Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature review of the uneasy space of implementation 

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Internationally, creativity is a widely discussed construct that is pivotal to educational practice and curriculum. It is often situated alongside technology as a key component of education futures. Despite the enthusiasm for integrating creativity with technologies in classrooms, there is a lack of common ground within and between disciplines and research about how creativity relates to technology in teaching and learning—especially in the uncertain space of classroom implementation. This article provides a critical thematic review of international literature on creativity and technology in the context of educational practice. We identify four essential domains that emerge from the literature and represent these in a conceptual model, based around: (1) Learning in regard to creativity, (2) Meanings of creativity, (3) Discourses that surround creativity, and (4) the Futures or impacts on creativity and education. Each of these clusters is contextualized in regard to emerging technologies and the developing scope of twenty-first century skills in classroom implementation. We offer conclusions and implications for research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilar, D., & Turmo, M. (2019). Promoting social creativity in science education with digital technology to overcome inequalities: a scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Abdali, N. S., & Al-Balushi, S. M. (2016). Teaching for creativity by science teachers in grades 5–10. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, F. (2010). Using the visual arts to harness creativity. The University of Melbourne Refereed e-journal, 1(5).

  • Baer, J. (2011). Why grand theories of creativity distort, distract and disappoint. International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 21(1), 73–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (2012). Domain Specificity and the Limits of Creativity Theory. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcom Raleigh, N. A., & Heinonen, S. (2019). Entangling and elevating creativity and criticality in participatory futuring engagements. World Futures Review, 11(2), 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barroso-Tanoira, F. G. (2017). Motivation for increasing creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. An experience from the classroom to business firms. Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, Creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnard, P. (2007). Reframing creativity and technology: Promoting pedagogic change in music education. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 1(1), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilton, C. (2007). Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management. London, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., Rappert, B., Webster, A., & (Edits.), . (2016). Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. USA: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, K. (2019). Design thinking in curricula. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ: The international encyclopedia of art and design education.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, P. (2008). Creativity and critical thinking in the globalised university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2019). Creative Research. The theory and practice of research for the creative industries (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, A. J. (2003). Creativity in education & learning. Falmer, USA: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, A. (2011). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. London, UK: Trentham Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, A. (2013). Childhood, possibility thinking and wise, humanising educational futures. International Journal of Educational Research, 61, 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). A systems perspective on creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Directorate for Education and Skills (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills Education, 2030. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf

  • Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D., Miller, T., Shaw, R., et al. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6, 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, G., Gallagher, T., & T. . (2017). Shared education in contested spaces: How collaborative networks improve communities and schools. Journal of Educational Change, 18(1), 107–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, P., & Andriopoulos, C. (2014). Managing change, creativity and innovation (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, A., Maguire, R., Christophers, L., & Rooney, B. (2017). Developing creativity in higher education for 21st century learners: A protocol for a scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliot, J. A., & Hirumi, A. (2019). Emotion theory in education research practice: an interdisciplinary critical literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facer, K. (2012). Taking the 21st century seriously: young people, education and socio-technical futures. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2011). Meaningful learning and creativity in virtual worlds. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2019). Teaching and learning at scale: futures. In R. Ferguson, A. Jones, & E. Scanlon (Eds.), Educational Visions: Lessons from 40 years of innovation (pp. 33–50). London: Ubiquity Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geisinge, K. (2016). 21st Century Skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glăveanu, V. (2008). Research methods in social psychology A comparative analysis. Europe’s Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v4i1.421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glăveanu, V. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glăveanu, V., Tanggaard, L., & Wegener, C. (2016). Why do we need a new vocabulary for creativity? In V. Glăveanu, L. Tanggaard, & C. Wegener (Eds.), Creativity A New Vocabulary. Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture (pp. 1–9). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glück, J., Ernst, R., & Unger, F. (2002). How creatives define creativity: Definitions reflect different types of creativity. Communication Research Journal, 14(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. M. (2019). Difficulties in defining mobile learning: analysis, design characteristics, and implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 361–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C., & Thomson, P. (2008). Creative tensions? Creativity and basic skills in recent educational policy. English in Education, 39(3), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & de Bruin, L. (2017). STEAM education: Fostering creativity in and beyond secondary schools. Australian art education, 38(1), 54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & de Bruin, L. R. (2018). Secondary school creativity, teacher practice and STEAM education: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 153–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & de Bruin, L. (2019). Creative ecologies and education futures. In C. Mullen (Ed.), Creativity Under Duress in Education? Creativity Theory and Action in Education (Vol. 3). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., Hoelting, M., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2016). A systems view of creativity in a YouTube world. TechTrends, 60(2), 102–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: A systemic view for change. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., Creely, E., & Henderson, M. (2019). Failing in creativity: The problem of policy and practice in australia and the United States. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 55(1), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Yadav, A., Good, J., Foster, A., et al. (2018). What is the relationship between technology and creativity? In Symposium presented at The Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018, Washington, DC.

  • Hong, E., Hartzell, S. A., & Greene, M. T. (2009). Fostering creativity in the classroom: Effects of teachers’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, and goal orientation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holford, W. D. (2019). The future of human creative knowledge work within the digital economy. Futures, 105, 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckin, T., Andrus, J., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2012). Critical discourse analysis and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 107–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. (2010). Creativity and discourse. World Englishes, 29(4), 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S., Antoniya, H., Helldorff, S., & Weisenfeld, U. (2020). Jamming sustainable futures: Assessing the potential of design thinking with the case study of a sustainability jam. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251, 119595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, S., Holland, C., & Ward, F. (2019). The digital frontier: Envisioning future technologies impact on the classroom. Futures, 113, 102422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. T., Chalmers, C., Chandra, V., Yeh, A., & Nason, R. (2014). Retooling Asian-Pacific teachers to promote creativity, innovation and problem solving in science classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2015). Digital creativity: Research themes and framework. Computers in human behavior, 42, 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. (2007). Educating researchers. The Education Schools Project.

  • Lin, Y. (2014). A third space for dialogues on creative pedagogy: Where hybridity becomes possible. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLaren, I. (2012). The contradictions of policy and practice: Creativity in higher education. London Review of Education, 10(2), 159–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. (2014). Transforming education through art-centred integrated learning. Visual Inquiry, 3(3), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, A., & Slater, G. (2019). The dark mirror of capital: on post-neoliberal formations and the future of education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, R., Henriksen, D., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2019). It’s not about the tools. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1–16).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montuori, A. (2011). Beyond postnormal times: The future of creativity and the creativity of the future. Futures, 43(2), 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. California: Sage publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, T. (2019). Corporate agency and possible futures. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 901–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, E. (2015). A critical review of digital storyline-enhanced learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2016). Methods for literature reviews. In F. Lau & C. Kuziemsky (Eds.), Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach (pp. 157–180). Canada: University of Victoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perng, S. (2019). Anticipating digital futures: ruins, entanglements and the possibilities of shared technology making. Mobilities, 14(4), 418–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, A. (2017). New horizons for culture, creativity and cities. City, Culture and Society, 8, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razdorskaya, O. (2015). Reflection and creativity: the need for symbiosis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 115–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2013). The art and craft of science. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity research journal, 24(1), 92–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saad, G. (2009, Jul 13). Cross-cultural differences in creativity: Do cultural traits affect individuals’ creativity? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/200907/cross-cultural-differences-in-creativity

  • Sanabria, J. C., & Arámburo-Lizárraga, J. (2017). Enhancing 21st century skills with AR: Using the gradual immersion method to develop collaborative creativity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 487–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, K. (2011). The western cultural model of creativity: Its influence on intellectual property law. Notre Dame Law Review, 86, 2027–2056. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol86/iss5/10

  • Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, R. (2010). Taking digital creativity to the art classroom: Mystery box swap. Art Education, 63(2), 38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Henriksen, D. (2016). Fail again, fail better: Embracing failure as a paradigm for creative learning in the arts. Art Education, 69(2), 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, F. R. (2017). Creativity, technology, and learning: Theory for classroom practice. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, M.-Y., & Lin, H.-T. (2016). The effect of future thinking curriculum on future thinking and creativity of junior high school students. Journal of Modern Education Review, 6(3), 176–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., & Choi, H. (2006). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. London, UK: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2020). Futures of Education. Learning to become. A global initiative to reimagine how knowledge and learning can shape the future of humanity and the planet. https://en.unesco.org/futuresofeducation/

  • Van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., & de Haan, J. (2019). Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals. Computers in human behavior, 100, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of advanced nursing, 50(2), 204–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, USA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Tempe, USA

    Danah Henriksen & Punya Mishra

  2. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Edwin Creely & Michael Henderson

Authors
  1. Danah Henriksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edwin Creely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Henderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Punya Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danah Henriksen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no potential conflicts of interest related to this publication.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This is a literature review and involved no research on human and/or animal participants.

Informed consent

Given the above nature of this publication as a literature review, there was no requirement for informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M. et al. Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature review of the uneasy space of implementation . Education Tech Research Dev 69, 2091–2108 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation