fostering global competencies and deeper …...fostering global competencies and deeper learning...

1 Creativity and Innovation What the Research Says

FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND DEEPER

LEARNING WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

RESEARCH SERIES

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING

AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON WHAT THE

RESEARCH SAYS

Research & Information Services

Toronto District School Board

March 2018

Report No. 17/18-17


About this Project: This report is the result of an I2Q pilot project implemented by the Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC), Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Teaching and Learning Department and TDSB Research and Information Services led by Research Coordinator Erhan Sinay. TITLE: Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research Series: Creativity and Innovation in Teaching and Learning: A Focus on What the Research Says Authors: Erhan Sinay, Ashley Nahornick, and Dimitris Graikinis Copyright © Toronto District School Board (March 2018) Cite as: Sinay, E., Nahornick, A., & Graikinis, D. (2018). Fostering global competencies and deeper learning with digital technologies research series: Creativity and innovation in teaching and learning: A focus on what the research says (Research Report No. 17/18-17). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board. Reproduction of this document for use in the schools of the Toronto District School Board is encouraged. For any other purpose, permission must be requested and obtained in writing from: Research & Information Services Toronto District School Board 1 Civic Centre Court, Lower Level Etobicoke, ON M9C 2B3 Fax: 416-394-4946 Every reasonable precaution has been taken to trace the owners of copyrighted material and to make due acknowledgement. Any omission will gladly be rectified in future printings. R02(STEM\2016-17\Deep Learning and GC Reports\Research Series 6\GC Research Series – Creativity and Innovation What the Research Says)es.1485

Creativity and Innovation What the Research Says 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank and acknowledge the support of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Leadership Team: Roula Anastasakos, Executive Superintendent, Research, Organizational Design and Information Service, Educational Partnerships, TDSB Vicky Branco, Superintendent of Education, Learning Network 04, TDSB Helen Fisher, Central Coordinating Principal, Model Schools for Inner City, TDSB We would like to thank and acknowledge the support and contributions of the following research team members in this study: Gerty Chiau, Research and Information Analyst, Research & Information Services, TDSB Margaret Douglin, Researcher

David Sauriol, Researcher


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 6

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN EDUCATION ............................................................ 7

RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTION PROMOTING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION ........... 8

TRENDS IN LEARNING SCIENCE RELATED TO CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION............ 10

POLICY IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................ 13

I. BACKGROUND AND RATIONAL ............................................................................. 17

WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT CREATIVITY, INNOVATION, AND INNOVATIVE THINKING ... 18

CREATIVITY ............................................................................................................................ 19

INNOVATION AND INNOVATIVE THINKING .......................................................................... 20

CREATIVITY IN THE CLASSROOM ........................................................................................... 21

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY ............................................ 24

SCHOOL SUPPORTS OF INNOVATIVE TEACHING ................................................................... 25

II. BEST INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES PROMOTING ................................................... 27

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION ................................................................................. 27

III. TRENDS IN LEARNING SCIENCES ........................................................................ 32

21st CENTURY LEARNING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES ............................................................... 32

INNOVATIVE TEACHING PRACTICES ...................................................................................... 35

IV. POLICY IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................... 44

OFFICIAL POLICY AND POLICY COORDINATION ........................................................... 47

LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORTS ...................................................................................................... 49

CONTEMPORARY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS ................................................................... 50

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING ........................................................................................... 51

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING IN ONTARIO ............................................................................... 51

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING MODELS ..................................................................................... 52

ASSESSMENT OF, AS, AND FOR LEARNING SKILLS & GLOBAL COMPETENCIES ........... 54

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 58


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The reality of our current times is that creativity and an

innovative mindset are requirements to succeed. The recent years have

seen a plethora of varied research produced about creativity and

innovation much of which has been aggregated and gathered here as the

body of this study.

A prevailing axiom in contemporary research on creativity is that creativity

is not an inherent attribute, but rather a skill that can be developed

through education. Using this as an organizing principle, teachers and

pedagogical practices play a central role in the development of creativity

and innovation. This study summarizes educational literature in order to

look at four areas of teaching, learning, and educational policy in creativity

and innovation. Figure 1 shows how the present study is organized.

Figure 1: Fostering Creativity and Innovation in Teaching and Learning at the

Toronto District School Board: A Focus on What the Research Says


CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN EDUCATION

Creativity is a concept that has numerous varied definitions. A

major view of creativity in education, and the view used in this study, is

that it has two components: an element of originality and an element of

effectiveness. Originality revolves around something new being generated,

whether it is a process, idea, or thing. Effectiveness involves this original

idea being something of use that can achieve a tangible end. Both

elements must exist in tandem for creativity to be present.

Creativity in education is of importance as contemporary times demand

flexibility in students and the ability for them to self-learn new knowledge.

Convergent thinking, finding one answer using existing information, and

divergent thinking, finding multiple potential solutions to a problem, are

both promoted within the classroom. The creativity inherent in the latter

connects to the idea of moulding students into innovators who solve

problems by rearranging and reorganizing a problem to find multiple

potential solutions.

Innovation is connected to creativity, and even includes it, but also it is a

unique concept on its own. While creativity involves generating something

new that could have a use, innovation involves actually implementing the

creative idea and making it a reality. Both creativity and innovation work

best in environments where they are enabled by supportive people and

processes.


RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTION PROMOTING CREATIVITY AND

INNOVATION

Following is a collection of vignettes of best practices found in the

literature about instilling student creativity and innovation. The reader is

advised to study the complete study1 for full descriptions, including

citations. Figure 2 summarizes the research-based instructional practices

driving student creativity and innovation.

Figure 2: Summary of Research-based Instruction Driving

Student Creativity and Innovation

Promote Creativity as a Skill Accessible to All Students: Research has

shown that creativity can be improved upon and taught to students. Once,

mistakenly, thought of as the jurisdiction exclusively of people of genius or

high intelligence, creativity is accessible for all students.

1 For further information on this, please see: Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning

with Digital Technologies Research Series: Creativity and Innovation in Teaching and Learning: A Focus on Innovative Intelligence (I2Q) Pilot Program (Sinay, Nahornick, & Graikinis, 2016).

Make the Classroom a Place of Investigation

Provide Ample Time

Provide Creative Learning Experiences

Use Classroom Assessments Which Promote Understanding &

Self-Improvement

Promote Creativity as a Skill Accessible to All Students


Make the Classroom a Place of Investigation: Rather than have the

classroom be a place where students memorize specific, inflexible methods

to solve problems, the literature suggests making it into a place of

investigation where experimenting to solve problems in novel and creative

ways is promoted. Encouraging students to get “stuck” on problems and

letting them know those mistakes are okay has been shown to improve

creativity and innovation. Further, having students not fixate on grades

leads to a spirit of investigation and creativity emerging in the classroom.

Provide Ample Time to Work on Problems: Creativity cannot be rushed so

students should be given ample time to tackle interesting and challenging

problems.

Provide Creative Learning Experiences: Research shows that when

teachers create learning experiences that use open ended questions and

promote inquiry-based problem solving, the opportunity for students to

improve their creativity and innovation is increased. In addition, a learning

environment associated with open ended inquiry associated with science

and technology works well to develop creativity in students.

Use Classroom Assessments Which Promote Understanding and Self-

Improvement: The type of assessment used by teachers greatly affects

motivation and creative output of students. Research shows that in order

to promote creativity, self-improvement and understanding should be the

goal of assessments and that assessment pressure related to students

fixating on grades should be reduced. Further, classroom assessment

environments that lead to social comparisons between students are a

deterrent to the development of creativity.


TRENDS IN LEARNING SCIENCE RELATED TO CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

This section looks at contemporary trends within educational

research related to creativity and innovation.

21st Century Global Competencies: These competencies include creativity

and innovation which together with collaboration, effective

communication, critical thinking, and digital fluency with technology have

grown in importance in diverse areas of life and are widely considered as

student targets in several international educational frameworks. These

global competencies have been shown to be imperative for students to

compete in the present multi-faceted and globalized world. Amongst the

competencies, creativity is linked to improved memory, problem solving

skills, student satisfaction, well-being, and engagement.

Experiential Learning: Is the process of learning through firsthand

experience rather than reading about other people’s knowledge.

Experiential learning, either field-based learning or classroom-based

learning, allows students to take ownership of tasks and learn through

making mistakes. Field-based learning includes apprenticeships,

internships, practicums, field-trips, and other experiences that allow

students to extend themselves beyond the classroom to the real world.

Classroom-based learning includes “hands on” activities within the class

such as case-studies, simulations, role-playing, and cooperative learning.

Both types of experiential learning have shown to improve student

retention, dropout rates, self-esteem, and engagement.


Authentic Learning: Involves the usage of multi-disciplinary real life

problems as a method to generate student engagement and develop 21st

century global competencies. Specifically, authentic learning looks to arm

student with flexible problem solving techniques that can be used in a

variety of classroom and real life contexts. Authentic learning has become

an integral component of Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) education moving away from memorization of

formulas towards making the classroom a place of investigation.

Teaching for Successful Intelligence: Involves teachers matching student

learning experiences to their individual analytic, creative, and practical

abilities. Often this involves organizing students into similar learning types

in order for teachers to cater to their abilities and reach as large a cross

section of their classroom as possible.

Educators are Curators of Innovation: This paradigm of learning involves

educators inspiring student learning by carefully selecting, as a curator

would, relevant and inspiring information to present to them. The intent is

for teachers to select content which generates excitement in their students

and a culture of inquiry and investigation.

Student-Centered Learning: The central element of this type of learning is

students being the constructors of their own learning rather than just

receivers of information. There are three major types of student-centered

learning: a) Inquiry-Based Learning: This form of learning involves students

leading their own inquiry into new knowledge by asking questions, looking

for information, and generating the topics of inquiry. Inquiry-based learning

has been shown to assist with student achievement by providing students

with opportunities for creativity, exploration, and pattern building.


b) Problem-Based Learning: Problem-based learning challenges students to

solve complex, real world problems. Students are actively engaged to seek

out the appropriate information to solve the problem independently. This

form of learning has been shown to provide advantages to students in

critical thinking, learning development, and improved fluency in

mathematics. c) Design-Based Learning: Design-based learning involves

students generating knowledge through the act of creating. This area has

shown popularity in the sciences and connects well to STEM-based

educational plans.

