Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 409–424 | Cite as

Creativity and Technology in Education: An International Perspective

  • Danah Henriksen
  • Michael Henderson
  • Edwin Creely
  • Sona Ceretkova
  • Miroslava Černochová
  • Evgenia Sendova
  • Erkko T. Sointu
  • Christopher H. Tienken
Original research


In this article, we consider the benefits and challenges of enacting creativity in the K-12 context and examine educational policy with regard to twenty-first century learning and technology. Creativity is widely considered to be a key construct for twenty-first century education. In this article, we review the literature on creativity relevant to education and technology to reveal some of the complex considerations that need to be addressed within educational policy. We then review how creativity emerges, or fails to emerge, in six national education policy contexts: Australia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, and the U.S. We also locate the connections, or lack of, between creativity and technology within those contexts. While the discussion is limited to these nations, the implications strongly point to the need for a coherent and coordinated approach to creating greater clarity with regards to the rhetoric and reality of how creativity and technology are currently enacted in educational policy.


Creativity Educational technology Twenty-first century learning International education policy Teaching and learning Review National policy contexts Creative teaching Creative learners 


  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, D. (2017). Interdisciplinary invigoration of creativity studies. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 348–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2018 from the Australian Curriculum:
  5. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2018 from the Australian Curriculum:
  6. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2018 from the Australian Curriculum:
  7. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (n.d.) Retrieved May 27, 2018 from the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership:
  8. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Fundamentals of creativity. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 10–15.Google Scholar
  9. Blicblau, A. S., & Steiner, J. M. (1998). Fostering creativity through engineering projects. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (2017). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology (Vol. 10). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Creative learning and innovative teaching. Final report on the study on creativity and innovation in education in the EU member states. JRC 62370. European Union, 2010. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  12. Caena, F. (2014). Teacher competence frameworks in Europe: Policy-as-discourse and policy-as-practice. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York City: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. (n.d.). Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  15. Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craft, A. (2010). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Staffordshire: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2014). New conceptions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.). The systems model of creativity (pp. 161–184). Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  18. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performances and results from knowledge workers. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  19. Duchovicova, J., & Tomsik, R. (2017). Critical and creative thinking strategies in teaching internal consistency of the research tool. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  20. Feldman, D. H., & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and education: An American retrospective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (2018). Opettajankoulutusfoorumi uudistaa oppettajankoulutusta [Teacher Education Forum renews teacher education]. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  22. Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class-revisited: Revised and expanded. New York: Basic Books (AZ).Google Scholar
  23. Florida State University. (2012). Collaborate, Plan, Align, Learn, Motivate, and Share (CPALMS). Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  24. FNBE [Finnish National Board of Education]. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Helsinki: FNBE.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, C., & Thomson, P. (2005). Creative tensions? Creativity and basic skills in recent educational policy. English in Education, 39(3), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, A. (2016). Creativity and education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henriksen, D., Hoelting, M., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2016). A systems view of creativity in a YouTube world. TechTrends, 60(2), 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jurasaite-Harbison, E., & Rex, L. A. (2010). School cultures as contexts for informal teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loveless, A. (2007). Creativity, technology and learning—a review of recent literature. Slough: Futurelab.Google Scholar
  30. Malhotra, R., Malhotra, A., & Bana, V. (2015). Developing elusive frame for creativity, ICT and teacher education. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Information and Communication Engineering, 2(10), 49.Google Scholar
  31. Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton: Van Nostrand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Methodical and Pedagogical Centre in Bratislava. (n.d.) Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  33. Mishra, P., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Rethinking technology and creativity in the 21st century: Crayons are the future. TechTrends, 56(5), 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2018). Creativity and technology: Rethinking their role in education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The 7 transdisciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2), 22–28.Google Scholar
  36. Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(1), 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Institute for Education, Educational Counseling and Educational Training Facilities. (n.d.). National curricula. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  38. National Institute for Education in Slovak Republic. (2017a). Welcome to the national institute for education in Slovak republic. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  39. National Institute for Education in Slovak Republic. (2017b). Innovated SEP for Grammar Schools with a Four-Year and Five-Year Education Program. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  40. National Institute of Certified Educational Measurement. (2010). Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  41. Niebling, B. C. (2012). Using Webb’s alignment model to measure intended-enacted curriculum alignment: A brief treatment. Midwest Instructional Leadership Council, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  42. Nikolov, R., & Sendova, E. (1989). Can the teachers’ creativity overcome limited computer resources, education and computing (Vol. 4, pp. 179–184). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–635.Google Scholar
  44. Page, T., & Thorsteinsson, G. (2017). The impact of conventional school education on students creativity. I-Manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 13(1), 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Partnership for Readiness for College and Careers. (2015). PARCC scoring rubric for prose constructed response items. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  46. Perry, M. (2017). What counts as creativity in education: An inquiry in the intersections of public, political, and policy discourses. Canadian Journal of Education, 41, 24.Google Scholar
  47. 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(2), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rogers, C. (1976). The creativity question. In A. Rothenberg & C. Hausman (Eds.), The creativity question (pp. 296–305). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Runco, M. A. (1997). The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1). Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  50. Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  51. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sawyer, K. (2015). A call to action: The challenges of creative teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 117(10), n10.Google Scholar
  53. Sendova, E., Nikolova, N., Stefanova, E., Boytchev, P., & Kovatcheva, E., (2009). Harnessing ICT for building a creativity-based society, 27–28, Rome. In Proceeding of the 4th IT star workshop on ICT skills, education and certification: multi-stakeholder partnership (pp. 34–50).Google Scholar
  54. Sforza, D., Tienken, C. H., & Kim, E. (2016). A comparison of higher order thinking between the common core state standards and the 2009 New Jersey Content Standards in high school. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 12(4), 4–29.Google Scholar
  55. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Torrance, E. (1995). Why fly? A philosophy of creativity. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  57. Valtonen, T., Sointu, E. T., Kukkonen, J., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Ahonen, A., et al. (2017). Insights into Finnish first-year pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their 21st century skills. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2055–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams, S. D. (2002). Self-esteem and the self-censorship of creative ideas. Personnel Review, 31(4), 495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Žahour, J. (2016). Kreativita a znalosti—klíč k úspěchu. Retrieved from 7 Apr 2018.
  61. Zehetmeier, S., Piok, M., Höller, K., Kenderov, P., Chehlarova, T., Sendova, E., et al. (2015). Concepts for in-service mathematics teacher education: Examples from Europe. In C. Gehring & F. Ulm (Eds.), Developing key competences by mathematics education (pp. 23–33). Bayreuth: University of Bayreuth.Google Scholar
  62. Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  63. Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Constantine the Philosopher UniversityNitraSlovakia
  4. 4.Charles University, Faculty of PraguePragueCzech Republic
  5. 5.Institute of Mathematics and Informatics at the Bulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  6. 6.University of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  7. 7.Seton Hall UniversitySouth OrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations