On Being (In)Disciplined

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


Research has shown that there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the creative process—in that creativity requires both deep disciplinary knowledge and the ability to break disciplinary boundaries. Transdisciplinary thinking, we argue, offers a set of meta-level skills that help people transfer information creatively from one domain to another. A transdisciplinary approach towards creativity has significant implications for how we incorporate creativity in classroom contexts. We introduce the notion of (in)disciplined learning as a way to address the problem of generic, content-neutral approaches to incorporating creativity in educational contexts. Educators need to understand that creativity happens in a discipline or context; while acknowledging that, at the same time it is “indisciplined,” i.e., cuts across disciplinary boundaries through divergent thinking and imagination.


  1. Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education, 51(1), 173–188.Google Scholar
  2. Caper, R. (1996). Play, experimentation and creativity. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis., 77, 859–869.Google Scholar
  3. Catterall, J. S. (2002). The arts and the transfer of learning. In R. J. Deasy (Ed.), Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.Google Scholar
  4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  5. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Freedman, K. (2007). Artmaking/troublemaking: Creativity, policy, and leadership in art education. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 48(2), 204–217.Google Scholar
  9. Friedel, C., & Rudd, R. (2005). Creative thinking and learning styles in undergraduate agriculture students. In: National AAAE Research Conference (pp. 199–211).Google Scholar
  10. Henriksen, D. (2011). We Teach Who we are: Creativity and Trans Disciplinary Thinking in the Practices of Accomplished Teachers. (Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (3489807).Google Scholar
  11. Hudson, L. (1967). Contrary imaginations: A psychological study of the English schoolboy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  13. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The seven trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the tpack framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 11(2), 22–28.Google Scholar
  14. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Skills framework, from
  15. Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Robinson, K. (2003). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering: In-venting and solving problems at the Frontiers of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2003). The art of innovation: Polymaths and the universality of the creative process. In L. Shavanina (Ed.), International handbook of innovation (pp. 267–278). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Schlain, L. (1993). Art & physics: Parallel visions in time, space and light. New York, NY: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  23. Smoot, G. (1994). Wrinkles in time. New York, NY: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  24. Starko, A. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Sternberg, R. (1999). In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (p. 137). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. White, H. (2010). STEAM not STEM – whitepaper [white paper]. STEAM not STEM. Retrieved from,
  27. Williams, S. D. (2002). Self-esteem and the self-censorship of creative ideas. Personnel Review, 31(4), 495–503.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