Crayons Are the Future

  • Punya Mishra
  • Danah Henriksen
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology book series (BRIEFSECT)


Creativity and technology are increasingly important twenty-first century constructs for education. In this chapter, we identify some myths about how these issues are typically framed in educational contexts. In the case of bringing creativity to education, the problem has been that of framing it too broadly and focusing on generic skills, divorced from the grounding and constraints of learning in the disciplines. In contrast, the problem with technology in education has been an inordinately narrow focus on the latest tools rather than deeper issues of pedagogy and content. To address these concerns we offer a two-part framing—bringing together TPACK and trans-disciplinary creativity—to make the case for learning both within and across disciplines. This (in)disciplined learning, we argue, provides a useful way to think about creativity and technology for teaching and learning.


  1. Abrahamson, D. (2006, June). The Three M’s: Imagination, embodiment, and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  2. Alibali, M., & Mitchel, N. (2011). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 1–40.Google Scholar
  3. Bahls, P. (2009). Math and metaphor: Using poetry to teach college mathematics. The WAC Journal, 20, 75–90.Google Scholar
  4. Caper, R. (1996). Play, experimentation and creativity. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 77, 859–869.Google Scholar
  5. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Perseus Book Group.Google Scholar
  6. Frank, K., Zhao, Y., & Boreman, K. (2004). Social capital and the implementation of computers in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuson, K. C., & Abrahamson, D. (2005). Understanding ratio and proportion as an example of the apprehending zone and conceptual-phase problem-solving models. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 213–234). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. AMC, 10, 12.Google Scholar
  11. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March 24–28). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The seven trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the tpack framework towards twenty-first century learning. Educational Technology, 11(2), 22–28.Google Scholar
  14. Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  15. Robinson, K. (2003). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 49–82). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  18. Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “Twenty-first-century” skills (p. 17). Washington, DC: American Educator.Google Scholar
  19. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, D. K. (1995). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structure domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.Google Scholar
  21. Ureta, N. (2012, January 5). Kinecting With Students: UW Bothell students and faculty get creative with math education. The Daily of the University of Washington. Retrieved from:
  22. Wilensky, U. (1997). What is normal anyway?: Therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AECT 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Punya Mishra
    • 1
  • Danah Henriksen
    • 1
  1. 1.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations