
Because of the two-way nature of the model, it logically follows that in order to enhance creativity, one might intervene in any part of the model and see positive changes. The model shows the possible areas where improvements could lead to fostering creativity. In the following sections, components of the model are described in more detail.

Conditions that enable creativity
This section provides a more detailed discussion of the conditions that enable creativity to arise. Firstly, knowledge in the field of ELT is self-explanatory. Students need to be in command of a certain level of language in order to successfully participate in a lesson (or any creative task). Let us consider a picture-based storytelling task as an example. To successfully tackle this challenge, the student will likely need to have a good command of a number of grammatical structures (past tenses, for example) and a range of vocabulary appropriate for the specific story. They should also have knowledge of how a good story is constructed and presented. Without these basic elements, creativity cannot ariseno matter what creative ideas the student might have, it will be impossible for them to articulate these.
On the other hand, knowledge is certainly important for the EFL teacher as well. Apart from language knowledge, this means methodological knowledge. Again, this can be illustrated by a simple example. A teacher sees a lovely picture in a magazine of a sandy beach with a giant "HELP" sign drawn in the sand and has the idea that they would like to use this for a storytelling task in their class of intermediate EFL learners. Next day in the classroom, they hold up the picture for their class to see and say: "Ok, I want you to be creative. Tell the story of this picture!" and then sit down to observe. Instantly, pandemonium reigns. Most students stare into space in complete confusion, while others start chatting animatedly to the people sitting by them. Some others start writing. What exactly happened here? This teacher ignored a number of basic methodological best practices, for example, the necessity of giving clear instructions, so students were unsure what exactly to do and how. They also failed to set creative limits. Setting reasonable limits can enhance creativity, for example, by setting a word limit to story-writing (Clare, 2016). Hadfield and Hadfield (2016) also state that "creativity, paradoxically, thrives within constraints" (p.51), which can be exploited to practice grammatical patterns in a creative way. What does this mean in our example? Obviously, the task, apart from being insufficiently explained, was too broad.
Creativity-relevant mental skills, which also figure as part of the componential model (Amabile, 1983) will not be elaborated further here, as this is rather the realm of psychology than ELT. However, it sounds Task reasonable to say that based on the literature, this is probably close to divergent thinking and this is the skill measured by standardised creativity tests like Torrance (1974). This was used in a number of research endeavours in order to establish correlations and causality between different factors of language learning (Albert & Kormos, 2004;Ottó, 1998) exactly because this is measurable. However, it must not be forgotten that creativity as a phenomenon is infinitely more complex.
Motivation is extensively researched in ELT. As such, it is outside the scope of this paper to discuss motivation in detail. Suffice it to say that some kind of motivation is necessary for creativity to arise just as it is necessary for any other endeavour in life. Even though Amabile (1983) claims that extrinsic motivation and rewards can be detrimental to creativity, the author of this paper is in partial disagreement with this stand. Artists in history have displayed outstanding creativity for rewards, and students in English classrooms around the world have shown outstanding creativity in writing stories simply because they intended to pass a language exam.
Context includes factors such as a supportive and non-judgemental environment. This naturally includes creating a positive learning environment by improving group dynamics and accepting and encouraging participants (mostly students and teachers but also parents). Allowing learners to express their emotions and their culture can contribute to creating a friendly and accepting atmosphere, which will encourage risk-taking and willingness to play (Rosenberg, 2015). To create a creativity-supporting learning environment, building a sense of community and reducing competition is helpful as well as the physical improvement of the space by making it more open, colourful, and calming (Woodward, 2015). Building rapport and a good team are also underlined by Pugliese (2010). Maley & Kiss (2018) emphasize the importance of being non-judgemental and creating "a relaxed, non-judgemental atmosphere, where students feel confident enough to let go and not to worry that their every move is being scrutinised for errors" (p. 212). Theuma and Attard (2016) describe two case studies and conclude that increasing student engagement through giving them choices, building on their interests, and challenging them contributed to a friendlier learning environment. Another factor that can contribute to a positive learning environment is giving way to natural playfulness and humour (Pugliese, 2010).
There are other contextual factors, for example, the physical environment, which was mentioned by participant teachers in Széll (2020) as being important in encouraging creativity. Conducive beliefs are also necessary. Beliefs are 'an individual's judgement of the truth or falsity of a proposition' (Pajares, 1992, p. 316), beliefs are created from very early in life, and the earlier this happens, the more difficult it is to change these beliefs (Pajares, 1992). In other words, beliefs are change-resistant and they fundamentally influence actions (Bandura, 1997). It is easy to see that beliefs can help or hinder creativity greatlya teacher believing games or creativity to be a waste of time are less likely to use them in their teaching. Students with the same set of beliefs might resist taking part in such activities. Time and space in the teaching process is somewhat related: with an overloaded curriculum, teacher might be forced to cut part out from their coursesdepending on their beliefs, games, storytelling, or other creative endeavours could fall victim to these cuts.

Tasks that foster creativity
What task means in the two-way model calls for explanation. In order to establish what a creative task is, two things are necessary. Firstly, task types that are suitable for fostering creativity need to be identified, secondly, general characteristics of these tasks have to investigated. Whether any research endeavours have been undertaken to prove or disprove the effectiveness of these tasks also need to be examined. In order to collect task types, a review of available methodology books and guides that focus specifically on creativity in the English classroom is presented here. Even though these works are not empirical or theoretical research themselves, the reason for choosing them as a basis for this investigation is two-fold. Firstly, any highquality methodology book or resource book has a firm basis in theory and research; as such, they can be considered trustworthy and quality sources that go through a rigorous review process before being published. Secondly, these sources are widely used by teachers around the worldas such, I argue that they both shape and are shaped by the professional consensus in the field. Because of these reasons, their judgement is acceptable with the caveat that such suppositions should be compared to available empirical research. The works were all selected for review based on the following criteria: • They had to be relatively up-to-date, so the time limit for publishing was set at 2010. • They had to be published by a well-known and professionally accepted publisher or institute.

•
They had to focus specifically on creativity in the English classroom.
Based on these criteria, Maley and Peachey (2015), Maley and Kiss (2018), Pugliese (2010), and Xerri and Vassallo (2016) were selected for inclusion in this mini-review. Tasks specifically discussed were reviewed and organised into categories based on the focus or the key idea or concept without which the task could not exist. The categories created are the following: • Body and movement category consists of tasks that have a primarily kinaesthetic aspect or focus on using parts of the body; for example, Pronunciation awareness raising (Maley & Peachey, 2015) requires learners to say phrases while having a flat lollipop in their mouth and to focus on tongue movements, while Rocks and lizards (Pugliese, 2010) allows young learners to channel some of their energy into a movement game of impersonating rocks and lizards.

•
Redesigned routine tasks are important elements of the language class. These tasks are simple every-day occurrences like forming lines or taking the register (Maley & Peachey, 2015), remembering names (Pugliese, 2010), recycling vocabulary (Pugliese, 2010), rethinking grammar tasks (Maley & Kiss, 2018, Pugliese, 2010 and translation (Maley & Kiss, 2018), and using tools differently (Maley & Peachey, 2015). What these tasks all have in common is that they focus on taking a routine part of an English class and giving it a creative twist to make it more interesting and engaging.

•
Thinking and reflection is a broad category that includes tasks that focus on problem-solving (Maley & Peachey, 2015), reflection on and association about input (Xerri & Vassallo, 2016), self-reflection (Pugliese, 2010), brainstorming (Pugliese, 2010), or coming up with linguistic alternatives (Pugliese, 2010). What these tasks have in common is their focus being a complex thinking process; they cannot be successfully done by simply following set rules or remembering some language elements. • Visuals include the use of film and pictures like photos or works of art (Maley & Kiss, 2018), drawing (Maley & Peachey, 2015, Pugliese, 2010, and the power of imagination (Maley & Peachey, 2015).
Most tasks were easy to assign into a category; however, it needs to be stated that any one of these categories in itself may not be sufficient to clearly categorize any task. For example, some of the tasks mentioned in Xerri and Vassallo (2016) concern thinking and discussion of works of art and may as well be included in the Visuals category.
Having established these task types, these are juxtaposed to empirical findings. The effectiveness of certain tasks in enhancing creativity is not widely examined in research. Certain research endeavours focus on establishing a direct connection between creativity and a number of different factors. These usually employ a cross-sectional design and investigate the relationship between creativity and English language proficiency (Albert, 2006;Ottó, 1998;Smith, 2013), creativity and oral communication (Albert & Kormos, 2004;Karimpour & Chopoghlou, 2014), or creativity and writing performance (Zabihi et al., 2013). No longitudinal studies have been done to explore how certain tasks could enhance learner creativity.
A number of research endeavours investigate some of the task types listed above in-depth. Dai (2010) examined the effects of creative writing in Chinese tertiary education. Chinese students are generally unused to writing being a creative process, and the researcher found that the experience proved valuable to them, increased their motivation to write, and improved relationships between students. Sauro and Sundmark (2016) also studied creative writing in the tertiary context in their unique study which focused on the use of writing fan fiction based on Tolkien's The Hobbit. Their participants were English teacher trainees, and the research was implemented into a literature class. However, they intended to find out whether using fanfiction can be beneficial for improvement in both literary and language skills. They found that students considered the task engaging, and there were improvements in both creative writing skills and general English skills.
The research done by Safaeia and Bulca (2013) touched upon tasks that may fit several of the categories (visuals, storytelling, drama) mentioned above. They examined the tertiary context by interviewing students who participated in EFL courses which focused on extensive reading. Students performed tasks like "making posters, drawing pictures, making picture stories, slide preparation, script writing, film shooting, and drama" (Safaeia & Bulca, 2013, p. 596) based on the texts. The reaction to reading and the tasks was generally positive; students felt entertained and motivated.
Presentation may be considered a kind of storytelling, and the research of Tomsett and Shaw (2014) also focused on important visual elements. They investigated the use of Pecha Kucha, a concise picture-based presentation technique, in business English classes in the East-Asian tertiary context. Students found the experience entertaining, and the researchers commented that the presentations and the slides prepared by the students all showed considerable artistic expression and creativity. Another study regarding the use of a visual task, drawing, was done by Gidoni and Rajuan (2018), who found that implementing drawing into the elementary EFL classroom resulted in increased student enjoyment and motivation.
Some of the tasks that are usually mentioned as creativity-fostering were examined in a limited number of research projects. No study strived to establish a measurable causal relationship or even a correlation between a certain task type and a change in learner creativity. While this might seem a serious problem, one must not forget that such a quantitative approach would most likely limit what is meant by creativity to scores achieved on creativity tests. Based on the earlier discussion of what creativity is, creativity is a much more complex phenomenon than what may be easily expressed in numbers and because of this proving causality may well be impossible.
After having established task types and seeing what empirical research is available regarding these, the general characteristics of all tasks considered creative also merit an overview. Some of these characteristics appear to be universal, while others seem to be largely, but not always, true.
Creative limits or constraints focus the learners' attention and encourage them to think of new solutions (Tin, 2013). In a way, this provides a certain need or pressure in order to think outside the box and embrace unusual thought processes. One good example of this is the use of twitter, where the word limit will naturally push students towards creative solutions (Xerri & Vassallo, 2016), or the very specific topic of fanfiction, blog format and role-play instructions provided by Sauro and Sundmark (2016).
Open-endedness is another common feature of creative tasks. This means that they have more than one good solution and provide opportunities to generate new ideas (Lee, 2013). The option to choose from several solutions or possibilities is present in all creative tasks. The amount of choice does seem to vary, some tasks offer open-endedness in small doses only; for example, a drama task might have fixed lines yet allow the actor to express their personality though intonation and gestures. Other tasks might leave a considerable degree of freedom in the amount of possible solutions; for example, a storytelling task based on past memories will leave the student completely free to choose which memory to talk about.
Some further characteristics are listed by certain authors yet appear not to be universally true for all creative tasks. Playfulness is listed as a characteristic that can facilitate creative thinking and imagination by Lee (2013). However, playfulness is often, but not always, present in creative tasks. One counterexample would be the type of task that requires deep thinking about serious topics, such as the one about controversial art quotes in Xerri & Vassallo (2016). Collaboration is also proposed by Tin (2016) as a characteristic of tasks that facilitates creativity. While this certainly may be so in many cases, we cannot proclaim this to be universally true either; many creative writing tasks facilitate satisfactory creative results without the use of cooperation. Also, some students might have a preference of working alone because of personality traits or past experiences.

Creative results
Creative results seem fairly straightforward at first glance. Results of creativity are very often described as some tangible product or a novel idea. However, we must not confuse product with result. Referring back to mini-c creativity (Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009), creativity is inherent in the learning process. Creativity is subjective and does not necessarily result in a tangible product. Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) also define creativity as intrapersonal and subjective, without comparison to others. Basically, enhanced learning can also be a creative result.
Following this line of thought, creative results may be tangible, for example, the lovely story told by a student in their EFL class or the play re-enacted by the class in front of the entire school. Results can also be intangible: the learning process students undergo while piecing their story together and telling it to their peers or the numerous ways the class learnt to express emotions better in English. These intangible results tend to be hidden and less obvious for the casual observer; however, from the view of the EFL teacher, they are just as, if not more, important, than the tangible results.

Reactive effect
Creative results have a reactive effect on the conditions. Considering one of the examples discussed above, if the class successfully re-enact said play in front of the school, it will have a number of consequences. For example, students might realize that they can not only work together with some of their classmates they thought not to like but they enjoy doing so, leading to an improvement in group cohesion and atmosphere. Some of them might realize that they actually like acting, or speaking English in front of an audience so their internal motivation to pursue similar tasks could increase. Students struggling with their language skills may get enough practice to improve their general language knowledge to a level where they feel more confident to speak up in class, reducing their anxiety and again, leading to a better atmosphere.
These examples show that creative results bring about changes in the conditions that allow for creativity to emerge. Students' knowledge is improved by a general improvement in language skills, their motivation can increase as described above, and the context is also affected through improvements in group cohesion and atmosphere. If we accept Amabile's (1983) claim that the mental skill component of creativity can also be improved by practice, it stands to reason that this was also positively influenced by the practice outlined in the example, even though this may be less evident at a glance.

Conclusions
To summarise, creativity is a complex phenomenon in the English classroom that is more than something measured by standardized creativity tests. Every research endeavour requires a sufficient definition to base its methods on, this definition needs to be clear and suitable for the field and the purpose. While over-simplification can lead to oversights and loosing important details of reality, too much complexity can also be problematic. In order to create a suitable model of creativity in the field of ELT, the two-way model of creativity was proposed.
According to the two-way model of creativity, one needs certain conditions (knowledge, creativity-related mental skills, motivation, and context) in order to foster creativity. It is also necessary to provide a task that has necessary creative limits and is open-ended, also, playfulness and collaboration could be helpful. This will produce tangible or intangible creative results that have a reactive effect on creativity conditions. Certain implications for teaching follow from such a model. Many aspects of teaching that create ideal conditions for creativity in the EFL classroom seem to be in harmony with what is simply considered good teaching. Here, the importance of sound pedagogical and methodological knowledge needs to be mentioned again. Teacher training programs have a great responsibility here, both in arming teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge but also in trying to correct any beliefs that might be harmful to teaching creativity and teaching creatively. Undeniably, educational policy is also relevant here, as whether teachers have the necessary time and space to teach creatively is largely dependent on policy decisions.