Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education, 51(1), 173–188.
Caper, R. (1996). Play, experimentation and creativity. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis., 77, 859–869.
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.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Eisner, E. W. (1998). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art. New York: Teachers College Press.
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.
Friedel, C., & Rudd, R. (2005). Creative thinking and learning styles in undergraduate agriculture students. In: National AAAE Research Conference (pp. 199–211).
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).
Hudson, L. (1967). Contrary imaginations: A psychological study of the English schoolboy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
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.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Skills framework, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
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.
Robinson, K. (2003). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41–45.
Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering: In-venting and solving problems at the Frontiers of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Schlain, L. (1993). Art & physics: Parallel visions in time, space and light. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Smoot, G. (1994). Wrinkles in time. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Starko, A. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. (1999). In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (p. 137). New York: Cambridge University Press.
White, H. (2010). STEAM not STEM – whitepaper [white paper]. STEAM not STEM. Retrieved from, http://www.steam-notstem.com/articles/whitepaper/.
Williams, S. D. (2002). Self-esteem and the self-censorship of creative ideas. Personnel Review, 31(4), 495–503.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This chapter is edited and derived from the following article, which originally appeared in the journal TechTrends (with permission from the publisher and editor). With thanks and credit to the Deep-Play Research Group and authors as noted:
Mishra, P., Henriksen, D. & The Deep-Play Research Group (2012). On being (in)disciplined. TechTrends 56(6), 18-21.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 AECT
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mishra, P., Henriksen, D. (2018). On Being (In)Disciplined. In: Creativity, Technology & Education: Exploring their Convergence. SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70275-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70275-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70274-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70275-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)