Figure 3: Contemporary Trends within Educational Research Related to

Creativity and Innovation

21

st C

entu

ry

Co

mp

ete

ncie

s

Exp

erien

tia

l

Le

arn

ing

Au

the

ntic

Le

arn

ing

Te

ach

ing f

or

Successfu

l In

telli

gence

Ed

ucato

rs a

re

Cu

rato

rs o

f In

novatio

n

Stu

de

nt-

Ce

nte

red

Le

arn

ing

CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN LEARNING SCIENCES


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Building innovation capacity for teaching and learning at schools

across Canada will allow school districts to remain leaders in education.

However, “Innovation is not just about ideas that don’t have any

framework” (Malloy, 2016a). For innovation to take place, schools need

long-term strategies. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) currently

nurtures creativity and innovation through many pockets of innovative

programs and the cultivation of these student global competencies are part

of its current policy. The narrative for innovation for the TDSB was put

forward by the Director of Education in the spring of 2016: Unleashing

Learning is a new vision for learning at the TDSB, which provides the

framework where student creativity, together with the other global

competencies of critical thinking and problem solving, communication,

collaboration and leadership, and global citizenship and character can

flourish (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: TDSB’s Unleashing Learning: A New Vision for Learning

Source: (Malloy, 2016b, p. 11)


Capacity however, by its very nature is built on existing organizational

structures and ways of knowing. As new promising approaches and

initiatives to increase teaching and learning emerge, the TDSB can take

advantage of the experience and the brilliant work currently present at the

system level. As the TDSB Director acknowledges, “We are not starting at

some new path; we are not moving to some new direction that it doesn’t

have a significant platform. Build on what has been, we are moving

forward” (Malloy, 2016a). There are several avenues at the district and

school level that can be pursued to foster creativity and innovation within

the current vision, Unleashing Learning.

A Well-Articulated View for the Future is essential in fostering creativity in

students. In Ontario, a well-organized push is in the process to improve

creativity and innovation. Investments in technology and innovative

teaching practices are seen as vehicles for increasing the opportunities for

student-centered work. The TDSB is pursuing these aims through many

pockets of innovation. Examples include the Teaching and Learning

Educational Technology Plan and additional initiatives that further develop

teacher and student entrepreneurship skills. Official Policy and Policy

Coordination must promote creativity and innovation. As official policy is

the engine behind any change, it must be placed at the forefront of

promoting creativity and innovation. Specifically, the types of professional

learning available, assessment practices used, and curriculum policies in

place must align themselves, along with adequate funding, to this goal.

Leadership and Supports must guide administrators, educators, parents,

students, and communities towards the goal of creativity and innovation.

This happens through transparent and authentic reporting of progress to

all stakeholders by leadership. Support of leadership is essential. One of

the best support mechanisms is coaches who act as agents of change by


training teachers to enact specific initiatives and lead changes in school

culture. Along with quality leadership, resources and support staff are

imperative to promote creativity and innovation.

Contemporary Learning Environments are important to grow as a means

to develop creativity and innovation. The environments must support

diverse ideas and perspectives and allow students the opportunity to learn

from trying new things and struggling with tasks that do not have an

immediate solution. Further, the physical environment should provide

collaborative spaces for group project work, connected classroom

capabilities, and seamless technological integration.

Professional Learning is crucial for any initiative to take hold as teachers

must be trained in order to achieve specific goals such as increased

creativity and innovation. Professional learning gives educators new ideas

and practices and helps create a sense of belonging and purpose affiliated

to the topic of the professional learning. With programs such as the

Teacher Learning and Leadership Program, Ontario is at the forefront of

promoting professional learning.

Professional Learning Models must be employed through the year in an

organization looking to carry out complicated initiatives. Both formal,

(including professional learning days, school based initiatives, and visits to

other schools) and informal (learning partnerships, study groups, personal

learning networks) professional learnings have each been shown to

promote growth in areas such as creativity and innovation. The

combination of formal and informal professional learning is essential to

have teachers and administrators explore new ideas, try new things, and

grow as educators.


Assessment of Learning Skills including assessment of 21st century skills is

imperative. As many of the 21st century skills are not easily quantifiable,

new methods to assess them are required. With this in mind, standardized

testing needs to have components beyond merely memorization and recall

and ideally include critical thinking, inquiry, and problem solving elements.

To best assess these skills, research has shown that the assessments must

be sufficiently complex, authentic, and connected to real world examples.


I. BACKGROUND AND RATIONAL

Successful schools and school systems around the world

promote personalized, student-centered and skills-based instructional

practices to improve students’ innovation and creativity skills. The concepts

of innovation and creativity are increasingly gaining attention among

educational scholars and practitioners (Amabile, 1989; Gustina & Sweet,

2014; Robinson, 2001; Sawyer, 2006; Vygotsky, 2004). Past research

indicated that there is a relationship between creativity and learning (e.g.,

Karnes et al., 1961; Torrance, 1981), and creativity can be viewed as a

panacea for the economy, the individual, the society, and the education

(Craft & Jeffrey, 2001). In addition, high creativity capital is valued in STEM

fields and creativity is linked to a nation’s prosperity (Brink, 2014; C21

Canada, 2012; European Union [EU], 2009; Florida, 2002; National

Academy of Sciences, 2007; Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development [OECD] 2000; Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21], 2004).

Teachers can play a significant part in nurturing students’ creativity and

innovation and their importance of employing innovative teaching to

increase students’ creativity has been widely acknowledged in the

literature (Ayverdi, Asker, Öz Aydın, & Sarıtaş, 2012; Beghetto, 2005;

Esquivel, 1995; NACCCE, 1999; Sharp, 2004; Simplicio, 2000). Learning

experiences which lead to creative products and creative processes could


be delivered by teachers who are well prepared to do so. Teachers need to

be reminded that “'creativity is not mysterious, elitist or inaccessible”

(Simmons & Thompson, 2008, p. 606) and teachers who are unprepared

may need training to explain what it takes to use innovative teaching which

leads to the cultivation of student creativity and innovation.

As the largest and most diverse school district in Canada, the Toronto

District School Board (TDSB) is an ambitious organization running several

pilot programs in educational innovation. Currently, the TDSB attempts to

improve its innovative approach in teaching and learning. As part of this

effort, the Board has invested in assessing the innovative capacity of our

teachers in different programs. This report is the second in a series of our

research studies on Fostering Creativity and Innovation in Teaching and

Learning at the Toronto District School Board which is released as part of

the Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital

Technologies Research Series2 which focuses on what the research says in

regards to best instructional practices to foster creativity and innovation

and what needs to be done at district and school level to scaling up.

WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT CREATIVITY, INNOVATION, AND

INNOVATIVE THINKING

In this section, the review of literature will summarize relevant

research in the area of creativity and innovation in teaching and learning. The

literature review will focus on three areas: (1) creativity, innovation and

innovative thinking, creativity in the classroom, teachers’ perceptions and

conceptions about creativity, and school supports of innovative teaching; (2)

best instructional practices to promote students’ creativity and innovation;

2 Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research Series: Creativity and Innovation in

Teaching and Learning: A Focus on Innovative Intelligence (I2Q) Pilot Program (Sinay, Nahornick & Graikinis, 2017).


and; (3) trends in learning science research. Policy implications follow the

literature review.

CREATIVITY

Creativity is a multidimensional concept that has elicited numerous ways to

define it. Within the educational context a clear understanding of creativity

is important. Often, creativity is viewed by teachers through the limiting

scope of exclusively artistic or intellectual acuity (Moran 2010). The

disadvantage with unclear or misguided scope can lead to the view that

some people are creative inherently while others are not (Plucker,

Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). Clear understanding of what creativity is within

the educational context provides educators with the tools to aid students

in producing innovative projects, solving problems, and contributing

original and useful ideas.

There are varied ways to define creativity. Some useful definitions exist.

Anderson’s (1992) view was that creativity is “nothing more than seeing

and acting on new relationships, thereby bringing them to life” (p. 445).

This view point, which notes the importance of originality, encompasses

part of a more nuanced theory of creativity. Originality is commonly

associated with most definitions of creativity (Fouche, 1993), but it isn’t the

full picture.

Researchers have combined originality of a product, practice, or idea with

the concept of effectiveness (Cropley 2001, Runco, & Jaeger, 2012). The

essence of this view is that in order for creativity to be present originality

must be connected to achieving some type of tangible end which has been

described in varied literature as being worthwhile, appropriate, and

relevant (Cropley, 1967; Jackson & Messick, 1965; Kneller, 1965).


Originality must be moored with objective social and physical reality in

order for creativity to be present. Gardner (1989) noted, “Creativity is best

described as the human capacity to regularly solve problems or to fashion

products in a domain, in a way that is initially novel but ultimately

acceptable in culture” (p. 14). Without a purpose beyond simple originality

or novelty, creativity cannot exist (Cropley, 2001). Heinelt (1974) coined

the term quasi-creativity to describe when originality exists without

effectiveness. An example of quasi-creativity would be the unstructured

creativity of day dreams (Besemer & Trefinger 1981).

The combination of both these attributes, originality and effectiveness, is

well articulated in the description of creativity suggested by Cachia and

Ferrari (2009) which maintain creativity “as a product or process that shows

a balance of originality and value. It implies the ability to make unforeseen

connections and to generate new and appropriate ideas” (p. iii).

INNOVATION AND INNOVATIVE THINKING

Creativity and innovation are interrelated, but often mistakenly used

interchangeably. Deeper review of the concepts shows a subtle yet

important distinction. Innovation can be defined as a process, an idea, or a

product which “is directed toward achieving a sustainable outcome that

can improve what people do or how they do it” (Weiss & Legrand, 2011, p.

7).

While creativity can be perceived as the infinite source of innovation,

innovation can be perceived as the application and implementation of

creativity (EU, 2009; Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009; Craft, 2005). Put into

other words, creativity is the act or capability of conceiving of something

original, while innovation is the implementation or creation of something

new that has value to others (Hunter, 2013). These acts can be separated


as creativity involves generating original concepts, ideas, and processes

while innovation involves actually implementing the artefacts of creativity.

Both creativity and innovation are affected by the environment where they

are expressed and there are resisters and assisters to creativity, for

example, people that either promote or hinder the creative impetus in

individuals (Trefinger, 1995). Similarly, for creativity fostering learning

environments in educational settings to occur the presence of enablers

must be in place. Examples of enablers include: culture, curriculum,

teaching and learning format, teachers, assessment, technology, and tools

(EU, 2009; Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009; Craft, 2005).

Weiss and Legrand (2011) focus on the innovation concept as a process,

not an outcome. They argue that innovation takes place “when people use

innovative thinking” and define innovative thinking as “the process of

solving problems by discovering, combining, and arranging insights, ideas,

and methods in new ways” (p. 7) in other words, as “implementing new

ideas to create positive change” (C. Legrand, personal communication,

March 11, 2016). According to the same authors, “for innovative thinking

to take place by people, several enablers need to be in place such as

leadership support, supportive culture and organization practices, and skills

development” (C. Legrand, personal communication, March 11, 2016).

CREATIVITY IN THE CLASSROOM

Contemporary classrooms promote creativity to help prepare students for

a rapidly changing world. Whereas, in the past individuals assimilated to

one set of conditions that often remained constant, present realities

require people to adapt several times during their lifetime (Cropley, 2001).

It appears that skills learned today are experiencing progressively shorter


periods during which they are valid and do not need to be updated. As a

result, schools have been tasked to help facilitate creative mindsets which

allow their students to remain mentally flexible and adaptable in order to

learn new skills on their own (Cropley, 2001).

More flexible, creative thinking, and problem solving styles are being

promoted in schools. Guilford (1950) discussed the difference between

convergent thinking (that is using existing information to find one correct

answer) and divergent thinking (which generates creative ideas by

exploring many possible solutions). He contended further that schools

needed to not only promote convergent thinking, as they had done

historically, but also divergent thinking. Divergent and convergent thinking

was first linked to creative problem solving by Guilford (1959) and later by

others (Dillon, 1982; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Jay & Perkins, 1997;

Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1962; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). The work of

Mumford and his colleagues suggest that the tensions created during

divergent and convergent thinking create new original categories of

creative individuals (Baughman & Mumford, 1995; Mumford, Supinski,

Baughman, Constanza, & Threlfall, 1997; Mumford, Supinski, Threlfall, &

Baughman, 1996).

Innovative mindsets and the promotion of innovators is another area

current trends in education are set to explore. Kirton’s original work (1985;

1987; 1989) addresses creativity as a problem solving process where

people are distinguished as adaptors (those who seek to solve a problem

by using knowledge and skills already known to them) and as innovators

(those who seek to solve a problem by reorganizing and rearranging the

same problem). Articulating this point, Kirtron (1976) pushed for the

proposal that “everyone can be located on a continuum ranging from an

ability to ‘do things better’ to an ability to ‘do things differently,’ and the


ends of this continuum are labeled adaptive and innovative, respectively”

(p. 622). He proposed that both adapting and innovating are part of the

creative problem solving process. However, innovators and ideators

reorganize and restructure current data based on changing variables and

are able to detect opportunities where others fail to do so. Innovators also

appear to be characterized among other things, by higher self-regulation,

resilience, confidence, high energy, and confidence.

Cho’s (2003) Dynamic System Model of Creative Problem Solving Ability is

another problem solving process model which assumes that creativity

consists of cognitive, affective, and environmental factors. Creative

individuals exhibit both cognitive and personality attributes. The

foundation of the model includes domain-specific knowledge, general

knowledge and skills, and motivation. Ennis’ (2012) contribution to the

creative problem solving process is in the area of critical thinking. To him,

critical thinking is defined as “reasonable and reflective thinking focused on

deciding what to believe or do” (para. 1). Ideal critical thinkers display a

series of dispositions such as, open-mindedness, desire to be well-

informed, judging credibility of sources, identifying reasons and

assumptions, formulating hypotheses, designing experiments, and drawing

conclusions based on evidence.

Cropley (2009) suggested, teachers who foster creativity learning

environments provide sources of inspiration for modeling creative

teachers. He summarized the literature and found that the creativity-

fostering teachers are those who:

“Encourage students to learn independently

Have a cooperative, socially integrative style of teaching

Do not neglect mastery of factual knowledge

Tolerate “sensible” or bold errors


Promote self-evaluation

Take questions seriously

Offer opportunities to work with varied materials under different

conditions

Help students learn to cope with frustration and failure

Reward courage as much as being right.” (p. 138)

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY

As it was emphasized in the beginning, teachers play an important role in

nurturing students’ creativity. Examining their perceptions and conceptions

about creativity, provides significant insights about the way they perceive

creativity in the classroom.

Cachia and Ferrari (2010) using an online survey tool, examined if teachers

from 32 European Union countries perceive creativity as an important

characteristic of education and if they embrace creativity in their teaching.

Analyzing the results, the authors reported on the creative practices in

each European country and argued “that there is a discrepancy between

how teachers perceive” (Cachia & Ferrari 2010, p. 9). Similar results have

been found by others (Fasko, 2001; Kampylis, Berki, & Saariluoma 2009;

Runco, 2003a; Westby & Dawson, 1995). Kampylis et al. (2009) studied the

in-service and prospective Greek teachers’ conceptions of creativity using a

self-reported 62 item questionnaire and found that the majority of

teachers (80%) reported that they do not feel well-trained to facilitate the

creativity of the students. Dikici (2012) examined the perceptions of

creativity by Turkish pre-service teachers using the What Do You Think of

Creativity scale. The author found differences produced by gender, socio-

economic status and the location in which the teachers grew. Similar

results were reported by Seng (2011) on teachers from Hong Kong and


Singapore. The results collected by Newton and Beverton (2012) from pre-

service teachers in England showed that their conceptions about creativity

were limited too, since they were “unable to distinguish clearly between

the concept of creativity, an example of its occurrence in the classroom,

and what feature of that example made it creative” (p. 165).

Using the Creativity-Fostering Teacher Index (CFTI), developed by Soh

(2000), Edinger (2008) studied the creativity fostering teacher behaviors in

secondary school classrooms in the US. The results suggested that Grade 9

and 10 teachers moderately used creativity-fostering behaviours and that

both personal and environmental factors could potentially influence their

behavior. Using a mixed-method approach, Dishke-Hondzel (2013)

examined the Ontario teachers’ perceptions about creativity, the strategies

they employed, and their experiences. Using the CFTI, 22 Grade 5-7

teachers were measured against their creativity-fostering behavior and

structured interviews were completed with 12 teachers together with

classroom observations. The analysis of the results revealed that the

teachers’ perceptions, the dynamics of the interconnected nature of the

school, the uncontrolled school environment, and the expectations by the

Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), influence teachers’

attempts to maintain creativity-fostering teaching environments.

SCHOOL SUPPORTS OF INNOVATIVE TEACHING

It is very important here to define innovative teaching and provide the

distinction between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity.

Teaching creatively can be defined as “using imaginative approaches to

make learning more interesting and effective” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 89) while

teaching for creativity refers to the ways teachers employ with the

intention to develop students’ creative thinking, competency (perception,


attitude, skills), and behavior (NACCCE, 1999). In a classical study, Jeffrey

and Craft (2004), effectively attempted to provide evidence to avoid the

dangers of dichotomous thinking between the two practices. In attempting

to examine if teachers can teach students to be creative, someone could

examine if teachers are creative in their own teaching. They concluded that

the two apparent distinctions are closely related and interdependent.

Assessing the current support received by the school is considered

important during the development of creativity fostering teaching

environments. Zhu, Wang, Cai, and Engels (2013) investigated the teachers’

core competencies in relation to their innovative teaching performance

and concluded that besides their core competencies required (learning

competency, educational competency, social competency and

technological competency), school support is essential in supporting,

cultivating, and maintaining the sustainable growth of innovative teaching.


II. BEST INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES PROMOTING

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Past research indicates that there are many ways to improve

creativity in the classroom and in particular, instructional practices can play

a significant role in developing students’ creativity and innovation.

Promote Creativity as a Skill Accessible to All Students: Creativity is a skill

and as such, it should be accessible to all students. While creativity is often

thought of as something for people with exceptional ability or geniuses this

should not be the case (Stokes, 2006). On the same line of reasoning,

Weisberg (1993) maintains that creativity is just an extension of normal

thinking and it is a myth to think only geniuses are creative. He

investigated the work of some of the most well-known and creative people

in history such as Isaac Newton and Thomas Edison, and he suggested that

creativity can be available to everyone, it just needs to be cultivated.

Research suggests that with practice, motivation, and involvement,

students can develop creative skills ( Torrance & Torrance, 1973). Simmons

and Thompson (2008), as well as others (Silver, 1997), argue that creativity

could be accessible to all. Cronin (1989) based on her research on

misconceptions of creativity in elementary school classrooms points out


that creativity is a skill that can be taught to students. To her, creativity is

no different than any other skill and can be studied and practiced.

Make the Classroom a Place of Investigation: Creative thinking can be

developed my making the classroom a place of investigation. Piggott (2007)

suggests having students get “stuck” on a problem as a way to develop

creativity. When students are given the opportunity to get “stuck”, it

pushes them to try new and unusual things, which can lead to creative

thinking. As stated previously, creativity can be viewed as part of the

problem solving process (Kirton, 1987, 1989), since the process of solving

problems is similar to the process of “discovering, combining, and

arranging insights, ideas, and methods in new ways” (Weiss & Legrand,

2011, p. 7). Problem solving activities are a great way to stimulate

creativity, create connections, come up with hypotheses, and make

conjectures (Davis & Rimm, 1985; Karnes et al., 1961; Subotnik,1988).

To develop creativity and innovation the classroom should be more than a

place of right or wrong answers. Cropley, Priest, and Cropley (1997)

investigating the impact of creativity instruction to engineering students,

argued that students need to be encouraged to make mistakes in order to

try something new and unusual and teachers should reward courage as

much as being right.

Many researchers explain that the classroom can be made into a place of

investigation by supporting and reinforcing unusual ideas and responses of

students (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1985; Nickerson, 1999; Sternberg &

Williams, 1996). Ginsburg (1996) examining an in-depth case study of a six-

year-old girl’s mathematical learning, upholds the importance of using

students’ mistakes as a way to go beyond standard material. The work by

others (Midgley, 2002; Nickerson, 1999), support the idea that if students

believe the only thing that is important is getting a high grade, then


students will avoid being creative. Students, therefore, should feel their

ideas, especially the unconventional ones, are welcome in the classroom.

By making the classroom a place of investigation, creative and innovative

thinking can be stimulated.

