fostering global competencies and deeper learning … · creativity and innovation in teaching and...

1 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM

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 & Information Services

Toronto District School Board

November 2017

Report No. 17/18-11


About this Project: This report is the result of an I2Q pilot project implemented by the Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC), 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 Innovative Intelligence (I2Q) Pilot Program

AUTHORS: Erhan Sinay, Ashley Nahornick, and Dimitris Graikinis

Copyright © Toronto District School Board (November 2017) Cite as: 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. 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 7\GC Research Series – Fostering Creativity and Innovation I2Q)es.1485

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 9

Students’ Innovative Characteristics ........................................................................................ 10

Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions of Implicit Conceptions of Creativity ................... 10

Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors .................................................................. 10

School and District Support of Teaching Innovative Thinking .................................................. 11

Teachers’ and Administrator’s’ Perception about the Effectiveness of the Professional

Learning Workshops ................................................................................................................. 11

Policy Implications .................................................................................................................... 12

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION - BACKGROUND AND RATIONAL ...................................................... 15

Building Innovative Capacity at the TDSB – A Pilot Study ........................................................ 15

SECTION II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................................................... 18

Creativity and Innovative Thinking as They Relate to Education: School Supports ................. 18

Creativity ............................................................................................................................... 18

Innovation and Innovative Thinking ..................................................................................... 19

Creativity in the Classroom ................................................................................................... 20

Teachers’ Perceptions and Conceptions of Creativity .......................................................... 21

School Supports of Innovative Teaching ............................................................................... 22

Best Instructional Practices Promoting Creativity and Innovation ........................................... 23

Trends in Learning Sciences ...................................................................................................... 26

21st Century Learning Global Competencies ........................................................................ 26

21st Century Learning Global Competencies and Creativity ................................................. 27

Innovative Teaching Practices .................................................................................................. 28

SECTION III: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 34

Participants ............................................................................................................................... 34

Professional Learning ................................................................................................................ 35

Data Collection Procedures and Study Surveys ........................................................................ 35

Safeguards for Confidentiality .................................................................................................. 38

Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................ 38


Data Analysis Strategy .............................................................................................................. 39

Conceptual Research Framework ............................................................................................. 40

SECTION IV: SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 42

Demographics of Participants ................................................................................................... 42

Students’ Demographics ....................................................................................................... 42

Teachers’ and Administrators’ Demographics ...................................................................... 43

Students’ Innovative Characteristics ........................................................................................ 45

Professional Engagement after Graduation ......................................................................... 45

Family Member Owning a Business ...................................................................................... 46

School Subjects and Creativity .............................................................................................. 47

Creativity ............................................................................................................................... 47

Risk-Propensity ..................................................................................................................... 50

Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 51

Leadership ............................................................................................................................. 52

Energy ................................................................................................................................... 53

Problem-Solving .................................................................................................................... 55

Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions, Conceptions, and Behaviors about Creativity and

Innovative Teaching .................................................................................................................. 56

Perceptions and Implicit Conceptions of Creativity ............................................................. 57

Overall Creativity Results ...................................................................................................... 57

Creativity in School ............................................................................................................... 58

Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors .............................................................. 59

Creativity Fostering Teaching Strategies .............................................................................. 61

Teaching Styles ...................................................................................................................... 61

School and District Support of Innovative Teaching ................................................................. 63

Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions about the Workshop Effectiveness ..................... 65

SECTION V: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 68

SECTION VI: RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 70

School Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 70


Make the Classroom a Place of Creativity and Innovation ................................................... 70

Allow Students to Focus on One Thing at a Time ................................................................. 70

Focus on Improving Student Risk-Propensity ....................................................................... 70

District Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 71

Continue Providing Ongoing Professional Learning on Creativity and Innovation: Educator

Professional Learning Improves Student Creativity ............................................................. 71

Continue the Ideaction Workshops ...................................................................................... 71

Provide Additional Professional Learning Opportunities ..................................................... 71

Schools Should Feel More Open to Change.......................................................................... 72

Create Stronger Connections for Creativity and Innovation in Ontario Ministry Of Education

Curriculum ............................................................................................................................. 72

Schools/Districts Should Provide More Opportunities for Partnerships for Teachers Beyond

School .................................................................................................................................... 72

Methodological Recommendations .......................................................................................... 72

SECTION VII: POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 73

Official Policy and Policy Coordination ..................................................................................... 75

Leadership and Supports .......................................................................................................... 76

Contemporary Learning Environments ..................................................................................... 76

Professional Learning ................................................................................................................ 77

Professional Learning in Ontario .............................................................................................. 77

Professional Learning Models ................................................................................................... 78

Assessment of Learning Skills & Global Competencies ............................................................ 79

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 82

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................... 91

Teachers’ Teaching Styles ......................................................................................................... 91


This publication contains pages that have been left intentionally blank for proper pagination when printing.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank and acknowledge the support and contributions of the following authors in this study: Research Framework, Proposal Development, Survey Design, Analysis and Charts:

Margaret Douglin, Research Assistant

Gerty Chiau, Research & Information Analyst, Research & Information Services, Toronto District School

Board

Helen Fisher, Central Coordinating Principal, Model Schools for Inner City, Toronto District School Board

Simona Emiliani, Co-ordinator, Elementary, Model Schools for Inner City, Toronto District School Board

Claude Legrand, The author of Innovative Intelligence and Managing Partner of Ideaction Inc.

Permissions to use and adapt all or part of their survey tools:

Chang Zhu, Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Elizabeth Chell, Professor of Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Kingston University, United Kingdom and

Rosemary Athayde, Senior Researcher, Kingston University, United Kingdom

Robert H. Ennis, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Panagiotis G. Kampylis, Researcher, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, S

Eleni Berki, University of Tampere, Department of Computer Sciences, Tampere, Finland

Pertti Saariluoma, University of Jyväskylä, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems,

Jyväskylä, Finland

Romina Cachia & Anusca Ferrari, The European Commission's Joint Research Centre

Yonghong Cai, Professor in Education at Beijing Normal University in China

Di Wang, Faculty of Education , Beijing Normal University , Beijing , China

Nadine Engels, Professor, Vrije Universiteit, Brussel.

Soh, Kay-Cheng, Senior Fellow, Psychological Studies, National Institute of Education, Nanyang

Technological University, Singapore.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) currently nurtures creativity and innovation through

many pockets of innovative programs in educational technology, entrepreneurial thinking, and

global learning and competences. The present research aims to monitor in 2014-15 and in the

subsequent years (2015-17)1 of the implementation of the Innovative Intelligence (I2Q) Pilot

Program. The I2Q Pilot Program, which runs in the TDSB’s Model Schools for Inner Cities

(MSIC)2, is filled with explicit training for teachers and administrators on teaching children the

skills and behaviors of innovative thinking. In addition, in this report we are reporting on the

Grade 5 and 7 TDSB students’ innovative characteristics, the TDSB teachers’ and administrators’

perceptions, conceptions, and teaching strategies about creativity and innovative teaching, and

the school/district support of creativity and innovation. We also studied the empirical research

on the best instructional practices promoting the students’ creativity, innovation, and

innovative thinking and the current trends in learning sciences. To provide recommendations to

TDSB educators, policy decision makers, and researchers, we triangulated all of the findings

with this focus-intervention study.

The study design included a program and control group. The teachers and administrators of the

program group participated in professional learning sessions provided by Ideaction on teaching

innovative thinking and innovative problem solving compared to the control group who did not.

Students in Grade 5 and 7 were asked a series of statements about innovative characteristics of

young people. The students of the program group included those whose teachers and

administrators participated in professional learning sessions provided by Ideaction. The

students of the control group received regular teaching from teachers and administrators who

did not participate in professional learning sessions. Following is a brief summary of the results

of the study and summary of conclusions to the following research questions:

What are the innovative characteristics of students in Grades 5 and 7?

What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and implicit conceptions of creativity?

What are the teachers’ creativity-fostering teaching behaviors?

How does the school/district support innovative teaching?

What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the workshops provided by Ideaction?

1 These timelines are based on the partnership agreement between TDSB and Ideaction in 2014-15. 2 For more information on the MSIC Schools please visit: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/community/modelschoolsforinnercities.aspx

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/community/modelschoolsforinnercities.aspx


Students’ Innovative Characteristics

Overall, students in both the program and control groups believe creativity is important and

would describe themselves as creative, they feel they are good at putting ideas together to

come up with something new, and they like accomplishing difficult tasks. In addition, almost

three-quarters of the students would describe themselves as energetic, but even with that in

mind, many students said they do not like having a lot of things on the go.

Approximately three quarters of students would describe themselves as risk-takers and the

students in both the program and control groups enjoy working on problem-solving activities.

Specifically, they find it rewarding to help others solve problems, they like working on problems

in a variety of ways, and they like working on problems as a team. Nonetheless, there were

some statistical differences among the results for the students in the program and control

groups.

Students in the program group, whose teachers participated in the professional learning on

creativity and innovation, felt more comfortable telling others what to do, demonstrated a

stronger affinity to take on leadership roles, were more willing to encourage others to follow

their ideas when working in a group, and enjoyed being the leaders of a group.

The results also show a statistical difference among program and control group in the likelihood

of students being creative in different school subjects. Students in the program group believe

that it is more likely for students to express their creativity in environmental studies, language

arts, mathematics, and science than the students in the control group.

Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions of Implicit Conceptions of Creativity

Teachers and administrators were asked about their perceptions of creativity. Overall, teachers

and administrators believe creativity is a fundamental skill accessible to all students in all

subject areas. Nearly all teachers and administrators believe: (1) everyone can be creative, (2)

creativity is a fundamental skill, and (3) creativity is important in a wide range of subject areas.

In addition, teachers and administrators believe students can be creative in variety of subject

areas, however, some felt it was more difficult for students to be creative in Foreign Languages.

Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors

Teachers in the program and control groups had very similar creativity-fostering teaching

behaviors. The most common teaching strategies among all the teachers to foster creativity

included: (1) problem-solving, (2) inquiry learning, (3) high-level questioning, and (4) open-

ended questioning.


All of the teachers in the program and control groups believe creativity in the classroom does

not foster “chaos” in the classroom. They also invariably believe that creativity in the classroom

does not lead to negative standardized testing results.

Many teachers, in both groups, discussed how they strive to create a collaborative classroom as

a way to foster creativity, but fewer teachers focused on giving student opportunities to

improve their judgement and evaluation skills. Teachers in the control group were more likely

to agree with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom is not facilitated by the

Ontario Ministry of Education”, than teachers in the program group.

School and District Support of Teaching Innovative Thinking

Overall, teachers felt the school/district support teaching innovative thinking. Teachers in both

the control and program groups felt school leaders are willing to listen to their thoughts and

ideas. Even so, the results showed a few differences between teachers in the control and

program group including the following: many teachers in the program group felt schools are not

open to change, many teachers in the program group felt that in their school, and teachers do

not work as a team. Teachers in the program group felt their schools do not create

opportunities for partnerships beyond schools, whereas teachers in the control group felt their

schools did.

Teachers were also asked to discuss any professional learning opportunities they would like to

see to help improve creativity fostering teaching and the following were suggested:

demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, time to try the various activities and ways

to modify/simplify the program for younger students. However, there were also a few teachers

who indicated they have not had any discussion or professional learning about creativity fostering

teaching. This could be something the program implementation team could focus on.

Based on these results, TDSB schools seem to be providing a supportive environment for

innovative teaching behaviors, but the district could focus on improving the number of

opportunities for professional learning, on partnerships, and on the maintenance of a school

environment open to change.

Teachers’ and Administrator’s’ Perception about the Effectiveness of the Professional Learning Workshops

Overall, the teachers in the program group felt very positive about the professional learning

sessions provided by Ideaction. Ninety-five percent (95%) of teachers strongly agreed or agreed

that the professional learning was overall beneficial and 89% of teachers in the program group

believed that attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat


positive impact on them. In addition, 100% of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they

gained new information on creativity and innovation from the workshops.

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 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 1).

Figure 1: 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’s Director acknowledges, there is already much innovation

built in the TDSB: “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 Unleashing Learning.

a. A Well-Articulated View for the Future is essential in fostering creativity in students. In

Ontario, a well-organized push is in process to improve creativity and innovation. Investments

in technology and innovative teaching practices are seen as a vehicle for increasing the

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

pockets of innovation. Examples can include the Teaching and Learning Educational Technology

Plan and additional initiatives that further develop entrepreneurship skills in its students and

teachers.

b. 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.

c. Leadership and Supports must guide administrators, teachers, parents, students, and

communities towards the goal of creativity and innovation. This happens through transparent

and authentic reportage 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.

d. 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.

e. 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 teachers and administrators 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.

f. 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.

g. 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.


SECTION I: INTRODUCTION - 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, highly creativity capital is valued in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (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 those teachers who are unprepared

may need training to explain what it takes to use innovative teaching leading to the cultivation

of student creativity and innovation.

Building Innovative Capacity at the TDSB – A Pilot Study

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

(e.g., educational technology, entrepreneurial thinking and global learning - see Sinay, 2014;

Sinay, Resendes & Graikinis, 2015). Taking advantage of the existing innovative capacity and in

an effort to evaluate how the teaching staff can teach innovative thinking/innovative problem

solving to children, the TDSB entered into a three year (2014-17) partnership with Ideaction, a

North American innovation consulting and learning service which has developed and

implemented innovation programs for industries.3 The partnership offers explicit training to

teachers on teaching students the skills and behaviours for innovative thinking. The underlying

assumption is that we can teach classroom teachers and administrators how to teach and foster

3 For further information on Ideaction please see http://www.ideaction.net/

http://www.ideaction.net/


innovative thinking skills to students (P. Legrand, personal communication, March 11, 2016). By

training how to teach and foster innovative thinking skills to students, one could transform the

existing classroom “into an environment that is infused with excitement, curiosity and genuine

student learning” (Simplicio, 2000, p. 675). Similar partnerships in the past aiming in training

teachers in infusing creativity in their classrooms, reported overwhelming gains in the

willingness of participating teachers to undertake creative approaches in their teaching. For

example, the Creative Partnerships (2010) project in England was formed to support teachers

and related personnel in innovative teaching. It showed that if there is a supportive

environment, teachers and pupils can deliver meaningful results regarding creativity: 92% of

the teachers reported as being more effective in the classroom after attending the Creative

Partnership project. Assuming that the training provided by Ideaction to TDSB’s teachers is

effectively carried out, gains in student innovative thinking and innovative problem solving are

expected, as well as “recognizing there would be a significant impact on the teachers” (C.

Legrand, personal communication, March 11, 2016).

The agreement with Ideaction aims at providing professional learning opportunities for

teachers and administrators in the Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC) program developing

their creativity by teaching innovative thinking/innovative problem solving processes. In

addition, the agreement aims at developing learning modules for use in the classroom and

Ideaction will be responsible to initiate and deliver the “Ideaction Innovative Thinking Skills

Professional Learning Modules” (IITSPLM) during the 2014-15 school years. According to

Ideaction, the overall outcome of these actions will be: a) the development of strategies for

teachers “to teach student innovative skills through the curriculum delivered” and b) the

development of students’ higher order thinking skills4. In 2014-15, “Grade 5 and Grade 7

students from 11 Model Schools participate in a pilot project in partnership with Ideaction. The

project targets teachers and students how to think innovatively while problem-solving” (TDSB,

2016b, para.10). “For the I2Q program, the focus will [be] clearly on innovative

thinking/innovative problem solving”5. According to Legrand, the “I2Q includes some elements

that most people call creativity (or the generation of ideas) but it [is] more than just

creativity”6.

4 Information on this is taken from the Memorandum of Understanding (2014) between the TDSB and Ideaction and Model Schools for Inner Cities – Ideaction Innovative Thinking Skills Professional Learning Modules Implementation Plan. 5 Personal Communication, March 11, 2016 6 Personal Communication, March 11, 2016


This research aims to monitor the IITSPLM during the 2014-15 school year and the subsequent

years (2015-17). In doing so, we will also review the current literature and triangulate the

current systematic knowledge with what we will learn from this pilot study. More specifically,

this first year study intends to answer the following research questions:




What are the innovative characteristics of students in Grade 5 and 7?

What are the teachers’ and principals’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the professional learning workshops provided by Ideaction?


SECTION II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In this section, the review of the literature will summarize relevant research in the area of creativity

and innovation in teaching and learning. The literature review will focus on the following three

areas:

Creativity and innovative thinking as they relate to education: School supports

Best instructional practices to promote students’ creativity and innovation, and

Trends in learning science research.

Creativity and Innovative Thinking as They Relate to Education: School Supports

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 posited 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 (conditions or support

mechanisms) must be in place. Examples of enablers include: culture, curriculum, teaching and

learning format, teachers, assessment, technology, and tools development (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.


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) addressed 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 that 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 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 up in. Similar results were

reported by Seng et al., (2008) 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 United

States (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.

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. Figure 2 summarizes the research-based instruction 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: Creativity is a skill and as such, it

should be accessible to all students. While creativity is often thought 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 ( Silver, 1997; 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

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


out that creativity is a skill that can be taught to students. To her, creativity is no different from

any other skill, it can be studied and it can be 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” with

problems 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 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. Therefore, students 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 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 assessment 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 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 of 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 kill 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).

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 is to ensure that 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 on 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 (21st) century global

competencies are considered fundamental competencies 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

(Alberta Education, 2011). 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), have also 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 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

and problem solving, communication and collaboration, metacognition, and local, global and

digital citizenship (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016). C21 Canada, an advocacy group for

learning in education, 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 (p. 56). 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) experimental learning, b)

authentic learning, c) teaching for successful intelligence, d) teachers are curators of

innovation, and e) student-centered learning.

a. 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; 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 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 1930’s. Field-based experiential 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

(Casanovas et. al., 2010).


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 considers experiential learning an important part of the

education experience (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2000). Recently, the Canadian Council of

Learning conducted detailed review of research on experiential learning and student success

for Ontario’s Ministry of Education (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” (Hondzel-Dishke 2013, p. 114).

b. Authentic Learning: Another global trend in 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 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 teachers to bring authentic learning in science

learning in 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.

c. 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, to teach based on

successful intelligence and in order to promote creativity and innovation teachers should do the

following: (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.

d. Teachers are Curators of Innovation: Recently, there has been a trend in viewing teachers as

curators of learning. Some researchers see the role of teachers 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 is famous for this practice to provide 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

board room 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 elsewhere (Trilling & Fadel, 2012). By making teachers

curators of learning and innovation, a classroom environment emerges where creativity and

innovation thrives.

e. 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 teachers 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. In the following section, each of these topics will be examined in further detail.

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 the


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 students 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 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., 2004). 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 in 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 for students in Grade

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


SECTION III: METHODOLOGY

The study included a program group and a control group. Toronto District School Board (TDSB)

teachers and administrators who participated in the professional learning sessions led by

Ideaction were part of the program group, whereas TDSB teachers and administrators who did

not participate in these learning sessions were part of the control group. Surveys were given to

participating teachers, administrators and their students, as well as control group participants

and their students. Responses from the control and program groups were compared and

contrasted by evaluating survey responses to questions on innovative characteristics of

students, perceptions of creativity, creativity-fostering behaviors, school/district support of

innovative teaching, and the nature of professional learning training provided. The study was

both qualitative and quantitative in nature, using open-ended responses and numerical survey

questions for analysis. This section addresses the methods and processes that were used in the

study.

Participants

In total, 11 Model Schools for Inner City (MSIC) schools intended to participate in the I2Q Pilot

Program. Two of the schools did not participate fully in the program and one school didn’t

participate in the survey study7. This resulted in eight program group schools which

participated both in the program and the survey study. In the present study, 13 TDSB public

schools participated during the 2014-15 academic school year (eight schools were program

participants and five schools were part of the control group). The participant pool was made up

of teachers, administrators, and students from these 13 schools. The schools in the program

group were selected by the program implementation team among the TDSB’s MSIC based on

their socio-economic status (SES) and desired interest. Schools in the control group were

selected from the MSIC schools with similar characteristics with the ones in the program group

using data on achievement and school SES as well as the professional judgment of the program

implementation team.

7 This information was provided and confirmed by the program coordinators and verified in the data submissions.


In total, 628 students participated in the study with each student participant completing a

survey on innovative traits of young people. There were 251 students in the control group and

377 students in the program group. Student results presented here represent randomly

selected students in the program and control groups ensuring the same proportional

representation based on student age.8, 9 Similarly, 27 teachers and administrators (13 were in

the control group and 14 were in the program group10) participated in the study by completing

a survey on creativity and innovation.

Professional Learning

The professional learning training on creativity and innovation was provided by Ideaction, an

innovation consulting and learning service that strives to bring innovation into the daily lives of

the organizations they work with11. Ideaction created a four part professional learning series on

teaching and learning innovative thinking for the TDSB. The goal was to develop the teachers’

and administrators’ strategies regarding innovative thinking / innovative problem solving skills

in students, and develop the students’ higher order thinking skills in STEM subjects.

Data Collection Procedures and Study Surveys

Researchers compared the answers from the control and program groups which included

teachers, administrators, and students by evaluating survey responses and classifying themes

on creativity and innovation.

All participants in the control and program groups were invited to complete an electronic

survey on creativity. Surveys were sent out to teachers and administrators in the control and

program groups and to the students of the teachers in the control and program groups.

Participants were told the findings from the survey would be used to improve the teaching and

learning experiences in schools; that their responses would be kept confidential; and they were

given as much time as they needed to work through the 15 minute survey.

Teachers in the program and control groups were asked to complete a survey (a series of open-

ended, Likert-scale or select the best option type of questions), on their perceptions of

creativity, creativity fostering teaching environments, and offer their opinion about the

school/district support of innovative teaching. Only the teachers who participated in the

8 Based on the number of classes that participated in I2Q within the 8 schools in the program group, approximately 400 students were expected to participate from the Grades 5 and 7. This was approximately 94% of the students in the program group. This is based on the numbers provided by the program coordinators. Each classroom was estimated to have an average of 20 students (R. Alison, personal communication, November, 2015). 9 For the details on the overall student demographics used in this study please refer to section IV of this report. 10 From the participating schools in this study, in total 14 teachers and 12 administrators were expected to participate in to the I2Q program in 2014-15. Based on this, the program group represented 54% of the teachers and administrators in the program group (R. Alison, personal communication, November, 2015). 11 For further information on Ideaction please see http://www.ideaction.net/

http://www.ideaction.net/


program group were administered a survey on their opinion on the professional learning

training provided by Ideaction. Administrators in the control and program groups were invited

to complete an electronic survey asking them about their opinions on creativity and school

support of innovative teaching. This survey was a shorten version of the teacher survey and was

the same for both groups. The survey included questions about their perceptions of creativity

and their opinions on school support for creativity. The students of the teachers in the control

and program groups were invited to complete an electronic survey on the innovative

characteristics of young people. The survey included 25 statements about creativity and there

were five questions on demographics.

All surveys were created by the TDSB Research team based on the work of experts in the field.

The teacher and administrator surveys were based on creativity research, creativity fostering

teaching behavior, and school support on innovative teaching. Items selected for this study are

based on the existing reliability and validity analysis of the surveys in the literature (e.g., Soh,

2015). In addition, feedback received by the I2Q implementation team and Ideaction were used

in further revising the items for the I2Q program.

The survey questions examining the teachers’ and administrators’ opinions of creativity were

based on the work of Kampylis et al. (2009), who developed and tested a questionnaire for

teachers on their conceptions and understanding of creativity. In addition to this, the work of

Cachia & Ferrari (2010) who conducted research for the Commission of the European Union on

creativity and innovation of teachers in Europe, was used to create the TDSB survey questions

on teacher perceptions of creativity.

