BookPDF Available

Developing Creativity in the Classroom: Learning and Innovation for 21st-Century Schools

Authors:

Abstract

Developing Creativity in the Classroom applies the most current theory and research on creativity to support the design of teaching and learning. Creative thinking and problem solving are at the heart of learning and application as students prepare for innovation-driven careers. This text debunks myths about creativity and teaching and, instead, illustrates productive conceptions of creative thinking and innovation, including a constructivist learning approach in which creative thinking enhances and strengthens conceptual understanding of the curriculum. Through models of teaching that support creativity and problem solving, this book extends the idea of a creative pedagogy to the four core curriculum domains. Developing Creativity in the Classroom focuses on explanations and examples of how creative thinking and deep learning merge to support engaging learning environments, rising to the challenge of developing 21st-century competencies. Available now: http://tinyurl.com/y58w47qv
DEVELOPING
CREATIVITY
IN
THE
CLASSROOM
Developing
Creativity in the Classroom<br/> Learning and Innovation for 21st-Century Schools
Tood Kettler , Ph.D., Kristen N. Lamb , Ph.D., <br/> and Dianna R. Mullet , Ph.D.
First
published
in
2018
by
Prufrock
Press
Inc.
Published 2021 by Routledge <br/> 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
2
Park
Square,
Milton
Park,
Abingdon,
Oxon
OX14
4RN
Routledge
is
an
imprint
of
the
Taylor
&
Francis
Group,
an
informa
business
Copyright
©
2018
by
Taylor
&
Francis
Group
Cover
design
by
Micah
Benson
and
layout
design
by
Allegra
Denbo
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:<br/> Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library
of
Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication
Data
Names: Kettler, Todd, author. | Lamb, Kristen N., 1982-, authro. | Mullet, Dianna R., 1967-, author.<br/> Title: Developing creativity in the classroom : learning and innovation for 21st-century schools / Todd Kettler, Ph.D., Kristen N. Lamb, Ph.D., and Dianna R. Mullet, ph.D.
Description: New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index.<br/> Identifiers: LCCN 2018048378 (print) | LCCN 2018055209 (ebook) | ISBN 9781618218056 (eBook) ISBN 9781618218049 (pbk.)<br/> Subjects: LCSH: Creative ability--Study and teaching. | Creative thinking--Study and teaching. | Problem solving--Study and teaching. | Creative teaching.<br/> Classification: LCC LB1590.5 (ebook) | LCC LB1590.5 .K48 2018 (print) | DDC 370.15/7--dc23<br/> LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018048378
ISBN
13:
978-1-0321-4455-9
(hbk)
ISBN
13:
978-1-6182-1804-9
(pbk)
DOI:
10.4324/9781003234104
Table
of
Contents
Introduction
Creativity,
Problem
Solving,
and
Innovation:
2lst-Century
Imperatives
1
Part
I
What
Is
Creativity?
11
Chapter
1
Understanding
Creativity
and
Innovation
13
Chapter
2
Influential
Theories
of
Creativity
29
Chapter
3
Assessing
Creativity
51
Part
II
Practicing
a
Creative
Pedagogy
65
Chapter
4
Integrated
Approach
to
Teaching
Creativity
67
Chapter
5
Developing
Psychosocial
Skills
to
Sustain
Creativity
81
Chapter
6
Teaching
Models
to
Develop
Creativity
in
the Classroom 95
Chapter
7
Strategies
and
Tactics
for
Developing
Creativity
in
the Classroom
117
Part
III
Creative
Pedagogy
in
the Content
Areas
149
Chapter
8
Developing
Creative
Abilities
in
Language
Arts
151
Chapter
9
Developing
Creative
Abilities
in
Mathematics
169
Chapter
10
Developing
Creative
Abilities
in
Science
185
Chapter
11
Developing
Creative
Abilities
in
Social Studies
199
Part
IV
Systematic
Development
of
Creativity
215
Chapter
12
Creativity,
Expertise,
and
Talent
Development
217
Chapter
13
Systematic
Development
of
Creativity
in
Schools
231
Chapter
14
Frontiers
for
Research
on
Developing
Creativity
in
Schools 245
References
263
About
the
Authors
301
Index
303
Introduction
Creativity,
Problem
Solving,
and
Innovation:
21st-Century
Imperatives
Collectively,
the authors
of
this
book
have
experienced
51 years
in
the
public
school
system
as
students,
parents,
teachers,
professors,
and
researchers.
Growing
up
in
the
1970s, 1980s,
and
1990s,
we
are
products
of
a
school
system
characterized
by
neatly
aligned
rows
of
school
desks,
teacher-centered
instruction,
and
physical
books.
In
our
formative
years,
we
had
to
gather
information
for
a
research
project
by
using
the
Dewey
Decimal
System
to
locate books and
journals
at
the
library.
We
have
also
witnessed
the
faltering
of
such
systems,
physical
libraries,
and
bookstores,
as
the
use
of
Internet
resources
and
libraries
continues
to
rise
and
replace
older
constructs.
We
recall
a
time
when
computer
and
keyboard
instruction
meant
an
exciting
trip
to
the
computer
lab
(another
classroom
with
computers
that
weighed
twice
your
body
weight).
And
when the
teacher wheeled
in
the
TV
and
VCR
cart,
you
and
your
classmates
knew
you
were
in
for
a
real
treat
that
day.
Long
ago
were
the
days
of
VHS
tapes,
cassette
tapes,
Walkmans,
landlines,
and
phonebooks.
There
was
no
Internet,
and home
computers
were
a
rarity.
There
were
no
tablets,
smartphones,
or
cell
phones,
but
car
phones
became
a
big
deal
in
the
1980s,
and
cordless
phones
were
one
of
the
hottest
items
to
hit
the
market.
In
our
51 years,
we
have
witnessed the
life
and
death
of
more
technologies
than the
generations
preceding
us.
It
was
not
until
the
mid-1980s
that
computer
scientist
Tim
Berners-Lee
(2000)
invented
the
World
Wide
Web,
a
mechanism
to
access
information
through
websites
and
hyperlinks.
Berners-Lee
was
the
son
of
two
mathematicians,
who
both
had
a
part
in
programming
the
first
commercial,
stored-program
computer.
In
his
book,
Weaving
the
Web:
The
Original
Design
and
Ultimate
Destiny of
the
World
Wide
Web,
Berners-Lee
recalled
coming
home
from
school
DOI:
10.4324/9781003234104-1
Developing
Creativity
in
the
Classroom
one
day
to
find
his
father
working
on
a
speech
for
Basil de Ferranti,
combing
through
books
on
neuroscience,
trying
to
find
a
way
to
make
computers
intuitive.
After
talking
about the
possibilities
of
computers
with
his
father,
Berners-Lee
moved
on
to
his
homework.
However,
the
possibilities
for
computers
stuck
with
Berners-Lee.
He
went
on
to
Oxford
University,
where he
graduated
in
1976
with
a
physics
degree,
and
in
1980, he
accepted
a
consulting
job
with
a
well-known
physics
laboratory
in
Europe
called
CERN,
where he
wrote
his
first
web-like
program,
Esquire.
He
admitted
that
his
purpose
in
writing
the
program
was
for
nothing
other
than his
personal
use,
wanting
something
that
could
help
him
remember
various
connections
among
the
different
people,
computers,
and
projects
in
the lab.
Earlier
conversations
with
his
father
continued
to
prod
at
Berners-Lee's
(2000)
imagination:
Suppose
all
the
information
stored
on
computers
everywhere
were
linked?
Suppose
I
could
program
my
computer
to
create
a
space
in
which
anything
could
be
linked
to
anything.
All
the bits
of
information
in
every
computer
at
CERN,
and
on
the
planet,
would
be available
to
me
and
to
anyone
else.
There
would
be
a
single,
global
information
space.
(p.
4)
Berners-Lee
went
on
to
develop
the
HTML,
URL,
and
HTTP
technologies
that
we
recognize
and
use
today.
The
intent
of
the
design
was
to
create
"a
pool
of
human
knowledge,
which
would
allow
collaborators
in
remote
sites
to
share
their
ideas
and
all
aspects
of
a
common
project"
(Berners-Lee,
Cailliau,
Luotonen,
Frystyk-Nielsen,
&
Secret,
1994, p.
76).
The
World
Wide
Web
became
available
to
public
users
in
1990, and
by
1993, the
programming
code
was
free.
The
spread
of
the
World
Wide
Web
was
pervasive.
By
1995,
at
least 18
million
homes
in
America
were
online,
and
by
1996,
77%
of
Americans
online
sent
or
received
e-mail
at
least
once
every
few
weeks.
In
the
same
year,
Nokia
released
the
first
cell
phone
with
Internet
capabilities
(Pew
Research
Center,
2014).
By
2003,
Apple
launched
iTunes, and
Mark
Zuckerberg
launched Facebook.
By
2013, 56%
of
Americans
owned
a
smartphone
(Pew
Research
Center,
2014).
Presently,
an
estimated
95%
of
Americans
have
a
cellphone,
with
77%
owning
smartphones
(adults
over
65
make
up
40%
of
those
having
a
cellphone
with
no
smartphone
capability,
while
94%
of
adults between the
ages
of
18-29
have
a
smartphone).
After
25 years,
approximately
89%
of
the
American
population
uses
the
Internet
(Pew
Research
Center,
2018).
These
technologies
are
perpet-
Introduction
ually
changing
how
we
live,
how
we
learn,
and
how
we
work
(Voogt,
Erstad,
Dede,
&
Mishra,
2013).
The
World
Wide
Web
has
permeated
society
and
has
become
another
way
of
life,
so
much
so
that
the
United
Nations
passed
a
resolution
in
Article
19
stating
that the
intentional
disruption
or
limitation
of
the
Internet
is
a
violation
of
human
rights.
The
United
Nations
further
explained
that
the
Internet
has
increased
connectivity,
has
facilitated
the
"flow
of
information
and ideas"
across
the
globe,
and
has
provided
multiple
opportunities
to
grow
economically
and
impact
societal
change
(Human
Rights
Council, 2013, p.
5).
Life
in
an
information-rich
world
has
so
many
benefits and
unlimited
potential;
in
many
ways,
students
really
do have the
world
at
their
fingertips.
However,
with
"great
power
comes
great
responsibility."
As
teachers
and
researchers,
we
must
ask
ourselves:
How
do
we
help
students
to
harness
the
power
that's been
granted
to
them—the
wealth
of
information
and
technology
that
has
been
thrust
upon
them?
How
do
we
support
them
to
one
day
navigate
a
very
big,
connected
world
on
their
own?
Educational
Technology:
A
Glimpse
of
the
Past
Throughout
the
1900s,
teachers
witnessed
advances
like
the overhead
projector
(1930),
videotapes
(1951),
copier
machines
(1959),
handheld
calculators
(1972),
and
computers
(1981;
Purdue
University,
n.d.).
Concurrently,
Americans
were
growing
uneasy
due
to
wavering
trust
in
political
figures
and
social
unrest.
As
a
result,
many
Americans
questioned
the
educational
system
and the
United
States'
progress
and
standing
in
relation
to
other
countries.