Provide Ample Time: Classroom scheduling should allow for ample time for

students to grapple with interesting and challenging problems. Silver

(1997), defends the idea that creativity needs to be associated with long

periods of work and reflection as to allow students with ample time to

develop their creative and innovative ideas. It takes time and concentration

to develop creative ideas, since not all creativity occurs immediately

(Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1985). Students want to be challenged and they

just need to be given the opportunity and therefore ample time is required.

Provide Creative Learning Experiences: One of the most important

instructional practices to promote creativity and innovation is to provide

students with learning experiences that lead to creative products. Ayverdi,

Asker, Oz Aydin, and Saritas (2012), examined the relationship among

creativity and STEM education to better understand how to develop

creative individuals and found that using activities that require creativity in

science and technology can help develop creativity in students. Aktamis

and Oemer (2007) and others (Demirci, 2007) found “creative tasks” push

students to be creative and innovative. Hoffman and Brahier (2008)

maintain a similar viewpoint, that the classroom needs to offer more than

formulas and algorithms and they suggest having students work on open-

ended problems and creative activities as a way to gain different

perspectives and promote new ways of thinking. Teachers who use creative

teaching methods provide an environment for creativity to flourish. Fasko

(2001) reviewing past research on student creativity and innovation, found

teachers who use direct methods of teaching creativity such as inquiry,


discovery, or problem solving teaching methods give students more

opportunities to develop creativity through learning experiences that lead

to creativity and innovation. This argument is echoed by others (Cropley,

1997; Sternberg & Williams, 1996), who reiterate that teachers who foster

creative learning environments provide excitement in the classroom to

allow for creative thinking.

Use Classroom Assessments Which Promote Understanding and Self-

Improvement: Assessment practices can greatly influence student

creativity and it is important for the right assessments to be used to

motivate students (Beghetto, 2005). To develop creativity in the classroom,

assessment practices should promote understanding and self-

improvement. Some assessments, such as tests, have been said to greatly

diminish creative thinking, since students often feel there is immense

pressure to get a high score on the examination and do not think critically

when working on the questions (Crocco & Costigan, 2007).

Assessment pressure should be reduced to promote creativity. Beghetto

(2005) explains in his article on the relationship between assessment and

creativity, that if students feel pressure by an assessment, their willingness

to be creative is reduced. He suggests that teachers try to reduce

assessment stress and emphasize to students the goal of the activity as

well as provide ways for the students to find personal connections.

The focus of assessments should be to build student understanding. Runco

(2003a) and Fasko (2001) explain that assessments should not put too

much of an emphasis on grades, but rather assessments should help

students build their understanding which in turn will allow students to be

creative. In fact, some researchers suggest self-evaluation to foster

creativity, or even directly assesses creativity as a way to promote

creativity (Sternberg & Williams, 1996), while others provide empirical


evidence that classroom assessment practices that focus on understanding

and self-improvement motivate students to be more interested in learning

and help with skill development (Pintrich, 2003; Nickerson, 1999; Stipek,

1998)

For assessment purposes, social comparisons in the classroom can be a

barrier for student creativity. This includes displaying the work of the best

students or charting student achievement in a visible place (Beghetto,

2005). Visible performance structures in the classroom can overemphasize

the importance getting the highest grades and in turn stress to students

that they should avoid mistakes or unconventional thinking (Midgley,

2002). Rather, teachers should be focusing on assessment practices that

promote creativity, innovation, and critical thinking. Lastly, teachers can

diminish creative thinking if they apply one or more of the following: have

students work for an expected reward, set-up a competitive situation,

focus on evaluation, watch too closely, and give students restrictive choice

situations (Hennessey & Amabile, 1987).


III. TRENDS IN LEARNING SCIENCES

This section will focus on trends in educational research at the local

and international levels. The main trends in learning science will focus on 21st

century global competencies and innovative teaching practices.

21st CENTURY LEARNING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES

There are many national and international organizations which

research, conceptualize, and advocate on the importance of skills and

global competencies that today’s students need to develop during their

studies. For Canada, the primary goal of education needs to ensure our

students are prepared for success in the modern world. The scope of this

study does not allow expanding the literature review to all these

international studies and it will focus only in the Canadian context.

Competencies – a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes – are part of all the

student learning frameworks proposed in different Canadian provinces.

Twenty-first century global competencies are considered fundamental

competencies which students should possess in order to be prepared for the

future and can help position youth for success in the global environment.

Pan-Canadian 21st century global competencies are still an evolving concept.


Alberta’s Framework for Student Learning (2011) outlines the relationship

among the fundamental skills of literacy and numeracy and the

competencies students need to acquire during their studies. Creativity and

innovation is part of the global competencies together with critical thinking

and problem solving, communication, collaboration and leadership, and

lifelong learning and well-being. British Columbia`s framework for cross-

curricular competencies (2013) and Quebec’s cross-curricular

competencies are still evolving but creativity or creative thinking are

already part of their proposals. Other provinces (New Brunswick

Department of Education, Nova Scotia School Boards Association, Prince

Edward Island), also have included in their learning frameworks creativity

and innovation and regard them as important competencies for their

students (for review see Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016).

Ontario’s Renewed Vision for Education focuses on ways to increase

student achievement. The document recognizes creativity and innovation

as important attributes of graduates (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014).

The Ontario Ministry of Education (2016) in a systematic review of the

competencies required by Ontario students states that “changing times are

transforming the nature of competencies that have been valuable

throughout history” (p. 5) and although the importance of some

competencies remain the same, new competencies are considered

relevant and some others are evolving to be integrated in a more

sophisticated framework of competencies needed for Ontario’s students.

For Ontario, 21st century global competencies and skills are in addition to

the ones already accepted by the Ministry’s foundational skills of literacy

and mathematics. The Ministry maintains that the emerging frameworks of

competencies worldwide are still evolving and need to be reviewed

periodically. Despite these precautions, the Ministry recognizes “creativity

and innovation” as core competencies for students together with


“entrepreneurship, critical thinking, problem solving, communication and

collaboration, metacognition, and local, global and digital

citizenship”(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 46). C21 Canada, an

advocacy for learning in education group, maintains that the Canadian

educational landscape must focus on literacy, numeracy, science, life skills,

and 21st century competencies. According to the same group, 21st century

competencies include creativity and innovation together with critical

thinking, collaboration, effective communication, building character,

culture, and ethical citizenship and comfort with technology (C21 Canada,

2012).

21ST CENTURY LEARNING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND CREATIVITY

Creativity and innovation are at the heart of 21st century global

competencies because of how important these skills are for learning and

personal development (Bellanca & Bellanca, 2010; Trilling & Fadel, 2012).

Many researchers argue that creativity and innovation improve reasoning,

memory, problem solving abilities and engagement, because the skills

associated with creativity and innovation are analyzing, evaluating,

creating, and refining existing problems (Guilford, 1967; Hondzel-Dishke,

2013; Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Torrance & Torrance, 1973;). Robinson

(2011) suggests creativity needs to be nurtured in educational

environments in order to foster student engagement and greater student

satisfaction. In addition, together with innovation, creativity is considered a

fundamental part of entrepreneurial activity. According to the Ontario

Ministry of Education (2016), students equipped with such competencies

are able to contribute to the solutions of complex problems, take risks

while thinking and creating, and discover through inquiry activity. By

extension, creativity and innovation are valued components of STEM


education as they give students ways to integrate their learning with the

ability to create new ideas and products.

INNOVATIVE TEACHING PRACTICES

A major trend in educational research is the effect of innovative

teaching and learning practices on creativity and innovation. As a result,

many new approaches emphasizing student-centered learning have been

developed. This section of the literature review will examine trends in

educational research on innovative teaching practices including:

a) experiential learning, b) authentic learning, c) teaching for successful

intelligence, d) educators are curators of innovation, and e) student-

centered learning.

Experiential Learning

Experiential learning is the process of learning through experience and this

type of learning has become a trend in learning science research both

locally and internationally. The idea of experiential learning started in the

19th century as a way to move away from traditional teaching methods,

such as direct instruction. Lately, experiential learning has gained more

popularity and acceptance in education and is considered an excellent way

to promote creativity and innovation in schools.

In experiential learning, the learners create their knowledge through first-

hand experience, instead of hearing or reading about others’ experiences

and knowledge (Casanovas, Miralles, Gomez, & Garcia, 2010; Kolb, 1983;

Mainemelis, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 2002; Patrick, 2011). This process of using

experience as a method of learning allows the student to make sense of

new information and relate ideas without the need for direct instruction.


There are two types of experiential learning: field-based experiences and

classroom-based learning. Field-based learning has a long and important

history in education and has been integrated in post-secondary education

since the 1930s. Field-based learning includes apprenticeships, internships,

practicums, and field-trips (Lewis & Williams, 1994). In field-based learning,

students need to extend their skill and understanding from the classroom

in meaningful ways to their uses in real-world experiences (Rogoff, 1991).

Many skills including creativity, social interaction, and higher order thinking

are learned through apprenticeship or field-based experiences (Collins,

1987). Casanovas, Miralles, Gomez, and Garcia (2010) investigated the

effect of experiential learning on student success. They examined the

effect of experiential learning versus no experiential learning training with

85 groups and found the experiential learning training significantly

increased student fluency, flexibility, and creativity.

On the other hand, classroom-based experiential learning is about giving

students a “hands-on” approach to learning and includes such things as

case-studies, simulations, role-playing, and cooperative learning at school

(Lewis & Williams, 1994) and it has been growing in popularity since

Chickering and Gramson (1987) recommended active learning as an

essential art of excellence in undergraduate teaching. This type of

experiential learning involves connecting learning and broader culture,

puts the student in control of their learning and improves student

engagement (Kolb, 1983; Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007). In addition

to this, research on classroom-based experiential learning has shown

positive benefits in students’ engagement and improving understanding

(Kolb, 1983; Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007).

In Ontario, the Ministry of Education deems experiential learning an

important part of the education experience (Ontario Ministry of Education,


2000). Recently, the Canadian Council of Learning conducted a detailed

review of research on experiential learning and student success for the

Ministry of Education in Ontario (Canadian Council of Learning, 2009). They

reviewed 514 studies and found experiential learning programs have

positive benefits on student retention, drop-out rates, improved self-

esteem, and engagement (Canadian Council of Learning, 2009). In

surveying Ontario teachers, Hondzel-Dishke (2013) found that teachers

believe that experiential teaching allows students to take ownership of

their learning, make deeper connections, and learn through mistakes. The

same author identified experiential learning, together with collaboration

and differentiated instruction, being used by a number of Ontario teachers

“as a primary way of engaging and tailoring instruction to allow for creative

expression” (p. 114).

Authentic Learning

Another global trend in innovative teaching practice connected to

creativity and innovation is authentic learning. Authentic learning is about

providing students with multidisciplinary real-life problems and activities

(Lombardi, 2007). The goal of authentic learning is to develop students’

ability to work through real-life problems, synthesize information, improve

their flexible thinking, and develop patience with messy problems

(Lombardi, 2007). Often in classrooms, students solve questions by

applying a single formula or algorithm, but in real-life, problems are

complex and require multidisciplinary thinking (Schoenfeld, 1992).

Research on authentic learning has gained popularity and continues to

search for the benefits in the classroom. Newmann, Marks, and Gamora

(1996) conducted a large study investigating the effect of authentic

pedagogy on achievement results with elementary, junior high, and high

school students. They observed 504 lessons, analyzed 234 assessment tasks


and sampled student work to find that schools with a focus on authentic

learning had higher levels of academic achievement among the sampled

students (Newmann, Marks, & Gamora, 1996). Their study suggests

authentic learning fosters understanding, comprehension, and student

success.

Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001) conducted another large scale study

on the benefits of authentic learning. In this study, they investigated the

effect of authentic pedagogy on students’ mathematical abilities and

achievement on standardized tests. The researchers studied 2,128 students

in 23 Chicago schools and found authentic learning allowed the students to

make higher than normal gains on standardized test scores. Their research

suggests that authentic pedagogy is an excellent way to build student

comprehension and understanding in STEM subjects.

Authentic learning is becoming an integral part of STEM education too.

Researchers have created a checklist of 10 design elements for educators

to bring authentic learning in science into the classroom. They include: 1)

real-world relevance, 2) ill-defined problems, 3) sustained investigations, 4)

multiple sources and perspectives, 5) collaboration, 6) reflection, 7)

interdisciplinary perspective, 8) integrated assessment, 9) polished

products, and 10) multiple interpretations and outcomes (Reeves,

Herrington, & Oliver, 2002). Overall, authentic learning allows students to

develop content skills, while going beyond standard material to cultivate

flexible and creative thinking.


Teaching for Successful Intelligence

The fundamental idea of teaching for successful intelligence is that

instruction should match students’ analytical, creative, and practical

abilities and involves capitalizing on student strengths and compensating

for their weakness (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2003). Teaching for successful

intelligence involves teaching to students’ analytical, creative, and practical

skillsets to achieve best student results. Sternberg, Grigorenko, Ferrari,

and Clinkenbeard (1999) conducted a study on 326 high school psychology

students to examine the effect of teaching for successful intelligence. The

study examined the effect of placing students in a psychology course that

best matched their analytical, creative, or practical abilities. Data revealed

that students placed in a group best matching their abilities did better and

suggested that playing to students’ strengths by teaching for successful

intelligence helps teachers reach a larger cross-section of students than

traditional teaching.

Based on Sternberg and Grigorenko’s previously summarized research,

educators should attempt to integrate the following into their teaching

order to promote creativity and innovation: (1) provide examples that

cover a wide range of topics, (2) give students multiple and diverse

assessment options, and (3) match assessment to student life goals.

Educators Are Curators of Innovation

Recently, there has been a trend in viewing educators as curators of learning.

Some researchers see the role of educators as curator of ideas, similar to

that of a museum curator, responsible for the creation of an environment of

carefully selected relevant and important information to inspire students

(Siemens, 2007; Trilling & Fadel, 2012; Weisgerber & Butler, 2012).


This focus of positioning teachers as designers of innovation can be seen in

innovative schools in the United States. For example, High Tech High

School is famous for the practice of providing a culture of inventing,

tinkering, and investigation (New Technology High School, n.d.). At Napa

New Tech High School in Northern California the classrooms are a hybrid

between a corporate boardroom and a media production studio with the

teachers acting as curators of learning (High Tech High, 2012). The

importance of creating a culture of investigation in a contemporary

learning environment is discussed (see Trilling & Fadel, 2012). By making

educators curators of learning and innovation, a classroom environment

emerges where creativity and innovation thrives.

Student-Centered Learning

Student-centered (reciprocal teaching, student-directed, or student-paced)

learning is a growing trend in education research and became popular

following the works of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Carl Rogers,

and Maria Montessori (Hondzel-Dishke, 2013). Today, many curriculum

guidelines encourage educators to provide an active, individualized

learning experience to students (Iowa Core, 2013; Jones, 2007). This type

of learning takes place in an active and individualized learning environment

where the students are the constructors of their own learning rather than

receivers of information. In literature, there is evidence that student-

centered learning has been used to increase student engagement, develop

deeper understanding and foster a desire to learn, to increase motivation

and student ownership of their learning, and to increase comprehension

and test scores (Akers, 1999; Means & Olson, 1995; Palincsar & Brown,

1984; Trilling & Fadel, 2012). Examples of student-centered learning

include: inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, and design-based


learning. Each of these topics will be examined in detail in the following

section.

Inquiry-Based Learning

Inquiry-based learning is an approach where students make investigations,

look for information, and ask questions and it has become a major part of

the educational landscape in Canada (Ontario Ministry of Education,

2013a). Boaler (1997) examined the impact of inquiry-based learning in

mathematics education in a longitudinal study over three years. She found

the traditional forms of mathematics education develop procedural

knowledge that cannot be applied to unfamiliar situations. Her study also

suggests that inquiry-based learning can help students develop

connections and more flexible thinking.

Other researchers have found inquiry-based learning to improve student

achievement by providing students with opportunities for exploration,

creativity, and building connections (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014).

Fasko (2001) conducted a comprehensive review of literature on creativity

in the classroom and found teachers who use inquiry-based teaching

practices provide students with opportunities to develop creativity,

improve flexible thinking, and promote originality. Similarly, Hattie's

(2008) work on a meta-analysis on inquiry-based learning found this

teaching approach effective in improving student achievement.

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning originated in medicine with McMaster University

in 1972, where medical students were given case studies and complex

medical problems to solve rather than attend lengthy lectures. The goal

was to develop students’ intrinsic interest and deeper understanding and

creating a greater sense of ownership of learning (Barrows, 1996).


Problem-based learning is based “on solving complex, real-world

problems” (Trilling & Fadel, 2012, p. 111) in small groups using a case study

approach and its impact has been verified by a number of studies.

Problems are given at the start of a topic and before formal instruction to

actively engage the learners to develop skills about finding information,

identifying important information, and identifying missing information

(Woods, 2005; 2006). The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt

University (1992) studied 700 students from 11 school districts in the

United Stated on the effect of problem-based learning and found students

experienced large gains in understanding, problem solving, and having

positive attitudes in mathematics. Similarly, Shepherd (1998) found that

the elementary school students who engaged in problem-based learning

scored significantly higher on critical thinking tests, than those who did not

participate in problem-based learning. In another study, improvement on

standardized test scores and learning development was found in 9 out of

10 schools that implemented problem-based learning (New American

Schools Development Corporation, 1997).

To develop students’ conceptual knowledge and creativity in mathematics

for Ontario’s students in Grades 1-7, the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat

developed a research-into-practice series on problem-based learning

(MacMath, Wallace, & Xiaohong, 2009). In the same research series, the

investigators found students often developed procedural fluency in

mathematics, but struggled with solving new problems or making

mathematical connections. The authors suggested using problem-based

learning in the classroom to check student understanding, extend student

thinking, and build creativity.


Design-Based Learning

In design-based learning the students are the constructors of knowledge

through creating. Although in its relative infancy, this type of student-

centered learning is quite popular in science education in elementary and

upper secondary school education as a way to support scientific learning,

for making observations, and for using information to support arguments

and explanations (Kolodner, 2002; Kolodner et al., 2003). It appears that

the designed-based learning approach in secondary school education

results in gains on reasoning and self-direction. The program Science by

Design, developed by the University of Michigan, has students design and

create boats and greenhouses to learn about scientific principles (Trilling &

Fadel, 2012). The researchers suggest that their program allows students to

apply information in new situations, make connections, develop

understanding, and engage meaningfully in the curriculum material.

Similarly, Mehalik, Doppelt, and Schuun (2008) compared traditional script

inquiry versus design-based system approach for students in Grade 8 in an

urban school district and suggested the superiority of design-based

approach in “knowledge gain achievements in core science concepts,

engagement, and retention [and] … in low-achieving African American

students” (p. 71). The benefits of design-based science education have also

been linked with gains in the academic achievement of students in Grade 7

in a specific physics unit (see Ercan & Sahin, 2015).


IV. POLICY IMPLICATIONS

What needs to be done at the district and school levels to

foster creativity and innovation? This part of the study is based on the

triangulation of the results of the I2Q focus study and the systematic

knowledge from the related research literature previously described in this

study in order to inform policy on what needs to be done at the district and

school levels to foster creativity and innovation in our contemporary

educational environments. A pictorial representation of our suggestions is

summarized in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Policy and Supports to Sustain a Framework for Creativity at the TDSB

Assessment of, as, and for Learning Skills & Global Competencies

Professional Learning

Official Policy

& Policy Coordination

Leadership

& Supports

Contemporary

Learning Environments

Framework For

Creativity


A well-articulated vision for the future is essential in achieving educational

success and fostering creativity and innovation in school environments.

Such a vision acts as a basic framework through which educational change

can happen. Trilling and Fadel (2012) are respected global education

experts and suggest that visions for the future need to be thoughtfully

developed and shared among educators, districts, community, parents, and

students.

Indeed, this is exactly what the Ontario’s Ministry of Education attempted.

In 2013, parents, students, teachers, support staff, system leaders, and

government officials came together to discuss a renewed vision for

education in Ontario. The result of these discussions led to the following

renewed goals for education: 1) achieving excellence, 2) ensuring equity, 3)

promoting well-being, and 4) enhancing public confidence (Ontario

Ministry of Education, 2014). Innovation and creativity are integral parts of

the renewed goals for achieving excellence. To achieve success, Ontario

will invest in technology and in innovative teaching practices, expand

learning opportunities outside the classroom, and explore different models

of learning such as project-based learning.

The TDSB is the largest and one of the most diverse school boards in

Canada. “We serve approximately 245,000 students in 588 schools

throughout Toronto, and more than 160,000 life-long learners in our Adult

and Continuing Education programs” (TDSB, 2016, para.1). The TDSB is

continually motivated to provide effective educational teaching and

learning experiences and meeting the needs of 21st century students. The

TDSB continues to establish well thought-out visions for the future while

recognizing the importance of innovation and creativity in learning.

Currently, there are many TDSB projects and initiatives to explore the

cultivation of the student global competencies: the I2Q project is a pioneer


activity which aims in fostering student creativity and innovation in the

classroom. However, a number of other new activities and initiatives are

currently underway in our district. For example, the TDSB’s global learning and

teaching with technology strategic vision is being developed and supported

through the Teaching and Learning Global Learning and Teaching With

Educational Technology (Sinay, 2014). The plan focuses on supporting the

needs of the global learner in the digital world by improving global learning

and technology in TDSB schools and by underlying the importance of creativity

and innovation for the identification and solution of problems. This includes:

1) building dependable Information Technology infrastructure along with

providing appropriate technical support, 2) expanding internet access to all

schools, 3) establishing Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies, and 4)

providing educators with professional learning opportunities on technology

in the classroom (Sinay, 2014). This strategic vision is just one way the

district continues to support and develop creativity and innovation in the

schools. Another TDSB initiative, the Mobile Computing Strategy 2.0 (MCS

2.0), TDSB’s one-to-one laptop initiative, runs for its third year of

implementation and represents one of the attempts of the district to invest

in the digital fluency of its students and teachers (Sinay, Graikinis, &

Presley, 2016). A third TDSB initiative focuses on the vision of building the

students’ entrepreneurial skills. The Board, in a joint initiative with the

MaRS Discovery District, builds an educational program on entrepreneurial

thinking and its implementation is currently underway. The goal is to

embed entrepreneurial thinking into the Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K-12)

curriculum as well as to offer related professional learning sessions for

educators (Sinay, Resendes, & Graikinis, 2015).


OFFICIAL POLICY AND POLICY COORDINATION

In order for creativity and innovation to be fostered, official policy

within the district and schools must promote the students’ global competencies.

Bell and Stevenson (2006), whose work focuses on school change, explain that

education policy drives school change, economic prosperity, and social

citizenship. This is because official policy sets the stage for the framework and

guides educational objectives, standards, assessment, and curriculum

documents. Therefore, it is important that district and school policy are in place

to support creativity and innovation. Furthermore, in order for creativity and

innovation to be fostered, policies must be coordinated, consistent, and aligned.

This means all official policies for creativity and innovation at the provincial,

district, and school levels must be aligned and coordinated with other education

policy such as professional learning, assessments, standards, and curriculum

policies (Trilling & Fadel, 2012). In addition to official policy and policy

coordination, there needs to be adequate funding to support change. Darling-

Hammond (2010) argues for change to occur in education systems need to

have: 1) developed teaching policies, 2) consistent long term reforms, and 3)

adequately and equitably funded schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Thus, it is

imperative that the district ensures all official policies are aligned, consistent,

and funded in its efforts to support innovation and creativity.

The TDSB has adopted a new vision for learning, Unleashing Learning, which

includes creativity as one of its core global competencies together with critical

thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration and leadership,

and global citizenship and character (see Figure 4). The policies adopted need

to allow room for experimentation and “although we need system

expectations around how we are going to proceed, those expectations need to


be broad enough so that creativity can happen, but clear enough so you can

actually tell our communities how we are improving” (Malloy, 2016a).


LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORTS

Successful educational programs and educational change require

coordinated and distributed leadership efforts. This holds true in

promoting creativity and innovation. In particular, education leaders must

strongly and continually lead administrators, educators, parents, students,

and community towards the same goals, which in our case is creativity and

innovation. Leaders must be honest about progress and regularly

communicate their progress to stakeholders. This means communicating

both successful and unsuccessful endeavors and being forthcoming about

challenges to administrators, educators, parents, students, and community

members (Trilling & Fadel, 2012).

In addition to the aforementioned, the need for adequate leadership

support which is equitably distributed, accessible, and non-judgmental at

the district and school levels is essential. Teachers cannot work in isolation

and need leadership support: “administrators, teacher educators,

researchers, and policymakers must all understand the issues, take

initiative and commit to supporting students and teachers” (Allexsaht-

Snider & Hart, 2001, p. 2). One way to support leaders is through coaching

and in Ontario, coaches have been used as agents of change (Fullan &

Knight, 2011). For example, literacy coaches have been placed in low-

performing schools as a way to improve results and lead changes in school

culture. The literacy coaches spend their time working with educators

developing lessons, observing instruction, and collaborating with teachers

and administrators. Overall, after implementing literacy coaches, literacy

rates have gone up 14% across the 4,000 elementary schools surveyed and

positive changes in school culture have been observed. The district needs

to continue to support schools with coaches by making them available and

accessible to all schools.


CONTEMPORARY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Contemporary learning environments are places of learning that

meet the challenges of 21st century learning by accommodating flexible

learning interactions and supporting technology. Trilling and Fadel (2012)

argue for schools to be learning laboratories, where learners can

experiment, participate in workshops, and grow. In order to create this

type of environment both the social and physical environments need to

support flexible learning and the use of technology. School districts and

individual schools should be focusing on contemporary learning

environments as a way to develop creativity and innovation.

Social structures in contemporary learning environments need to allow for

diverse ideas and perspectives to promote creativity and innovation

(Hondzel-Dishke, 2013). According to Runco (2003a), a leading creativity

researcher and cognitive psychologist, social influences from colleagues,

parents, students, and administrators contribute greatly to the social climate

in educational environments. School districts and schools need to allow for

experimentation, allow teachers and students to try new things, and allow

for some degree of failure when trying new things (Hondzel-Dishke, 2013).

On top of that, districts need to focus on building positive relationships

between administrators, educators, students, parents, and the community

by better understanding their emotions and relationships (Brooks, 2011).

The physical environment is central in supporting flexible learning in

contemporary learning environments. This includes providing space for

project work, collaboration spaces, and having connected classrooms

(Trilling & Fadel, 2012).


PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

For successful education change to take place, professional learning

needs to be a top priority at the district and school levels. Trilling and Fadel

(2012) explain that some of the most important variables for a successful

education system is supporting ongoing teacher learning and investing in

teacher education. This is because teacher knowledge plays a large role on

student achievement. Regular professional learning is thus essential in

providing educators with new knowledge, practices, and ideas.

Professional learning can also help with creating a sense of belonging and

engagement among educators (Allexsaht-Snider & Hart, 2001).

Professional learning sessions give educators an arena to have discussions

with experts and colleagues on classroom practices, teaching practices,

gather new resources, and keep valuable teachers engaged and up to date

(Darling-Hammond, 2010).

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING IN ONTARIO

In Ontario, educator professional learning is highly valued and supported in

a variety of ways. The Ontario Government views professional learning as a

way for teachers to be continually and actively engaged in improving their

practice (Ministry of Education, 2009). Highlights of some of the

professional learning opportunities include: 1) formal mentoring program

for new teachers, 2) additional qualification programs for teachers to learn

new subject areas, 3) designated professional learning days, and 4)

informal opportunities such as collaborations with outside organizations

(Ministry of Education, 2004). The Ministry of Education also offers a

program to experienced teachers called the Teacher Learning and


Leadership Program, which gives teachers an opportunity to participate in

a project-based professional learning opportunity.

Even with all of these well-thought professional learning opportunities, there

is always room to improve. The Ontario Ministry of Education has suggested

that there is a need for more formal mentoring programs, ensuring

professional learning workshops connect to the everyday lives of students

and teachers, giving educators more autonomy in selecting professional

learning opportunities, and increasing the number of professional learning

days in the school year (Ministry of Education, 2004).

In Ontario, three primary environmental factors have been identified as

influencers of creativity fostering learning environments in the classroom

and among them is time, money, and support from colleagues and

administrators (Hondzel-Dishke, 2013). It appears that in order to promote

creativity and innovation, professional learning opportunities must align with

these needs, be widely available, and be connected to classroom practices.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING MODELS

It is important for the district and individual schools to support continuous

professional learning through a variety of professional learning models as a

way to foster creativity and innovation in schools. Professional learning can be

supported through both formal and informal endeavors that embed reflection

and learning into the daily practice of educators (Lieberman, 1992).

Districts and schools can support professional learning through formal

professional learning initiatives, such things as: 1) professional learning

days initiated by the district, 2) school-based initiatives, 3) school-based

curriculum projects, and 4) visits to other schools (Northern Territory

Government, 2013). Each of these initiatives is a structured way to engage


and support teachers by sharing goals, engaging in teaching and learning

dialogue, bringing in new resources, and empowering teachers (Nussbaum-

Beach & Hall, 2011).

In the same way, informal professional learning models are an important

factor in supporting continuous learning. Informal professional learning

models allow for ongoing and self-directed learning that enhances and

supports formal learning initiatives by giving educators control of what

they learn and when they learn. Informal professional learning initiatives

include such things as: 1) learning partnerships, 2) study groups, 3)

mentors, and 4) personal learning networks, such as joining a teaching

feed, blog, or listserv (Northern Territory Government, 2013). These

professional learning initiatives allow for self-directed learning and

personalized learning. Teachers get to select their own resources, develop

deep collaboration among colleagues, and establish meaningful

interactions in which they can develop insights that inform future practice,

such as fostering creativity and innovation (Nussbaum-Beach & Hall, 2011).

The Ontario Government believes in the importance of professional

learning communities as a way to improve student achievement. It sees

professional learning as a continuous way for educators to inform their

practice in structured and meaningful ways. It suggests administrators and

teachers to: 1) reflect and learn together, 2) review student work and

relevant data, 3) plan for student success, and 4) focus on students who are

struggling (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007).

In order to foster creativity and innovation, school districts and schools

need to support and foster ongoing professional learning through a variety

of formal and informal initiatives to give educators ways to explore new

ideas, try new things, and grow as educators.


ASSESSMENT OF, AS, AND FOR LEARNING SKILLS & GLOBAL COMPETENCIES

The importance of assessment in the change process lead some

educators to declare that it is not the written curriculum that matters, but

rather the assessed curriculum (Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Ravitch, 2011;

Yong, 2012). There is a wealth of information in the literature for the

assessment of 21st century student skills but not for global competencies.

Although the terms skills and competencies are used interchangeably most

of the times in the literature, they do not refer to the same aspects of

student acquisition of abilities. While skill can be defined as the “ability to

apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve

problems” (Cedefop, 2014, p. 227), a competency is defined as an entity

which includes skill and “involves the ability to meet complex demands, by

drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and

attitudes) in a particular context” (OECD, 2003, p. 4). There is an urgent

need to develop a clear view on the assessment of 21st century student

skills and global competencies since these are included in major secondary

school education learning frameworks. Because the assessment of global

competencies is still an evolving area, most of the information on this

section focuses on the assessment of 21st century student skills.

In a seminal paper, Ananiadou and Claro (OECD, 2009) acknowledged that

there are no clear assessment policies for the formative or summative

assessment of 21st century skills and competencies in the countries

surveyed, but noticed that these skills and competencies are often

integrated into major curricular reforms. It appears that the skills and

global competencies should not be assessed in isolation and more than one

skill and global competencies might operate in a given environment. This

greatly encourages the use of portfolios of desired outcomes in the


assessment process. On the same line, Soland, Hamilton, and Stecher

(2013) suggest that assessment is not specific and should vary from site to

site based on a number of guidelines the authors provide, such as: a) the

assessment requires abundance of time, use of innovative assessments

such as simulations or remote collaborations, b) determination of

assessment based on the purpose of the assessment, c) assessment is

context and culture-based, and d) difficulties might be encountered with ill-

defined global competencies.

There is more information in the literature on 21st century skill assessment

and it is reasonably argued that 21st century skills, as a fundamental part of

education today, need to be evaluated on valid and widely acceptable ways

(Greenstein, 2012). These skills include creativity and innovation, critical

thinking, collaboration, effective communication, building character,

culture and ethical citizenship and comfort with technology (C21 Canada,

2012). According to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21), the first

questions districts should ask themselves is: “is the district considering,

developing or adopting achievement tests that include 21st century skills?”

and schools should ask themselves “are educators in the school using

classroom assessments that measure 21st century skills?” (P21, 2007, para.

5). Once these questions are considered, it is important to examine the

specifics for the assessment of 21st century skills. P21 (2009) recommends

21st century skills need to be incorporated in large-scale assessments, such

as standardized tests and they should include placing greater emphasis on

critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity in standardized testing,

rather than memorization and recall. Districts and schools should provide

educators with rubrics, checklists, and professional learning on assessing

21st century skills and these resources should be shared freely.


When evaluating 21st century skills it is important to ensure the assessment

tasks are sufficiently complex, authentic, and connect to the real-world

(Greenstein, 2012). Research indicates that the level of complexity of the

assessment is key to assessing 21st century skills (Lai & Viering, 2002) and

student motivation is diminished if the task does not require meaningful

understanding, reasoning, or critical thinking (Lai & Viering, 2002). P21

(2009) suggests using open-ended authentic tasks that integrate

technology as a way to assess critical thinking, problem solving, global

understanding, and leadership.

In Ontario, the EQAO conducts province-wide standardized testing on

Reading, Writing, and Mathematics in Grades 3, 6, and 9 (EQAO, 2015). The

EQAO testing is used to provide students, parents, educators, and the

public with reliable information on student achievement (Desbiens, 2011).

It is widely-accepted that in the majority of the current standardized

testing models the main focus tends to be on recall and comprehension.

Longo (2010), an education researcher who examines the implications of

standardized testing on creativity, explains that the key to enhancing

creativity and innovation is inquiry and therefore, it is important for

standardized tests, including the EQAO, to have a greater focus on inquiry,

creativity and innovation. The EQAO, as well as the No Child Left Behind in

the US, have been widely criticized for their anti-authentic teaching and

learning assessment practices. Hondzel-Dishke (2013) concluded that the

current EQAO standardized environment affects Ontario teachers who are

interested in sustaining creativity in their classrooms. “The pressure

teachers felt to meet the preparation expectations for EQAO set for them

by the school administration and the Board of Education seemed to

influence the ways in which teachers felt they had to run their classrooms

and changed the methods they used in order to foster creativity in their

students” and “Some teachers spoke of EQAO testing as a barrier to


creativity throughout the school year as they tried to incorporate EQAO-

style testing into their regular classroom assessments and activities.” (p.

104-105). Attitudes of teachers towards EQAO testing were mixed and

some teachers viewed the preparation of their students for testing

required “them to take time away from what was perceived to be more

meaningful classroom activities, and that it is incongruous with developing

creative students.” (Hondzel-Dishke, 2013, p. 115).


REFERENCES

Akers, J. (1999). Confronting the realities of implementing contextual learning ideas in a biology classroom. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-041999-163152/unrestricted/Aktitle.pdf Aktamis, H., & Ergin, O. (2007). Investigating the relationship between science process skills and scientific creativity. University Journal of Education, 33, 11–23. Allexsaht-Snider, M., & Hart, L. E. (2001). Mathematics for all: How do we get there? Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 93–101. Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group, Inc. Anderson, J.V. (1992). Weirder than fiction: The reality and myths of creativity. Academy of Management Executives, 6(4) 40-47. Retrieved from http://coral.wcupa.edu/other/creativity.pdf Ayverdi, L., Asker, E., Öz Aydın, S., & Sarıtaş, T. (2012). Determination of the relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and academic achievement in science and technology courses. İlköğretim Online, 11, 646-659. Retrieved from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol11say3/v11s3m6.pdf Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12. DOI: 10.1002/tl.37219966804 Baughman, W.A., & Mumford, M.D. (1995). Process-analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37-62 Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69, 254–263. Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy, process, themes and impact. London, UK: Routledge.

Bellanca, J. A., & Bellanca, J. (2010). 21st Century skills: rethinking how students learn (1 Ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex, and setting paper. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Brink, S. (2014). Canadians and 21 Century skills. Paper prepared in support of the work of C12 Canada: Canadians for 21 century learning and innovation. Retrieved from http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PIAACDec3.pdf Brooks, D. (2011, March 7). The new humanism. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html Business Council of Australia. (2010). Action plan for enduring prosperity: Full report. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from http://www.bca.com.au/publications/action-plan-for-enduring-prosperity-full-report C21 Canada. (2012). Shifting minds: A 21st century vision of public education for Canada. Canadians for 21st Century Learning & Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Shifting-Minds-Revised.pdf C21 Canada. (2013). Shifting minds index. An assessment metric for 21st century learning. Canadians for 21st Century Learning & Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.cbefinearts.org/pdfs/C21-Shifting-Minds-Index.pdf Canadian Council of Learning. (2009). The impact of experiential learning programs on student success. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ocea.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=45&pageid=1051

http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol11say3/v11s3m6.pdf

http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol11say3/v11s3m6.pdf

http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PIAACDec3.pdf

http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PIAACDec3.pdf


Cachia, R., & Ferrari, A. (2010). Creativity in schools: A survey of teachers in Europe. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC59232.pdf Casanovas, M., Miralles, F., Gomez, M., & Garcia, R. (2010). Improving creativity results and its implementation in organizations using creative techniques through experiential learning training. In 5th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p.121). Academic Conferences International Limited. Cedefop. (2014). Terminology of European education and training policy (Second Edition) – A selection of 130 key terms. Luxembourg, Germany: Publications Office. Retrieved from www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/4117_en.pdf. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin. Retrieved from www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/SevenPrinciples.pdf Cho, S. (2003). Creative problem solving in science: Divergent, convergent, or both? In U. Anuruthwong & C. Piboonchol (Eds.), 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on giftedness. (pp. 169-174). Bangkok, Thailand: October Printing. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas. London, UK: Routledge. Craft, A. & Jeffrey, B. (2001). Introduction. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.) Creativity in Education (pp. 1–13). London and New York, NY: Continuum Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). Anchored instruction in science and mathematics: Theoretical basis, developmental projects, and initial research findings. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 244-273). New York, NY: SUNY Press. Collins, A. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Technical Report No. 403.

Council of Canadian Academies. (2009). Innovation and business strategy: Why Canada falls short. The Expert Panel on Business Innovation. The Council of Canadian Academies. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/inno/(2009-06-11)%20innovation%20report.pdf Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. Cronin, L. L. (1989). Creativity in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 56(2), 34–36. Cropley, A. J. (1967). Creativity. London, UK: Longmans, Green. Cropley, A. (2001). Creativity in education & learning. A guide for teachers and educators. Albion, Oxon: Routledge Falmer. Cropley, J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: general principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.) Creativity Research Handbook, pp. 83-114. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Cropley, D. H., Priest, S., & Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity and innovation in engineering students. Australasian Association for Engineering Education, 9th Annual Conference, December 1997. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. New York City, NY: Prentice-Hall. Demirci, C. (2007). Access creativity in science education and its impact on attitude. University Journal of Education, (32), 65–75. Desbiens, B. (2011). Student testing: Why Ontario’s on the right track. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/Research/pdf/E/EQAO_StudentTesting_OntarioOnTrack.pdf Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 97-111.

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC59232.pdf

http://www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/SevenPrinciples.pdf


EQAO. (2015). E. Q. and A. O. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/categories/home.aspx?Lang=E Ennis, H. R. (2012). Definition of critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.net/definition.html Ercan, S., & Sahin, F. (2015). The usage of engineering practices in science education: effects of design based science learning on students’ academic achievement. Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics, 9(1), 128-164. Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 185-20. EU. (2009). European Ambassadors Manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.create2009.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Manifesto/manifesto.en.pdf Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3), 317-327. Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie. G. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education. Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. Literature review on innovation and creativity in E&T in the EU member states (ICEAC). European Commission, Institute for Prospective technological Studies. Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Fouche, K. K. (1993). Problem-solving and creativity: Multiple solution methods in a cross-cultural study in middle level mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50-53. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct11/vol69/num02/Coaches-as-System-Leaders.aspx Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. New York, NY: Basic. Getzels, J.W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York, NY: Wiley. Ginsburg, H. P. (1996). Toby’s math. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 175–202). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Greenstein, L. (2012). Assessing 21st Century skills: A Guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning (1Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc. Guilford, J.P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. Anderson, (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation, (pp. 142-161). New York: Harper. Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x Gustina, C., & Sweet, M. (2014). Creatives teaching creativity. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 3(1), 46-54. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (1 Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Heinelt, G. (1974). Kreative Lehrer/creative Schuler [creative teacher/ creative students], Freiburg, Germany: Herder. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and learning. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association. Hoffman, L. R., & Brahier, D. J. (2008). Improving the planning and teaching of mathematics by reflecting on research. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(7), 412–417.

http://www.eqao.com/categories/home.aspx?Lang=E

http://www.eqao.com/categories/home.aspx?Lang=E

http://www.criticalthinking.net/definition.html

http://www.create2009.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Manifesto/manifesto.en.pdf

http://www.create2009.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Manifesto/manifesto.en.pdf


Hondzel-Dishke, C. (2013). Fostering creativity: Ontario teachers’ perceptions, strategies, and experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: learning and non-learning in school and beyond (1 Ed.). London: New York, NY: Routledge. Iowa Core. (2013). Literature review student-centered classrooms. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education. Retrieved from www.gwaea.org/iowacorecurriculum/docs/StudCentClass_LitReview.pdf Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75–101. Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33, 309–329. Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D.N. (1997). Problem finding: the search for mechanisms. In M.A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook, Vol. 1, (pp. 257-294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Differences between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77-87. Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Karnes, M. B., McCoy, G. F., Zehrbach, R. R., Wollersheim, J. P., Clarizio, H. F., Costin, L., & Stanley, L. S. (1961). Factors associated with underachievement and overachievement of intellectually gifted children. Champaign, IL: Champaign Community Unit Schools. Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629. Kirton, M. (1985). Adaptors, innovators, and paradigm consistency. Psychological Reports, 57, 487–490.

Kirton, M. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive style and personality. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 282–304). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Kirton, M. J. (1989). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-solving. London, UK: Routhledge. Kneller, G. F. (1965). Art and science of creativity. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development (1 Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: FT Press. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3). Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P.J., Crismond, D., Barbara Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Ryan, M. (2004). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design™ into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547. Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited. Lai, E., & Viering, M. (2002). Assessing 21st century skills: Integrating research findings. National Council on Measurement in Education. Vancouver, BC: Pearson. Lewis, L., & Williams, C. (1994). Experiential learning: a new approach. In L. Jackson and R.S. Caffarella (Eds.), Experiential learning: A new approach (pp. 5–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lieberman, A. (1992). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Innovating and Evaluating Science Education NSF Evaluation Forums, 67–78. Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st Century: An overview. Educause Learning Initiative 1, 1-12.


Longo, C. (2010). Fostering creativity or teaching to the test? Implications of state testing on the delivery of science instruction. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 54–57. MacMath, S., Wallace, J., & Xiaohong, C. (2009). Problem-based learning in mathematics. What works? Research into Practice, Research Monograph #22. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_problem_based_math.pdf Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive flexibility testing experiential learning theory. Management Learning, 33(1), 5–33. Malloy, J. (April 19, 2016a). Our way forward [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/85835292 Malloy, J. (2016b). Unleashing learning: A vision for learning in TDSB. Retrieved from http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/AboutUs/Director/docs/UnleashingLearning_April19.pdf Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role within constructivist classrooms. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED383283 Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C.D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus script inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-82. Midgley, C. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, N.J: Routledge. Moran, S. (2010). Creativity in school. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 319-359). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Mumford, M.D., Supinski, E.P., Baughman, W.A., Constanza, D.P., & Threlfall, K.V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 73-85.

Mumford, M.D., Supinski, E.P., Threlfall, K.V., & Baughman, W.A. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: III. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 395-406. NACCCE. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Retrieved from sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf National Academy of Sciences, (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. New American Schools Development Corporation. (1997). Working towards excellence: Results from schools implementing New American Schools design. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED420896) New Technology High School. (n.d.). New Technology High School. Retrieved from http://newtechhigh.org/ Newell, A., Shaw, J.C., & Simon, H.A. (1962). The process of creative thinking in contemporary approaches to creative thinking. In H.E. Gruber, G. Terrell, and M. Wertheimer, Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 63-119). New York: Atherton. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: conflict or coexistence? (Improving Chicago’s School). Chicago, Illinois: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/p0a02.pdf Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamora, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312. Newton, L. & Beverton, S. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity in elementary school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 165-176 2012 doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.02.002 Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know-and sometimes misjudge-what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/p0a02.pdf

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/p0a02.pdf


Northern Territory Government. (2013). What is professional learning? Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from http://www.education.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/4201/WhatIsProfessionalLearning.pdf Nussbaum-Beach, S., & Hall, L. R. (2011). The connected educator: learning and leading in a digital age. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. OECD. (2000). Knowledge management in the learning society. Education and skills. Paris: OECD Publication Service. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/knowledge-management-in-the-learning-society_9789264181045-en OECD. (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and well-functioning society. The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Summary of report by S.D. Rychen & L.H. Salganik (Eds.). Göttingen: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf OECD. (2009). Key competencies for a successful life and well-functioning society. The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Summary of report by K. Ananianiadou & Claro, M. Retrieved from: http://www.oce.uqam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1312_ananiadou_claro_ocde.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education. (2000). Cooperative education and other forms of experiential learning. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/coop/cooped.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education. (2004). Teacher excellence - unlocking student potential through continuing professional development. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/partnership/potential.html Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). Professional learning communities: A model for Ontario schools. Author: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/plc.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Teacher professional development. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/develop.html Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013a). Capacity Building Series. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/capacityBuilding.html Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Achieving excellence: a renewed vision for education in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/excellent.html Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). 21

st Century

competencies. Foundation document for discussion. Phase 1: Towards defining 21

st-century competencies

for Ontario. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.edugains.ca/newsite/21stCenturyLearning/about_learning_in_ontario.html Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. (2008). Seizing global opportunities: Ontario’s innovation agenda. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/seizing-global-opportunities-ontarios-innovation-agenda P21. (2004). U.S. students need 21

st century skills to

compete in a global economy. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf P21. (2007). Assessment of 21st century skills. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/Assessment092806.pdf P21. (2009). Assessment: A 21st century skills implementation guide. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21-stateimp_assessment.pdf

http://www.education.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/4201/WhatIsProfessionalLearning.pdf

http://www.education.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/4201/WhatIsProfessionalLearning.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/partnership/potential.html

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/partnership/potential.html

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/excellent.html

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/excellent.html


Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. Patrick, F. (2011). Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: multidisciplinary approaches: multidisciplinary approaches. IGI Global. Piggott, J. (2007). Cultivating creativity. Mathematics teaching incorporating micromath. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ768909 Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–86. 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. Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. Presented at the Annual Conference Proceeding of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Perth, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ref/pdf/Reeves.pdf Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Westford, MA: Capstone. Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context (Reprint edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Runco, M. A. (2003a). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317-324. Runco, M. A. (2003b). Creativity, cognition and their educational implications. In Handbook of Creativity (pp. 25–56). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation: Oxford University Press, USA. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In Handbook for Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334-370) New York: MacMillan. Retrieved from hplengr.engr.wisc.edu/Math_Schoenfeld.pdf Sharp, C. (2004). Developing young children’s creativity: what can we learn from research? National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/55502/55502.pdf Shepherd, N. G. (1998). The probe method: A problem-based learning model’s effect on critical thinking skills of fourth and fifth grade social studies students. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/117976/ Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Presented at the ITFORUM. Retrieved from itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 29(3), 75–80. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x Simmons, R., & Thompson, R. (2008). Creativity and performativity: The case of further education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 601-18. Simplicio, J. S. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to become effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675-680. Sinay, E. (2014). Global learning and teaching with educational technology in the Toronto District School Board. (Research Report No. 14/15-01). Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board. Sinay, E., Graikinis, D. & Presley, E. (2016). Laptop Initiative: Lessons Learned and Implications For Practice. (Research Report in progress for publication. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board.


Sinay, E., Resendes, M., & Graikinis, D. (2015). Fostering entrepreneurial thinking and entrepreneurship learning in the Toronto District School Board: Assessing teachers’ and administrators’ attitudes, perceptions, knowledge, skills and practices and students’ mindset and self-efficacy. (Research Report No. 14/15-29). Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board. Sinay, E., Nahornick, A., & Graikinis, D. (2017). Fostering global competencies and deeper learning with digital technologies research series: Creativity and innovation in teaching and learning: A focus on innovative intelligence (I2Q) pilot program (Research Report No. 17/18-11). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board. Soland, J., Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2013). Measuring 21st century competencies. Guidance for educators. RAND Co. Retrieved from http://asiasociety.org/files/gcen-measuring21cskills.pdf Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2003). Teaching for successful intelligence: Principles, procedures, and practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 207–228. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory Into Practice, 43, 274–280. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Ferrari, M., & Clinkenbeard, P. (1999). A triarchic analysis of an aptitude-treatment interaction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(1), 3–13. Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity? Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum. Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn: from theory to practice (3 Ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Stokes, P. D. (2006). Creativity from constraints the psychology of breakthrough. New York, NY: Springer Pub. Co. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10265319

Subotnik, R. F. (1988). Factors from the structure of intellect model associated with gifted adolescents’ problem finding in science: Research with Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(1), 42–54. Tardif, T.Z., & Sternberg, R.J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R.J. Sternberg, (Ed.), The nature of creativity, pp. 429-440, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. TDSB. (2016). About us, our students. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/AboutUs.aspx Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications (2nd ed.), pp. 99–108). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, J. P. (1973). Is creativity teachable? (No. 20). Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2012). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from https://yasamboyuogrenme.wikispaces.com/file/detail/21st+CENTURY+SKILLS.pdf Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Company. Weisgerber, C., & Butler, S. (2012). Re-envisioning pedagogy: Educators as curators. Talk given at the SXSWedu (South by Southwest Education) Conference, Austin, TX. Weiss, D., & Legrand, C.P. (2011). Innovative intelligence. The art and practice of leading sustainable innovation in your organization. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Wiley & Sons Canada Ltd.


Woods, D. (2005). Problem-based learning, especially in the context of large classes. Retrieved from http://chemeng.mcmaster.ca/problem-based-learning Woods, D. (2006). Preparing for PBL. Retrieved from http://www.chemeng.mcmaster.ca/pbl/pblbook.pdf

Yong, D. (2012). Adventures in teaching: A professor goes to high school to learn about teaching math. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 59(10), 1408–1415. Zhu, C. Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers’ innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 9-27.

fostering global competencies and deeper …...fostering global competencies and deeper learning...

Documents