Аннотация
The development of creative abilities is an essential component of preparing future teachers of fine arts. However, limited empirical evidence exists on how individual lessons, creative self-expression, and institutional training conditions jointly contribute to this development in Kazakhstan. This study examined students' perceptions of these factors and the relationships among them. A quantitative descriptive and correlational design was employed. Data were collected from 90 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in art teacher education programs at two universities in Kazakhstan using volunteer-based convenience sampling. The 25-item questionnaire measured three constructs: individual lessons, creative self-expression, and institutional conditions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation, and Pearson correlation analysis. The questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency ( α = .89 for individual lessons, α = .88 for creative self-expression, α = .78 for institutional conditions, and α = .89 overall), while the three-factor solution explained 58.3% of the total variance. Students strongly agreed that individual lessons developed creative thinking (M = 4.85, SD = 0.45) and artistic potential (M = 4.75, SD = 0.55). However, they also reported barriers involving insufficient institutional support (M = 4.32, SD = 0.50), limited alignment with professional development goals (M = 4.55, SD = 0.71), and dependence on external instructional models (M = 4.52, SD = 0.60). Significant positive correlations were found between individual lessons and creative self-expression (r = .68, p < .001), institutional conditions and creative self-expression (r = .71, p < .001), and individual lessons and institutional conditions (r = .59, p < .001). The findings indicate that individual lessons are perceived as valuable for developing creativity and artistic individuality; nevertheless, their effectiveness depends on appropriate pedagogical guidance, sufficient resources, methodological clarity, and a supportive institutional environment.