Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: A systemic view for change

Abstract

Introduction In this article, we explore creativity alongside educational technology, for 21st century education. Creativity has seen heightened discussion in fields such as psychology and education (Sternberg, 2000; Sweller, 2009), and in popular interest in broader culture as well. Lewis (2008) noted that creativity is a coveted quality of thinking often an important aspect of innovation and change. There has also been increasing educational research to support importance of creativity in fields of thinking and learning (Henriksen & Mishra, 2015; Robinson, 2011; Williams, 2002). Much of research on creativity has focused on individual creativity, or psychological, psychometric or personality approaches. There has been comparatively little research on creativity in classrooms (DeSouza Fleith, 2000). The field of education must consider applications and rationale of creative educational practice and policy, especially for 21st century, technology-rich contexts. New technologies have altered teaching and learning rapidly, with innovations and affordances for creating and sharing ideas and content. We must consider development and impact of learning technology not in isolation, but rather alongside opportunities for creative education. We begin by considering global context for an emphasis on creativity, then describe foundations for creativity in society and in education, alongside educational technology. This emphasis on creativity and its curricular integration requires forethought and planning. In drawing on a systems model for creativity in broader culture, we suggest that there are three threads of importance for creative education with technology: teacher education, assessment, and educational policy. In this three-pronged approach, we describe how each has a role in building appropriate educational contexts to meet needs of 21st century learners and teachers. Context for change The rapid pace of new technology development has presented a challenge for classroom technology integration (Zhao, 2012). Creativity is deeply connected to issues of technology integration, so these issues of creativity and technology can be considered in tandem. While new technologies and discoveries have been a constant through human history, digital technologies rapidly scale up technological growth. We have seen an incredible flowering of creativity and innovation fuelled by capabilities of such technologies. From Google to Facebook, from cloud computing to YouTube channels, digitality has altered how we live, work and connect with each other (Mishra & Henriksen, 2013). Technological change is driven by human creativity, and in turn provides new contexts and tools for creative output. Given this reciprocal relationship between creativity and technology we suggest that teaching and learning must emphasize their connection (Henriksen, Hoelting, & The Deep-Play Research Group, 2016). It is important to explore relationship between these constructs across varied, global educational contexts. This is a challenge, because even as standalone issues, both have confounded attempts at common, effective educational approaches. Yet a better understanding is vital. Creative thinking is essential for 21st century success, as societal problems become more interdependent, global and complex. Daniel Pink (2005) has stated that skills that were important in past (the popularly termed left-brain skills) are still important but not enough. He suggests that the 'right brain' qualities of inventiveness, empathy, joyfulness, and meaning--increasingly will determine who flourishes and who flounders (Pink, 2015, p. 3). While there has been increased interest around creativity in education, this has not always translated into practice. Traditional drill and kill approaches or standards-based teaching have often squeezed creativity out of curriculum or areas of policy and assessment (Giroux & Schmidt, 2004). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 243 citations exist upstream.