The survey questions examining creativity fostering teaching behavior were based on the work

of Soh (2000), who developed and validated a 45 item self-rating scale based on nine creativity

fostering behaviors. The survey questions looking at school support of innovative teaching was

based on the work of Zhu et al. (2013), who investigated teachers competencies in innovative

teaching. The authors developed and tested a questionnaire on teachers’ innovative teaching

performance, which was used to develop the questions on teachers’ innovative teaching

practices in the present survey.


Table 1: Teacher and Administrator Survey Items and Their Associated Constructs Used During 2014-15

Table 1: Teacher and Administrator Survey Items, Constructs and Source

Questions on the Survey

Items # Constructs Source

Section A 1 1 Creativity fostering teaching behaviour (open-ended)

TDSB Research Team

Section A 2-11 10 Opinions on creativity Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Kampylis et al., 2009

Section A 12 1 Opinions on creativity TDSB Research Team

Section B 1-21 21 Creativity fostering teaching behavior Soh, 2000

Section B 22-23 2 Creativity fostering teaching behaviour TDSB Research Team

Section C 1-9 9 School support on innovative teaching Zhu et al., 2013

Section C 1-4 4 Professional learning TDSB Research Team

Section C 5 1 Perceptions about the project TDSB Research Team

Section D 8 Demographics TDSB Research Team

Total Items 57


The survey on the innovative characteristics of students looked at six different themes: (1)

creativity, (2) risk-propensity, (3) self-efficacy, (4) leadership, (5) energy, and (6) problem-solving

in young people. The statements were significantly based on the work of Chell and Athayde

(2009), who developed questions on identifying and measuring the innovative characteristics of

young people and on the work of Cho (2003), Lin (2010), and Ennis (2002, 2011, 2012).

Table 2: Student survey items and their associated constructs used during 2014-15

Table 2: Innovative Characteristics of Students Survey: Items, Constructs and Source

Questions on the Survey

Items # Constructs Source

1-6 6 Creativity Chell & Athayde, 2009

7-8 2 Risk-propensity Chell & Athayde, 2009

9-11 3 Self-efficacy Chell & Athayde, 2009

12-15 4 Leadership Chell & Athayde, 2009

16-19 4 Energy Chell & Athayde, 2009

20-25 6 Problem Solving Cho, 2003; Ennis, 2002, 2012, 2011

26 1 Opinions on creativity Kampylis et al., 2009

D1-D4 4 Demographics TDSB Research Team

Total Items 30

Safeguards for Confidentiality

The identity of each participant remained confidential. Permission was obtained from

participants before participation. The study was completed under the approval of the Research

Ethics Board at the TDSB. All data were stored on a password-protected computer and backed

up to at least two locations. All paper copies were digitally scanned and then shredded. Data

were stored on a computer with an uninterruptible power supply.

Limitations of the Study

This research study intended to provide descriptive analysis and findings needed to further

improve the I2Q program by the implementation team. This is the first step of the three years of

research design as outlined in the conceptual framework of this study. Pre-program design with

randomized control groups was not implemented due to labor distribution in the 2014-15

school year, as well as the workload of the leading educators. The effects on student learning


outcomes, engagement, belonging, and overall skills and competences was suggested to be

studied after the full implementation of the Ideaction program (i.e., in the third year of the

program implementation).

Data Analysis Strategy

The data in this focus study were grouped and analyzed for the following research questions:




What are the innovative characteristics of students in Grade 5 and 7?

What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the professional learning workshops provided by Ideaction?

To answer research question one (1), the teacher and administrator responses from the control

and participant groups to questions on perceptions of creativity were compared. The responses

to a series of statements about creativity in general were bucketed and used to look for

themes. To answer research question two (2) the responses from the control and program

participant groups were examined and compared for themes on how teachers foster creativity

in students. Responses to a series of statements about teaching behaviors fostering creativity

were analyzed for an overall picture of how teachers foster creativity.

To answer research question three (3) the responses of teachers and administrators to a series

of questions on school support for innovative teaching were examined and further compared. A

“Teacher/Administrator” was determined by adding together each individual teacher or

administrator responses to the nine questions. In addition to this, questions that differentiated

between “our school” and “our school leaders” were examined in how educators perceived the

school/district to support innovative teaching.

To answer research question four (4), the student responses to questions on creative

characteristics in young people were used to develop “a love of creativity score”, and to better

understand areas of strength and areas of development with creativity in young people. The

statements looked at six different themes: (1) creativity, (2) risk-propensity, (3) self-efficacy, (4)

leadership, (5) energy, and (6) problem-solving in young people. Correlations to gender, family

ownership of a business, or school subjects students find creative were examined.


To answer research question five (5), the relationship between the number of sessions

attended, what was learnt from the sessions, perceptions of creativity, and perception of

support of creativity was analyzed.

The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and parametric T-test to identify possible

significant differences (*, p<0.05) between the two student groups.

Conceptual Research Framework

The Ideaction partnership with the TDSB will be extended over three years (2014-17). The effects

of the training provided by Ideaction to teachers and the administrators and the effectiveness of

the Ideaction modules to be utilized as tools to drive the innovative thinking/problem solving of

TDSB students, could be monitored using both qualitative and quantitative approaches over the

three year period. The TDSB’s partnership with Ideaction presents a unique opportunity to lay the

ground of a general approach in studying creativity and innovative thinking at the TDSB. This

general approach into studying these two variables could be linked to Ideaction’s partnership and

at the same time be independent of the deliverables of the partnership. The TDSB can gain from

this partnership and at the same time continue its own research program in studying creativity

and innovation at its own schools. The general approach to study these two important variables

could lay the baseline for future studies on related issues.

It has been previously suggested that a broad conceptual framework which is inclusive enough

to enhance the relationship between research and practice could be most appropriate for a

large public school board such as the TDSB. Based on Pasteur’s Quadrant, the Stokes Research

Matrix has been forwarded as a basic framework that brings the idea that pure applied science

and pure basic science could be brought together in such a way as to have meaningful

significance as a use-inspired basic research on society

(see Figure 3). Based on the Stokes Research Matrix it

can be hypothesized that “research reviews using

narrative synthesis approach and case studies with

empirical evidence [could] be employed to study” the

effects of the interventions on creativity and innovative

thinking/innovative problem solving on TDSB teachers

and students (Sinay, 2012, p. 1). The findings of such an

approach could be utilized to drive recommendations

for the TDSB to consider policies regarding creativity

and innovative thinking in its schools and for public

education in general.

Figure 3: The Stokes Research Matrix

Pure Basic Research

(Bohr)

Use-Inspired Basic

Research (Pasteur)

Pure Applied

Research (Edison)

Considerations of Use?

Qu

est

for

Fun

dam

enta

l

Un

der

stan

din

g?

Source: Stokes, 1997, p. 73


The proposed research framework in studying creativity and innovative thinking in TDSB

schools is summarized in Figure 4 and is based on previous concepts and frameworks used in

the same area (Sinay 2012; Sinay, 2014; Sinay et al., 2015). The surveys are selected from

published literature studies which attempt to monitor individual attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors of students, teachers, and administrators related to creativity and innovative

thinking12.

Figure 4: Summary of the Research Framework in Studying Creativity and Innovative Thinking/ Innovative Problem Solving in TDSB Schools

Note: This framework is based on previous concepts (Sinay, 2012; Sinay, 2014; Sinay et al., 2015)

12 These partnership initiatives were proposed as three years program. This current research study captures the findings from the first year.

Key

Res

earc

h Q

ues

tio

ns

Phase IIPerceptions and Implementation

Phase I

Creativity &

Innovation

Teaching

Attributes

High-Quality Professional

Development Phase III

Change & Outcomes

Educators’ & Students’Attitudes, beliefs, opinions, knowledge, practices, self-efficacy

Teachers’ competencies

Students’ achievement

Sustainable implementation

of Creativity and Innovation Education

TDSB Teachers’ Creativity Teaching & Student Innovative Thinking & Creativity Map

2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Quantitative & Qualitative Data GatheringSurveys, classroom observations, interviews,

classroom visits, document analyses

Data Analyses & formation of interrelated themes

Rearrangement of themes & comparison of emergent theory with existing theory

Use – inspired basic research

Triangulation

Knowledge CreationRelevant to improve overall education& contribute to the public well-being

Strategic DirectionsMake every school an effective school;

Build leadership within culture of adaptability, openness & resilience;

Form string & effective relationships and partnerships;

Build environmentally sustainable schools that inspire teaching & learning;

Identify disadvantage and intervene effectively

Evidence of implementation

Data to drive action


SECTION IV: SURVEY RESULTS

Demographics of Participants

Students’ Demographics

Thirteen (13) TDSB public schools participated in the study. Eight (8) schools were part of the

program group and five schools were part of the control group. In total 494 students are

represented in the analysis of the present study.13

The control and program groups were equally split among females and males (52% females and

48% males in the control group and 50% females and 50% males in the program group) (see

Figure 5).

Overall, most of the students were between 10-12 years old. Both the program and control

groups had the same proportional representations. Both the control and program groups were

made up of 80% of students aged 10-12 (see Figure 6).

13 Student results presented here represents randomly selected students in the program and control groups ensuring the same proportional representation based on student age. For more details on the study participants please refer to Section III: Methodology.

Figure 5: Students’

Gender

48% 50%

52% 50%

Control Group (244)

Program Group (246)

Female

Male

Gender

10 years,

18% 11 years,

26%

12 years,

36%

13 years,

20%

Control Group (247)

10 years,

18% 11 years,

26%

12 years,

36%

13 years,

20%

Program Group (247)

What is your age?

Figure 6: Students’ Age


Teachers’ and Administrators’ Demographics

Gender: Twenty seven (27) teachers and administrators participated in the study. Each

educator participant completed a survey on creativity and innovation. There were 13 teachers

and administrators in the control group and 14 teachers and administrators in the program

group. The control and program groups had similar gender breakdowns. The gender breakdown

was as follows: 62% females

and 38% males in the control

group and 64% females, 29%

males in the program group14

(see Figure 7).

Position held in the School: Teachers and administrators were asked what their position was in

the school. The majority of the respondents were

classroom teachers with, 77% of the control group and

77% of program group working as classroom teachers.

The position of principal made up the second most

popular choice, with 15% of the teachers and

administrator in the control group and 15% of the

teachers and administrator in the program group

working as principals. There was also one person in both

the control and program groups that held a different

position than teacher or administrator. In the program

group, this individual worked as a librarian, and in the

control the individual selected the option of “Other”

(see Figure 8).

14 The Missing is not included in the chart.

Figure 7: Participants’ Gender

Figure 8: Position in the School

Participants' Gender

Male38%Female

62%

Control Group (13)

Male 29%

Female 64%

Program Group (13)

Excellent

Good

36%

36%

Program Group (14)

Program Group (14)

C3. Quality of the sessions that you

PrincipalClassroom

teacher LibrarianOther

15%

77%

0% 8%

15%

77%

8% 0%

Chart Title

Control Group (13) Program Group (13)

Position in the school


Teaching Experience: Teachers were asked about their

teaching experience. Most of the teachers in this study

were experienced educators. In fact, most of the

teachers had more than 6 years teaching experience.

The program group had a more experienced group of

teachers than the control group, with 71% of the

program group having 11 or more years teaching

experience, compared to 50% of the control group. The

control group and program groups both had a large

number of teachers with 6-10 years of teaching

experience; with 50% of teachers in the control group

and 21% of teachers in the program group with 6-10

years of teaching experience (see Figure 915).

Highest Level of Education: Teachers and administrators were asked about their highest level

of educational attainment. The majority hold a Bachelor’s degree or Bachelor’s plus additional

credits. Sixty-one percent (61%) of the control group and 57% of the program group earned a

Bachelor degree or a Bachelor degree plus credits. The remainder of the teachers and

administrators (39% of the control group and

43% of the program group), hold a Master’s

degree or a Master’s degree

plus credits. There was one

individual in the program group

who holds a certificate of

advanced study (see Figure 10).

15 Percentages may not add up to a 100 due to rounding.

Figure 9: Teaching Experience

Figure 10: Highest Level of Education

The highest level of education you have completed

Bachelor's

Degree,

15%

Bachelor's

Degree

plus

credits,

46%

Master's Degree,

15%

Master's Degree

plus credits,

15%

Certificate

of

Advanced

Study, 0% Other, 8%

Control Group (13)

Bachelor's

Degree,

36%

Bachelor's

Degree

plus

credits,

21%

Master's Degree,

14%

Master's Degree

plus credits,

21%

Certificate

of

Advanced

Study, 7% Other, 0%

Program Group (14)

3-5 years6-10 years

11 or more years 0%

50%50%7%

21%

71%

Chart Title


Years in total have you been teaching


Summary: The study included 27 teachers and administrators divided among a program and

control group. There were 13 teachers and administrators in the control group and 14

teachers and administrators in the program group. The program and control groups had similar teaching experience with all but one of the teachers having more than 6 years of teaching experience, the majority of educators in both groups taught Grade 5, taught a variety

of subjects areas, had similar educational backgrounds (the majority of teachers’ and administrators’ highest level of education was a Bachelor’s or Bachelor’s plus credits and

had similar gender and age breakdowns. The majority of educators were female, aged 30-49.

Teaching Concentration Area: The teachers in this study taught a wide range of subject areas

including Language Arts, Visual Arts, Social Sciences, Mathematics, and Science. For the control

group the most common teaching areas included Language Arts (69%), Visual Arts (62%), Social

Science (62%), and Mathematics (54%); whereas, for the program group the most common

teaching areas included Science (43%), Mathematics (43%), and Language Arts (36%). The most

noticeable difference between the two groups was the number of teachers who taught

Language Arts (69% of the control as opposed to 36% of the program group taught Language

Arts) and the number of teachers who taught Visual Arts (62% of the control group vs 21% of

the program group).

Students’ Innovative Characteristics

Professional Engagement after Graduation

Students were asked what they were likely to do when

they completed their education. The most common

response included work in a profession, such as doctor,

lawyer, or teacher when they finish school (51% of

students in the control group and 51% of students in the

program group expressing this viewpoint). The least

popular choice among students was to work in a small

business (6% of students in the control group and 5% of

students in the program group) (see Figure11). There

were also 21% of students in both the control and

program groups who selected “Other”, indicating they

hope to do something other than work in a profession. The students who selected “Other”

were asked to specify what they would like to do when they finish their schooling. The most

Figure 11: What Students would do After

Finishing Their Education

10% 10%6% 5%

12% 13%

51% 51%

21% 22%

Control Group (242)

Program Group (242)

Other

Work in a profession

Have my own business

Work in a small business

Work in a large organization

What are you likely to do when you complete your education?


Summary: Students were asked what they were likely to do when they completed their education. The most common response was that they would like to work in a profession, such as doctor, lawyer or teacher when they finish school, with 51% of students in the control group and 51% of students in the program group expressing this viewpoint. Students were also asked about whether anyone in their family ever owned a business. The most common response for students in the control and program groups was to have an aunt or uncle who owned a business, with 31% of students in the control group and 32% of students in the program group having an aunt or uncle who owned a business. Students were also asked which school subjects they consider it likely for a student to be creative. Students believe they are most likely to be creative in the Arts. Other subject areas they feel they can be creative in are: Music, Physical Education, Science and Language Arts.

Summary: The study included 494 students in Grades 5 and 7 divided among a program and control group. There were 247 students in the control group and 247 students in the program group. The program and control groups had equal gender breakdowns, and the majority of students in both groups were aged 10-12.

common responses were athlete (29% - basketball player, football player, and soccer player),

entertainer (13% - singer, model, actor or actress), or artist (11%).

Family Member Owning a Business

When students were asked about whether anyone in

their family ever owned a business, the most common

response was to have an aunt or uncle who owned a

business (31% of the control group vs 32% of the

program group). On the other hand, having a sibling

who owned a business was by far the least common

response for both the control group (2%) and program

group (4%) (see Figure 12).

Figure 12: Family Member owning a Business

Mother or female guardian 19% (48) 17% (42)

Father or male guardian 27% (67) 34% (84)

Grandmother or Grandfather 17% (41) 18% (45)

Aunt or Uncle 31% (77) 32% (80)

Sister or Brother 2% (5) 4% (9)

Cousin 9% (23) 12% (29)

Other 10% (25) 8% (19)

C ont ro l

Group

Program

Gro up

Has anyone in your family ever owned a

business?


School Subjects and Creativity

In order to better understand the students’ viewpoints

on creativity, students were asked about which school

subjects they would consider likely for a student to be

creative. The majority of the responders believe

students are likely to be creative in The Arts (78% of the

control group vs 83% of the program group strongly

agreed or agreed). The response rate to The Arts was

more than 20% greater than any other subject area.

Other subject areas students felt they can be creative

include: Music, Physical Education, Science, and

Language Arts. On the flip side, the school subjects that

students felt they were less likely to be creative in were:

Foreign Languages (15% of the control group vs 19% of

the program group), Geography (12% of the control

group vs 13% of the program group), and Social

Sciences (13% of the control group vs 18% of the

program group) (see Figure 13).

The students in the program and control groups were

asked a series of questions about innovative

characteristics of young people. The questions looked at six different themes: (1) creativity, (2)

risk-propensity, (3) self-efficacy, (4) leadership, (5) energy and (6) problem-solving in young

people. The results for each theme are presented in the following section.

Creativity

In general, students in the program group scored slightly higher in most of the statements on

creativity. The overall creativity measures between the control group and program group were

not statistically significant, but the results show students felt very strong about being creative.

Almost three-quarters of the students in the program and control groups strongly disagreed or

disagreed with the statement “I am not a creative person”, thus indicating students felt very

strongly about being described as creative. The statement “I am not a creative person” elicited

the largest number of strongly disagrees (29% of the control group vs 27% of the program

group strongly disagreed), compared to all of the other questions for both the program and

control groups. This result indicates that creativity is being fostered in the study classrooms

since students have developed a strong sense of creativity. This is an important result because

Figure 13: School Subjects Considered

Creative

The Arts 78% (193) 83% (205)

Computer Studies 38% (95) 38% (93)

Environmental studies 11% (28) 21% (53)

Foreign Languages 15% (37) 19% (48)

Geography 12% (29) 13% (31)

History 19% (48) 20% (50)

Language Arts 35% (86) 44% (108)

Mathematics 35% (87) 45% (110)

Music 59% (145) 65% (160)

Physical Education/Health 45% (112) 43% (107)

Science 43% (105) 53% (131)

Social Sciences 14% (34) 17% (42)

Other 7% (18) 3% (7)

Please tell us the school subject or

subjects in which you consider it likely for

a student to be creative.

C ont ro l

Group

Pro gram

Gro up

There is a significant difference between groups

(p<0.05)


when creativity is nurtured in educational environments it can foster greater student

engagement and student satisfaction (Robinson, 2011). Creativity is at the heart of the 21st

century competencies and they are needed to help position our youth for success in the global

environment (see Figure 14).

When students were asked a question on being inventive (“I would like to invent something

that is new to the world”), the results showed students in the program group had more of a

desire to be inventive than students in the control group (41% vs. 35% strongly agreed -

program vs. control group respectively). In addition, 89% of the students in program group

agreed or strongly agreed on the statement “I like putting ideas together to come up with

something new”, compared to 86% of the students in the control group. Chell and Athayde

(2009) noted that the culture and ethos of a school can impact the students’ ability to develop

skills for innovation. Perhaps, in this case, students in the program group whose teachers

participated in the professional learning on creativity and innovation with Ideaction, were able

to create a learning environment that developed their students desire to invent something new

in the future.

For both the program and control groups, students strongly expressed that they like the feeling

of accomplishing difficult tasks and putting ideas together to come up with something new. The

statement with the highest percent “agrees” for the students in both the program and control

groups agreeing was “I am good at having ideas” These two statements (i.e. like the feeling of

accomplishing difficult tasks and putting ideas together to come up with something new)

elicited such strong responses because possibly students want to be challenged. Silver (1997)

explains that by making the classroom a place of investigation, creative and innovative thinking

can be stimulated. This opinion is echoed by Cropley (1997) and Sternberg and Williams (1996),

who emphasize those teachers who foster creative learning environments, provide excitement

in the classroom. Problem-solving activities are a great way to stimulate creativity and give

students the challenge they desire (Davis & Rimm, 1985; Karnes et al., 1961; Subotnik,1988).


Figure 14: Student Creativity

I am not a creative person

I like the feeling of accomplishing diff icult tasks

I have a strong imagination

I like putting ideas together to come up w ith something

new

I w ould like to invent something that is new to the w orld

Creativity

I am good at having ideas

Control Group Program Group

34%

2%

2%

1%

4%

3%

8%

37%

8%

12%

10%

16%

14%

16%

19%

45%

47%

59%

38%

59%

44%

10%

46%

39%

30%

41%

25%

32%

247

247

246

247

247

246

1480

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

Respons

Response

32%

3%

2%

3%

5%

2%

8%

41%

9%

12%

11%

17%

18%

18%

18%

47%

53%

56%

43%

56%

45%

9%

41%

33%

30%

35%

25%

29%

244

245

243

241

245

244

1462

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

Summary: In general, students in the program group have slightly higher percentages of students (2%-3%) agreeing or strongly agreeing on the creativity statements. The results demonstrate no statistical significant difference on overall creativity results among the students in the program and control groups; nonetheless, the results show notable findings. Most importantly, the results show students felt very strong about being creative. The results also show students in the program group had more of a desire to be inventive. These included an important result between the control and program groups over the statement “I would like to invent something that is new to the world,” with program group having 41% of students strongly agreeing with the statement and the control group having 35% of students strongly agreeing with the statement. Perhaps, in this case, students in the program group, whose teachers participated in the professional learning on creativity and innovation, created a learning environment that developed their students desire to invent something new in the future. Other notable findings include: for both the program and control groups, students expressed: (1) that they would describe themselves as creative, (2) that they like the feeling of accomplishing difficult tasks, and (3) I am good at having ideas.


Risk-Propensity

Although not statistically significant, overall risk-propensity results were slightly higher for the

students in the program group than the students in the control group. Both groups showed

interesting findings about the Grade 5 and 7 students’ outlook on risk (see Figure 15). Nearly a third

of the students in both the program and control groups would describe themselves as “a risk-

taker”. Both the students in the program and control groups displayed high levels of agreement

with the statement “I would describe myself as a risk-taker” (61% of the control group vs. 68% of

the program group strongly agreed or agreed). This is an important result because as Chell and

Athayde (2009) explain, risk-propensity is an important attribute needed for innovation and

innovators and entrepreneurs typically have high risk-propensity, meaning they are more risk-

tolerant.

Many students in the study are willing to take on some risk. About 60% of students in the

program group and 57% in control group disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “I

try not to take part in sports where there is a bit of danger” (see Figure 15). According to the

work of Chell and Athayde (2009), sports help students understand better risk and foster

leadership skills. Students need to be encouraged to take on some risk, and understand that it

is okay to learn from their mistakes. The same authors also suggest students should receive

additional lessons on risk awareness in order to improve their understanding and willingness to

take risk. Risk-taking is an important aspect of creativity.

Figure 15: Risk-Propensity

I try not to take part in sports w here there is a bit of

danger

Risk-propensity

Program Group

I w ould describe myself as a risk-taker

Control Group

34%

9%

21%

26%

23%

25%

25%

47%

36%

15%

21%

18%

247

245

492

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

24%

9%

17%

32%

29%

31%

28%

44%

36%

15%

18%

16%

244

244

488

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

Summary: The overall risk-propensity results between the control and program groups showed no statistical difference, but about a third of the students n the program and control groups would describe themselves as a risk-taker. This is an important result because as Chell & Athayde (2009) explain risk-propensity is an important attribute needed for innovation.


Self-Efficacy

Students were asked to respond to three statements about their beliefs in their ability to

achieve specific results, otherwise known as self-efficacy: (1) People think that I am very

confident, (2) I feel quite comfortable telling other people what to do, and (3) I feel confident

that I can do what is asked of me.

Students in the control and program groups showed high overall self-efficacy, with students in

the program group displaying slightly higher percentage agreeing or strongly agreeing on the self-

efficacy statements. Overall, 71% of the control group and 74% of the program group responses

were closer to the agreed or strongly agreed categories for all the three self-efficacy statements

(only 5% of the students in the control group and 6% of the students in the program group

strongly disagreed with the three self-efficacy statements) (see Figure 16). Self-efficacy is

important regardless of the subject area and a fundamental component of leadership and

personal development (Chell & Athayde, 2009).

Students in both the program and control group believe they are perceived as confident: 71%

of the control group vs 74% of the program group strongly agreed or agreed with the statement

“People think that I am very confident”. Students’ responses to the statement “I feel confident

that I can do what is asked of me” showed that students display great confidence too (90% of

students in the control group vs. 89% of students in the program group strongly agreed or

agreed) (see Figure 16).

However, the following self-efficacy result showed a statistical difference among the students

in program and control groups: “I feel quite comfortable telling other people what to do”. It

appears that schools which participated in the professional learning sessions have created a

classroom structure better supporting self-efficacy. Students whose teachers participated in the

professional learning sessions were more comfortable telling other what to do (14% of the

control group vs 24% of the program group strongly agreed) (see Figure 16). Experts have

suggested that schools can develop student self-efficacy through encouragement, teaching

through experience, and allowing students to make mistakes (Chell & Athayde, 2009).

Figure 16: Self-Efficacy

People think that I am very confident

I feel quite comfortable telling other people

what to do

Self-efficacy

I feel confident that I can do w hat is asked of me


4%

10%

1%

5%

22%

30%

10%

21%

47%

37%

56%

47%

27%

24%

33%

28%

243

246

244

733

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

5%

12%

2%

6%

24%

37%

8%

23%

51%

37%

65%

51%

20%

14%

24%

20%

241

241

245

727

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

There is a significant difference between groups (p<0.05)


Leadership

When students were asked about their leadership qualities, 59% of students in the control

group and 63% of students in the program group responded that they agreed or strongly

agreed with the four leadership statements. The results showed overall statistical differences in

leadership between the program and control groups as well as for certain leadership qualities,

including the students’ desire to take on leadership roles and encouraging others to follow their

ideas.

The students in the program group, whose teachers attended professional learning on

innovation and creativity, demonstrated a stronger affinity to take on a leadership role. A

statistically significant result between the control and program groups was revealed over the

statement “I really like being a leader of a group” (65% of the control group vs 72% of the

program group strongly agreed or agreed) (see Figure 17). Research emphasizes the importance

of strong leadership skills for innovation and success of youth in the global environment (Chell

& Athayde, 2009; Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, 2008). It may be the case that

students whose teachers received additional training on innovation and creativity are better

able to develop their leadership skills.

The results also demonstrate that the students in the program group are more inclined to

encourage others to follow their ideas. The statement “When I am working on a group project, I

try to encourage others to follow my ideas”, revealed a statistical difference between the

students in the control and program groups (17% of the control group vs 24% of the program

group strongly agreed) (see Figure 17). A key component of leadership is the ability to convince

others of your vision, a critical skill for the innovation process (Chell & Athayde, 2009).

Another notable finding included the students’ electability as a team leader or captain: 57% of

the students in the control group and 55% of the students in the program group disagree or

strongly disagree with the statement “I am often chosen to be the team leader or captain” (see

Figure 17).


Figure 17: Leadership

Energy

Almost three-quarters of the students would describe themselves as energetic. The overall

energy results between the control and program groups showed no statistical difference,

except the results corresponding to a statement related to the students’ reaction when they do

not have the necessary time to finish a task.

Students in the program and control group were asked whether people would describe them

as energetic and a large number of students would say that they were energetic (73% of the

control group and the program group agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 18). Energy is

important for drive, enthusiasm, motivation, hard-work, persistence, and commitment, and

thus, it is a good thing that our students would be described as energetic (Chell & Athayde,

2009). According to the same authors, a typical inventor would possess high energy among

other characteristics, making energy an important characteristic to be targeted for cultivation.

I really like being leader of a group

I am often chosen to be the team leader or captain

I enjoy getting people to follow me

Control Group

Leadership

When I am working on a group project, I try to

encourage others to follow my ideas

Program Group

7%

12%

10%

3%

8%

21%

43%

32%

18%

28%

36%

30%

35%

55%

39%

36%

15%

23%

24%

24%

246

246

246

246

984

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

8%

14%

9%

4%

9%

27%

43%

35%

23%

32%

39%

30%

41%

56%

42%

26%

12%

15%

17%

17%

244

246

244

245

979

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

Summary: The results on student leadership demonstrated important findings about young people’s desire for leadership and to encourage others to follow their ideas. Students in the program group, whose teachers attended professional learning on innovation and creativity, demonstrated a stronger affinity to take on leadership roles and encouraging others to follow their ideas. Research suggests, leadership skills are important for innovation and success of our youth in the global environment (Ministry of Research and Innovation, 2008). The results also demonstrate that students in the program group are more inclined to encourage others to follow their ideas. A key component to leadership is being able to convince others of your vision and according to Chell and Athayde (2009) such a skill is critical for the innovation process.



An even larger percentage of students said “If my friends give up something, I will continue it

until it is finished” with 82% of the students in the control group and 78% of the students in the

program group agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement. Conversely to that, the

results showed a that a high number of students do not like having a lot of things on the go,

with 42% of students in the control group and 36% of students in the program group

disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement “I like having a lot of things on the go”

(see Figure 18).

The results also demonstrated that students in the program group are more inclined to feel

frustrated if they are not given enough time to complete a task, in comparison to students in te

control group. The statement “I feel frustrated if I do not have the time to complete the tasks

set”, revealed a statistical difference between the two groups.

Figure 18: Energy

Program Group

People often describe me as energetic

I feel frustrated if I do not have the time to

complete the tasks set

I like having a lot of things on the go

If my friends give up on something, I w ill continue it until

it is f inished

Energy

Control Group

5%

4%

3%

9%

5%

22%

22%

19%

27%

23%

37%

43%

50%

43%

44%

36%

30%

28%

22%

29%

244

246

246

245

981

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

6%

5%

2%

10%

6%

20%

14%

16%

32%

21%

43%

42%

54%

42%

45%

30%

38%

28%

16%

28%

244

243

245

245

977

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response



Problem-Solving

Students were asked six different statements about problem-solving. The results demonstrated

certain similarities among the program and control groups but also uncovered important

differences on how students understand and solve problems in different ways.

Students felt strongly that it is rewarding to help other students to solve problems. The

statement of “I find it rewarding to provide my help to other students when they solve

problems” elicited the largest number of strongly agrees and agrees compared to all of the

other questions for both the program and the control groups (86% of the control group vs 89%

of the program group agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 19). Chell and Athayde (2009)

stress the importance of desire of support in problem solving when students work on projects

in groups: students develop the important skill of teamwork.

Problem-solving is an important part of developing creativity skills (Kirton, 1987; Kirton, 1989).

The results of the present study show an important difference between the control and

program groups over the statement “I understand problems differently from my friends”, with

28% of students in the program group strongly agreeing with the statement, compared to 18%

of students in the control group (see Figure 19). Based on these results, students whose

teachers attended professional learning on creativity and innovation are being given more

opportunities to think differently and try different things when solving problems. Classroom

practices should promote students’ understanding and self-improvement, encourage their

critical thinking critically, and allow them to try different things.

Summary: Control and program groups showed no statistical difference in overall energy scores, but almost three-quarters of the students would describe themselves as energetic, with 73% of students in the control group and the program group saying that people would describe them as energetic. Conversely to that, the results showed that a high number of students do not like having a lot of things on the go, with 42% of students in the control group and 36% of students in the program group disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement “I like having a lot of things on the go.” In addition to that, the results also demonstrate a statistically significant results that students in the program group are more inclined to feel frustrated if they are not given enough time to complete a task, in comparison to students in the control group. Energy is an important characteristic, for drive, enthusiasm, motivation, hard-work, persistence and commitment, fundamental characteristics of inventors (Chell & Athayde , 2009).


Students in the control group appear more likely to strongly agree with the statement “When I

am faced with a problem, I have several different ways to solve it”, than the students in the

program group (23% vs. 17% strongly agreed- control vs. program group respectively) (see

Figure 19).

Other interesting findings had to do with the fact that students in the program and control

group expressed that they like working on problems as a team. Eighty six (86%) and 84% of the

control and program group students respectively agreed or strongly agreed with the statement,

“I like to work with other students as a team when we solve problems.” This was the second

highest percentage of agreement in both groups of students (see Figure 19).

Figure 19: Problem Solving

Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions, Conceptions, and Behaviors about Creativity and Innovative Teaching

Teachers and administrators from (13) TDSB schools were asked a series of questions about: (1)

perceptions of creativity, (2) creativity-fostering teaching behavior, (3) school/district support

of innovative teaching, and (4) effectiveness of workshops on creativity and innovation.

I like to ask many questions before I try to f ind possible

solutions to a problem

I like to w ork w ith other students as a team w hen w e

solve problems

Program Group

Problem Solving

I understand problems differently from my friends

When I am faced w ith a problem, I have several

different w ays to solve it

It is easy for me to focus on the main question asked

w hen I am faced w ith a problem

I f ind it rew arding to provide my help to other students

w hen they solve problems

Control Group

4%

4%

5%

4%

5%

2%

4%

14%

24%

26%

23%

11%

8%

18%

54%

55%

54%

51%

44%

56%

52%

28%

17%

15%

22%

40%

34%

26%

247

247

246

247

247

247

1481

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

4%

4%

5%

5%

4%

3%

4%

15%

20%

27%

22%

9%

11%

17%

63%

53%

50%

47%

50%

56%

53%

18%

23%

18%

26%

36%

30%

25%

241

246

244

245

244

246

1466

StronglyDisagree


Respons

Response

Summary: The results demonstrated certain similarities and differences among the program and control groups’ problem-solving attributes. Similarities among the students in the control and program groups were that they felt strongly that they: (1) find it rewarding to help others solve problems, (2) like working on problems in a variety of ways, and (3) like working on problems as a team. However, the differences among the program and control groups focus on that students in the program group understand problems differently than their friends, and students in the control group are more likely to solve problems in different ways than the students in the program group.


The teacher and administrators in the program group participated in professional learning

sessions provided by Ideaction on creativity and innovation while teachers and administrators

in the control group did not participate in the professional learning session. Results will be

discussed in the following section.

Perceptions and Implicit Conceptions of Creativity

The participants in the program and control groups were asked a series questions using open-

ended, Likert-scale, and “select all that apply” type of questions to better understand their

perceptions and implicit conceptions of creativity. Also, the participants were asked questions

looking at the creativity fostering teaching behavior including: (1) creativity in school subjects,

(2) creativity for all, (3) creativity assessment, (4) teaching creativity, and (5) sociocultural and

environmental factors influencing creativity. Results for each theme will be examined.

Overall Creativity Results

Teachers and administrators were asked 10 different statements about their perceptions of

creativity. The results demonstrate that teachers and administrators truly believe “everyone

can be creative”. Teachers and administrators had near unanimous agreement with the

statement “everyone can be creative.” The absolute majority (100%) of the participants in the

control group strongly agreed or agreed and 92% of the participants in the program group

strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “everyone can be creative.” As such, this

statement is a driving statement for the teachers’ and administrators’ results on creativity.

Much in the same way, all the teachers and administrators in the study believe that creativity is

accessible to all and all disagreed that creativity is a characteristic of only eminent people.

According to Cachia and Ferrari (2010), teachers should recognize the importance for all

students to be creative. Based on these results, TDSB teachers recognize the importance of

creativity and believe that all students can be creative. Teachers and administrators also felt

strongly that creativity is important in a wide number of subject areas. In fact, the statement

“creativity is only relevant to visual arts, music, drama and artistic performance” elicited a large

number of strongly disagrees for both the participants in the program and control groups.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of teachers and administrators in the program group and 62% of

teachers and administrators in the control group strongly disagreed with the statement (see

Figure 20).

Other interesting findings included the response to the statement “creativity is a fundamental

skill that can be applied to every school subject” (100% of the control group vs 92% of the

program group agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 20). According to Cachia and Ferrari


(2010), schools have a duty to provide students with an education that focuses on creativity

and innovation just as much as learning specific knowledge of a given subject area.

Figure 20: Creativity Fostering Teaching Behavior

Creativity in School

Teachers and administrators were asked about which school subjects they consider it likely for

a student to be creative. Both the participants from the program and control groups

unanimously agreed (100%) that the Arts for being the school subject for student creativity to

be displayed. Nonetheless, participants in both groups believe that creativity can be fostered in

a wide range of subject areas, not just The Arts (all of the other school subjects were

considered as likely for students to manifest their creativity (and they received around 70%

positive responses in both groups). Responders from the program and control groups believe

that students can also foster creativity in Computer Science, Environmental Science,

Geography, History, Language Arts, Mathematics, Music, Physical Education/Health, Science

and Social Science. On the flip side, the one school subject that teachers and administrators felt

there were less likely to be creative in was: Foreign Languages (46% of the control group and

50% of the program group). This was the only subject area with less than 70% agreement (see

Figure 21).


Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of

the following statements regarding creativity.

Creativity can be assessed

Creativity can be taught

Sociocultural and environmental factors influence creative

performance

Creativity - Overall

Creativity is only relevant to visual arts, music, drama and artistic

performance

Creativity is a skill that can be applied to every school subject

Everyone can be creative

Creativity is a fundamental skill to be developed in school

Creativity is an inborn talent

Creativity is a characteristic of eminent people only (such as

Einstein & Michelangelo)

79%

7%

7%

14%

50%

7%

7%

19%

21%

7%

79%

50%

14%

7%

14%

21%

7%

21%

21%

7%

57%

64%

57%

26%

86%

71%

71%

21%

29%

21%

33%

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

126

StronglyDisagree


Response

62%

8%

15%

77%

8%

19%

23%

54%

23%

15%

8%

8%

15%

15%

8%

31%

23%

62%

31%

62%

26%

15%

77%

92%

69%

8%

23%

54%

31%

41%

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

117

StronglyDisagree


Response


Figure 21: School Subjects Teachers and Administrators Consider Likely for Students to Manifest Their Creativity

Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors

Teachers and administrators were asked four statements about encouraging creativity in the

classrooms and about teaching strategies to foster creativity and innovative thinking:

encouraging creativity in the classrooms: (1) is not facilitated by the Ontario Ministry of

Education mandated curriculum, (2) is not facilitated by having different needs and behaviors of

the students, (3) will have negative effects on standardized testing, and (4) fosters “chaos”

during instruction (see Figure 22).

One of the most important findings about teachers’ creativity-fostering teaching behaviors was

that creativity does not foster “chaos” in the classroom. Teachers and administrators in the

program and control groups felt very strongly that encouraging creativity in the classroom does

not foster “chaos” during instruction, and in fact, none of the participants believe that creativity

Summary: Program and control group results illuminated important findings about teachers implicit perceptions of creativity. This included near unanimous agreement that everyone can be creative, creativity is important in a wide range of subject areas and that creativity is a

fundamental skill. In addition to this, teachers and administrators believe students can be creative in all subject areas, except Foreign Languages.


The Arts 100% 100%

Computer Studies 85% 93%

Environmental studies 69% 79%

Foreign Languages 46% 50%

Geography 77% 71%

History 69% 71%

Language Arts 92% 93%

Mathematics 85% 93%

Music 100% 93%

Physical Education/Health 69% 86%

Science 77% 93%

Social Sciences 92% 86%

Other 8% 0%

Subjects in which you consider it likely for a

student to manifest his or her creativity.


fosters “chaos” in the classroom. This indicates that the surveyed participants in the present

study have positive attitudes towards creativity in the classroom (see Figure 22).

Another notable finding was that participants believe that creativity in the classroom does not

lead to negative standardized testing results. Responding to the statement “encouraging

creativity in the classroom will have negative effects on standardized testing”, teachers and

administrators showed a disagreement (15% of the control group vs 7% of the program group

agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 22). This is an important result, since according to Cachia

and Ferrari (2010), teaching and assessment are often geared towards preparing pupils for

assessment tests. Most current assessment methods, including standardized testing, place a

strong emphasis on knowledge and recall and do not directly take into account creativity and

innovation. The results of the present study show that teachers and administrators throughout

the TDSB recognize the importance of creativity in the classroom and on student success.

The results also showed that the teachers in the control group, more than the teachers in the

program group, felt that the Ontario of Ministry of Education encourages creativity in the

classroom. Fifty-four per cent (54%) of the control group vs 21% of the program group agreed

or strongly agreed with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom is not facilitated

by the Ontario Ministry of Education’s mandated curriculum” (see Figure 22). Research

demonstrates that teachers and administrators sometimes feel curriculum does not support

creativity and innovation because assessment tools, such as standardized testing, do not test

creativity. In addition to that, teachers often feel a lack of time or support in the classroom may

attribute to these feelings (Cachia & Ferrari, 2010).

Figure 22: Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom


is not facilitated by the Ontario Ministry of Education 54% 21%

mandated curriculum

is not facilitated by having different needs and behaviours 15% 21%

of the students

w ill have negative effects on standardized testing 15% 7%

fosters "chaos" during instruction 0% 0%

Encouraging creativity in the classroom.


Control group participant #7, explained I give students “As much freedom to express themselves and their thought process as possible.” In the same way, program group participant #15 wrote, “allow [sic] students to be expressive without restraint.” On the other hand, some participants focused on the importance of student-directed learning. Participant #9 explained “3 part-lessons, students directed learning and learning centers” are classroom strategies that they use to foster creativity and innovative thinking".

For example, Program Group Respondent #15, discussed the importance of “Allowing students to [sic] be expressive without restraint,” Control Group Respondent #7 explained give the students “As much freedom to express themselves and their thought process as possible.” In the same way, some teachers and administrators discussed the importance of focusing on encouraging students to question. For example, Control Group Respondent #13 explained “I focus on inquiry” to foster creativity in students and Program Group Respondent #16 suggested “How to…? questioning”, as a means to foster creativity.

Creativity Fostering Teaching Strategies

To further examine the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and implicit conceptions of

creativity, the participants were asked about the kinds of teaching strategies which foster

creativity in the classroom. The most common suggestions for participants in both the control

and program groups were: problem-solving, inquiry learning, high-level questioning, and open-

ended questioning. The most common responses for the program group were problem-solving,

high-level questioning, and group discussion. Other responses, included inquiry based learning,

question creation, visualization, and divergent and convergent thinking. On the other hand, for

the control group the most common responses were problem-solving, high-level questioning,

open-ended problems, and 3-part lessons. Other responses included brainstorming, freedom to

express themselves, student directed learning, and think-pair-share. Additional notable

creativity fostering teaching techniques included: giving students’ freedom and student-

directed learning.

Teaching Styles

Teachers were asked a series of questions examining how their teaching styles promote: (1)

independent thinking, (2) integration of

ideas, (3) motivation, (4) judgment, (5)

flexibility, (6) self-evaluation, (7)

questioning, (8) opportunities for

exploration, (9) allow for failure, (10)

critical thinking, and (11) collaboration.

Overall, the results demonstrate that

teachers in the program and control groups

are supporting all 11 areas of teaching in

their classroom. In fact, the overall scores

for each of the categories ranged from a

mean of 5.91 out of 6 for supporting

collaboration in the classroom, to a low of

a mean 4.83 out 6 for supporting students’

ability to judge their thoughts and ideas.

Based on these results, teachers seem to

supporting a variety of teaching styles16.

16 Please refer to Appendix A for the analysis on the teaching styles.


The results reveal important findings for two aspects of teaching: collaboration and judgment.

Teachers in both the program and control groups had the highest level of agreement with the

statement that they provide regular opportunities for collaboration in the classroom: (mean

score 5.91/6 for the control group vs 5.5/6 for the program group agreed or strongly agreed).

Based on these survey results, teachers appear to understand and support the importance of

providing opportunities for group and teamwork in the classroom.

Teaching styles which promote “judgment” (such as, asking follow-up questions to make

students think, not immediately giving your viewpoint to the students, and/or commenting on

student ideas only after they have explored them on their own), received the lowest ratings in

both groups examined (mean score 4.86/6 for the control group vs 4.83/6 for the program

group agreed or strongly agreed). While these scores are not inherently low compared to all the

other categories, teachers and administrators could work towards promoting more student

judgement in the classroom (see Appendix A).

Summary: Teachers were asked different statements about encouraging creativity in the classrooms and about teaching strategies that they use to foster creativity and innovative thinking. Results from the program and control groups illuminated important findings for two individual statements about creativity fostering behavior. These included a significant result that all of the teachers in the program and control groups believe creativity in the classroom does not foster “chaos” in the classroom. Another significant result was that teachers believe that creativity in the classroom does not lead to negative standardized testing results. The results were as follows: the program group had 7% of teachers agree with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom will have negative effects on standardized testing”, compared to the control group which had 15% of teachers agree. Other notable findings include: teachers in the control group were more likely to agree with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom is not facilitated by the Ontario Ministry of Education’s mandated curriculum. In addition to this, the common teaching strategies to foster creativity includes: (1) problem-solving, (2) inquiry learning, (3) high-level questioning, and (4) open-ended questioning. As well, as teachers highly cultivate collaboration in the classroom, but should work towards improving student judgement.


School and District Support of Innovative Teaching

Teachers were asked their opinion on how the school/district supports innovative teaching by

responding to nine statements (six related to “our school” and three related to “our school

leaders”). In addition, teachers and administrators were asked their opinion on what types of

professional learning support for creativity fostering teaching would they find helpful (see

Figure 23).

Overall, teachers in both the control and program groups showed a high agreement for overall

school support for innovative teaching (76% of the control group vs 67% of the program group

agreed or strongly agreed) with only 8% of teachers in the control and program groups

expressing strong disagreement with the statements (see Figure 23). This is an important result

because according to Zhu et al. (2013), the school environment can play an integral role in

supporting innovative teaching and school environments, including leadership and professional

relationships, are important factors in influencing teacher attitude and behavior. Based, on

these results, TDSB schools are providing a supportive environment that seems to be

strengthening and encouraging the development of innovative teaching behaviors.

The statement “our school creates opportunities for partnerships beyond school”, received

strong agreement amongst teachers in the control group (92%), but not as much with teachers

in the program group (69%). In addition, the teachers in the control group felt strongly that

their school offered opportunities for involvement in sports, arts, and business communities.

Other noteworthy results regarding school support that demonstrate important differences

among the teachers in both the program and control groups included the following statements:

“most teachers in our school are open to changes in teaching” (69% of the control group vs 38%

of the program group agreed or strongly agreed), and “the teachers in my school really work as

an innovative team” (77% of the control group vs 46% of the program group agreed or strongly

agreed) (see Figure 23).

On the other hand, questions related to school leaders’ support for innovative teaching showed

very similar results among the two group participants. For example, 84% of the teachers in the

control group and 86% of teachers in the program group agree or strongly agree with the

statement “our school leaders are willing to listen attentively to teachers’ thoughts”.

Furthermore, 92% of teachers in the control and 85% of teachers in the program group believe

“school leaders in our school encourage and support individual teachers’ development” (see

Figure 23). According to Darling-Hammond (2010), in order for systems to build strong teaching

and learning environments there is a need for strong support of ongoing learning opportunities

for students, teachers, and schools alike. Based on these results, teachers in the program and


control groups feel that TDSB school leaders are doing quite well at creating an infrastructure to

provide ongoing support and learning for the teachers.

Lastly, teachers were asked to discuss any professional learning opportunities they would like

to see to help improve creativity fostering teaching and the following were suggested:

demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, time to try the various activities, and

ways to modify/simplify the program for younger students. Nonetheless, there were also a few

teachers who indicated they did not have any discussion or professional learning about

creativity fostering teaching. This could be something the TDSB could focus on.

Figure 23: School Support for Innovative Teaching


The teachers in my school really w ork as an innovative team

Our school provides opportunities for teachers to w ork

outdoors and beyond the classroom (e.g., galleries, museums)

Our school creates opportunities for partnerships beyond

school (e.g., involvement w ith sports, arts, and business

communities)

Our school leaders and teachers provide high quality

professional learning needed by the Board to foster creativity

and innovation in teaching and learning in my school

School Support on Innovative Teaching - Overall

Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of

the following statements regarding your school

support for innovative teaching.

Our school leaders are w illing to listen attentively to teachers`

thoughts

School leaders in our school encourage and support individual

teachers` development

Usually I can get the resources I need for my teaching from my

school (e.g., books, multimedia teaching resources)

Our school provides enough time for teachers to plan and

implement innovative teaching activities

Most teachers in our school are open to changes in teaching

14%

8%

15%

15%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

38%

62%

54%

15%

23%

15%

24%

50%

54%

69%

38%

38%

46%

69%

46%

69%

53%

36%

31%

15%

8%

8%

23%

8%

14%

14

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

118

StronglyDisagree


Response

8%

8%

15%

23%

8%

8%

8%

8%

15%

23%

23%

15%

31%

8%

23%

16%

46%

54%

62%

38%

54%

69%

46%

92%

77%

60%

38%

38%

8%

15%

15%

8%

23%

16%

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

117

StronglyDisagree


Response


Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions about the Workshop Effectiveness

Teachers and administrators who participated in the creativity workshops provided by

Ideaction were asked a series of questions about their perception of the effectiveness of the

workshops provided by Ideaction. The results indicate that the educators who participated in

the Ideaction workshops strongly agreed or agreed the workshops had a positive or somewhat

positive impact (89%), they gained new information on creativity and innovation (100%), and

the presenters were knowledgeable about the subject matter (100%) (see Figure 24). This is in

addition to 90% and above of the teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing that the professional

learning sessions provided them with: relevant content, appropriate materials, and that they

would be able to apply what they have learned to their teaching practice (see Figure 25).

Summary: Teachers in the control and program group felt that the school/district supports innovative teaching overall. However, the results also showed a few differences between teachers in the control and program group including: (1) on schools creating partnerships opportunities,(2) many teachers in the program group feeling schools are not open to change, and (3) many teachers in the program group in their school do not work as a team.

On the other hand, teachers in the control and program group feel that school leaders are willing to listen to their thoughts and ideas.

Teachers were asked to discuss any professional learning opportunities they would like to see to help improve creativity fostering teaching and the following were suggested: demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, time to try the various activities and ways to modify/simplify the program for younger students. At the same time, there were also a few teachers who indicated they have not had any discussion or professional learning about creativity fostering teaching. This could be something the TDSB could focus on.


When the program participants were asked whether they would like to see the Ideaction

workshops continued at their schools, the majority of the teachers (57%) agreed, while 14% of

teachers said they would not like the program continued (see Figure 26). When the teachers

were asked about the quality of the professional learning sessions, almost three-quarters of the

teachers felt the professional learning sessions were of excellent or good quality. Even more so,

no teachers rated the sessions as poor (the lowest rating was fair: 21% of the teachers

responded this way). Ninety five percent (95%) of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that

overall the professional learning was beneficial (see Figure 27).

Figure 24: Impact of Attending Professional Learning

Rate each of the following related to the professional

learning sessions you attended on Creativity Fostering

Teaching Environments?

a) The content w as relevant

b) The presenters w ere know ledgeable about the topic

c) The teaching materials w ere appropriate

d) I have gained new information and know ledge from the

sessions

e) I w ill be able to apply w hat I learned in the sessions to my

teaching practice/w ork

Professional Learning - Overall

9%

8%

9%

5%

55%

36%

67%

58%

64%

56%

36%

64%

25%

42%

27%

39%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Figure 25: Overall Impressions of Professional Learning

Professional learning sessions you attended,

and what impact did the sessions have on your

teaching/work?

% of Attending

Session

a) August 18, 2014 (Introduction to the program) 71%

b) November 21, 2014 (Debriefing the program thus

far)64%

c) Exploration Classrooms (across the city on

different dates)7%

Other sessions 7%

Impact of Attending Professional Learning - Overall

11%

13%

11%

33%

50%

100%

42%

56%

38%

100%

47%

No Impact Somewhat Positive Impact Positive Impact


Figure 27: Quality of the Sessions you Attended

ExcellentGood

Fair

NotApplicable

36%36%

21%7%

Program Group (14)

Program Group (14)

Quality of the sessions that you attended

Figure 26: Would you like to see Creativity Fostering Teaching Environments Continued at your School

Would you like to see Creativity Fostering Teaching Environments

continued at your school?

Yes ,

33%

Not Sure,

67%

Control Group (9)

Yes, 57%

No, 14%

Not Sure, 29%

Program Group (14)

Summary: Overall, the teachers in the program group felt very positively about the professional learning sessions provided by Ideaction. Ninety-five percent (95%) of teachers strongly agreed or

agreed that overall the professional learning was beneficial. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of teachers and administrators in the program group believe that attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat positive impact on them. In addition to this, the results show 100% of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they gained new information on creativity and innovation about creativity and innovation from the workshops


SECTION V: CONCLUSION

Overall, there are many important conclusions that arise from this study, including those at the

classroom and school/district level. The main findings that emerged from this research center

on the importance of:

making the classroom a place of investigation,

providing opportunities for ongoing teacher professional learning on creativity and innovation, and

allowing for innovative teaching practices.

Overall, students in both the program and control groups believe creativity is important, would

describe themselves as creative, they feel they are good at putting ideas together to come up

with something new, and they like accomplishing difficult tasks. Students also expressed that

they like when they can be creative. Teachers can develop student innovation and creativity

through encouragement, teaching through inquiry, and allowing the classroom to be a place of

investigation.

The study also studied the innovative characteristics of students in Grades 5 and 7. Based on

the results of the study the innovative characteristics of students were: creativity, high energy,

not liking having too many things on the go, taking risk, and enjoying collaborative problem-

solving.

The results indicate that teachers and administrators believe creativity is a fundamental skill

accessible to all students in all subject areas. Teachers and administrators continue to strive to

create and foster educational environments that develop student creativity and innovation.

The most common teaching strategies to foster creativity included: problem-solving, inquiry

learning, high-level questioning, and open-ended questioning. In addition, many teachers, both

in the program and control group, discussed how they strive to create a collaborative classroom

as a way to foster creativity. Based on the results of the study, the main recommendations for

the classroom include: making the classroom a place of creativity and innovation, allow

students to focus one thing at a time, focus on improving student risk-propensity.

Overall, the teachers in the program group felt very positively about the professional learning

sessions provided by Ideaction (95% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that overall the

professional learning was beneficial and 89% of the teachers and administrators believe that

attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat positive impact on


them). In addition to this, the results show 100% of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that

they gained new information on creativity and innovation from the workshops. Teachers

expressed the desire to see more ongoing professional learning on creativity and innovation

such as: demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, additional time to try the various

activities, and ways to modify/simplify the professional learning for younger students.

Overall, teachers felt that the school/district supports innovative teaching. Teachers in both the

control and program groups felt school leaders are willing to listen to their thoughts and ideas.

In addition to this, there is a lot that can be done at the district/school level to foster creativity,

innovation and innovative thinking in our schools. This includes: (1) continuing to provide

ongoing professional learning on creativity and innovation, (2) continuation of the Ideaction

workshops, (3) provision of additional professional learning opportunities, (4) willingness of

schools to be open to change, and (5) creation of stronger connections to creativity and

innovation in the Ontario Ministry of Education curriculum.

Additional, recommendations for future research include the following: continuation of crafting

an innovative vision of the future maintaining and upholding official polices, providing inspiring

leadership, making professional learning a top priority, supporting contemporary learning

environments, and assessing and evaluating 21st century global competencies.


SECTION VI: RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations arise from this study that can be highlighted for the teachers and

administrators to foster creativity and innovation in teaching and learning. These include

classroom and district recommendations.

School Recommendations

Make the Classroom a Place of Creativity and Innovation

The results indicate there is a need for creativity and innovation in the classroom. Overall, TDSB

students believe creativity is important and would describe themselves as creative and they like

when creativity is fostered. Creative thinking can be developed by making the classroom a place

of investigation. Teachers can develop student innovation and creativity through

encouragement, teaching through inquiry, and allowing the classroom to be a place of

investigation. Problem-solving activities are also another way to stimulate creativity, create

connections, come up with hypothesizes, and make conjectures (Davis & Rimm,1985; Karne,

1961; Subotnik, 1988).

Allow Students to Focus on One Thing at a Time

Many TDSB students said they do not like having a lot of things on the go. According to Silver

(1997), creativity is often associated with long periods of work and reflection. Students should

be given ample time to develop their ideas on one thing at a time. Having too many things on

the go does not appear to provide them enough time for reflection and incubation to be

creative and innovative.

Focus on Improving Student Risk-Propensity

A large of number of TDSB students would describe themselves as willing to take risks. Chell and Athayde (2009) explain risk-propensity as an important attribute needed for innovation and there are activities, such as sports, which help students better understand risk and foster leadership skills. Students need to be encouraged to take on some risk and understand that it is acceptable to learn from their mistakes. The same authors also suggest students should receive additional lessons on risk awareness in order to improve their understanding and willingness to take risk.


District Recommendations

The following are recommendations derived from the findings of this study which can be

highlighted for the Central Office and the program implementation team:

Continue Providing Ongoing Professional Learning on Creativity and Innovation: Educator Professional Learning Improves Student Creativity

The present results indicate the TDSB should continue providing continuous professional

learning opportunities on creativity and innovation. By providing teachers with professional

learning on creativity and innovation, students are greatly benefited. Students who had

teachers attending professional learning on creativity and innovation, had more of a desire to

be inventive, more comfort in telling others what to do, stronger affinity to take on leadership

roles, stronger ability to convince others of their ideas, and were able to understand problems

differently than their peers. Based on this, the TDSB should continue providing similar

professional learning to develop student creativity and innovative thinking.

Continue the Ideaction Workshops

Based on the results of the study, TDSB should continue with the Ideaction I2Q Pilot Program.

The overwhelming majority (95%) of teachers who attended the Ideaction workshops strongly

agreed or agreed that overall the professional learning was beneficial and 89% believe that

attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat positive impact on

them. These teachers and administrators felt the workshops had a positive impact, they gained

new information on creativity and innovation, and the presenters were knowledgeable about

the subject matter.

Provide Additional Professional Learning Opportunities

Teachers indicated that they would like more professional learning on creativity and innovation

in addition to that provided by Ideaction. Demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities,

time to try the various activities, and suggestions on ways to modify/simplify the Ideaction

program for younger students could be included in these sessions. Teacher knowledge plays a

large role on student achievement and investing in supporting ongoing teacher learning is one

of the most important variables for a successful education system (Darling-Hammond, 2010;

Hill, 2000). Regular professional learning is thus essential in providing teachers and

administrators with new knowledge, practices, and ideas.


Schools Should Feel More Open to Change

The results indicated that schools need to be more open to change (see Figure 18). The TDSB

should try to focus on fostering a school environment willing to try new things and incorporate

changes.

Create Stronger Connections for Creativity and Innovation in Ontario Ministry Of Education Curriculum

Based on the study results, it appears that the Ontario Ministry of Education should strive to

create stronger connections to creativity and innovation. The results showed that the teachers

in the control group, more than the teachers in the program group, felt Ontario’s Ministry of

Education encourages creativity in the classroom (see Figure 22). Cachia and Ferrari's (2010)

research provided evidence that teachers sometimes feel curriculum does not support

creativity and innovation, because assessment tools and outcomes do not test creativity.

Schools/Districts Should Provide More Opportunities for Partnerships for Teachers Beyond School

Schools and districts should strive to create more opportunities for partnerships for teachers

beyond the school. The teachers in the control group in the present study felt strongly that

their school offered opportunities for involvement in sports, arts, and business communities;

however teaches in the program group felt more opportunities are needed (see Figure 23).

Methodological Recommendations

Recommendations derived from the findings of this study and which can be highlighted for

future research in this area include the following: 1) Student learning characteristics such as

academic achievement, engagement, and belonging could be included in the design of any

study in order to make it more comprehensive and to better understand the innovative

characteristics of young people. For the first year of monitoring the I2Q program, such factors

were not considered because of the unavailability of the standardized assessments due to labor

distributions. 2) It may be beneficial to provide an incentive, such as a small gift certificate, for

teachers in order to complete the study in an effort to increase completion rates.


SECTION VII: 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 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 28.

Figure 28: Policy and Supports to Sustain a Framework for Creativity at the TDSB

Assessment of Skills & Global Competencies


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)

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 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, “Global Learning and Teaching with Educational

Technology” report 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 (Sinay, 2014, p. 21). 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 teachers and administrators 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, built an

educational program on entrepreneurial thinking and its implementation is currently underway.

The goal is to embed entrepreneurial thinking into the K-12 curriculum as well as to offer

related professional learning sessions for teachers and administrators (Sinay, Resendes, &

Graikinis, 2015). Currently, we are focusing on TDSB Vision for Learning to build a framework

for theoretical foundation and developmental evaluation Global Competencies in Deeper

Learning Environments enabled by pervasive digital technologies17

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 focus 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 the

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 polices (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, the 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).

17 This framework will be published as part of the “Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research Series”


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, teachers, parents,

students, and the 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, teachers, parents, students, and

community members (Trilling & Fadel, 2012).

In addition, 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, 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, teachers, 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). As a part of the physical environment, seamless

technology integration is also considered technology infrastructure needs to be in place (Trilling

& Fadel, 2012).


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 teachers and

administrators with new knowledge, practices, and ideas.

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

teachers and administrators (Allexsaht-Snider & Hart, 2001). Professional learning sessions give

teachers and administrators 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 programs 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 and 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 teachers and administrators (Lieberman, 1992).

District 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 teachers and

administrators 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

teachers and administrators 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

teachers and administrators ways to get to explore new ideas, try new things, and grow as

educators.

Assessment of 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

competency 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, b) use of innovative assessments such as simulations or remote

collaborations, c) determination of assessment based on the purpose of the assessment, d)


assessment is context and culture-based, and e) 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, needs 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, the first questions districts should ask themselves is: “is the

district considering, developing, or adopting achievements 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 needs 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. In 2013, Hondzel-Dishke 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 requiring “them to take time away from

what was perceived to be more meaningful classroom activities, and that it is incongruous with

developing creative students.” (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.

Alberta Education. (2011). Framework for student learning: Competencies for engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/curriculum/framework.aspx

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: Crown Publishing Group, Inc.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.

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.

Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teacher’s response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 1-9. ? The Educational Forum, 69, 254–263.

Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy, process, themes and impact. London: 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

Brophy, D.R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 123-150.

Brophy, D.R. (2001). Comparing the attitudes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3 & 4), 439-455.

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. C21 Canada. Retrieved from http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Shifting-Minds-Revised.pdf

http://coral.wcupa.edu/other/creativity.pdf

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


Canadian Council of Learning. (2009). The impact of experiential learning programs on student success. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ocea.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=45&pageid=1051

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.

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

Chell, E., & Athayde. R. (2009). The identification and measurement of innovative characteristics of young people. Development of the youth innovation skills measurement tool. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Retrieved from http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/5985/2/Chell-E-5985.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: 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: 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: 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: Author. Retrieved from http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/inno/(2009-06-11)%20innovation%20report.pdf

Creative Partnerships. (2010). About creative partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.creative-partnerships.com/about/

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. (2001). Creativity in education & learning. A guide for teachers and educators. Albion, Oxon: Routledge Falmer.

Cropley, A. J. (1967). Creativity. London, UK: Longmans, Green.

Cropley, J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: general principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.) Creativity Research Handbook (Volume ), pp. 83-114). Cresskill, N. J.: 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: Teachers College Press.

Daro, P., & Burkhardt, H. (2012). A population of assessment tasks. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 3(1) 19-25.

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

http://www.creative-partnerships.com/about/

http://www.creative-partnerships.com/about/


Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. City: 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

Dikici, A. (2012). Perceptions of creativity by Turkish student teachers. International Journal of Educational Reform, 21(4) 292-310.

Dishke-Hondzel, C. (2013). Fostering creativity: Ontario teachers‘ perceptions, strategies, and experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario

Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 97-111.

Edinger, M. (2008). An exploratory study of creativity -fostering teacher behaviors in secondary classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The College of William and Mary. Williamsburg, VA.

EQAO. (2015). E. Q. and A. O. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/categories/home.aspx?Lang=E

Ennis, H.R. (2002). An outline of goals for a critical thinking curriculum and assessment. February 20, 2002. Retrieved from: http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/outlinegoalsctcurassess3.html

Ennis, H. R. (2011). Robert Ennis academic site. September 6, 2011. Retrieved from: http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/

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

EU. (March 3, 2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0159:FIN: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. Xxx: 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. 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. xxxxxx

Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. New York: Basic.

Getzels, J.W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: 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.

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

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

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/outlinegoalsctcurassess3.html

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/outlinegoalsctcurassess3.html

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/

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

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0159:FIN:EN:PDF




Graikinis, D. (2014). Creativity and innovative thinking fostering learning environments at TDSB schools. assessing teachers’/administrators’ perceptions, conceptions, and self-efficacy about creativity and innovative teaching and students’ innovative characteristics. Internal draft research proposal. Unpublished manuscript. Policy, Research and Information Services. Toronto, Ontario. Toronto District School Board

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

Guilford, J.P. (1973). Characteristics of creativity, Illinois State Office Of The Superintendent Of Public Instruction, Gifted Children Section. Springfield, IL. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED080171

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.). London, New York: Routledge.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and learning. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association.

Hill, P. (2000). The federal role in education. In Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000 (pp. 11–57). Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/26432

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.

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: 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: Cambridge University Press.

Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers' conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15-29.

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.),

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED080171


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: Routhledge.

Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development (1 Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: 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.

Lin, C. Y. (2010). Analyses of attribute patterns of creative problem solving ability among upper elementary students in Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI number: 3414144

Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st Century: An overview. Educause Learning Initiative 1(2007):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

Memorandum of Understanding. (2014). Memorandum of understanding between Toronto District School Board _ ModelSschools for Inner Cities and Ideaction Inc. Unpublished internal manuscript. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board

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, United Kingdom: 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.

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

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2000). Cooperative education and other forms of experiential learning. Toronto: 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: 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. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/plc.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Teacher professional development. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/develop.html

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013a). Capacity Building Series. Toronto: 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: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/excellent.htm

Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. (2008). Seizing global opportunities: Ontario’s innovation agenda. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/seizing-global-opportunities-ontarios-innovation-agenda

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

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


P21. (2004). U.S. students need 21st

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

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: 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: 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, N.J.: 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

Seng, K. Q., Keung, H. K., & Cheng, S. K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity: A comparison of student-teachers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 38(1), 71-86.

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. (2012). The impact of TDSB laptop program on teachers and students. A research proposal. Theoretical framework, methods, and analytic strategy. Unpublished manuscript. Policy, Research and Information Services, Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board.

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., 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.

Soh, K. C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behaviour: A preliminary validation study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 118-134.

Soh, K. (2015). Creativity fostering teacher behaviour around the world: Annotations of studies using the CFTIndex. Cogent Education, 2, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2015.1034494

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: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Stokes, P. D. (2006). Creativity from constraints the psychology of breakthrough. New York: 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: Cambridge University Press.

TDSB. (2016a). Innovative Teaching and Learning Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Community/ModelSchoolsforInnerCities/Initiatives/InnovativePractices.aspx

TDSB. (2016a). About us, our students. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/AboutUs/Innovation.aspx

TDSB. (2016b). Innovative Teaching and Learning Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Community/ModelSchoolsforInnerCities/Initiatives/InnovativePractices.aspx

TDSB. (2016c). 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.

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/AboutUs/Innovation.aspx


Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED505548

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2012). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times San Francisco: 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: Wiley & Sons Canada Ltd.

Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1-10.

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

WEF. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. Geneva: Switzerland. A report of the Global Education Initiative. Retrieved from www.gvpartners.com/web/pdf/WEF_EE_Full_Report.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.

https://yasamboyuogrenme.wikispaces.com/file/detail/21st+CENTURY+SKILLS.pdf

https://yasamboyuogrenme.wikispaces.com/file/detail/21st+CENTURY+SKILLS.pdf


APPENDIX A

Teachers’ Teaching Styles18

Control Group

Program Group

Teaching Styles

never(1) to

all the

time(6)

N

never(1)

to

all the

time(6)

N

I leave open-ended questions for my students to find the answers

for themselves 5.36 11

5.55 11

I teach students the basics and leave room for individual learning 5.36 11

4.58 12

a) Independence Overall 5.36 11 5.04 12

In my class, students have opportunities to share ideas and views 5.55 11

5.58 12

Students in my class have opportunities to do group work regularly 5.45 11

5.17 12

b) Integration Overall 5.50 11 5.38 12

My students know that I expect them to learn the basic knowledge

and skills well

5.45 11

5.42 12

18 Categorization of these constructs are based on the items of the Creativity Fostering Teacher Behaviour Index studies from the following sources. Items used by permissions. Sources: Soh, 2000; Soh, 2015;. Cropley 1997.


Control Group

Program Group

Teaching Styles

never(1) to

all the

time(6)

N

never(1)

to

all the

time(6)

N

c) Motivation Overall 5.45 11 5.42 12

When my students suggest something, I follow it up with questions

to make them think further 5.18 11

5.08 12

I do not give my view immediately on students' ideas, whether I

agree or disagree with them 4.55 11

5.00 12

I comment on students' ideas only after they have been more

thoroughly explored 4.82 11

4.42 12

d) judgement 4.85 11 4.83 12

I encourage my students to ask questions freely even if they

appear irrelevant 5.45 11

5.50 12

I encourage my students to think in different directions even if

some of the ideas may not work 5.45 11

5.67 12

I like my students to take time to think in different ways 5.45 11

5.25 12

e) Flexibility Overall 5.45 11 5.47 12

10. My students know that I expect them to check their own work

before I do 5.64 11

5.50 12


Control Group

Program Group

Teaching Styles

never(1) to

all the

time(6)

N

never(1)

to

all the

time(6)

N

18. In my class, students have opportunities to judge for

themselves whether they are right or wrong 5.27 11

5.25 12

f) Evaluation Overall 5.45 11 5.38 12

When my students have questions to ask, I listen to them carefully. 5.64 11

5.50 12

I listen to my students' suggestions even if they are not practical or

useful 5.36 11

5.33 12

My students know I do not dismiss their suggestions lightly 5.55 11

5.33 12

g) Question Overall 5.52 11 5.39 12

My students are encouraged to do different things with what they

have learned in class 5.27 11

5.17 12

I do not mind my students trying out their own ideas and

deviating from what I have shown them 5.45 11

5.33 12

h) Opportunities Overall 5.36 11 5.25 12

I encourage students who have frustration to take it as part of the

learning process 5.00 11

5.50 12

I help my students to draw lessons from their own failures 5.55 11

5.33 12


Control Group

Program Group

Teaching Styles

never(1) to

all the

time(6)

N

never(1)

to

all the

time(6)

N

I encourage students who experienced failure to find other

possible solutions 5.45 11

5.50 12

i) Frustration Overall 5.33 11 5.44 12

I encourage my students to think critically in assigned materials

presented in my class 5.45 11

5.33 12

j) Critical Thinking 5.45 11 5.33 12

I provide opportunities for collaboration and team work at least

several times per month 5.91 11

5.50 12

k) Collaboration 5.91 11 5.50 12

fostering global competencies and deeper learning … · creativity and innovation in teaching and...

Documents