In
1981,
a
committee
was
formed
to
examine
the
quality
of
American
education,
and
a
report
was
generated
in
response
to
a
flailing
U.S.
education
system.
A
Nation
at
Risk
(U.S.
National
Commission
on
Excellence
in
Education,
1983)
compared
U.S. students
to
other
industrial
nations
and
highlighted
concerns—
watered-down
curricula,
time
spent
on
schoolwork
in
the classroom
and
out,
and
inadequate
skill
development.
The
report
forecasted
problems
regarding
computers
and the
impact
of
technology:
Computers
and
computer-controlled
equipment
are
penetrating
every
aspect
of
our
lives—homes,
factories,
and
offices.
One
estimate
indicates
that
by
the
turn
of
the
century
millions
of
jobs
will
involve
laser
technology
and
robotics.
Technology
is
radically
transforming
a
host
of
other
occupations.
They
include
health
care,
medical
science,
energy
production,
food
processing,
construction,
and the
building,
repair,
and
maintenance
of
sophisticated
scientific,
educational,
military,
and
industrial
equipment.
(p.
18)
As
we
know,
technology
found
a
way.
These
predictions
from
1983
have
come
to
pass.
One
of
the
biggest
transformations
to
impact
public
education
was
the
Industrial
Revolution.
Today,
we
face
a
similar,
and
some
even
suggest
much
larger
(Florida,
2006),
impact
known
as
the
Information
Revolution,
or
the
Digital
Age.
Characterized
by
the wide
availability
of
the
Internet,
smart-
phones,
video games, apps, and
so
on,
learning
in
the
Digital
Age
transitions
us
from
a
period
of
uniformity
to
one
that
is
customized,
interactive,
and
tailored
to
the
user
(Collins
&
Halverson,
2018).
Technology
and media
have
also
introduced
outside
pressures
on
students,
such
as
cyberbullying,
cheating,
and social
image.
At
the
same
time,
K-12
institutions
are
facing
the demands
of
increasingly
higher
standards,
and schools
are
forced
to
adapt
to
constringent
policies
and
accountability,
resulting
in
schools
that
"follow
practices
that
reduce
learning
choices
at
the
same
time
that
technologies
widen
options"
(Collins
&
Halverson,
2018, p.
3).
In
other
words, schools
continue
to
deliver
uniform
instruction
tailored
for
a
one-size-fits-all
audience,
while
technology
offers
choices
custom-designed
for
the learner.
Many
individuals
are
turning
to
the
World
Wide
Web
to
meet
individualistic
needs.
Additionally,
when
K-12
schools
are
faced
with
new
technology,
they
have
historically
responded
in
one
of
two
ways:
assimilation
or
censorship
(Halverson
&
Smith,
2010).
For
example,
although
schools
have
picked
up
the
use
of
assessment
and
instructional
technology,
the
use
of
mobile
devices,
social
media,
and video games
in
classroom
instruction
is
often
excluded
(Halverson
&
Smith,
2010).
In
fact,
most
people
are
now
obtaining
information
outside
of
school
through
the
use
of
social media websites and
online
enrichment
opportunities used
by
parents
(Collins
&
Halverson,
2018).
Perhaps
that is
one
of
the
most
pressing
issues
school
personnel,
policy
makers,
and
educational
researchers
face
today—these
technologies
have
changed
the
way
we
consume
information.
News
is
reported
in
real
time,
and
with
a
variety
of
news
sources
and
resources,
consumers
are
often
left
with
little
guidance
and
no
direction
on
how
to
discern
trustworthy
sources.
Be
that
as
it
may, the wheel
has
been
set
in
motion,
and the
responsibility
of
navigating
this
new
world
has
primarily
fallen
on
the shoulders
of
schools.
Technology
was
intended
to
serve
as
a
supplement
and
support
in
jobs
and
education.
In
many
ways,
technology
is
actually
making
"life
more
difficult
for
teachers"
(Collins
&
Halverson,
2018, p.
6).
Teachers
struggle
to
find
a
balance
between
restrictive,
high-stakes
assessment
and incorporating
21st-century
skills.
Essentially,
we've
grown
accustomed
to
teaching
students
in
order
to
assess
them.
Now
teachers
are
tasked
with
teaching
and
preparing
students
for
a
target
that
hasn't
been
named
yet—careers
that
do
not
even
exist
(Robinson,
2011;
Voogt
et
al.,
2013).
Traditional
educational
practices
and training
in
a
standards-
and
assessment-based
education
system
make
it
difficult
to
teach
students
for
the
unknown.
Additionally,
the
lack
of
consensus
on
a
digital
or
21st-century
curriculum
makes
it
difficult
for
teachers
to
know
exactly
what
to
teach and
how
to
teach
it
(Voogt
et
al.,
2013).
We
face
an
unknown
future,
this is
certain,
and
"we
may
not
be
able
to
predict
the future,
but
we
can
help
to
shape
it"
(Robinson,
2011, p.
17).
We
can
help
our
students
to
shape
it.
Through
creativity,
we
can
do
our
part
to
shape
the
future.
Preparing
Students
for
the
Unknown:
Learning
in
the
21st
Century
As
individuals
living
in
the
21st
century,
we
are
experiencing
the
phasing
out
of
many
routine
operation
and
production
jobs
to
more
knowledge-based
jobs.
Technologies
are
creating
jobs
that
didn't
even
exist
10 years ago
(Voogt
et
al.,
2013).
In
1950,
less
than 10%
of
Americans
worked
in
the
creative
sector,
but
from
1980
to
2005, the
creative
sector
grew
by
20
million
jobs
(Florida,
2006).
Students
are
transitioning
from
classroom
experiences
that
focus
on
rote
memorization
to
classroom
experiences
that
focus
on
skill
building
and
becoming
good
stewards
of
knowledge.
Across
several
reviews
of
21st-century
frameworks,
most
researchers
agreed
that
collaboration,
communication,
creativity,
digital
literacy,
citizenship,
critical
thinking,
problem
solving,
and
productivity
were
key
skills
students
must
have
to
live
in
and
contribute
to
an
information-rich
society
(Voogt
et
al.,
2013).
Further,
the
Office
of
Educational
Technology
of
the U.S.
Department
of
Education
(2017)
emphasized
21st-century
skills and
expertise
as
a
means
to
stay
competitive
globally
and
to
develop
citizens
that
are
engaged.
The
report
listed
critical
thinking,
problem
solving,
collabora-
tion,
and
multimedia
communication
as
imperative
21st-century
skills.
The
report
also
highlighted
the
development
of
psychosocial
skills,
such
as
agency
growth
mindset,
and
self-efficacy,
as
crucial.
In
the
business
sector,
when
asked
to
identify
the
most
important
leadership
skill
to
help
organizations
navigate
growing
complexity
from
globalization,
businesses
answered
with
"creativity"
(Robinson,
2011).
When
conducting
a
general
Internet
search
for
the
"top
skills
employers
look
for,"
the
resulting
list
is
littered
with
cognitive
flexibility,
decision
making,
strong
psychosocial
skills,
creativity,
collaborative
skills,
critical
thinking
and
problem
solving—skills
that
cannot
be
programmed.
The
things
that
make
us
human
are
the
very
things
that
set
us
apart
in
a
technology-driven,
globalized
market.
Although
policy
makers,
teachers,
and
researchers
have
acknowledged
the
value
of
21st-century
skills,
21st-century
skills
are
not
always
implemented
in
classroom
practice.
For
instance,
Law
(2009)
found
that
math
and
science
teachers
employed
classroom
practices
that
emphasized
traditional
learning
goals—
students
are
assessed
on
their
mastery
of
"predefined
content
goals,"
and "teachers
play
the
role
of
the expert
instructor
and
assessor
while
students
follow
instructions
and
complete
assigned
close-ended
tasks"
(p.
317).
More
specifically,
Law
found
that
teachers
considered
collaboration
and student
autonomy
in
learning
to
be almost
as
important
as
performing
well
on
exams,
but
they
considered
connectedness
and
communication
to
be
a
lot
less
important.
Law
concluded
that
although
teachers
believe
that
learning
21st-century
skills is important
for
students,
teachers
do
not
promote
21
st-century
learning
in
their
classroom
instruction.
The
gap between
what
teachers
find
valuable and the
practices
they
implement
could
be related
to
the
lags
in
developing
21st-century
curriculum
or
lacking
direction
in
integrating
21st-century
skills
into
existing
curriculum.
In
fact,
studies
on
teachers'
perceptions
of
creativity,
the value
they
place
on
creativity
skills,
and the
actual
implementation
of
creative
pedagogy
reveal
similar
discrepancies
(Kettler,
Lamb,
Willerson,
&
Mullet, 2018; Mullet, Willerson,
Lamb,
&
Kettler,
2016).
In
the
end,
creativity
is often
left
as
a
piecemeal
activity
carried
out
at
the
end
of
a
learning
unit,
if
time
permits
(Olszewski-Kubilius,
Subotnik,
&
Worrell,
2016).
However,
researchers
have
made
progress
in
this
area
by
identifying
three important
areas
that
need
to
be
addressed
if
we
want
to
develop
21st-century
curriculum:
(a)
foundational
knowledge,
or
answering
the
question
of
what
we
need
to
know
in
regard
to
information
literacy,
core
content,
and
interdisciplinary
knowledge;
(b)
metaknowledge,
which
includes
processes—communication,
collaboration,
and
creativity—involved
in
learning
how
to
facilitate
information;
and
(c)
humanistic
knowledge,
or
addressing
the
values
of
the
learner—cultural
and
global
skills,
life
and
work
skills,
and eth-
ical
and
emotional
awareness—and
understanding
where
they
fit
in
the
world
(Mishra
&
Kereluik,
2011).
The
question
is
not
whether
21st-century
skills
are
important.
The
question
is:
How
do
we
incorporate
21st-century
skills
into
our
existing
curriculum
and
our
existing
practices
?
That's
where
creativity
and the
adoption
of
a
creative
pedagogy
come
in.
Creativity:
Why
We
Can't
Live
Without
It
The
Rise
and
Flight
of
the
Creative
Class
According
to
Richard
Florida
(2004),
"Where
creativity
goes—and,
by
extension,
wherever
talent
goes—innovation
and
economic
growth
are
sure
to
follow"
(p.
123).
Florida
wrote
about
Americas
looming
creativity
crisis.
He
estimated
that
a
new
class
of
workers
was
on
the
rise—comprised
of
engineers,
scientists,
architects,
educators,
musicians,
artists,
entertainers,
lawyers,
medical
professionals,
and
designers.
These
workers—the
ones
who
generate
new
ideas,
technology,
and
content—made
up
the
creative
class
of
problem
solvers
and
inventors.
They
accounted
for
more
than
30%
of
the U.S.
workforce
and made
almost
half
of
total
wage
and
salary
income.
The
rise
of
the
creative
class
in
other
countries,
however,
was
beginning
to
surpass the U.S.
Other
countries
stepped
in
and
recognized
that
the
global
economy
thrives
on
the
diversity
of
creative
talents and
depends
on
the competition
of
people
over
products.
In
order
to
assess
this
"flight
of
the
creative
class"
(Florida,
2006,
p.
22),
Florida
(2004)
developed
the
Global
Creative-Class Index (GCCI)
to
measure
the size
of
the
creative
class
in
different
countries.
The
GCCI
takes
the
number
of
workers
in
creative
job
fields and divides
it
by
the
number
of
total
workers
in
the
country.
The
U.S.
came
in
at
11th,
with
a
decrease
from
30%
to
23.6%
of
workers
belonging
to
the
creative
class.
Countries
that
preceded
the
U.S.
were
Ireland
(33.5%),
Belgium
(30.4%),
Australia
(30.1%),
the
Netherlands
(29.5%),
New
Zealand
(27.1%),
Estonia
(26.2%),
the
United
Kingdom
(25.7%),
Canada
(25%),
Finland
(24.7%),
and Iceland
(24.1%).
The
U.S.
also
dropped
in
areas
of
competitive
high-tech
companies,
patents
and
publications,
and
scientific
literature.
In
2004,
Florida
speculated
that
the
real
problem
to
look
for
is
a
"looming
shortage
of
creative
talent"
(p.
126)
and
urged
U.S. stakeholders
to
begin
thinking
of
creativity
as
they
would
liberty
and
security.
The
21st-Century
Creativity
Imperatives
The
21st
century
is
complex,
and
it
is
only
increasing
in
complexity;
it
is
our
capacity
to
be
creative
that
is
required
to
meet
complex
issues
(Robinson,
2011).
We
must
tap
into
and
harness
our
creative
capacities
because
we
will
not
witness
economic
growth
or
prosperity
unless
we
focus
our
efforts
on
developing
creativity
(Florida,
2006).
Creativity
is
that
important.
According
to
Robinson
(2011),
the
educational
system
has
three
crucial
roles
in
the
21st
century:
(a)
personal,
developing
the talents and sensibilities
of
individuals;
(b)
cultural,
deepening
our
comprehension
of
the
world;
and
(c)
economic,
providing
individuals
with
necessary
skills
to
earn
a
living
and be
economically
productive.
He
further
stated
that
the
equal
distribution
and promotion
of
these
three
roles,
as
well
as
understanding
how
they
interrelate,
is
pivotal
to
our
transformation
into
a
21st-century
educational
system
with
creativity
and
innovation
at
the
helm.
Creativity
is
not
just
a
vital
personal
endeavor;
it
is
a
vital
educational
endeavor.
Teaching
creativity
is
not
enough.
It
is
not
enough
for
us,
and
it
is
not
enough
for
our
students.
One
of
the primary
predictors
of
valuing
creativity
in
the classroom is
whether
or
not
teachers
view
themselves
as
creative
(Kettler,
Lamb,
Willerson,
&
Mullet,
2018).
However,
every
time
we
have
traveled
to
work
with
teachers
from
multiple
disciplines,
grade
levels,
and
cultures,
we
ask
the
question:
Who
here
is
creative
?
Inevitably,
only
a
few raise
their
hands. Why
is this? Why do
we
think
we
are
not
creative
?
In
his Toward
a
Psychology
of
Being,
Abraham
Maslow
(2014)
admonished
himself
and
wrote,
"I
soon
discovered
that
I
had,
like
most
other
people,
been
thinking
of
creativeness
in
terms
of
products,
and
secondly,
I had
unconsciously
confined
creativeness
to
certain
conventional
areas"
(p.
117).
Creativity
is
a
human
capacity;
thus,
every
human
can
be
creative.
Nonetheless,
somewhere
along
the
way
we
have
lost
that
spark
and
our
inclination
to
dream
and
imagine,
or
as
Ken
Robinson
(2011)
put
it,
"We
don't
grow
into
creativity;
we
grow
out
of
it.
Often
we
are
educated
out
of
it"
(p.
49).
The
rediscovery
of
that
creative
spark
within
us
plays
a
key
role
in
the
rest
of
this
book.
Adjusting
Our
Lens:
What
It
Means
to
Be
Creative
in
the
21st
Century
Recognize
how
easy
it
is
to
find
yourself
locked
into
what
creativity
is and
what
it
is
not.
For
example,
we
often
think
of
creativity
as
one
developing
completely
new,
never-heard-of-before
idea
or
invention.
However,
creativity
can
also
be
as
simple
as
changing
the
way
we
do
things.
Florida
(2006)
posed
an
interesting
challenge,
claiming
that
the
real
test
is
how
we
use
our
time—the
investment
of
our
time
should
not
completely
focus
on
the
creation
of
new
products,
but
on
the advancement
of
creative
work
across
all
work
sectors.
Take
a
high-tech
company
like
Google,
for
example,
which
has
radically
changed
the
traditional
work
model.
Operating
under the
belief
"recruiting
the
best
people
is
good;
keeping
them is
a
lot
better"
and
with
the
support
of
empirically
based
research,
Google
has
created and
maintains
innovative
work
environments
that
target
employees'
intrinsic
and
extrinsic
motivation
(Girard,
2009, p.
63).
In
addition
to
higher
pay
and bonus
payouts,
Google
has
incorporated
Google
Café
(He,
2013),
a
place
within
the
workplace
that
encourages
employees
to
interact
with
one
another,
which
in
turn
ignites
conversations
that
center
around
work
and
play—plus
employees
get
to
eat
for
free.
Google
has
incorporated
open
terraces
and
multiple
meeting
rooms,
and
when
The
New
York
Times
covered the
impact
Google
was
making,
an
employee
summed
it
up:
"The
philosophy
is
very
simple.
Google's
success
depends
on
innovation
and
collaboration.
Everything
we
did
was
geared
toward
making
it
easy
to
talk"
(Stewart,
2013).
Google
has
also
implemented
Google
Moderator
(He,
2013),
a
tool
that
allows
all
employees
to
ask a
question
and
vote
on
the
questions
they
want
addressed.
It
has
served
as
an
innovative
pathway
to
the
discovery
of
ideas
and
questions,
while
also
giving
a
voice
to
many
within
the
company.
Google
has
also
implemented
"20
percent"
projects,
which
build
in
time
throughout
the
workweek
for
employees
to
spend
20%
of
their
time
on
their
passions
and
interests
(Girard,
2009).
In
short,
Google
has
built
a
work
environment
that
cultivates
communication,
collaboration,
community,
and
creativity.
In
addition
to
workplace
satisfaction
and
employee
happiness,
Google
has
seen
performance
and
productivity
soar.
About
This
Book
This
book
is about
building
creative
communities
in
our
classrooms
so
that
students
can
engage
or
build
creative
communities
in
the
world.
Reflecting
on
our
perception
of
our
own
creative
abilities
is great
place
to
start.
From
there,
we
can
achieve
creative
communities
by
adopting
a
creative
pedagogy
and
holistically
responding
to
the
creative
needs
of
our
students.
In
this book,
we
cover
the
most
influential
theories,
models,
and
concepts
in
education,
and
we
address
supportive
skills
for
creativity.
Most
of
all,
we
have
written
about
creativity
so
that
the
concepts
can
be
adapted
to
the
unique
needs
of
your
classroom and
teaching
style.
If
we
can
build
a
creative
community
within
our
classrooms,
the
rest
will
follow—and
students
will
thrive
in
the
21st
century.
References
Albanese, M. A. , & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues.
Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.
Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychology, 27, 33-51.
Aljughaiman, A. , & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers' conceptions of creativity and creative students. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 39, 17-34. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01247.x
Allen, J. D. (2018). The two hundred greatest mathematicians of all time. Retrieved from https://fabpedigree.com/james/gmat200.htm
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 997-1013. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 357-376.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M. (2018). Creativity and the labor of love. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp.
1-15). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Amabile, T. M. , Conti, R. , Coon, H. , Lazenby, J. , & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M. , & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Amabile, T. M. , & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 3-15.
doi:10.1002/jocb.001
Amabile, T. M. , & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making
progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.
Ambrose, D. (2017). Revealing and overcoming the dogmatism of sterile certainty in mathematics education. ZDM, 49, 1009-1021.
doi:10.1007/s11858-017-0888-y
Ambrose, D. , & Sternberg, R. J. (2016). Previewing a collaborative exploration of gifted education and talent development in the 21st
century. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization
(pp. 3-14). Boston, MA: Sense.
American Economics Association . (2018). What is economics? Understanding the discipline. Retrieved from
https://www.aeaweb.org/resources/students/what-is-economics
Anderson, L. H. (2009). Wintergirls. New York, NY: Viking.
Anderson, T. , & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in educational research? Educational Researcher,
4, 16-25.
Andiliou, A. , & Murphy, K. P. (2010). Examining variations among researchers' and teachers' conceptualizations of creativity: A
review and synthesis of contemporary research. Educational Research Review, 5, 201-219. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003
Andrade, H. , & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 12-19.
Austin, J. H. (1978). Chase, chance, and creativity: The lucky art of novelty. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Ayas, M. B. , & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the Creative Scientific Ability Test.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195-205. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.001
Baer, J. (1993). Why you shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51, 80-83.
Baer, J. (1998). The case of domain-specificity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173-177.
Baer, J. (1999). Creativity in a climate of standards. Focus on Education, 43, 16-21.
Baer, J. (2003). Impact of the Core Knowledge Curriculum on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 297-300.
Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory . Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 16-29. doi:10.1002/jocb.002
Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37, 165-178.
doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1047480
Baer, J. , & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C.
Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 6-23), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Baer, J. , Kaufman, J. C. , & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the Consensual Assessment Technique to nonparallel creative
products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113-117. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1601_11
Bahar, A. K. , & Maker, C. J. (2011). Exploring the relationship between mathematical creativity and mathematical achievement. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Gifted and Talented Education, 3, 33-48.
Balka, D. S. (1974). The development of an instrument to measure creative ability in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 36(01), 98.
Balthazard, P. A. , Cooke, R. A. , & Potter, R. E. (2006). Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization: Capturing the behavioral
norms that form organizational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 709-732.
Barab, S. , & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1-14.
Barron, B. J. S. , Schwartz, D. L. , Vye, N. J. , Moore, A. , Petrosino, A. , Zech, L. , & Bransford, J. D. (1998) Doing with
understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271 -311.
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_2
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barron, F. (1972). Artists in the making. New York, NY: Seminar Press.
Barrows, H. S. , & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to tnedical education. New York, NY: Springer.
Batey, M. , & Furnham, A. (2010). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social,
and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355-429. doi:10.3200/MC)N0.132.4.355-430
BBC . (2013). Why science needs imagination and beauty. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131127-secret-to-
thinking-like-a-genius
Beeftink, F. , van Earde, W. , & Rutte, C. G. (2008). The effect of interruptions and breaks on insight and impasses: Do you need a
break right now? Creativity Research Journal, 20, 358-364.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447-457.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper
Review, 29, 265-270.
Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Prospective teachers' beliefs about imaginative thinking in K-12 schooling. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3,
134-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.06.001
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
46, 210-223.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Learning as a creative act. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculum for gifted and advanced academic students
(pp. 111-128). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Beghetto, R. A. , & Karwowski, M. (2017). Toward untangling creative self-beliefs. In M. Karwowski & J. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative
self: Effect of beliefs, self efficacy, mindset, and identity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Beghetto, R. A. , & Plucker, J. A. (2006). The relationship between schooling, learning, and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer
(Eds.), Reason and creativity in development, (pp. 316-332). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43. doi:10.1080/00098650903505415
Bereczki, E. O. , & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers' beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of recent research
literature. Educational Research Review, 23, 25-56. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003
Bermejo, M. R. , Ruiz-Melero, M. J. , Esparza, J. , Ferrando, M. , & Pons, R. (2016). A new measurement of scientific creativity: The
study of its psychometric properties. Annals of Psychology, 32, 652-661. doi:10.6018/analesps.32.3.259411
Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Berners-Lee, T. , Cailliau, R. , Luotonen, A. , Frystyk-Nielsen, H. , & Secret, A. (1994). The world-wide web. Communications of the
ACM, 37(8), 76-82. doi:10.1145/179606.179671
Bernhardt, V. L. (2017). Measuring what we do in schools: How to know if what we are doing is making a difference. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Betts, G. T. (1985). The autonomous learner model. Greely, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications Specialists.
Biggs, J. B. , Kember, D. , & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.
Biggs, J. B. , & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does
(
4th
ed.)
. Berkshire, England:
Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Bisland, A. (2001). Mentoring: An educational alternative for gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 22-25.
Black, P. , & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-
148.
Blazhenkova, O. , & Kozhevnikov, M. (2016). Types of creativity and visualization in teams of different educational specializations.
Creativity Research Journal, 28, 123-135.
Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Bloom, H. (2002). Genius: A mosaic of one hundred exemplary creative minds. New York, NY; Warner Books.
Blumenfeld, P. , Fishman, B. J. , Krajcik, J. , Marx, R. W. , & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform:
Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through creative math, inspiring messages, and innovative
teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boden, M. (2001). Creativity and knowledge. In A. Craft , B. Jeffrey , & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 95-102).
London, England: Continuum.
Boitnott, J. (2014). 10 longtime brainstorming techniques that still work. Inc. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/10-
longtimebrainstorming-techniques-that-still-work.html
Bonotto, C. (2013). Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 37-55.
doi:10.1007/s10649012-9441-7
Bradbury, R. (1951). Fahrenheit 451. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Brock, R. (2015). Intuition and insight: Two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education. Studies in Science Education, 51,
127-167. doi:10.1080/03057267.2015.1049843
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. , & Crouter, A. C. (1983). The evolution of environmental models in developmental research. In P. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theories of developtnent (4th ed., pp. 358-414). New York, NY: Wiley.
Buerk, S. (2016). Inquiry learning models and gifted education: A curriculum of innovation and possibility. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern
curriculwn for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 129-170). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Bynes, J. P. (1998). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carroll, L. (1871). Through the looking glass. London, England: Macmillan.
Carson, S. H. , Peterson, J. B. , & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement
Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37-50.
Chan, D. W. , & Chan, L. K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers' perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong.
Creativity Research Journal, 12, 185-195.
Chang, H. , & Lin, T. (2013). Discovering Taiwanese design college students' learning performance and imaginative capacity. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 10, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.05.005
Chávez-Eakle, R. A. , Eakle, A. J. , & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2012). The multiple relations between creativity and personality. Creativity
Research Journal, 24, 76-82.
Chávez-Eakle, R. A. , Lara, M. C. , & Cruz, C. (2006). Personality: A possible bridge between creativity and psychopathology?
Creativity Research Journal, 18, 27-38.
Chen, B. , Hu, W. , & Plucker, J. A. (2014). The effect of mood on problem finding in scientific creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 50, 308-320. doi:10.1002/jocb.79
Chin, M. K. , & Siew, N. M. (2015). The development and validation of a figural scientific creativity test for preschool pupils. Creative
Education, 6, 1391-1402. doi:10.4236/ce.2015.612139
Chong, E. , & Ma, X. (2010). The influence of individual factors, supervision, and work environment on creative self-efficacy. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 19, 233-247. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00557.x
Clark, J. M. , & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-170.
Clay Mathematics Institute . (2008). Annual report 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.claymath.org/library/annual_report/ar2008/ar2008.pdf
Clydesdale, G. (2006). Creativity and competition: The Beatles. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 129-139.
College Board . (2018). AP research: The course. Retrieved from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-research/course
Collins, A. , & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cooper, J. (2013). Designing a school makerspace: An approach to defining and designing the right space for your school. Edutopia.
Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/designing-a-school-makerspace-jennifer-cooper
Costa, P. T. , & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.
Coxbill, E. , Chamberlin, S. A. , & Weatherford, J. (2013). Using model-eliciting activities as a tool to identify and develop
mathematically creative students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 176-197. doi:10.1177/0162353213480433
Craft, A. , Cremin, T. , Hay, P. , & Clack, J. (2014). Creative primary schools: Developing and maintaining pedagogy for creativity.
Ethnography and Education, 9(1), 16-34. doi:10.1080/17457823.2013.828474
Crawford, R. P. (1954). The techniques of creative thinking: How to use your ideas to achieve success. New York, NY: Hawthorn
Books.
The Creative Problem Solving Group . (2017). Working to unleash the full spectrum of creative talent in organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.cpsb.com/services
Cremin, T. , Glauert, E. , Craft, A. , Compton, A. , & Stylianidou, F. (2015). Creative little scientists: Exploring pedagogical synergies
between inquiry-based and creative approaches in early years science. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years
Education, 43, 404-419. doi:10.1080/03004279.2015.1020655
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23, 72-79.
doi:10.1080/02783190009554069
Crossan, M. M. , & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the
literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1154-1191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 313-335). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. London, England: Little, Brown.
Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Dawson, V. L. , D'Andrea, T. , Affinito, R. , & Westby, E. L. (1999). Predicting creative behavior: A reexamination of the divergence
between traditional and teacher-defined concepts of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 5-66.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1201_7
Dayal, A. K. , & Musgrave, P. (2018). Teaching counterfactuals from hell. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 30, 23-31.
de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science.
CBE
Life Sciences Education
, 8, 172-181.
Denton, B. G. , Adams, C. C. , Blatt, P. J. , & Lorish, C. D. (2000). Does the introduction of problem-based learning change graduate
performance outcomes in a professional curriculum? Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11, 147-162.
The Design-Based Collective . (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational
Researcher, 32, 5-8.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
De Witte, K. , & Rogge, N. (2016). Problem-based learning in secondary education: Evaluation by an experiment. Education
Economics, 24, 58-82.
Diedrich, J. , Jauk, E. , Silvia, P. J. , Gredlein, J. M. , Neubauer, A. C. , & Benedek, M. (2018). Assessment of real-life creativity: The
Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 304-316.
Djikic, M. , Oatley, K. , Zoeterman, S. , & Peterson, J. (2009). On being moved by art: How reading fiction transforms the self.
Creativity Research Journal, 21, 24-29.
Dollinger, S. J. , Palaskonis, D. G. , & Pearson, J. L. (2004). Creativity and intuition revisited. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38,
244-259. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01243.x
Dollinger, S. J. , Urban, K. K. , & James, T. J. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures.
Journal of Personality, 67, 623-644.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M. , Loyens, S. M. M. , Marcq, H. , & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A
review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21, 1087-1112.
Domino, G. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 35, 48-51. doi:10.1037/h0029624
Domino, G. , & Giuliani, I. (1997). Creativity in three samples of photographers: A validation of the adjective check list creativity scale.
Creativity Research Journal, 10, 193-200. doi:10.1080/104004l9.1997.9651217
Dornburg, C. C. , Stevens S. M. , Hendrickson S. M. L. , & Davidson G. S. (2009). Improving extreme-scale problem solving:
Assessing electronic brainstorming effectiveness in an industrial setting, Human Factors, 51, 519-527.
doi:10.1177/0018720809343587
Dow, G. T. , & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training.
Creativity Research Journal, 16, 389-402.
Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner.
Duckworth, A. L. , Peterson, C. , Matthews, M. D. , & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087-1101. doi:10.1037/0022-35l4.92.6.1087
Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
Dziedziewicz, D. , Oledzka, D. , & Karwowski, M. (2014). Developing 4- to 6-year-old children's figural creativity using a doodle-book
program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 85-95. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.004
Eberle, B. (1996). Scamper: Games for imagination developtnent. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Eberle, R. F. (1977). SCAMPER. Buffalo, NY: DOK.
Economic and Social Research Council . (2018). Social science disciplines. Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-us/what-is-
social-science/social-science-disciplines
Education Northwest . (2012). What are the traits
?
Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits/trait-definitions
Erickson, H. L. , Lanning, L. A. , & French, R. (2017). Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ertmer, P. A. , Schlosser, S. , Clase, K. , & Adedokun, O. (2014). The grand challenge: Helping teachers learn/teach cutting-edge
science via a PBL approach. Interdisciplinary journal of problem-based learning 8(1). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1407
Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42-53). New York, NY: Kluwer.
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147-178.
Eyster, L. (2010). Encouraging creativity in the science lab. The Science Teacher, 77(6), 32-35.
Fairweather, E. , & Cramond, B. (2010). Infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum together. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C.
Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 113-141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, R. F. , Lind, S. L. , Miller, N. B. , Piechowski, M. M. , & Silverman, L. K. (1999). The Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQII):
Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Denver, CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
Farmer, S. M. , & Tierney, P. (2017). Considering creative self-efficacy: Its current state and ideas for future inquiry. In M. Karwowski
& J. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 317-327.
Feist, G. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290-
304.
Feldhusen, J. F. , & Kolloff, M. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage model. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing
programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Fisher, T. (2016). Independent research, creative productivity, and personalization of learning. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculum
for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 171-187). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Florida, R. (2004). America's looming creativity crisis. Harvard Business Review, 82, 122-136.
Florida, R. (2006). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. Liberal Education, 92(3), 22-27, 29.
Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class: Revisited. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2017). High-tech innovation, creativity, and regional development. In J. A. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 75-90). Waco TX: Prufrock Press.
Fortus, D. , Dershimer, R. C. , Krajcik, J. S. , Marx, R. W. , & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081-1110. doi:10.1002/tea.20040
Fortus, D. , Krajcik, J. S. , Dershimer, R. C. , Marx, R , & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-
solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 855-879. doi:10.1080/09500690500038165
Furnham, A. , & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
613-617. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023
Gallagher, S. A. (2015). The role of problem-based learning in developing creative expertise. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 225-
235. doi:10.1007/s12564-015-9367-8
Gallagher, S. A. , & Gallagher, J. J. (2013). Using problem-based learning to explore unseen academic potential. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7, 111-131. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1322
Gallagher, S. A. , Stepien, W. J. , & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effect of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 36, 195-201.
Gelade, G. A. (1997). Creativity in conflict: The personality of the commercial creative. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 67-
78. doi:10.1080/00221329709596653
George Lucas Educational Foundation . (2007). How does project-based learning work? Tools for understanding the process of
planning and building projects. Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning-guide--implementation
Gershon, W. S. , & Oded, B. H. (2014). Deepening inquiry: What processes of making music can teach us about creativity and
ontology for inquiry-based science education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 15(19), 1-37.
Getzels, J. (1975). Creativity: Prospects and issues. In I. A. Taylor & J. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 20-45). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Ghosh, S. (2003). Triggering creativity in science and engineering: Reflection as a catalyst. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic
Systetns, 38, 255-275. doi:10.1023/b:jint.0000004971.25256.f0
Gilat, T. , & Amit, M. (2014). Exploring young students' creativity: The effect of model eliciting activities. PNA, 8, 51-59.
Girard, B. (2009). The Google way: How one company is revolutionizing management as we know it. San Francisco, CA: No Starch
Press.
Glas, E. (2002). Klein's model of mathematical creativity. Science & Education, 11, 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013075819948
Goldin, G. A. (2017). Mathematical creativity and giftedness: Perspectives in response. ZDM, 49, 147-157. doi:10.1007/s11858-017-
0837-9
Goncalo, J. A. , & Staw, B. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisioti
Processes, 100, 96-109.
Goodale, T. A. , & Hughes, C. E. (2018). Deconstructing the constructed experience: Reforming science materials to develop
creativity. School Science Review, 99(368), 45-52.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-
1405. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398
Gralewski, J. , & Karwowski, M. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students' gender moderates accuracy of teachers' ratings of
creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 290-304. doi:10.1002/jocb.36
Greenblatt, S. (2004). Will in the world: How Shakespeare became Shakespeare. New York, NY: Norton.
Gu, J. , He, C. , & Liu, H. (2017). Supervisory styles and graduate student creativity: The mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and
intrinsic motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 721-742. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1072149
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1971). Creativity tests for children: A manual of interpretation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
Gutkind, L. (n.d). What is creative nonfiction
?
Retrieved from http://www.creativenonfiction.org/online-reading/what-creative-nonfiction
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. , Fokialis, P. , & Kabouropoulou, M. (2012). Thinking about creativity in science education. Creative Education, 3,
603-611. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.35089
Haigh, M. (2006). Can investigative practical work in high school biology foster creativity? Research in Science Education, 37, 123-
140. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9018-5
Halverson, R. , & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 26, 49-54.
Harvard Graduate School of Education . (2015). See/think/wonder: A routine for exploring works of art and other interesting things.
Retrieved from http://pz.harvard.edu/resources/see-think-wonder
Hass, R. W. , Katz-Buonincontro, J. , & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). Disentangling creative mindsets from creative self-efficacy and
creative identity: Do people hold fixed and growth theories of creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 436-
446. doi:10.1037/aca0000081
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18,
59-74. doi:10.1007/bf00367914
He, L. (2013, March 29). Google's secrets of innovation: Empowering its employees. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurahe/2013/03/29/googles-secrets-of-innovation-empowering-its-employees/#16be26d257e7
Hébert, T. P. , Cramond, B. , Neumeister, K. L. S. , Millar, G. , & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments,
and legacy. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Heller, K. A. (2007). Scientific ability and creativity. High Ability Studies, 18, 209-234. doi:10.1080/13598130701709541
Hennessey, B. A. , & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Hernandez-Torrano, D. , & Saranli, A. G. (2015). A cross-cultural perspective about the implementation and adaptation process of the
schoolwide enrichment model: The importance of talent development in a global world. Gifted Education International, 31, 257-270.
doi:10.1177/0261429414526335
Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI). Paper presented at the 1979 conference of the Rocky
Mountain Psychological Association, Las Vegas, NV. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170350)
Hochanadel, A. , & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit helps students persist in the face of
adversity. Journal of International Education Research, 11(1), 47-50. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1051129.pdf
Hsu, M. M. , Chiang, C. C. , & Liang, C. C. (2014). The mediator effects of imagination between learning environment and academic
performance: A comparison between science and engineering majors. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 24,
419-436. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9262-3
Hsu, Y. , Chang, C. , & Liang, C. (2015). The effects of creative personality and psychological influences on imagination. Innovations
in Education & Teaching International, 52, 587-598. doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.808404
Hu, W. , & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24,
389-403. doi:10.1080/09500690110098912
Hu, W. , Wu, B. , Jia, X. , Yi, X. , Duan, C. , Meyer, W. , & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students' scientific creativity: The "learn
to think" intervention program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 3-21. doi:10.1002/jocb.20
Human Rights Council . (2013, April). Report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression (Report No. GE.13-13303). Retrieved from
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf
Inglehart, R. F. , & Norris, P. (2016, September). Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
International Society for Technology in Education . (2018). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from
https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students
Isaksen, S. G. , Dorval, K. B. , & Treffinger, D. J. (2011). Creative approaches to problem solving: A framework for innovation and
change (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Isaksen, S. G. , Lauer, K. J. , & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational outlook questionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and
change. Psychological Reports, 85, 665-674. doi:10.2466/pr0.85.6.665-674
Ivcevic, Z. , & Nusbaum, E. C. (2017). From having an idea to doing something with it: Self-regulation for creativity. In M. Karwowski &
J. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative self Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jaussi, K. S. , Randel, A. E. , & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and
cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 247-258. doi:10.1080/10400410701397339
Jia, X. , Hu, W. , Cai, F. , Wang, H. , Li, J. , & Runco, M. A. (2017). The influence of teaching methods on creative problem finding.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 86-94.
Johnsen, S. K. , & Goree, K. K. (2015). Teaching gifted students through independent study. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.),
Method and materials for teaching the gifted (4th ed., pp. 445-478). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Johnsen, S. K. , & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2016). Introduction and background. In S.K. Johnsen , J. VanTassel-Baska , A. Robinson , A.
Cotabish , D. Daily , J. Jolly , J. Clarenbach , & C. Adams (Eds.), Using the national gifted education standards for teacher preparation
(2nd ed., pp., 1-34). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Johnson, C. W. (2016). A framework for literacy: A teacher-researcher partnership considers the "C-S-C paragraph" and literacy
outcomes. In E. Ortlieb , E. H. Cheek, Jr. , & W. Verlaan (Eds.), Writing instruction to support literacy success (Literacy Research,
Practice and Evaluation, Vol. 7, pp. 221-240). Bingley, England: Emerald.
Jollands, M. , Jolly, L. , & Molyneaux, T. (2012). Project-based learning as a contributing factor to graduates' work readiness.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 37, 143-154,
Jones, G. , Jones, B. , & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Joyce, B. R. , & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teaching. Englewood Hills, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Joyce, B. , Weil, M. , & Calhoun, E. (2018). Models of teaching (9th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Kahl, C. H. , de Fonseca, L. H. , & Witte, E. H. (2009). Revisiting creativity research: An investigation of contemporary approaches.
Creativity Research Journal, 21, 1-5.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn't hurt to ask . . . But sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish students' creative self-efficacy and its
predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154-164. doi:10.1037/a0021427
Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy, and creative personal
identity. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 8, 547-558. doi:10.5964/ejop.v8i4.513
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 8, 62-70. doi:10.1037/a0034898
Karwowski, M. , & Lebuda, I. (2016). The big five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 214-232. doi:10.1037/aca0000035
Kato-Nitta, N. , & Maeda, T. (2016). Organizational creativity in Japanese national research institutions: Enhancing individual and
team research performance. SAGE Open, 1-15.
Kattou, M. , Kontoyianni, K. , Pitta-Pantazi, D. , & Christou, C. (2013). Connecting mathematical creativity to mathematical ability.
ZDM, 45, 167-181. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0467-1
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298-308. doi:10.1037/a0029751
Kaufman, J. C. , & Baer, J. (2004). Hawking's haiku, Madonna's math: Why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house. In R.
J. Sternberg , E. L. Grigorenko , & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 3-20). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kaufman, J. C. , & Baer, J. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper
Review, 27, 158-163.
Kaufman, J. C. , & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24, 83-
91. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.649237
Kaufman, J. C. , & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four-c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1-
12. doi:10.1037/a0013688
Kaufman, J. C. , Lee, J. , Baer, J. , & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique:
New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 96-106. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2007.04.002
Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kettler, T. (2009). The power of imagination: A conversation with Tim O'Brien. English in Texas, 39(1), 57-62.
Kettler, T. (2016). Curriculum design in an era of ubiquitous information and technology: New possibilities for gifted education. In T.
Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculmn for gifted and advanced acade?nic students (pp. 3-21). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kettler, T. (2018). Curriculum for gifted students: Developing talent and intellectual character. In J. L. Roberts , T. F. Inman , & J. H.
Robins (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 145-164). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kettler, T. , & Bower, J. (2017). Measuring creative capacity in gifted students: Comparing teacher ratings and student products.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 290-299.
Kettler, T. , Lamb, K. N. ,& Ellis-Lee, L. (2018). Developing talent and creativity through four levels of differentiated programming. In F.
H. R. Piske (Ed.), Emotion and creativity in gifted education. Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil: Juruá.
Kettler, T. , Lamb, K. N. , Willerson, A. , & Mullet, D. R. (2018). Teachers' perceptions of creativity in the classroom. Creativity
Research Journal, 30, 164-171.
Kettler, T. , & Puryear, J. S. (2016). Research experiences for high school students: A curriculum for expertise and authentic practice.
In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculmn for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 189-203). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kettler, T. , & Sanguras, L. (2014). Naïvete, imagination, and a glimpse of the sublime: Organic creativity in teaching literature. In J.
Piirto (Ed), Organic creativity in the classroom: Teaching to intuition in academics and the arts (pp. 3-16). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Khatena, J. (1975). Creative imagination, imagery, and analogy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 149-160.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319-335.
Kirsch, C. , Lubart, T. , & Houssemand, C. (2016). Comparing creative profiles: Architects, social scientists, and the general
population. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 284-289. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.035
Klarreich, E. (2014). The musical, magical number theorist. Quanta Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.quantamagazine.org/numbertheorist-manjul-bhargava-is-awarded-fields-medal-20140812
Klein, F. (1926). Development of mathematics in the 19th century ( H. Ackerman , Trans.). Brookline, MA: Math Science Press.
Kokotsaki, D. , Menzies, V. , & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19, 267-277.
Kolodner, J. L. , Gray, J. T. , & Fasse, B. B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in
learning by design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3, 183-232.
Kosslyn, S. M. , Ganis, G. , & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, 2, 635-642.
Kozbelt, A. , Beghetto, R. A. , & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman , & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20-47). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kozhevnikov, M. , Kozhevnikov, M. , Yu, C. J. , & Blazhenkova, O. (2013). Creativity, visualization abilities, and visual cognitive style.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 196-209.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kris, E. (1950). Psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. Bulletin of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 6, 48-58.
Krueger, N. (2014, June). Create a school makerspace in three simple steps. International Society for Technology in Education.
Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/ArticleDetail?articleid=103
Krutetski, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
LaForce, M. , Nobel, E. , & Blackwell, C. (2017). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of
motivation and ability beliefs. Education Sciences, 7(4) 92-114. doi:10.3390/educsci7040092
Larmer, J. , & Mergendoller, J. (2015). Why we changed our model of the 8 essential elements of PBL. Buck Institute for Education.
Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/object/document/why_we_changed_our_model_of_the_8_essential_elements_of_pbl
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170-183.
doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.170
Larsson, C. , & Tibell, L. A. E. (2015). Challenging students' intuitions—The influence of a tangible model of virus assembly on
students' conceptual reasoning about the process of self-assembly. Research in Science Education, 45, 663-690.
doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9446-6
Lauer, C. (2009). Contending with terms: Multimodal and multimedia in the academic and public spheres. Computers and
Composition, 26, 225-239.
Law, N. (2009). Mathematics and science teachers' pedagogical orientations and their use of ICT in teaching. Educational Information
Technology, 14, 309-323. doi:10.1007/s10639-009-9094-z
L'Engle, M. (1962). A wrinkle in time. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Lebow, R. N. (2007). Counterfactual thought experiments: A necessary teaching tool. The History Teacher, 40, 153-176.
Lebow, R. N. , & Stein, J. G. (1994). We all lost the cold war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research
on science education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lee, E. A. , & Seo, H. A. (2006). Understanding of creativity by Korean elementary teachers in gifted education. Creativity Research
Journal, 18, 237-242.
Lee, H. (1960). To kill a mockingbird. Philadelphia, PA: J. P. Lippincott.
Leikin, R. (2013). Evaluating mathematical creativity: The interplay between multiplicity and insight. Psychological Test and
Assessment Modeling, 55, 385-400.
Lesh, R. , Hoover, M. , Hole, B. , Kelly, A. , & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought revealing activities for students and
teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-646). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lev-Zamir, H. , & Leikin, R. (2012). Sayingversus doing: Teachers' conceptions of creativity in elementary mathematics teaching.
ZDM, 45, 295-308. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0464-4
Levenson, E. (2012). Tasks that may occasion mathematical creativity: teachers' choices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
16, 269-291. doi:10.1007/s10857-012-9229-9
Liang, C. , Chang, C. , & Hsu, Y. (2013). Differential effects of personality traits and environmental predictors on reproductive and
creative imagination. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 237-253. doi:10.1002/jocb.50
Liang, C. , & Chia, T. L. (2014), Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the imaginative capability scale. Creativity Research
Journal, 26, 106-114. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.873671
Liang, C. , Hsu, Y. , Chang, C. , & Lin, L. (2012). In search of an index of imagination for virtual experience designers. International
Journal of Technology Design Education, 23, 1037-1046. doi:10.1007/s10798-0129224-6
Liao, K. , Chang, C. , Lin, J. , & Liang, C. (2014). Discovering the imaginative capability of technology writers: Its indicators, roots, and
cultivation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 76-86. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.20l4.09.002
Lin, C. (2009). Researches into creative talents and creative education. Beijing, China: Economic Science Press.
Lin, C. , Hu, W. , Adey, P. , & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143-
162.
Lin, W. L. , Hsu, Y. E. , & Liang, C. I. (2014). The mediator effects of conceiving imagination on academic performance of design
students. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 24(1), 73-89. doi:10.1007/s10798-013-9244-x
Lin, Y. (2010). Drama and possibility thinking – Taiwanese pupils' perspectives regarding creative pedagogy in drama. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 5, 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.11.001
Liu, E. , & Noppe-Brandon, S. (2009). Imagination first: Unlocking the power of possibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Long, H. (2014). An empirical review of research methodologies and methods in creativity studies (2003-2012). Creativity Research
Journal, 26, 427-438.
Loyens, S. M. M. , Gijbels, D. , Coertjens, L. , & Coté, D. (2013). Students' approaches to learning in problem-based learning: Taking
into account students' behavior in the tutorial groups, self-study time, and different assessment aspects. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 39, 23-32. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.004
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present, and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295-308.
Lubinski, D. , Benbow, C. P. , Webb, R. M. , & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades.
Psychological Science, 17, 194-199.
Luria, S. R. , Sriraman, B. , & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Enhancing equity in the classroom by teaching for mathematical creativity. ZDM,
49, 1033-1039. doi:10.1007/s11858-017-0892-2
MacKinnon, D. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484-495. doi:10.1037/h0046541
Major, M. (2016, September). Seven ways 'Hamilton' has impacted America. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/hamilton-
americanmusical-changed-musical-theater/5224
Mann, E. L. (2005). Mathematical creativity and school mathematics: Indicators of mathematical creativity in middle school students.
Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305010927
Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 236-260. doi:10.4219/jeg-
2006-264
Mann, E. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students. Creativity
Research Journal, 21, 338-348. doi:10.1080/10400410903297402
Mar, R. (2011). The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 103-134.
Mar, R. , Oatley, K. , Peterson, J. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and
examining outcomes. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 34, 407-428.
Marton, F. , & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I— Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Maslow, A. H. (2014). Toward a psychology of being. Floyd, VA: Sublime.
Match Fishtank . (n.d.). Fighting for change: Children of the civil rights movement. Retrieved from
https://www.matchfishtank.org/curriculum/science-and-social-studies/5th-grade-science-and-social-studies/fightingfor-change-
children-of-the-civil-rights-movement
Mathisen, E. G. , & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: An intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research,
48, 21-29. doi:10.1016/j.ijerj.2009.02.009
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449-460). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Mazard, A. L. , Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. , Crivello, F. , Mazoyer, B. , & Mellet, E. (2004). A PET meta-analysis of object and special mental
imagery. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 673-695.
McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture's influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for
human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 226-246.
McNair, A. (2017). Genius hour: Passion projects that ignite innovation and student inquiry. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Meador, K. S. (1995). The effect of synectics training on gifted and nongifted kindergarten students. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 18, 55-73
Meador, K. S. (1997). Creative thinking and problem solving for young learners. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
Mehta, R. , Mishra, P. , & Henriksen, D. (2016). Creativity in mathematics and beyond – Learning from Fields Medal winners.
TechTrends, 60, 14-18. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0011-6
Meyer, A. A. (2012). Teaching for creativity. The Science Teacher, 79(5), 54-56.
Mickus, C. S. , & Mickus, S. W. (1994). Competition stimulates creativity. Glassboro, NJ: Creative Competitions.
Mishra, P. , & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Nashville, TN.
Mofield, E. , & Stambaugh, T. (2016). Perspectives of power: ELA lessons for gifted and advanced learners in grades 6-8. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Morgan, C. (2016). Studying the role of human agency in school mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 120-141.
doi:10.1080/14794802.2016.1176595
Mullet, D. R. , Kettler, T. , & Sabatini, A. (2018). Gifted students' conceptions of their high school STEM education. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 41, 60-92. doi:10.1177/0162353217745156
Mullet, D. R. , Rinn, A. N. , & Kettler, T. (2017). Catalysts of women's talent development in STEM: A systematic review. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 28, 253-289. doi:10.1177/1932202X17735305
Mullet, D. R. , Rinn, A. N. , Nyikos, T. , Jett, N. , & Majority, K. (2018). Overexcitabilities and dimensions of creativity in gifted
adolescents. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Mullet, D. R. , Willerson, A. , Lamb, K. N. , & Kettler, T. (2016). Teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9-30. doi:10/1016/j.tsc.2016.001
Mumford, M. D. , & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin,
103(1), 27-43.
Munkata, M. , & Vaidya, A. (2015). Using project- and theme-based learning to encourage creativity in science. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 45, 48-53. doi:10.2505/4/jcst15_045_02_48
Murdock, M. & Keller-Mathers, S. (2008). Teaching and learning creatively with the Torrance Incubation Model: A research and
practice update. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 18(2), 11—33.
Muscat, E. (2015, August 25). Ten points for exploring maths creatively [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://blog.scientix.eu/2015/08/10-points-for-exploring-maths-creatively
Myers, I. B. , McCaulley, M. H. , Quenk, N. L. , & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nadjafikhaha, M. , Yaftianb, N. , & Bakhshalizadehc, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: Some definitions and characteristics.
Procedia
Social and Behavior Sciences
, 31, 285-291.
National Center for Innovation in Education , (n.d.). Introduction to CIE. Retrieved from https://www.leadingwithlearning.org
National Council for the Social Studies . (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Council for the Social Studies . (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning,
and assessment. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies . (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards:
Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics , (n.d.). Executive summary: Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved
from https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/PSSM_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
National Education Association . (n.d.). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator's guide to the "four Cs".
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf
National Endowment for the Humanities . (2017). What are the humanities? Retrieved from https://www.neh.gov/about
Newton, D. P. , Newton, L. D. , & Oberski, I. (1998). Learning and conceptions of understanding in history and science: Lecturers and
new graduates compared. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 43-57.
Nguyen, V. T. (2017). The refugees. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Nichols, R. C. (1978). Twin studies of ability, personality, and interest. Homo, 29, 158-173.
Nickerson, R. A. (2010). How to discourage creative thinking in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing
creativity in the classroom (pp. 1-5), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nilsson, P. (2012, March 24). Four ways to measure creativity [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.senseandsensation.eom/2012/03/assessingcreativity.html
Niu, W. , Zhou, Z. , & Zhou, X. (2017). Understanding the Chinese approach to creative teaching in mathematics classrooms. ZDM,
49, 1023-1031. doi:10.1007/s11858-017-0887-z
Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Oatley, K. (1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General
Psychology, 3, 101-117.
Oatley, K. (2011). Such stuff as dreams: The psychology of fiction. Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
O'Brien, T. (1990). The things they carried. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
OECD . (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. Paris, France: Author.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. , & Steenbergen-Hu, S. (2017). Blending research-based practices and practice-embedded research: Project
excite closes achievement and excellence gaps for underrepresented gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 202-209.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. , Subotnik, R. F. , & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Aiming talent development toward creative eminence in the 21st
century. Roeper Review, 38, 140-152. doi:10.1080/02783193.2016.1184497
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. , & Thomson, D. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38(1),
49-59. doi:10.1177/1076217514556531
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New York, NY: Scribner.
Osborne, J. , Collins, S. , Ratcliffe, M. , Millar, R. , & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school? A
Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720. doi:10.1002/tea.10105
Osburn, H. K. , & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills.
Creativity Research Journal, 18, 173-190. doi:10.1207/115326934crj1802_4
Park, G. , Lubinski, D. , & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and science: Tracking
intellectually precocious youth over 25 years Psychological Science, 18, 948-952.
Park, N. K. , Chun, M. Y. , & Lee, J. (2016). Revisiting individual creativity assessment: Triangulation in subjective and objective
assessment methods. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 1-10. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1125259
Parmerter, S. M. , & Garber, J. D. (1971). Creative scientists rate creativity factors. Research Management, 14, 65-70.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning . (n.d.a). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-
framework
Partnership for 21st Century Learning , (n.d.b). Standards: A 21st century skills implementation guide. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21-stateimp_standards.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Learning . (2015). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf
Paulus P. B. , Kohn N. W. , Arditti L. , Korde R. M. (2013). Understanding the group size effect in electronic brainstorming. Small
Group Research, 44, 332-352. doi:10.1177/1046496413479674
Paulus, P. B. , Korde, R. M. , Dickson, J. J. , Carmeli, A. , & Cohen-Meitar, R. (2015). Asynchronous brainstorming in an industrial
setting: Exploratory studies. Human Factors, 57, 1076-1094. doi:10.1177/0018720815570374
Peppercorn, D. (2014). Thinking outside the blocks: Organic creativity in teaching social studies. In J. Piirto (Ed.), Organic creativity in
the classroom: Teaching to intuition in academics and the arts (pp. 31-44). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Pérez-Fabello, M. J. , Campos, A. , & Felisberti, F. M. (2018). Object-spatial imagery in fine arts, psychology, and engineering.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 131-138.
Pew Research Center . (2014, March). World wide web timeline. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/20l4/03/11/world-wide-
web-timeline
Pew Research Center . (2018, February). Internet/Broadband fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-
sheet/internet-broadband
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R.E. Ripple & V.N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered: A report on the conference
of cognitive studies and curriculmn development (pp. 7-20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell.
Piechowski, M. M. (1986). The concept of developmental potential. Roeper Review, 8, 190-197. doi:10.1080/02783198609552971
Piggott, J. (2007). Cultivating creativity. Mathematics Teaching, 202, 3-6.
Piirto, J. (1991). Why are there so few? (Creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians, musicians). Roeper Review, 13, 142-146.
Piirto, J. (1998). Understanding those who create (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Piirto, J. (2000). The Piirto pyramid of talent development. Gifted Child Today, 23(6), 22-29. doi:10.1177/107621750002300608
Piirto, J. (2002). My teeming brain: Understanding creative writers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Piirto, J. (2009). The personalities of creative writers. In S. B. Kaufman and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The psychology of creative writing
(pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Cambridge University.
Piirto, J. (2010). The five core attitudes and seven I's for enhancing creativity in the classroom. In J. Kaufman & R. Beghetto (Eds.),
Creativity in the classroom (pp. 142-171). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Piirto, J. (2011). Talent and creativity. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 427-434). London,
England: Academic Press.
Piirto, J. (2018). Eminence in talented women by domain: Issues, similarities, and differences utilizing the Piirto pyramid as a
theoretical framework. In B. Wallace , D. A. Sisk , & J. Senior (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gifted and talented education (pp. 117-
128). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pitta-Pantazi, D. , Sophocleas, P. , & Christou, C. (2013). Spatial visualizers, object visualizers and verbalizers: Their mathematical
creative abilities. ZDM, 45, 199-213. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0475-1
Plucker, J. A. , & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does
not matter. In R. J. Sternberg , E. L. Grigorenko , & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-167).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Plucker, J. A. , Beghetto, R. A. , & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials,
pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Plucker, J. A. , Qian, M. , & Wang, S. (2011). Is originality in the eye of the beholder? Comparison of scoring techniques in the
assessment of divergent thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 1-22. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01081.x
Poincaré, H. (1948). Science and method. New York, NY: Dover.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical model. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University.
Prince, G. M. (1970). The practice of creativity. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Probst, R. E. (2004). Response and analysis (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Proctor, R. , & Burnett, P. C. (2004). Measuring cognitive and dispositional characteristics of creativity in elementary students.
Creativity Research Journal, 16, 421-429. doi:10.1080/104004l0409534553
Proctor, R. M. J. , & Burnett, P. C. (2004). Measuring cognitive and dispositional characteristics of creativity in elementary students.
Creativity Research Journal, 16, 421-429.
Purdue University , (n.d). The evolution of technology in the classroom. Retrieved from https://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-
technology/resources/evolution-technology-classroom
Puente-Díaz, R. , & Cavazos-Arroyo, J. (2017). Creative self-efficacy: The influence of affective states and social persuasion as
antecedents and imagination and divergent thinking as consequences. Creativity Research Journal, 29, 304-312.
doi:10.1080/10400419.20.17.1360067
Puryear, J. S. , Kettler, T. , & Rinn, A. N. (2017a). Relating personality and creativity: Considering what and how we measure. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 1-14. doi:10.1002/jocb.174
Puryear, J. S. , Kettler, T. , & Rinn, A. N. (2017b). Relationships of personality to differential conceptions of creativity: A systematic
review. Psychology, Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 59-68.
Reis, S. M. , & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a
way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 233-235. doi:10.1177/0016986209346824
Reisman, F. , Keiser, L. , & Otti, O. (2016). Development, use and implications of diagnostic creativity assessment app, RDCA –
Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 177-187. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1162643
Ren, F. , Li, X. I. , Zhang, H. , & Wang, L. (2012). Progression of Chinese students' creative imagination from elementary through high
school. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2043-2059. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.709334
Renzulli, J. S. (n.d.). The total talent portfolio: A plan for identifying and developing gifts and talents. Retrieved from
https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/ttp/#
Renzulli, J. S. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 20, 303-326.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented: Part II.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 237-243.
Renzulli, J. S. (1982). What makes a problem real: Stalking the illusive meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 26, 148-156.
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Re-examining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical
approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150-159. doi:10.1177/0016986212444901
Renzulli, J. S. (2016a). Foreword. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the
turbulence of globalization (pp. vii-ix). Boston, MA: Sense.
Renzulli, J. S. (2016b). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model of promoting creative productivity. In S. M.
Reis (Ed.), Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues (pp. 55-90). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Renzulli, J. S. , Koehler, J. L. , & Fogarty, E. A. (2006). Operation houndstooth intervention theory: Social capital in today's schools.
Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 14-24.
Renzulli, J. S. , & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to-guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Rinn, A. N. , (2012). Implications for addressing the psychosocial needs of gifted individuals: A response to Subotnik, Olszewski-
Kubilius, and Worrell (2011). Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 206-209. doi:10.1177/0016986212456076
Rinn, A. N. , Mullet, D. R. , Jett, N. , & Nyikos, T. (2018). Sensory processing sensitivity among high-ability individuals: A psychometric
evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale. Roeper Review, 40, 166-175. 10.1080/02783193.2018.1466840
Ritter, S. M. , & Dijksterhuis, A. (2014). Creativity—The unconscious foundations of the incubation period. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 8(215), 1-10.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. West Sussex, England: Capstone.
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260.
Runco, M. A. (2010). Education based on a parsimonious theory of creativity. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing
creativity in the classroom (pp. 235-251). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. , & Johnson, D.J. (2002). Parents' and teachers' implicit theories of children's creativity: A cross-cultural perspective.
Creativity Research Journal, 14, 427-438.
Russell, J. (2016). Learning design and social studies for gifted and advanced students. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculmn for
gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 365-380). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Wallas' four-stage model of the creative process: More than meets the eye? Creativity Research Journal, 27,
342-352.
Said-Metwaly, S. , Van den Noortgate, W. , & Kyndt, E. (2017). Approaches to measuring creativity: A systematic literature review.
Creativity.
Theories
Research - Applications
, 4, 238-275. doi:10.1515/ctra-2017-0013
Sak, U. , & Maker, C. J. (2006). Developmental variations in children's creative mathematical thinking as a function of schooling, age,
and knowledge. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 279-291. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_5
Sanchez, C. (2018, April). Study: Colleges that ditch the SAT and ACT can enhance diversity. NPR. Retrieved from
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/26/604875394/study-colleges-that-ditch-the-sat-and-actcan-enhance-diversity
Sanguras, L. Y. (2017). Grit in the classroom: Building perseverance for excellence in today's students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Saunders-Stewart, K. S. , Gyles, P. D. T. , & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction: A literature-derived
inventory. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 5-31.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 1(1). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002
Sawyer, R. K. (2010). Learning for creativity. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp.172-
190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). The science of human innovation: Explaining creativity (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schacter, J. , Thum, Y. M. , & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance elementary school students' achievement?
Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47-72
Schecter, S. L. , & Weil, J. (1996). Studying and teaching political science. In Social Science Education Consortium (Eds.), Teaching
the social sciences and history in secondary schools: A methods book (pp. 137-170). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schmidt, A. L. (2011). Creativity in science: Tensions between perception and practice. Creative Education, 2, 435-445.
doi:10.4236/ce.2011.25063
Schwartz, L. (2001). A mathematician grappling with his century. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser.
Scott, G. , Leritz, L. E. , & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research
Journal, 16, 361-388.
Shackelford, G. T. M. (2016). Monet: The early years. Fort Worth, TX: Kimbell Art Museum.
Sheffield, L. J. (2013). Creativity and school mathematics: some modest observations. ZDM, 45, 325-332. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-
0484-8
Shen, C. (2016, July 18). Transformations: Students find creativity at intersection of art and engineering. Retrieved from
https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2016/07/18/transformations-students-find-creativity-intersectionart-and-engineering
Shen, J. , & Shi, B. (2007). Effects of gender and types of materials on creativity. Psychological Science, 30, 285-288.
Shen, J. , & Shi, B. (2010). Cross-cultural comparison of adolescents' creativity. Chinese Journal of Education, 6, 11-14.
Shriki, A. (2009). Working like real mathematicians: developing prospective teachers' awareness of mathematical creativity through
generating new concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 159-179. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9212-2
Siew, N. M. (2017). Fostering students' scientific imagination in STEM through an engineering design process. Problems of Education
in the 21st Century, 75, 375-393.
Silk, E. M. , Schunn, C. D. , & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban
setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 209-223. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8
Silvia, P. J. , Kaufman, J. C. , & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments
and creative self- descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and, the Arts, 3, 139-148. doi:10.1037/a0014940
Silvia, P. J. , Nusbaum, E. C. , Berg, C. , Martin, C. , & O'Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity:
Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087-1090.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015
Simonton, D. K. (1977). Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 791-804.
Simonton, D. K. (1989). Chance-configuration theory of scientific creativity. In B. Gholson (Ed.), The psychology of science:
Contributions to metascience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of scientific creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and
achievement. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 4, 441-452.
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Quantifying creativity: Can measures span the spectrum? Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14, 100-104.
Singer, F. M. , Voica, C. , & Pelczer, I. (2017). Cognitive styles in posing geometry problems: Implications for assessment of
mathematical creativity. ZDM, 49, 37-52. doi:10.1007/s11858-016-0820-x
Smith, M. (2017, September). Genius hour in elementary school. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/genius-
hour-elementary-school
Snow, C. E. (2015). 2014 Wallace Foundation Distinguished Lecture: Rigor and realism. Doing educational science in the real world.
Educational Researcher, 44, 460-466.
Snow, C. E. (2016). The role of relevance in educational research, as viewed by former presidents. Educational Researcher, 45, 64-
68.
Sonnenblick, J. (2016). Falling over sideways. New York, NY: Scholastic Press.
Sriraman, B. (2009). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. ZDM, 41, 13-27. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0114-z
Sriraman, B. (2017). Mathematical creativity: psychology, progress and caveats. ZDM, 49, 971-975. doi:10.1007/s11858-017-0886-0
Stanford Humanities Center , (n.d.). Why do the humanities matter? Retrieved from http://shc.stanford.edu/why-do-humanities-matter
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-
627.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Applying cognitive theory to the testing and teaching of intelligence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 231-
255. doi:10.1002/acp.2350020402
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25 years. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 2-12.
doi:10.1037/1931-3896.S.1.2
Sternberg, R. J. (2018a). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50-67.
Sternberg, R. J. (2018b). The triangle of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 318-
334). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. , Kaufman, J. C. , & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative
contributions. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Sternberg, R. J. , & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34(1), 1-31.
Sternberg, R. J. , & Lubart, T. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. American Psychological Society,
1(1), 1-5.
Sternberg, R. J. , & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J. , & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677-688.
Sternberg, R. , & Williams, W. M. (2003). Teaching for creativity: Two dozen tips [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.cdl.org/articles/teaching-for-creativity-two-dozen-tips
Stewart, J. B. (2013, March 16). Looking for a lesson in Google's perks. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html
Subotnik, R. F. (2015). Psychosocial strength training: The missing piece in talent development. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 41-48.
doi:10.1177/1076217514556530
Subotnik, R. F. , Edmiston, A. M. , Cook, L. , & Ross, M. D. (2010). Mentoring for talent development, creativity, social skills, and
insider knowledge: The APA Catalyst Program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 714-739.
Subotnik, R. F. , Kassan, L. , Summers, E. , & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grow up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Subotnik, R. F. , Olszewski-Kubilius, P. , & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction
forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54.
Subotnik, R. F. , & Rickoff, R. (2010). Should eminence based on outstanding innovation be the goal of gifted education and talent
development? Implications for policy and research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 358-364. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.005
Subotnik, R. F. , Worrell, F. C. , & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2017). The 15-mimite audition: Translating a proof of concept into a domain-
specific screening device for mathematical talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 164-171. doi:10.1177/0016986217701835
Tan, O. S. (2009). Problem-based learning and creativity. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.
Tang, C. , & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Personal characteristics that distinguish creative scientists from less creative scientists. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 51, 204-215. doi:10.1002/jocb.99
Taylor, A. R. , Jones, M. G. , Broadwell, B. , & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry, or accountability? Scientists' and teachers'
perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92, 1058-1075. doi:10.1002/sce.20272
Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity. Psychological Reports, 66, 1047-1056.
Tesluk, P. , Farr, J. , & Klein, S. (1997). Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 31, 27-41.
Thomas, A. (2017). The hate u give. New York, NY: Balzar & Bray.
Thompson, T. (2017). Teaching creativity through inquiry science. Gifted Child Today, 40, 29-42. doi:10.1177/1076217516675863
Tierney, P. , & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137-1148.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate in mixed ability classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tompkins, G. E. (1982). Seven reasons why children should write stories. Language Arts, 64, 586-596.
Torrance, E. P. (1959). Current research on the nature of creative talent. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 309-316.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington, MA: Personal Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1970). Encouraging creativity in the classroom. Dubuque, IA: WM. C. Brown.
Torrance, E. P. (1972, April). Can we teach children to think creatively? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Torrance, E. P. (1979a). An instructional model for enhancing incubation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 23-35.
Torrance, E. P. (1979b). The search for Satori and creativity. New York, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity: Beyond the Basics (pp. 189-215).
Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P. (2008).
The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-norms-technical fnanual-figural (streamlined) forms A and
B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. & Safter, T. H. (1990). The incubation model of teaching: Getting beyond the aha
!
Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P. & Safter, T. H. (1999). Making the creative leap beyond. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 15-19.
Treffinger, D. J. (1996). Creativity, creative thinking, and critical thinking: In search of definitions. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative
Learning.
Treffinger, D. J. (2003). Assessment and measurement in creativity and creative problem solving. In J. Houtz (Ed.), The educational
psychology of creativity (pp. 59-93). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Treffinger, D. J. , & Isaksen, S. G. (2005). Creative problem solving: History, development, and implementations for gifted education
and talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 342-353.
Treffinger, D. J. , Isaksen, S. G. , & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2006). Creative problem solving: An introduction. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Treffinger, D. J. , Schoonover, P. F. , & Selby, E. C. (2013). Educating for creativity and innovation. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Trigwell, K. , Prosser, M. , & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher
Education Research and Development, 24, 349-360.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology . (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017
national education technology plan update. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education . (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the
Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education (ERIC Report No. 226006). Washington, DC: The
Commission.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2017). Introduction to the Integrated Curriculum Model. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-
based curriculmn for high ability learners (3rd ed., pp. 15-32). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Van Uum, M. S. J. , Verhoeff, R. P. , & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: towards a pedagogical framework for
primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 450-469. doi:10.1080/09 500693.2016.1147660
Vavra, K. L. , Janjic-Watrich, V. , Loerke, K. , Phillips, L. M. , Norris, S. P. , & Macnab, J. (2011). Visualization in science education.
Alberta Science Education Journal, 41, 22-30.
Vernon, D. T. A. , & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluation research. Academic
Medicine, 68, 550-563.
Voica, C. , & Singer, F. M. (2013). Problem modification as a tool for detecting cognitive flexibility in school children. ZDM, 45, 267-
279. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0492-8
Voogt, J. , Erstad, O. , Dede, C. , & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st
century. Journal oj Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 403-413. doi:10.1111/jcal.12029
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97.
Wai, J. , Lubinski, D. , & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths:
An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Wallas, G. (2014). The art of thought. Kent, England: Solis. (Original work published 1926)
Waller, N. G. , Bouchard Jr., T. J. , Lykken, D. T. , Tellegen, A. , & Blacker, D. M. (2003). Creativity, heritability, familiarity: Which word
does not belong? Psychological Inquiry, 4, 235-237.
Walton, A. P. , & Kemmelmeier, M. (2012). Creativity in its social context: The interplay of organizational norms, situational threat, and
gender. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 208-219.
Wang, C. , Ho, H. , Wu, J. , & Cheng, Y. (2014). Development of the scientific imagination model: A concept-mapping perspective.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.20l4.04.001
Wang, C. , Niemi, H. , Cheng, C. , & Cheng, Y. (2017). Validation of learning progression in scientific imagination using data from
Taiwanese and Finnish elementary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.014
Ward, T. B. , Smith, S. M. , & Vaid, J. (1997). Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In T. B. Ward , S. M. Smith , &
J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 1-27). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Webb, J. (2016). Does cooperation and competition foster or inhibit creativity and innovation? Journal of Leadership Studies, 10, 62-
63.
Wehner, L. Csikszentmihalyi, M. , & Magyari-Beck, I. (1991). Current approaches used in studying creativity: An exploratory
investigation. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 261-271.
Weiner, E. (2016). The geography of genius: Lessons from the world's most creative places. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Weiner, R. P. (2000). Creativity and beyond: Cultures, values and change. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Westby, E. L. , & Dawson, V. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8, 1-10.
Wickstrom, M. H. (2017). Mathematical modeling: Challenging the figured worlds of elementary mathematics. In E. Galindo & J.
Newton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual?neeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology
of Mathematics Education (pp. 685-692). Indianapolis, IN: Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.
Williams, G. (2002). Identifying tasks that protnote creative thinking in Mathematics: A tool. Paper accepted as a research report for
the Mathematical Education Research Group of Australasia Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Williams, R. , Runco, M. A. , & Berlow, E. (2016). Mapping the themes, impact, and cohesion of creativity research over the last 25
years. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 385-394.
Zemits, B. I. (2017). Representing knowing: Assessment of creativity in humanities. Arts & Humanities in High Education, 16, 173-187.
doi:10.1177/1474022215601862
Zhang, W. , Zhang, Q. , Yu, B. , & Zhao, L. (2015). Knowledge map of creativity research based on keywords network and co-word
analysis, 1992-2011. Quality & Quantity, 49, 1023-1038.
Zwicky, F. (1948). Morphological astronomy. The Observatory, 68(845), 121-143.
... Muitos especialistas (Prieto et al., 2013;Kettler et al., 2018;Piske & Kane, 2020;Piske et al. 2020aPiske et al. , 2020b; entre outros) consideram os superdotados como crianças criativas e destacam alguns dos traços cognitivos que estes estudantes costumam apresentar, como: argumentos e perspetivas | 401 · Independência de pensamento. A criança criativa não é condicionada por pressões sociais, porque o conformismo pode fazer com que ela se sinta confortável e tirar o desejo de acreditar intelectualmente; · Mente aberta. ...
... Some items examine cognitive processes, such as problem-solving ability; several items examine personality characteristics, such as risktaking; other items examine external conditions conducive to creativity, such as seeking solitude. The following characteristics have been identified by professionals as important in individuals who are highly creative, and they span these three perspectives (Amabile, 1996;Clark, 2012;Colangelo & Davis, 2002;Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;Gardner, 1993;Kettler et al., 2018;Perkins, 1981;Piirto, 1999;Presbury et al., 1991;Sternberg & Kaufman, 2018;VanTassel-Baska, 2016): ...
... The most important of them include skills of using principles of facilitating a group process, ludicity, developing autonomous cognitive motivation, strengthening the creative process (orientation to the process rather than to the product), fighting obstacles, personal creativity and creative teaching, and, the one that is important nowadays, as we deal with excess of creative production, namely the principle of fighting rubbish (Szmidt, 2013a). Many other pedagogical principles used in teaching heuristics are listed by Amabile (1992), Sternberg (2010Sternberg ( , 2019, Cropley (1992Cropley ( , 2001, Kettler , Lamb and Mullet (2018), Starko (2018) and many other authors (ref. to the overview: Szmidt, 2013a). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper is an attempt to present selected classifications of models of teaching creativity, which may have been found in literature over the last years. Models of teaching creativity are understood by the authors as well-developed systems of statements, based on a specific theory of creativity and concerning strategies and methods of teaching creative thinking and action, conditions of education, the role of a teacher in that process, and evaluation of education results. The paper describes several classifications of such models, including the authors’ own proposal, and presents a more detailed description of the heuristic model of teaching creativity. In the conclusion, the authors propose a thesis that the issue of methods of teaching creativity is open and the answer to the question about the best teaching methods in that obligation, which is interesting from the pedagogical point of view, should, as in the whole didactics, be answered by teachers, using their knowledge about creativity and its development.
... At this point, there is clear evidence that creativity is a talent that can be developed (Renzulli, 2012;Sternberg & Lubart, 1996;Treffinger et al., 2013). However, Kettler et al. (2018) note that "although teachers' perceptions of creativity have been widely studied, very little research has considered the role of educational leadership in creative education" (p. 256). ...
Article
This framework lays the foundation for integrating performative modalities in social justice leadership preparation as a strategy for teaching future leaders how to understand and address the conditions necessary for truly transformative teaching and learning in schools. It is situated at the intersection of several theoretical and contextual spaces within social justice leadership, leadership preparation, and the defunding of the arts in California. Through systematic engagement across these three spaces, a distinct and novel approach at the UC Berkeley Principal Leadership Institute (PLI) has emerged and is receiving increased recognition. This document is an attempt to describe and frame PLI’s integration of performative modalities through conceptual frameworks and living examples. We lay this foundation to memorialize all of the efforts to date with full expectation that our work will continue to be refined, shaped, and influenced in the future.