importance of fostering creativity in higher education

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Fostering Creativity in Higher Education Institution: A Systematic Review (2018–2022)

Several studies have stressed the necessity of fostering students’ creativity in the twenty-first -century learning process, particularly at the higher educational level. This study synthesized the characteristics (country, study population, and field of education/subject), methods, and theoretical ground used to foster students’ creativity in higher education research. Using the PRISMA 2020 as a guideline for writing a systematic literature review, two databases (ProQuest and Scopus) were searched for peer-reviewed, primary, and empirical research published in English between January 1, 2018, and October 15, 2022. A final selection of 28 studies that met the eligibility criteria were examined. The result showed that most of the studies reviewed were conducted on undergraduate students in developed industrialized East Asian countries and used surveys as the primary data collection method. Moreover, the grounding theories used in fostering creativity in higher education research were still scarce. This study showed that further research is needed to examine the mechanism for developing student creativity in higher education with more diverse samples, rigorous methods, and theoretical grounding.

1 Introduction

One of the critical skills to have in the twenty-first century is creativity (World Economic Forum, 2020 ). Creativity enables using, creating, improving, analyzing, and evaluating various ideas (Sharma & Sharma, 2018 ). Creativity also plays a crucial role in various aspects of idea generation and development (Benedek et al., 2016 ; Gundry, Ofstein, & Kickul, 2014 ; Ritter & Mostert, 2017 ). This skill enables individuals to discover new opportunities, enhance their creative thinking, and accurately assess the creativity of ideas.

Acknowledging its importance, educators and researchers agree that creativity in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is a relevant and essential skill for successful learning (Li, 2023 ; Nissim, Weissblueth, Scott-Webber, & Amar, 2016 ; Rae, 2023 ). Several studies have stressed the need to foster students’ creativity in HE (Fields & Bisschoff, 2013 ; Lee, Lee, Makara, Fishman, & Hong, 2015 ). Jackson, Oliver, Shaw, and Wisdom ( 2006 ) also stated that the goal of teaching in HE is to assist students in recognizing and leveraging their creativity. By doing so, students will become more effective learners and develop into individuals who can deal with uncertainty and complexity in their future workplace. Therefore, HEIs have proactively embraced this perspective by implementing creativity-nurturing programs designed to empower students to hone their creativity (Li, 2023 ). The programs aimed to enable students to develop their creativity so that they can demonstrate purposeful work that results in effective learning and retention.

Some governments also have developed educational initiatives to promote discussion and the implementation of educational policies to foster students’ creativity skills. For example, more than 20 years ago, the governments of China and Japan, and American and European business leaders mandated and recommended encouraging creativity in university curricula (Cheung, Roskams, & Fisher, 2006 ; Strom & Strom, 2002 ). European University Association also established a Creativity in Higher Education Project to analyze conditions that could promote or hinder creativity in the university setting in 21 different countries (European University Association, 2007 ). Recently, the Indonesian government has issued a “Merdeka Belajar – Kampus Merdeka (MBKM) Curriculum” through the Minister of Education and Culture Regulations Number 3 Year 2020 on National Standards of Higher Education ( 2020 ). The MBKM curriculum was designed to provide a student-centered learning environment, encourage creativity, and provide contextual field experience, improving college students’ competence and readiness for employment (Prahani et al., 2020 ).

The importance of fostering creativity becomes more critical in HEIs because HEIs are obligated to prepare their students and graduates to build a core competency for entry-level employment (Allen, Quinn, Hollingworth, & Rose, 2013 ; George, 2008 ). This is due to the increased demand for creative skills in the job market. According to IBM’s Global CEO study ( 2010 ), 60% of global CEOs believe creativity is the most crucial leadership trait in the early twenty-first century. A PwC ( 2017 ) survey found that 77% of CEOs reported having trouble finding the creativity and innovation skills they needed. Moreover, LinkedIn surveyed corporate leaders, and creativity emerged as the most essential business skill, labeled “the most important skill in the world” (Petrone, 2018 ). In addition, the World Economic Forum ( 2020 ) also considered creativity one of the five most prominent and in-demand skills of the future. Consequently, higher education’s learning outcomes gradually changed their focus on producing creative graduates who can face the uncertainties of a dynamic future and prepare for jobs that may not have been thought of at this time (Hendayana, 2020 ; Pucio & Lohiser, 2020 ; van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk, & de Haan, 2020 ).

Fostering creativity in HEIs cannot be separated from the role of lecturers who interact directly with students in the process of delivering knowledge. Lecturers’ roles and competencies significantly impact student learning engagement (Almarghani & Mijatovic, 2017 ), which in turn will lead to producing creative learners (Kasmaienezhadfard, Pourrajab, & Rabbani, 2015 ). However, research on creativity in HE is multifaceted, with researchers advocating for a fusion of methodological and theoretical paradigms (Brown & Leigh, 2018 ). This complexity is further accentuated by university lecturers’ diverse conceptions of creativity (Gaspar & Mabic, 2015 ; Kleiman, 2008 ).

A study by Mullet, Willerson, Lamb, and Kettler ( 2016 ) suggested that research on fostering creativity in educational settings should first consider lecturers’ perceptions of creativity using qualitative or mixed-method research since their perceptions often differ from those used in research and theory. Moreover, according to studies, lecturers typically have an implicit concept of creativity, which influences their acceptance of creativity as an essential skill to teach (Cropley, Patston, Marrone, & Kaufman, 2019 ; Gaspar & Mabic, 2015 ; Pavlovic, Maksic, & Bodroza, 2013 ). Their implicit creativity theories may influence their educational practice and attitude toward students’ creativity and development (Pavlovic et al., 2013 ). Cropley et al. ( 2019 ) also found that teachers’ implicit ideas about creativity represent a more differentiated and operationalized framework. Furthermore, there is evidence that higher education lecturers have difficulty expressing, developing, and measuring creativity and that creativity in courses may be more implicit than explicit (Philip, 2015 ).

Creativity is a word that can be construed differently depending on the context; hence, there is no universal definition (Simkova, Bondarenko, & Bielovetska, 2021 ). For example, to describe the process of teaching and learning creativity in HEIs, the term “creative pedagogies” is frequently used. However, some scholars believe that the definitions of this term are still inconsistent and too broad as a construct (Batey, 2012 ; Simkova et al., 2021 ). For example, Lin ( 2011 ) and Holdhus ( 2019 ) used this term to avoid the dichotomy of “teaching for creativity” and “teaching creatively” because they believe that the two activities are inextricably linked. In contrast, Jeffrey and Craft ( 2004 ) thought these two activities must be distinguished.

Meanwhile, Sawyer ( 2017 ) defined creative pedagogies in HE as helping students break free from constrictive learning methods and encouraging their openness to and exploration of diverse ideas. As such, it emphasizes the importance of explicitly defining and operationalizing creativity in higher education research and curricula to ensure that creativity is encouraged and designed to assist in teaching and learning (Philip, 2015 ). Therefore, there is a need for a systematic review that investigates how research on fostering creativity in HEIs has been defined and what theoretical frameworks have been used.

The theoretical framework is crucial in educational research, including research on fostering creativity in HE. It provides a basis for understanding the principles of creativity and its role in education, thereby facilitating the development of curricula and teaching methods that effectively nurture students’ creativity (Egan, Maguire, Christophers, & Rooney, 2017 ). Moreover, the theoretical grounding aids in addressing challenges in higher education related to expressing, developing, and measuring creativity. By understanding these challenges, educators will be able to work toward embedding explicit and operational definitions of creativity into the curriculum to ensure that creativity is effectively cultivated and integrated into the teaching and learning process (Rae, 2023 ).

In this Systematic Literature Review (SLR), we refer to the study by Jeffrey and Craft ( 2004 ) and define teaching creatively as “using imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting and effective” (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, 1999, as cited by Jeffrey & Craft, 2004 , p. 77). Meanwhile, teaching for creativity is defined as “forms of teaching that are intended to develop young people’s own creative thinking or behavior” (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004 ). Furthermore, the terms “teaching for creativity” and “fostering creativity” in this review are used interchangeably because both refer to activities that promote students’ creativity. We made this decision after searching for synonyms of terms often used in student creativity research.

The number of reviews specifically addressing how to foster students’ creativity in higher education is still relatively small. The most recent review on this topic was by Cremin and Chappell ( 2021 ), which discussed creative pedagogy on students aged 0–18 years, not particularly in HE, from articles published between 1990 and 2018. In addition, a study by Alencar, Fleith, and Pereira ( 2017 ) reviewed the driving and hindering factors from fostering creativity in HE. Sawyer ( 2017 ) investigated teaching creativity in the arts and design courses. Egan et al. ( 2017 ) did a scoping review about how HE formally fostered creativity. Mullet et al. ( 2016 ) examined lecturers’ perceptions of creativity.

What are the characteristics (country, study population, program study/subject) and research methods for fostering creativity in higher education research?

How is research on fostering creativity in higher education defined and theoretically grounded?

This SLR was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement 2020 (Page et al., 2021 ). PRISMA 2020 is an update of PRISMA 2009. It is a guidance tool that helps researchers find, choose, evaluate, synthesize studies, and also provide a transparent, complete, and accurate account of the review process (Page et al., 2021 ). PRISMA has also obtained approval and adoption, co-published in several journals, cited in more than 60,000 reports, received support from about 200 journals and systematic review organizations, and has been used in a variety of disciplines (Page et al., 2021 ).

2.1 Protocol and Registration

The PRISMA 2020 Statement requires the systematic review to specify that this study was not registered and developed no protocol.

2.2 Information Sources and Search Strategy

Two electronic databases (ProQuest and Scopus) were used to search for literature published between January 1, 2018, and October 15, 2022. This time frame was chosen based on Kraus, Breier, and Dasí-Rodríguez ( 2020 ) proposition on research field maturity. Meanwhile, ProQuest and Scopus were selected because the authors have complete access to these databases. The initial inclusion criteria for this systematic review were peer-reviewed articles written in English and reporting on fostering students’ creativity in higher education. Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied ( Table 1 ). The search began on October 10, 2022 and concluded on November 15, 2022. The investigation started with identifying the correct search terms and synonyms for fostering creativity in higher education ( Table 2 ), screening articles’ titles and abstracts, and conducting a full-text eligibility process.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The search string used in both electronic databases (ProQuest and Scopus) for relevant articles

Note: Bold terms indicate Boolean operators; the Asterisk symbol (*) indicates truncation character.

2.3 Eligibility Criteria

Figure 1 depicts the procedure for determining article eligibility. A search of the databases resulted in 7,467 references. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 58 articles were considered for inclusion. After manual screening based on title and abstract, 27 articles were excluded, and the remaining 31 full-text articles were assessed. The validity and reliability of each article were evaluated by the transparency of the method, data, and how the methodology may have affected the results and reporting of the research.

PRISMA 2020 flow chart.

2.4 Data Extraction and Data Synthesis

To gather and standardize data from each article, authors created a data extraction form that contained the following information: authors, year of publication, variables, aim, methodology, research design, participants’ characteristics, country, research instrument, creativity definition, theoretical framework, key findings related to fostering students’ creativity, authors’ decision to include or exclude the articles, reasons to inclusion/exclusion. Three full-text articles were excluded from the 31 potentially eligible articles ( Table 3 ), leaving 28 eligible articles in the narrative synthesis.

Reasons for exclusion of full-text articles assessed ( n = 3)

3 Result and Discussion

3.1 study characteristics.

Of the 28 studies on fostering students’ creativity in higher education, multidisciplinary study program was the most often researched (21.4%, n = 6), with five studies (17.9%) explicitly investigating the creativity of the education program, four (14.3%) engineering program, three (10.7%) economics program, two (7.1%) health program, 2 (7.1%) arts program, two (7.1%) science program, and one (3.6%) design program. A brief summary of the study characteristics is presented in Appendix A. It should be emphasized that the data in the research instrument column and the key findings column in Appendix A only pertain to fostering students’ creativity in higher education, not the whole findings of the studies.

3.2 Geographical Characteristic

Taiwan, China, and Spain each contributed 14.3% ( n = 4) to the study of fostering creativity in higher education, followed by the United States at 10.7% ( n = 3). The rest came from various countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Korea, Spain, Norway, Poland, Russia, Canada, Ukraine, Brazil, the UK, and Australia, each contributing one study. Only one study (Park, Niu, Cheng, & Allen, 2021 ) carried out cross-cultural research in the USA and China. In comparison, industrial countries in East Asia, such as China, Taiwan, and Korea, have the most studies on fostering creativity in higher education (32.1%), followed by European countries (25.0%).

In this review, only one article by Nelmira, Efi, and Sandra ( 2022 ) about fostering creativity in HE was identified in Indonesia. It examines a learning model designed to promote the development of students’ creativity through Embroidery learning. The participants of this study were students majoring in the Fashion Design Study Program. Other studies about fostering creativity in Indonesia are by Halimah, Marwati, and Abdillah (2020) and Kurniawati, Saleh, and Safitri (2022). Kurniawati et al. (2022) conducted a study to investigate the effect of teachers’ intellectual humility and subjectivity on teachers’ behavior in fostering creativity.

Meanwhile, Halimah et al. ( 2020 ) investigated how students’ creativity in project-based learning can be fostered through lap booking. However, both of those studies were not in the context of HE. Kurniawati et al. ( 2022 ) recruited elementary, junior high, and high school teachers as research participants; meanwhile, Halimah et al. ( 2020 ) recruited elementary students as participants. These results showed that fostering creativity in HE in Indonesia is still limited and can be an opportunity for further research in the future.

3.3 Study Population

A total of 11 studies (39.3%) were conducted at the undergraduate education level, five studies (17.9%) at the undergraduate and postgraduate level, four studies (14.3%) at the postgraduate level, and only one study (3.5 %) at the vocational course level. The remaining seven (25.0%) did not explicitly state the study population’s educational level.

While the focus on undergraduate students in the reviewed studies provides great insights, it also raises important questions about the unique challenges and opportunities in fostering creativity at other educational levels. The emphasis on foundational knowledge and diverse student backgrounds may allow undergraduates to shape creative thinking early in their academic journeys. However, difficulties may arise when dealing with various learning styles and expectations.

Exploring postgraduate and vocational levels may reveal different dynamics, with postgraduates possibly exhibiting more advanced creative capacities honed through specialized training. Vocational students, on the other hand, may require tailored approaches that combine creativity with practical skills relevant to their fields. Addressing these nuances in future research could lead to a more comprehensive understanding of how to foster creativity at various educational levels.

The majority of the 28 studies recruited undergraduate students as research participants (78.6%, n = 22). There are only four studies (14.3%) that investigated teaching for creativity by involving both students and lecturers as participants, and two studies (7.1%) that recruited faculty members (deans, lecturers, and administrative staff) as participants. This showed that among recent literature in ProQuest and Scopus databases, the research on teaching creativity in HE mainly focused on the undergraduate level and chose solely students as research participants.

The results showed that there is a need for future research to involve both students and lecturers in research on teaching creativity. It is critical for effective creativity fostering in HE. By involving students and lecturers, we can have a more thorough understanding of creativity and its development in educational settings. Students can offer valuable insights into their experiences and perspectives on creativity, while lecturers can provide expertise and guidance on teaching practices that can improve creativity.

Furthermore, involving faculty members in research on teaching creativity can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities for fostering creativity in HE. However, faculty members’ limited participation in these studies suggests a lack of awareness or interest in the importance of creativity in higher education. Understanding why this is happening can provide valuable insights into how to effectively engage faculty members in fostering creativity in higher education.

3.4 Methodological Characteristics

Surveys were the most commonly used data collection approach in all studies, followed by interviews and document analysis ( Table 4 ). There were two studies (7.1%) that collected data both online and onsite, six studies (21.4%) online, 19 (67.8%) offline, and the remaining one (3.5%) did not state explicitly (Sun, 2020 ). Most of the studies used quantitative methods (42.8%, n = 12), followed by qualitative methods (32.1%, n = 9), and the rest used mixed-method designs (25%, n = 7). These results showed that recent literature had not considered the use of more varied research methods and examined the perspective of both teachers and students about fostering creativity in class, as suggested by Mullet et al. ( 2016 ).

Data collection methods used in the studies

3.5 Definition and Theory-Grounded Used on Fostering Creativity Research in Higher Education

The complexity of the construct is a common theme within research on teaching creativity because it is highly dependent on context (Simkova et al., 2021 ). Studies showed that a clear and accurate conceptualization of creativity is essential to explore it in the learning environment. This study showed that 50% of the articles reviewed did not clearly define teaching for creativity, student creativity, or creativity used in the studies.

Only four studies (14.28%) provided the definition of teaching for creativity (Kim, Bae, Choi, Kim, & Lim, 2019 ; Kozlov & Shemshurina, 2018 ; Raymundo, 2020 ; Twigg & Yates, 2019 ). Raymundo ( 2020 , p. 6) defined teaching for creativity as “the use of teaching strategies that can develop students’ creative skills.” Twigg and Yates ( 2019 , p. 2) defined teaching for creativity as “teaching practices that inspire and nurture students’ creative abilities.” It can be concluded that both of these studies defined teaching for creativity as teaching practices that can develop students’ creative skills. It can be supposed that these two studies believed teaching creativity is a teaching practice that can develop students’ creative skills. Furthermore, Kozlov and Shemshurina ( 2018 ) and Kim et al. ( 2019 ) specified the definition of teaching for creativity based on learning context. Kozlov and Shemshurina ( 2018 ) defined teaching for creativity as a teaching practice to improve students’ problem-solving skills in science-technology fields or engineering programs. Kim et al. ( 2019 ) described it as a learning process to enhance students’ problem-solving skills in mathematics.

Of 28 studies, only 10 (35.7%) studies stated the definition of creativity but did not elaborate on the notion of teaching creativity; for example, Han, Abadi, Jin, and Chen ( 2020 , p. 758) stated “Creativity refers to the production of new and useful ideas or solutions.” There is one study that explicitly stated that it does not want to dichotomize “teaching creatively” with “teaching for creativity” and prefers to use “creative pedagogies,” which includes both terms (Holdhus, 2019 ). Meanwhile, Sun ( 2020 , p. 1) was the only study that stated the definition of student creativity. She refers to the study by Tsai, Horng, Liu, Hu, and Chung, ( 2015 ), “Student creativity is the tendency of students to generate new ideas that are useful in implementing products or services in individual learning environments, through interaction and sharing knowledge with other students.” The remaining 14 (50%) studies did not include the definition of creativity, teaching for creativity, fostering creativity, or student creativity in their articles. These differences showed that it is vital for each study to explicitly include the definition or concept of creativity used in the study.

Moreover, this SLR also found that most studies’ widely used theories were constructivism theory and Amabile’s theory of creativity components. However, over half of the 28 studies reviewed did not use theoretical grounds. This result represents the possibility of further challenges and discussion related to the theories to ground research in fostering creativity in HE. Specifically, the theoretical foundations were used in 12 studies (42.8%), with constructivism cited in three studies (Holdhus, 2019 ; Powell, Lambert, McGuigan, Prasad, & Lin, 2020 ; Raymundo, 2020 ) and Amabile’s component theory of creativity used in two studies (Liu, Wang, Chen, & Chao, 2020 ; Meng & Zhao, 2018 ). Other studies refer to Bandura’s social learning theory (Liu & Wang, 2019 ), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Laguía, Moriano, & Gorgievski, 2019 ), C–K (Concept–Knowledge Theory) (Sun, 2020 ), Perkin’s dispositional theory of thinking (Rabello-Mestre & Otondo, 2021 ), Simonton’s theoretical model of scientific creativity (Oliveira et al., 2021 ), gamestorming theory (Feijoo, Crujeiras, & Moreira, 2018 ), and Janusian’s conceptual combination and structure-mapping theory (Kao, 2019 ).

These findings revealed a significant gap in explicit conceptualizations and theoretical foundations. In order to close the gap, future research could incorporate prominent theoretical frameworks that provide comprehensive insights into fostering creativity in higher education. According to the results, constructivism theory and Amabile’s theory were widely used. The emphasis of constructivism theory on active participation, collaboration, and problem-solving is consistent with the goals of fostering creativity. This theory provides a solid foundation for understanding how learners construct knowledge and foster a creative environment. More research could be conducted to investigate the nuanced applications of constructivism in various educational contexts and disciplines, as well as its adaptability and effectiveness.

Furthermore, Amabile’s theory of creativity components offers a systematic approach to comprehending the intrinsic (individual) and extrinsic (social) factors that influence creativity. Future research could delve into specific features such as domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and intrinsic task motivation to unravel the intricate dynamics of fostering creativity in HE. Thus, future research can offer tailored recommendations for instructional design and pedagogical strategies by investigating how these components interact in various educational settings.

Another theoretical framework used in the reviewed study was the application of Bandura’s social learning theory. This theory, which emphasizes observational learning and modeling, may help us understand how social interactions and learning environments influence creativity. Furthermore, the TPB provides a psychological framework for investigating the role of intention and perceived behavioral control in fostering creativity. Future research could delve into these theories, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationship between teaching practices, theoretical frameworks, and creativity in higher education.

Furthermore, previous studies have found differences in perceptions and attitudes about creativity between cultures; hence, cross-cultural studies are required (Lee et al., 2015 ; Wong & Niu, 2013 ). One of the studies that acknowledged the relationship between creativity and culture in this review is a study by Buasuwan ( 2018 ). She discovered that while most faculty members (deans, lecturers, and administrative staff) agreed that students should be more courageous in expressing their thoughts and opinions for their creativity to develop, this was hampered in practice by cultural factors that expected students always to be obedient and submissive to elders. This review found only one cross-cultural study in recent literature (Park et al., 2021 ); therefore, more cross-cultural studies are needed in the future. Park et al. ( 2021 ) proved that there are disparities in the two countries’ creativity and critical thinking levels, with Chinese students excelling in critical thinking and American students excelling in creativity. They also found that having research experience at a university (e.g., taking a research techniques class) significantly impacts students’ creativity and critical thinking, regardless of cultural or national background. These findings suggest that more cross-cultural studies in fostering creativity are needed. From our review, we also arrived at the conclusion that although creativity and critical thinking were used interchangeably (Rusimamto, Nurlaela, Sumbawati, Munoto, & Samani, 2019 ) and showed a strong correlation, Park et al. ( 2021 ) discovered that these two skills must be separately examined and measured in order to generate a precise and thorough analysis.

4 Conclusion, Limitation, and Future Direction

This study synthesizes 28 studies from 2018 to 2022 on creativity fostering teacher behavior in higher education. The majority of studies were conducted in developed industrialized East Asian countries such as China, Taiwan, and Korea, with China and Taiwan each contributing four studies. The sample population consists primarily of undergraduate students with no specification on the majors or program study they pursue. The quantitative technique with survey methods was the most commonly utilized research method. Furthermore, it was discovered that only a few studies incorporated theoretical grounding in the study process. Overall, this review shows the need for future research to apply more controls over the methodology in order to substantiate and analyze the mechanism for fostering student creativity in higher education, as well as firm theoretical grounding.

Following the PRISMA 2020 Statement, the authors have attempted to follow the principles of writing an SLR as closely as possible. However, this work is still at risk of bias because it only includes English publications from the two electronic databases (ProQuest and Scopus), with limitations on the publication year from 2018 to 2022. The studies were included based on the author’s assessment perspective. Additionally, it is critical to recognize the potential bias caused by the concentration of studies reviewed in developed East Asian countries. Future research endeavors should actively seek diverse global perspectives to address this limitation and promote a more inclusive understanding of fostering creativity in HE. Researchers are encouraged to investigate and incorporate studies from a broader range of cultural and regional contexts to achieve a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of fostering creativity in HE worldwide.

Funding information: This work was supported by Hibah PUTI Q3 from Universitas Indonesia.

Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

Summary of included studies

Ahmadi, N., & Besançon, M. (2017). Creativity as a stepping stone towards developing other competencies in classrooms. Education Research International, 2017, 1–9. doi: 10.1155/2017/1357456 . Search in Google Scholar

Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., & Pereira, N. (2017). Creativity in higher education: Challenges and facilitating factors. Temas Em Psicologia, 25(2), 553–561. doi: 10.9788/TP2017.2-09 . Search in Google Scholar

Allen, K., Quinn, J., Hollingworth, S., & Rose, A. (2013). Becoming employable students and “ideal” creative workers: Exclusion and inequality in higher education work placements. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 431–452. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2012.714249 . Search in Google Scholar

Almarghani, E. M., & Mijatovic, I. (2017). Factors affecting student engagement in HEIs-it is all about good teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 940–956. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1319808 . Search in Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 . Search in Google Scholar

Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55–65. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649181 . Search in Google Scholar

Belur, J. M., Patil, S. v., Mahantshetti, S., & Patil, S. (2022). The boosters that foster creativity-competencies among MBA students: Identifying and modelling the relationships. Higher Education for the Future, 9(2), 216–233. doi: 10.1177/23476311221108228 . Search in Google Scholar

Benedek, M., Nordtvedt, N., Jauk, E., Koschmieder, C., Pretsch, J., Krammer, G., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Assessment of creativity evaluation skills: A psychometric investigation in prospective teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.007 . Search in Google Scholar

Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Creativity and playfulness in higher education research. In Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 49–66). Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/S2056-375220180000004005 . Search in Google Scholar

Buasuwan, P. (2018). Rethinking Thai higher education for Thailand 4.0. Asian Education and Development Studies, 7(2), 157–173. doi: 10.1108/AEDS-07-2017-0072 . Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Y.-L., Chen, H. C., & Hsu, C. C. (2010). Jiàoshī chuàngzào lì xìnniàn, chuàngzào lì jiàoxué zìwǒ xiàonéng duì chuàngzào lì jiàoxué xíngwéi zhī yǐngxiǎng [Belief of creativity and self-efficacy for creativity-teaching’s Effect on teaching behaviors for creativity]. Fu Hsing Kang Academic Journal, 99, 151–171. doi: 10.29857/FHKAJ.201009.0007 . Search in Google Scholar

Chen, H. C. (2005). A study on teacher’s creativity teaching efficiency of technological institute & vocational school. (Master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Technology. Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, C. K., Roskams, T., & Fisher, D. (2006). Enhancement of creativity through a one-semester course in university. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01264.x . Search in Google Scholar

Cremin, T., & Chappell, K. (2021). Creative pedagogies: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 36(3), 299–331. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2019.1677757 . Search in Google Scholar

Cropley, D. H., Patston, T., Marrone, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). Essential, unexceptional and universal: Teacher implicit beliefs of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, 100604. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100604 . Search in Google Scholar

de Alencar, E. M. L. S., & de Souza Fleith, D. (2014). Inventory of teaching practices for creativity in higher education. In Theory and practice of creativity measurement (pp. 51–64). Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Dewett, T., & Gruys, M. L. (2007). Advancing the case for creativity through graduate business education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2007.04.001 . Search in Google Scholar

DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2008). Creative potential and practised creativity: Identifying untapped creativity in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 37–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00464.x . Search in 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.12.004 . Search in Google Scholar

European University Association. (2007). Creativity in higher education: Report on the EUA creativity project 2006–2007. Search in Google Scholar

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. (1994). The California critical thinking skills test: test manual. California Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar

Feijoo, G., Crujeiras, R. M., & Moreira, M. T. (2018). Gamestorming for the conceptual design of products and processes in the context of engineering education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 22, 44–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2017.11.001 . Search in Google Scholar

Fields, Z., & Bisschoff, C. A. (2013). A theoretical model to measure creativity at a university. Journal of Social Sciences, 34(1), 47–59. doi: 10.1080/09718923.2013.11893117 . Search in Google Scholar

Florea, N. M., & Hurjui, E. (2015). Critical thinking in elementary school children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 565–572. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.161 . Search in Google Scholar

Gapp, R., & Fisher, R. (2006). Achieving excellence through innovative approaches to student involvement in course evaluation within the tertiary education sector. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(2), 156–166. doi: 10.1108/09684880610662033 . Search in Google Scholar

Gaspar, D., & Mabic, M. (2015). Creativity in higher education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(9), 598–605. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030903 . Search in Google Scholar

George, J. M. (2008). Creativity in organizations. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The academy of management annals (1st ed., pp. 439–477). Lawrence Erlbaum. Search in Google Scholar

Gundry, L. K., Ofstein, L. F., & Kickul, J. R. (2014). Seeing around corners: How creativity skills in entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 529–538. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.002 . Search in Google Scholar

Halimah, L., Marwati, I., & Abdillah, F. (2020). Fostering students’ creativity through lapbooking: A case study in an Indonesian primary school context. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 2969–2979. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080725 . Search in Google Scholar

Han, S. J., Abadi, M., Jin, B., & Chen, J. (2020). Cultivating interdisciplinary team creativity through an intensive design competition. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 11(3), 757–772. doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-06-2020-0141 . Search in Google Scholar

Hendayana, Y. (2020). Kampus Merdeka siapkan kompetensi lulusan yang kreatif, inovatif dan berkarakter di era disruptif [The Merdeka Campus prepares creative and innovative graduates with character competencies in a disruptive era]. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Riset, Dan Teknologi Indonesia. http://www.dikti.kemdikbud.go.id/kabar-dikti/kabar/kampus-merdeka-siapkan-kompetensi-lulusan-yang-kreatif-inovatif-dan-berkarakter-di-era-disruptif/%0A. Search in Google Scholar

Holdhus, K. (2019). When students teach creativities: Exploring student reports on creative teaching. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(7), 690–699. doi: 10.1177/1077800418801377 . Search in Google Scholar

IBM Corporation. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/1VZV5X8J. Search in Google Scholar

Jackson, N., Oliver, M., Shaw, M., & Wisdom, J. (2006). Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum. Leeds, UK: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2010). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19(3), 247–258. doi: 10.1080/10400410701397339 . Search in Google Scholar

Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. doi: 10.1080/0305569032000159750 . Search in Google Scholar

Kao, C. Y. (2019). How combining opposite, near-opposite, and irrelevant concepts influence creativity performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 24–35. doi: 10.1037/aca0000166 . Search in Google Scholar

Kao, C. Y. (2020). How figurativity of analogy affects creativity: The application of four-term analogies to teaching for creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100653 . Search in Google Scholar

Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big five personality traits as the predictors of creative self‐efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender matter? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(3), 215–232. doi: 10.1002/jocb.32 . Search in Google Scholar

Kasmaienezhadfard, S., Pourrajab, M., & Rabbani, M. (2015). Effects of pictures in textbooks on students’ creativity. Multi Disciplinary Edu Global Quest, 4(2), 83–96. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Masoumeh-Pourrajab/publication/280311851_EFFECTS_OF_PICTURES_IN_TEXTBOOKS_ON_STUDENTS’_CREATIVITY/links/55b1a86108aec0e5f43119c8/EFFECTS-OF-PICTURES-IN-TEXTBOOKS-ON-STUDENTS-CREATIVITY.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Katz-Buonincontro, J., Perignat, E., & Hass, R. W. (2020). Conflicted epistemic beliefs about teaching for creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100651. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100651 . Search in Google Scholar

Kim, D. J., Bae, S. C., Choi, S. H., Kim, H. J., & Lim, W. (2019). Creative character education in mathematics for prospective teachers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(6), 1–16. doi: 10.3390/su11061730 . Search in Google Scholar

Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2 . Search in Google Scholar

Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 209–217. doi: 10.1080/14703290802175966 . Search in Google Scholar

Kozlov, A. V., & Shemshurina, S. A. (2018). Fostering creativity in engineering universities: Research activity and curriculum policy. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 93–106. doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.1147a . Search in Google Scholar

Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(3), 1023–1042. doi: 10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4 . Search in Google Scholar

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Leeds, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003099857 . Search in Google Scholar

Kurniawati, F., Saleh, A. Y., & Safitri, S. (2022). How to foster students creativity? The effects of teacher subjective well-being mediation on the intellectual humility. Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 41(1), 31–42. doi: 10.21831/cp.v41i1.40055 . Search in Google Scholar

Laguía, A., Moriano, J. A., & Gorgievski, M. J. (2019). A psychosocial study of self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31(October 2017), 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.004 . Search in Google Scholar

Lawson, T. J., Jordan-Fleming, M. K., & Bodle, J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 248–253. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587624 . Search in Google Scholar

Lee, H. J., Lee, J., Makara, K. A., Fishman, B. J., & Hong, Y. (2015). Does higher education foster critical and creative learners? An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(1), 131–146. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.892477 . Search in Google Scholar

Leśniewska-Napierała, K., Napierała, T., Tjørve, K. M. C., & Tjørve, E. (2020). A ‘contest’ as a pedagogical method in tourism higher education: A case study in teaching creativity through problem-solving. Turyzm/Tourism, 30(1), 43–52. doi: 10.18778/0867-5856.30.1.16 . Search in Google Scholar

Li, W. (2023). On the role of creativity in the application-oriented university students’ engagement and success. Heliyon, 9(6), e17374. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17374 . Search in Google Scholar

Lin, P. F., & Chiou, H. J. (2008). Construction and related study of the inventory of self-efficacy for creative teaching. Journal of Education Research and Development, 4(1), 141–170. Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Y. S. (2011). Fostering creativity through education: Conceptual framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), 149–155. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.23021 . Search in Google Scholar

Liu, H. Y., & Wang, I. T. (2019). Creative teaching behaviors of health care school teachers in Taiwan: Mediating and moderating effects. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1641-8 . Search in Google Scholar

Liu, H. Y., Wang, I. T., Chen, N. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2020). Effect of creativity training on teaching for creativity for nursing faculty in Taiwan: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 85, 104231. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104231 . Search in Google Scholar

Lou, S.-J., Chung, C.-C., Dzan, W.-Y., & Shih, R.-C. (2012). Construction of a creative instructional design model using blended, project-based learning for college students. Creative Education, 3(7), 1281–1290. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.37187 . Search in Google Scholar

Mareque, M., de Prada Creo, E., & Gonzalez-Sanchez, M. B. (2019). Fostering creativity and communicative soft skills through leisure activities in management studies. Education and Training, 61(1), 94–107. doi: 10.1108/ET-07-2018-0149 . Search in Google Scholar

Meng, Y., & Zhao, C. (2018). Academic supervisor leadership and its influencing mechanism on postgraduate creativity in China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29(May), 32–44. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.05.006 . Search in Google Scholar

Miño-Puigcercós, R., Domingo-Coscollola, M., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2019). Transforming the teaching and learning culture in higher education from a diy perspective. Educacion XX1, 22(1), 139–160. doi: 10.5944/educxx1.20057 . Search in Google Scholar

Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., N. Lamb, K., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001 . Search in Google Scholar

Nelmira, W., Efi, A., & Sandra, Y. (2022). Efforts to develop creativity in vocational education through a learning model based on student research activities. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–9. doi: 10.17762/kuey.v28i01.319 . Search in Google Scholar

Nissim, Y., Weissblueth, E., Scott-Webber, L., & Amar, S. (2016). The effect of a stimulating learning environment on pre-service teachers’ motivation and 21st century skills. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 29. doi: 10.5539/jel.v5n3p29 . Search in Google Scholar

Oliveira, A. W., Brown, A. O., Zhang, W. S., LeBrun, P., Eaton, L., & Yemen, S. (2021). Fostering creativity in science learning: The potential of open-ended student drawing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103416 . Search in Google Scholar

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372, 1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 . Search in Google Scholar

Park, J. H., Niu, W., Cheng, L., & Allen, H. (2021). Fostering creativity and critical thinking in college: A cross-cultural investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(November), 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760351 . Search in Google Scholar

Pavlovic, J., Maksic, S., & Bodroza, B. (2013). Implicit individualism in teachers’ theories of creativity: Through the “Four P’s” looking glass. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 23(1), 39–58. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&u=anon∼2dfe868a&id=GALE%7CA444309491&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=9b5da456. Search in Google Scholar

Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi [Minister of Education and Culture Regulations No. 3 Year 2020 on National Standards of Higher Education], Pub. L. No. 3. (2020). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/163703/permendikbud-no-3-tahun-2020. Search in Google Scholar

Petrone, P. (2018, December 31st). Why creativity is the most important skill in the world? LinkedIn Learning Blog. https://www.linkedin.com/business/learning/blog/top-skills-and-courses/why-creativity-is-the-most-important-skill-in-the-world. Search in Google Scholar

Philip, R. B. (2015). Caught in the Headlights: Designing for Creative Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (Doctoral dissertation). Queensland: Queensland University of Technology. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33499279.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Powell, L., Lambert, D., McGuigan, N., Prasad, A., & Lin, J. (2020). Fostering creativity in audit through co-created role-play. Accounting Education, 29(6), 605–639. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2020.1838929 . Search in Google Scholar

Prahani, B. K., Deta, U. A., Yasir, M., Astutik, S., Pandiangan, P., Mahtari, S., & Mubarok, H. (2020). The Concept of “Kampus Merdeka” in Accordance with Freire’s Critical Pedagogy. Studies in Philosophy of Science and Education (SiPoSE), 1(1), 21–37. http://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiPoSE. Search in Google Scholar

Pucio, G. J., & Lohiser, A. (2020). The case for creativity in higher education: Preparing students for life and work in the 21st century. Kindai Management Review, 8, 30–47. https://www.kindai.ac.jp/files/rd/research-center/management-innovation/kindai-management-review/vol8_3.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

PwC. (2017). CEO Survey Global Talent. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-survey/2017/deep-dives/ceo-survey-global-talent.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Rabello-Mestre, A., & Otondo, F. (2021). Creative dispositions: Teaching for creativity in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 37(4), 915–924. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53b9ea11e4b0657eb1ad239a/t/6113c632fd52fd239ac1f1de/1628685877425/Mestre_Otondo+-+ Creative+Dispositions+-+Teaching+for+Creativity+in+Engineering+Education.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Rae, J. (2023). Connecting for creativity in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 48(1), 127–143. doi: 10.1007/s10755-022-09609-6 . Search in Google Scholar

Raymundo, M. R. D. R. (2020). Fostering creativity through online creative collaborative group projects. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15(1), 97–113. doi: 10.1108/AAOUJ-10-2019-0048 . Search in Google Scholar

Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243–253. doi: 10.1007/s41465-016-0002-3 . Search in Google Scholar

Runco, M. A., Walczyk, J. J., Acar, S., Cowger, E. L., Simundson, M., & Tripp, S. (2014). The incremental validity of a short form of the ideational behavior scale and usefulness of distractor, contraindicative, and lie scales. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(3), 185–197. doi: 10.1002/jocb.47 . Search in Google Scholar

Rusimamto, P. W., Nurlaela, L., Sumbawati, M. S., Munoto, & Samani, M. (2019). Development of critical and creative thinking skills to increase competence of PLC programming for electrical engineering education students. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 535(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/535/1/012005 . Search in Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.002 . Search in Google Scholar

Sharma, E., & Sharma, S. (2018). Creativity nurturing behaviour scale for teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(6), 1016–1028. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-10-2017-0294 . Search in Google Scholar

Simkova, I., Bondarenko, O., & Bielovetska, L. (2021). Web-based applications to develop students’ creativity in english for specific purposes. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(2), 684–692. doi: 10.11591/ijere.v10i2.21248 . Search in Google Scholar

Smatanová, K., & Vitková, L. (2018). Urban planning education and the problems of cities in the regions of Slovakia. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 16(4), 362–367. http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/WTE&TE/Pages/Vol.16,%20No.4%20(2018)/07-Smatanova-K.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Soh, K. C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 118–134. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01205.x . Search in Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines. Journal of Intelligence, 5(3), 29. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5030029 . Search in Google Scholar

Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2002). Changing the rules: Education for creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 183–200. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01063.x . Search in Google Scholar

Suacamram, M. (2019). Using the C-K theory to develop student’s creativity: A case study of creative university. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 719–732. doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12446a . Search in Google Scholar

Sun, X. (2020). Social media use and student creativity: The mediating role of student engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(10), 1–8. doi: 10.2224/SBP.9356 . Search in Google Scholar

Tahirsylaj, A., Mann, B., & Matson, J. (2018). Teaching creativity at scale: Overcoming language barriers in a MOOC. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 4(2), 1–19. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-77068. Search in Google Scholar

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x . Search in Google Scholar

Tsai, C. Y., Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., Hu, D. C., & Chung, Y. C. (2015). Awakening student creativity: Empirical evidence in a learning environment context. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 17, 28–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2015.07.004 . Search in Google Scholar

Twigg, E., & Yates, E. (2019). Student reflections on the place of creativity in early years practice: Reflections on second year work placement experience. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 335–345. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.001 . Search in Google Scholar

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1177/2158244019900176 . Search in Google Scholar

Vilarinho-Pereira, D. R., & Fleith, D. D. (2021). Creative use of information and communication technologies according to university professors and students. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 38, 1–12. doi: 10.1590/1982-0275202138e190164 . Search in Google Scholar

Whang, W.-H., Kim, D.-J., Kim, W., Lee, D.-H., & Choi, S.-H. (2017). Development and validation of a testing tool for mathematical creativity and character. The Mathematical Education, 56(1), 41–62. doi: 10.7468/mathedu.2017.56.1.41 . Search in Google Scholar

Williams, P. (2020). ‘How to do things with words’: Teaching creative writing as performance. New Writing, 17(3), 284–296. doi: 10.1080/14790726.2019.1629964 . Search in Google Scholar

Wong, R., & Niu, W. (2013). Cultural difference in stereotype perceptions and performances in nonverbal deductive reasoning and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 41–59. doi: 10.1002/jocb.22 . Search in Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Wu, J. J., Chen, F. Y., Kuo, C. C., Lin, W. W., Lau, S. H., & Chen, Y. H. (1998). New test of creative thinking. Ministry of Education Taiwan. Search in Google Scholar

Zampetakis, L. A., Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Moustakis, V. (2011). Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in young people. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 12(3), 189–199. doi: 10.5367/ijei.2011.0037 . Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118 . Search in Google Scholar

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

• Open access
• Published: 05 July 2023

Conceptualizations and implementation of creativity in higher vocational teacher education – a qualitative study of lecturers

• Silke Fischer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8010-2378 1 &
• Antje Barabasch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1101-2651 2  

Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training volume  15 , Article number:  6 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1985 Accesses

Metrics details

Creativity is one of the most important skills in the 21st century student’s toolkit and important to vocational education and training (VET). In the context of vocational teacher education, creativity has not yet played a significant role at universities. This is due in part to the fact that it is unclear what creativity means and how it is fostered in the context of higher education. This interview study explores how creativity is conceptualized by lecturers in vocational teacher education and what creativity-promoting measures or teaching/learning scenarios are applied by them in their courses. Generally, the lecturers interviewed associated creativity in their jobs as lecturers with creating something new. From the lecturer’s perspective, student creativity is categorized into a 5-category model in which lecturers ‘see’ student creativity represented by (1) student self-reflection, (2) independent decision-making, (3) curiosity and motivation, (4) producing something and (5) developing original new ideas. Categories identified by the lecturers that promote creativity in courses are openness, individualization, interaction, student activity and generating solutions. In practice, creativity-promoting measures or teaching/learning scenarios are implemented very differently. The type of implementation determines the implementation depth of the individual category. The findings provide an understanding of creativity from the perspective of university lecturers’, which could be valuable for designing university courses in the future.

Introduction

Creativity is necessary for growth in every field. Creative thinking can solve problems in both professional and personal contexts. Due to ‘new work’ patterns, e.g., remote work, that have led to structural changes within workplace organizations, creativity contributes to employees’ responses to challenges and changing demand for goods and services. Employees increasingly need to consider alternative perspectives and develop new, creative thinking patterns that foster innovation. Creative minds even represent a decisive competitive advantage for companies, as they design products and processes innovatively and thus solve professional problems in an adequate manner mostly to the customer’s advantage. Further, creativity plays an important role in mental wellbeing, coping with challenging situations, and emotional growth (Forgeard 2018 ). For example, Tang et al. ( 2021 ) showed that creativity was instrumental in increasing well-being during times of the COVID-19 pandemic. In their study, the perceived impact of COVID-19 was positively related to creative process engagement, which was positively related to employees’ self-reported creative growth. Creative growth was related to higher levels of well-being. Fiori et al. ( 2022 ) similarly reported that creative individuals were more satisfied with their lives during COVID-19 times. Their results showed that creativity promoted positive emotions that reduced perceived stress, which in turn led to a more positive COVID-19 experience. Besides, Kapoor and Kaufmann ( 2020 ) argued that people with creative accomplishments and skills at all levels have attempted, and succeeded, in responding to the challenges posed by COVID-19 with a wide range of innovation and originality. They even think that creativity is a way to make sense of current events. Therefore, creativity is also regarded as one of the most important skills in the 21st century student’s toolkit, according to the Future of Jobs Report (World Economic Forum (WEF) 2020 ).

Creativity has become a buzzword in the educational debate, especially in high-income countries (HICs), as they account for the majority of leadership positions in labour markets (Grigorenko 2019 ). Following the call to make creativity an educational imperative (Skiba et al. 2010 ), it has been integrated into many national vocational education and training (VET) systems of HICs. In recent years, various international organizations have developed different frameworks to support the implementation of creativity (and other so-called 21st century skills) in VET, e.g., the “Global framework on core skills for life and work in the 21st century (2021)” by the International Labour Organization (ILO). In VET and in these frameworks, creativity is understood as a transversal and cross-curricular skill that can be acquired in a specific context or situation and can be transferred to other situations; hence, it cannot be taught separately from the subject matter. In this way, creativity is equally relevant for many subjects and professions. Creativity as a transversal skill has also found its way into the educational curricula of many HICs (cf. Calero López and Rodríguez-López 2020 ; Findeisen and Wild 2022 ), e.g., Switzerland. In Switzerland, for example, creativity is often mentioned in the area of methodological skills (cf. curriculum of design engineers (2015) or individual facets of creativity (cf. Lubart et al. 2013 ), such as divergent thinking, convergent thinking, mental flexibility, are implicitly referred to in the curricula (cf. new curriculum of commercial clerks (2021). Correspondingly, in VET creativity is defined as “creative problem solving ability” (Leone 2001 , p. 385). Creativity means “wisely exploiting the given scope for solutions and design when identifying and solving professional tasks, taking into account the situational circumstances” (Rauner 2019 , p.4).

Due to the importance of creativity and its inclusion in many VET curricula, it seems important that higher vocational teacher education also addresses the topic of creativity. In this context, it is important to distinguish between creative teaching and teaching for creativity (Grigorenko 2019 ). Creative teaching encourages free thinking with the objective of making learning more enthusiastic and effective. Teaching for creativity or teaching creativity refers to developing creativity in one’s thinking and behavior. While in the course of teacher training, certainly creative in the sense of good teaching is taught, the question arises, however, if and to what extent teaching for creativity should also be taught. Or in other words: Where in the course of vocational teacher education do prospective teachers learn to teach creativity as a transversal competence? In order to discuss creativity in higher teacher education, it is important to understand what creativity means in this context in the first place. This paper provides initial insights into the topic of creativity in higher vocational teacher education. Therefore, the following objectives guided this study: (1) What conceptualizations do lecturers have of creativity ((a.) creativity in their job as a lecturer and (b.) student creativity) in higher vocational teacher education and (2) how is creativity fostered in higher vocational teacher education?

This paper is structured as follows. The first section gives a brief overview of the relevance of creativity and its assignment as a transversal skill in VET. Then, in the second section, creativity is defined. The third section addresses the challenges of creativity, e.g., the lack of formal embedding of creativity in curricula and course descriptions, in the context of higher education. The methodological approach is explained in the fourth section, before the findings of this study are presented in the fifth section. Finally, the findings are summarized and discussed in the sixth section.

Understanding creativity

Creativity has been a subject of particular attention in psychology and its related disciplines. In the field of psychology, creativity research goes back to the 30s. At latest since the 50s, the first standard definition of creativity has been established (Runco and Jaeger 2012 ). Until today, only in psychology exists a standard definition of creativity, which consists of the following two criteria: “Creativity requires (a) novelty or originality and (b) utility or usefulness” (Simonton 2012 , 97). A creative idea or product must be new and valuable for someone and is hence judged by a certain group of people. The evaluation process is strongly subjective and depends on the respective time period, which is why novelty (or originality) and utility (or usefulness) cannot be measured with universally valid terms (cf. Corazza 2016 ). Further, the term creativity is used differently in varying disciplines and depending on the activity to be performed (Silvia et al. 2009 ). This is because it is generally accepted that creativity in writing a story is different from creativity in solving a mathematical or technical problem. Whether an idea, a product or a person is perceived as creative and labeled accordingly depends on the respective context. In their study, Weinstein et al. ( 2014 ) showed that creativity in general has increased in some domains, e.g., visual arts, in recent years, whereas creativity has decreased in other disciplines, e.g., writing.

To broaden the understanding of creativity, Kaufman and Beghetto ( 2009 ) developed the ‘Four-C Model of Creativity’ , which classifies creative output into different categories (‘Big-C, little-c, mini-c,‘ and ‘Pro-c’ creativity). ‘Big-C’ defines creative greatness, meaning creative contributions made by legendary personalities, e.g., Marie Curie, who “have impacted the world” (p. 95). ‘Little-c’ , on the other hand, refers to daily activities performed by nonprofessionals, such as a musical composition by someone who is not a professional musician. The ‘little-c’ category shows that everyone can be creative in one way or another. Hence, creativity is important in daily life, as well as in the classroom. Teachers are often assigned to the ‘little-c’ category because they have professional knowledge and display it in their daily work, but generally do not receive the status and creative recognition associated with that work (Bloom and Vanslyke-Briggs 2019 ). ‘Mini-c’ encompasses the creativity inherent in the learning process, which is often not yet expressed in a tangible form. It includes initial creative interpretations that can result in recognizable creative output at a later stage, e.g., a learner’s first ideas (or even attempts) about drawing light and shadow. ‘Pro-c’ as the last category refers to persons who are “professional creators” who have not reached “eminent, ‘Big-C’, status” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009 , p. 100).

In summary, creativity is evaluated by the output, e.g., an outlined idea or a product. To be considered creative, it must be perceived as new and useful. The evaluation of the output is thus subjectively shaped and strongly context-dependent due to the respective time period and discipline. Creative output can further be assessed according to various categories (cf. Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009 ). In the context of higher education, creative output is categorized as ‘little-c’ and ‘mini-c’. ‘Little-c’ refers to the creative output of lecturers, whereas ‘mini-c’ describes the creative output of students.

Challenges of creativity in higher education

Despite the recognition of the benefits of creativity for the individual and for society, the promotion of creativity is anything but a priority in higher education (Papaleontiou- Louca et al. 2014 ). Various studies show that creativity of students tends to decline in the formal educational system (Csikszentmihalyi 2007 ; Pfeiffer and Wechsler 2013 ). Csikszentmihalyi ( 2007 ) describes the knowledge transfer in the formal educational system as follows: “Schools teach how to answer, not to question” (p. xix). The formal education system discourages students from taking intellectual risks, which in turn are essential for creative performance (Kettler et al. 2018 ). This is due in part to the fact that most of today’s teaching still takes place in repetitive frontal instruction settings that predominantly promote convergent thinking processes in which students pursue only one, the best solution, at a time. In order to think out-of-the-box and to perform creatively, however, divergent thinking processes in which several and, if possible, different solutions are generated are particularly important (Siburian et al. 2019 ). Conventional instruction favors students who are strong analytical thinkers but disadvantages students who have creative abilities (Sternberg 2006 ). In addition, the purely functional orientation of the educational system, which educates students primarily to “teach to the test” , is also criticized in this context (Klieme et al. 2007 , p. 229; Robinson 2011 ; Piske et al. 2016 ). Common assessments and testing procedures lack the dimensionality needed to identify students’ creative abilities (Sternberg 2006 ). Student creativity is also dependent on teacher creativity, i.e., the more creative a teacher is, the more desirable that teacher judges learner characteristics associated with creativity (Hwang 2017 ). Generally, creative contributions and abilities of students are even often perceived by teachers as disruptive, distracting from learning objectives. Teachers seem to be afraid of losing control in the classroom due to creative contributions of students. Studies (Chan and Chan 1999 ; Kumar and Chahar 2016 ) have shown that students’ non-conforming, disruptive behavior is associated with creativity. Creativity is therefore frequently even sanctioned in the context of classroom management. For this reason, creative contributions are often repressed in educational settings, including higher education (Gibson 2010 ; Hosseini 2011 ; Robinson 2011 ).

In the formal education system, there is also much room for improvement about fostering creativity in schools (Anderson et al. 2022 ; Cachia et al. 2010 ). To date, almost no educational institutions teach for creativity or train teachers to teach for creativity (Papaleontiou- Louca et al. 2014 ; Kaplan 2019 ). Creativity is also not often found in college course curricula and is rarely stated as an explicit learning objective in courses (Jackson 2006 ). According to Jackson ( 2006 ), this is because lecturers know too little about creative approaches in higher education and are also not familiar with the relevant literature on creativity promotion (cf. Matraeva et al. 2020 ). As mentioned at the beginning, this literature is also not addressed in teacher education. Jahnke and Liebscher’s (2020) study of the use of mobile devices to promote creativity in higher education shows that lecturers do not explicitly use creativity as a didactical design element in their teaching either. However, learning with mobile devices encourages student creativity or the emergence of creativity-friendly learning environments. In this context, three types of implicitly integrated creativity that promote meaningful learning with mobile technologies were identified (cf. Jahnke and Liebscher 2020 ). This implies that creativity should also be perceived by lecturers as a digital didactical design element, but this has not yet been done in teaching practice. Beyond that, fostering creativity in the higher education context also promotes other 21st centruy skills, such as critical thinking (Siburian et al. 2019 ) and entrepreneurship (Alshebami et al. 2022 ; Machali et al. 2021 ). Usually, higher education institutions place importance on critical thinking, while the importance of creativity in teaching and learning processes is significantly underestimated (Jackson et al. 2007 ; Islam et al. 2021 ).

Another challenge of creativity in the higher educational context is the perception of students’ creative achievements. According to the standard definition (cf. Section 2), however, the evaluation of a creative performance of students proves to be difficult, as they usually do not produce new and useful products for a market; they are not entrepreneurs or inventors (Jahnke et al. 2015 ). In a general sense, the creative outputs produced by students are not tangible products and the creative actions vary according to the subject. Consequently, it is difficult for lecturers to recognize a creative performance of students in the first place and to evaluate it adequately afterwards. To that date, there is no common understanding of creativity in higher education; however, some initial research has been conducted to define creativity in higher education. The study of Pavlović and Maksić ( 2019 ) revealed five types of lecturers’ implicit theories of the concept and development of creativity: individualistic, activity, result-oriented, relational, and growth theories. There are some characteristics, e.g., social dominance, open minded etc. (individualistic theories) and activities like coping with practical situations, using tools in effective ways etc. (activity theories) which are assigned to creativity. The result-oriented theories refer to the originality, i.e., personal innovations and appropriateness, i.e., successful applications, of products. In addition, the environment can foster creativity by allowing freedom of choice or suppress it by imposing constraints on creative ideas and actions (relational theories). Growth theories describe creativity as something that can be developed during university studies through various pedagogical measures, such as an appreciative climate. Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) developed a ‘6-Facet-Model’ that categorizes student creativity through (1) student self-reflections, (2) independent decisions, (3) through curiosity and motivation, (4) producing something, (5) multiperspectives and (6) when students develop original new ideas. To this point, creativity has not been studied in vocational teacher education.

These examples show that creativity has received little attention in higher education so far. There are many reasons for this. On the one hand learning and testing in the educational system is geared toward achieving learning objectives as efficiently as possible and, consequently, convergent thinking processes (cf. Klieme, 2007). Creative achievements and contributions on the part of students are thus usually perceived as disruptive by lecturers (Sternberg 2006 ). On the other hand, creativity has rarely been formally integrated into curricula, course descriptions, and learning objectives (Jackson 2006 ). Besides, it is difficult to capture what creativity in higher education specifically means and whether concepts differ, if at all, across disciplines.

The overall objective of this study was to find out what creativity is in the higher education context from the perspective of lecturers and how it is promoted in vocational teacher education in Switzerland (in context of our survey). To this purpose, the following research questions were formulated:

What are the interviewed lecturers’ individual conceptualizations of creativity ((a.) creativity in their job as a lecturer and (b.) student creativity) in higher teacher education?

Which creativity-promoting measures or teaching/learning scenarios are applied?

The study was conducted from June to mid-October 2021. 19 semi-structured interviews were completed with lecturers that train VET teachers from five teacher training colleges in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, e.g., Swiss Federal University for Vocational Education and Training (SFUVET), Zurich University of Teacher Education, University of Zurich and the pedagogical colleges of Luzerne and St. Gallen. The interviewees were selected by the institutions themselves.

The methodology of this explorative study approach is based on a study from Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ), which examined the promotion of creativity in a higher education context in Germany. For this purpose, the interview guideline used by Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) was adapted to the situation of the Swiss university context of vocational teacher training. The interviewees were asked to describe one of their courses in detail, i.e., learning objectives, learning activities, performance records, didactic concepts, alignment of instruction and design, etc. In addition, they were also explicitly asked ‘How can you ‘see’ if/when a student is being creative?‘ How do you know that your students are creative? What is a creative achievement of your students?‘ The interviews were conducted online via MS Teams. After their transcription, the interviews were analyzed with MAXQDA by means of (structured) content analysis (Mayring & Frenzl, 2019 ) and open coding (Brymann, 2008 ). First, each interview was analyzed individually to capture the interviewee’s understanding of creativity. Subsequently, all interviews were compared, analyzed, condensed, and summarized at a higher level and compared with the categories identified by Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ). Finally, a first theoretical model was derived from the interview data, which was valid for the respondents at the time of the interview and is presented in the following section.

Demographics

A total of 19 interviews (N = 19) were conducted with lecturers from five universities of teacher education in German-speaking Switzerland. The average interview duration was around 58 min. 10 participants (53%) were female, nine participants (47%) were male. At the time of the interview, the participants were on average 48 years old, the youngest participant was 36 years old and the oldest participant was 60 years old. The teaching experience of the participants at the university level averaged 11 years. 14 participants had an average teaching experience of 11 years at a vocational school, whereas five participants had no teaching experience at a vocational school at all. Six participants held a leadership position, e.g., program director, at the time of the interview. The participants covered all subject areas of vocational teacher education, i.e., subject didactics, educational science, educational psychology etc. Footnote 1

Conceptualizations of creativity in higher teacher education

Creativity in the job as a lecturer.

The findings for the following questions are presented below: ‘What does creativity mean to you in your job as a lecturer? Under which conditions are you (particularly) creative?/In which situations are you (particularly) creative? What stimulates your creativity?‘

From the interviewee’s perspective, creativity in their job as a lecturer means creating something new. This can be confirmed by statements like the following statements: “ When I find new solutions to challenges” [interviewee_1], “when I freely associate new things or things that have not yet been put together and something new comes out of it” [interviewee_3] and “[…] create something new, so to speak [sic!]. Maybe create something outside of norms” [interviewee_8]. The new can also result from the combination of what is already known. Accordingly expert nine answered: “When I combine something new. So from the existing make new combinations [sic!]. (…)” [interviewee_9].

Interviewee 12 refers directly to his expertise: “If I am to generate something new [sic!]. (…). If I can fall back on a certain expertise. And on the basis of this expertise, I can recombine elements that I know” [interviewee_12]. Interviewee 14 has a generic conception of creativity and refers to the fact that every situation involves something creative in which concepts must be adapted to it: “(…) Every situation requires a certain creativity. After all, it’s always about creating something new. Because every situation is new, existing concepts must also be adapted to every situation” [interviewee_14].

A creative achievement in the profession of a lecturer is thus the creation of a new, innovative teaching/learning arrangement within university teaching, e.g., by embedding open, self-regulated learning arrangements etc. Thus, many interviewee replied like the following: “This production of teaching/learning settings in the classroom really comes to mind. (…)” [interviewee_2]. Interviewee 12 further specifies the innovative teaching/learning arrangement in terms of duration, which can be a sequence or an entire day of instruction. “We create teaching settings and that is a creative act for me, (…) The design of a teaching day, the preparation, the development of a teaching day or a sequence is of course a creative process” [interviewee_12]. A similar understanding of a creative performance as lecturer has interviewee 11: “I can be creative in teaching methods, (…), in lesson structure” [interviewee_11]. In contrast, interviewee four argues from a constructivist perspective, in which she/he sees her-/himself as a coach:

“For me, this means in particular that I try to offer learning arrangements that are as open as possible. I very often practice self-directed teaching, where I myself am active as a coach. So I am more of a learning coach and let the students go their own way. (…). But I think that’s my role, to be creative.” [interviewee_4].

Another interviewee said: “As a lecturer, it means that I always provide situations in my lessons that allow for absolutely new and different solutions” [interviewee_16].

The interviewees found a certain openness (with regard to the result and the approach to the solution), freedom, team exchange and time pressure, but not excessive, to be conducive to creativity. Accordingly, answers like the following were given: “Free spaces with few defined specifications that can be filled individually, taking into account the current situation” [interviewee_13], “(…). If the external framework allows me a relatively large amount of self-organization and self-direction and I am also allowed to decide for myself how I shape it. (…)” [interviewee_16] ' and “(…), when a little pressure forces you to be creative or find solutions that aren’t quite conventional, then that’s certainly beneficial. (…)” [interviewee_6]. When it comes to team exchange, an open climate in the team is particularly important. Interviewee 11 said, for example: “Open people with whom I can exchange ideas” [interviewee_11]. From interviewee nine this was described as follows:

“My creativity is encouraged, for example in a team. So there is also creative thinking together with others. And I notice that when I feel comfortable in a team, i.e. when I don’t have to deal with how I am accepted, am I accepted at all in a team, but when I feel comfortable, the learning climate is right, I am also ready to contribute with my ideas [sic!]. And I am also prepared to contribute something that is perhaps not conformist” [interviewee_9].

Student Creativity

The findings show the interviewees’ responses for the following questions ‘How can you ‘see’ if/when a student is creative? How do you know that your students are creative?‘

The following answers were given by two-thirds of the interviewed lecturers: “Understand their own learning itself”, “representing their own further development”, “analyzing their own learning output”. Footnote 2 These answers have in common that the learning process is reflected on a meta-level. However, self-reflected learning also includes reflection in relation to their learning product, so that a meaningful new arrangement can be created. This also includes the transformation of reflection processes into knowledge. Both aspects – self-reflection on a meta-level and the production of a meaningful composition (or learning product) – are represented in this cluster, which we therefore named self-reflective learning.

Another cluster that could be identified from the interviewees’ response behavior relates to self-organized or independent learning. This involves expanding knowledge independently and dealing with new aspects of a topic on one’s own in- and outside the courses. It also implicates thinking further about the topic beyond the existing literature. Respectively, answers such as “creative is just when an own contribution comes”, “going beyond the arguments of the literature” and “in the sense of transfer performance, where a person has made very exciting connections” were assigned to this cluster.

The interviewed lecturers also link the students’ interest and engagement in a topic with creativity. Therefore, the third category was named showing curiosity and motivation. The following statements were summarized under this heading “it takes enthusiasm to be creative”, “interest, engagement and participation in class”, “students who think actively, question things, get involved in discussions”, “when you link the theory with your own ideas or experiences” as wells as “question things critically”.

A fourth cluster combined responses that were output-oriented and included examples and descriptions of learning products. Some of these responses were very specific. Typical responses assigned to this cluster were “creating a role play in computer science class for the installation of a router” and “designing own learning works”.

The last cluster we identified focuses on the achievement of original and completely new arrangements. In contrast to the category self-reflective learning, this assignment is not only about meaningful arrangements, but above all about original and new arrangements. The following responses were assigned to this category: “Using what you have learned in an original way in your lessons”, “search for new, unusual ways, possibilities”, “out of the box thinking”, “develop an efficient solution that is not foreseeable from the outset”. Since the courses are mostly about creating a learning product and, thus, finding own solutions, in the name of this category, we have used the word solution (reaching for original, new solutions).

In summary, a total of five categories of lecturers’ conceptualizations of creativity in higher teacher education were derived based on the data collected. These are summarized in the following table (cf. Table  1 ).

Creativity-promoting measures in higher teacher education

Perceptions of creativity-promoting measures.

The findings for the following questions are shown below: ‘What characterizes a creative teaching course for you? What do you think promotes creativity development in a course? How would you (a. under the given conditions / b. ideally), design your course so that it is conducive to creativity?‘

The first response cluster of the interviewees that could be identified relates to the topic of openness or free spaces. According to the interviewees, creative teaching requires a certain openness, i.e., not too narrow specifications in terms of ready-made solutions, e.g., criteria grids, or solution paths. Consequently, the following answers were summarized under the cluster openness: “ Open tasks”, “allowing free spaces”, “no predefined solutions”, “open-ended sequences” and “working on a topic without many specifications”.

Closely related to the openness cluster is the next cluster found, which was called individualization. Here it is about the students being able to experiment in creative learning settings, e.g., to find their own way of dealing with a topic or a task according to their preferences. Typical answers assigned to this cluster were “finding their own way”, “experimenting, allowing mistakes”, “improvising’, ‘allowing own thought processes and procedures”. The lecturers can also specify different approaches, from which the students can then choose in different social forms depending on the task.

A third category analyzed in relation to fostering creativity in higher education teaching was called interaction. Creativity is fostered, according to the interviewees, by students working together in different social forms, e.g., partner or group work. “Teamwork”, “interaction between students”, “different social forms”, “generating and discussing new things together with others” were typical responses in this cluster.

Creative learning settings also require a high level of (cognitive) activity on the part of the students, according to the interview partners, as is also found in constructivist learning settings. Therefore, the following responses were assigned the cluster student activity: “High self-involvement of learners”, “high activation of the participants”, “constructivist learning settings”, “highly active learners”, “activation of the resources of the learners”.

The interviewees also closely associated creativity with solving problems in the lesson. The problems to be solved in the lesson result on the one hand from the theoretical inputs imparted and on the other hand from the challenges of school practice, which are to be further developed or solved for one’s own teaching. The focus is on generating solutions, which is why this response cluster was named accordingly. The solutions developed are then made visible to the lecturer in learning products, e.g., learning videos, role plays as well as the use of digital tools. Responses assigned to this were “finding solutions”, “possibility to develop different approaches to solutions” and “designing settings in which students design their own solutions”.

The following table (cf. Table  2 ) summarizes the clusters that emerged from the data collected for creativity-promoting measures.

Creativity techniques

The interviewees were also asked about the use of creativity techniques (‘What creativity techniques do you use in your courses?‘).

Most lecturers reported to use “ brainstorming” and “mindmapping” , occasionally “design thinking” was mentioned as well. Responses like the following show that that some interviewees have little knowledge in the field of creativity techniques. For example, interviewee one said: “Yes, I used that. I just didn’t realize that it promotes creativity. Really, brainstorming promotes creativity?” [interviewee_1]. Another interviewee responded: “I do brainstorming, sure, but no, I don’t associate that with creativity” [interviewee_2]. In addition, it appeared that some of the interviewees had little knowledge about creativity techniques. “I don’t know that many [authors: creativity techniques are meant] by name consciously. What comes to my mind now is mindmapping or brainstorming. I don’t know if that also falls under creativity technique…” [interviewee_8]. More than the majority of the interviewees also confused creativity techniques with creative teaching methods such as structure laying, world cafe and playing bingo. Here responses like the following were given: “All [authors: all creativity techniques are usesd]. Brainstorming always, (…). (…). We have also just done introductory games, bingo games on the topic of heterogeneity” [interviewee_5].

Application of the ‘6-Facet-model’

The interviewees were also asked how they implement the single categories of the ‘6-Facet Model’ of Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) in their modules. The findings for the following questions are presented below: ‘The following characteristics promote creativity in courses: (1) Reflection of learning in the learning process, (2) promotion of independent learning, (3) promotion of curiosity, enthusiasm and motivation to learn, (4) creation of learning products, (5) multiple perspectives, (6) encouraging new ideas. Please describe as precisely as possible whether and how you promote these characteristics in your course!

Due to the pedagogical freedom of the lecturer, i.e., a certain discretionary and decision-making scope within the teaching, the individual categories of the ‘6-Facet Model’ of Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) are, however, implemented very differently in practice. Basically, all categories of Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) can be found in all modules. However, the type of implementation in the individual modules determines the importance of the particular category for promoting creativity. For example, reflection is given greater importance in the context of a “reflection text” than in merely orally posed “reflection questions”. With regard to the promotion of independent learning, for instance, it makes a difference whether modules contain large or small “proportions of self-study” or whether independent learning only takes place as part of “work assignments” etc.

Reflection on learning is applied in different forms, e.g., in the form of “orally formulated reflection questions”, “reflection texts”, “reflection works” which at the same time serves as performance records, “learning portfolios/journals”, “peer-reviews” and complete “reflection modules”.

Promotion of independent learning is used in the following ways: “Differentiated assignments”, “work assignments with individual reference”, “self-organized learning sequence” with large or small “proportions of self-study” and “setting own learning objectives”.

The question about fostering curiosity, enthusiasm, and motivation to learn was answered very differently by the interviewees. Some answers which were given based on the own person/personality of the lecturer. These answers included the following: “Being a role model, as a teacher, as a lecturer” and “being motivated and enthusiastic as a lecturer”. Another response scheme was based on the learning content. Typical answers were “current relevance of the topic” and “establishing a reference to everyday professional life”. Current relevance of the topic means a reference to current issues, such as climate change, etc. The third scheme that could be identified can be attributed to didactics. Under this scheme, the following answers can be summarized: “multifaceted events”, “motivating start of lessons”, “enabling competence experience” and “use of digital tools”.

The creation of learning products is very important in all courses. Often the learning products have a direct relation to the classroom, i.e., products can be used directly in the classroom like “learning sequences” etc. Other learning products reflect and document the students’ own learning or level of achievement. Such reflective learning products can be the “reflection on a protocol of a classroom visit”, “learning journals” etc. The learning products created are also innovative in terms of their form, e.g., “explanatory videos”, “short films”, “texts”, “presentation” and “posters”.

Interviewees promote multiple perspectives in terms of teacher and learner perspectives. The general education subject also promotes environmental, economic and political perspectives.

New ideas of students were encouraged in various ways by the interviewed lecturers. Some of the interviewees give “innovative assignments” , i.e., trying out new things in the classroom, and use “innovative methods” like a book vernissage where each student has to present a book or keeping a “book of ideas” in their courses. Others promote the “exchange of experiences” , also in the sense of a “peer-review” , i.e., two or three people assess assignments and ideas on the basis of previously defined criteria. In addition, students are “verbally encouraged to try new ideas” and read “professional literature”.

The table below (cf. Table  3 ) gives an overview of the application of the ‘6-Facet Model’ of Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) in the courses of the interviewed lecturers.

In our study, the following two research questions were addressed: (1) What conceptualizations do lecturers have of creativity ((a.) creativity in their job as a lecturer and (b.) student creativity) in higher vocational teacher education and (2) how is creativity fostered in higher vocational teacher education?

Our study findings show that lecturers’ conceptions of creativity ((a.) creativity in their job as a lecturer and (b.) student creativity) in higher vocational teacher education are very complex. However, previous research findings (cf. Kettler et al. 2018 ; Mullet et al. 2016 ) on the conceptualization of creativity can be confirmed by our study: Accordingly, the surveyed lecturers in higher vocational teacher education also recognize that novel or original products are a part of creativity, but they fail to consider utility or usefulness as an attribute of creativity. Interviewees believe that (a) creativity means creating something new in the context of being a lecturer. Thus, lecturers associate the first criterion of the standard definition, novelty or originality, with creativity in their lecturing job. The second criterion of the standard definition, utility or usefulness, on the other hand, is not associated by lecturers in higher education in our study with creativity in their job. Furthermore, no common understanding of the interviewed lecturers regarding (b.) student creativity in higher vocational teacher education could be identified. Therefore, we have developed a ‘5-Category-Model’ in accordance to the ‘6-Facet-Model’ of Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) by which lecturers ‘see’ the creativity of the students of higher teacher education. From the lecturer’s perspective, in our study, student creativity is expressed through (1) self-reflective learning, (2) independent learning, (3) showing curiosity and motivation, (4) producing something and (5) developing original, new solutions. Unlike the ‘6-Facet-Model’ of Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ), our model does not include the category ‘multiple perspectives’, which could not be derived from the statements made in the interviews.

The findings of our study have also shown that creativity in higher vocational teacher education can be promoted through measures that, according to the surveyed lecturers, are assigned to the following categories: Openness, individualization, interaction, high student activity and generating solutions. The findings also show that the surveyed lecturers use only three types of creativity techniques (mindmapping, brainstorming and occasionally design thinking). There also appears to be uncertainty among faculty in this area, as a large number of those surveyed, confused creativity techniques with creative teaching methods. The uncertainty of the interviewed lecturers regarding creativity techniques also confirms Jackson’s (2006) thesis that lecturers usually have little knowledge about teaching/learning scenarios in higher education that promote creativity. The individual categories of the ‘6-Facet Model’ of Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ) are implemented very differently in the individual modules. Basically, references to all categories can be found in all modules of the interviewed lecturers. Here, the type of implementation determines the implementation depth of the individual category.

Our study is limited in its representativeness due to the small size of the sample. The findings are therefore not universally valid and apply only to our survey context. In principle, it would be interesting to repeat this study with a larger sample size or to extend it to other professional groups. In this way, a generally valid definition of student creativity in higher education could possibly be generated or student creativity could be discussed against the background of different professional backgrounds. Furthermore, it would be interesting to validate the ‘5-Category-Model’ we developed in school-based practice and determine if perceptions of student creativity differ between university faculty and teachers in vocational education and training.

Further, our study should help encourage discussion about the teaching of creativity and other transversal skills in higher teacher education. Against this background, the question arises whether the instruction of transversal skills for prospective teachers should be a task of higher teacher education in the future.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Creativity can be taught in the context of any discipline (Cachia et al. 2010 ).

Authors: These responses refer to students’ learning process, progression, and learning output.

Alshebami AS, Seraj AHA, Alzain E (2022) Lecturers’ Creativity and Students’ entrepreneurial intention in Saudi Arabia. Vision 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629221099596

Anderson RC, Katz-Buonincontro J, Bousselot T, Mattson D, Beard N, Land J, Livie M (2022) How am I a creative teacher? Beliefs, values, and affect for integrating creativity in the classroom. Teach Teacher Educ 110:103583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103583

Article   Google Scholar  

Bloom EA, Vanslyke-Briggs K (2019) The demise of Creativity in Tomorrow’s Teachers. J Inq Action Educ 10:5

Google Scholar  

Bryman A (2008) Social research methods, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

Cachia R, Ferrari A, Ala-Mutka KM, Punie Y (2010) Creative learning and innovative teaching: final report on the study on Creativity and Innovation in Education in EU Member States. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

Calero López I, Rodríguez-López B (2020) The relevance of transversal competences in vocational education and training: a bibliometric analysis. Empir Res Voc Ed Train 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-020-00100-0

Chan DW, Chan L (1999) Implicit theories of Creativity. Teachers’ perception of students characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Res J 12:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3

Corazza GE (2016) Potential originality and effectiveness. The dynamic definition of Creativity. Creativity Res J 28(3):258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627

Csikszentmihalyi M (2007) Developing creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education (pp. xviii-xx). Routledge, London

Findeisen S, Wild S (2022) General digital competences of beginning trainees in commercial vocational education and training. Empir Res Voc Ed Train 14:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-022-00130-w

Fiori M, Fischer S, Barabasch A (2022) Creativity is associated with higher well-being and more positive COVID-19 experience. Pers Indiv Differ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111646

Forgeard M (2018) Creativity for Mental Health. Seeking new answers to an old question. Creativity. Theor Res Appl 5(2):165–169. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2018-0014

Gibson R (2010) The ‘art’ of creative teaching. Implications for higher education. Teach High Educ 15(5):607–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.493349

Grigorenko EL (2019) Creativity. A challenge for contemporary education. Comp Educ 55(1):116–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.154166

Hosseini A (2011) University student’s evaluation of creative education in universities and their impact on their learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 15:1806–1812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.007

Hwang SY (2017) Rethinking creativity. Present in expression in creative learning communities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49 (3), 220–230, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1225559

Islam MN, Sumarmi S, Putra AK, Sugiyati P, Salsabilah S (2021) The effect of interactive blended-problem based learning assisted virtual classroom on critical thinking skills of students of the society era 5.0. Jurnal Geografi Gea 21(2). https://doi.org/10.17509/gea.v21i2.38862

Jackson N (2006) Creativity in higher education. Creating tipping points for cultural change. SCEPTrE Sch Paper 3(1):1–25

Jackson N, Oliver M, Shaw M, Wisdom J (eds) (2007) Developing creativity in higher education. Routledge, London

Jahnke I, Liebscher J (2020) Three types of integrated course designs for using mobile technologies to support creativity in higher education. Comput Educ 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103782

Jahnke I, Haertel T, Wildt J (2015) Teachers’ conceptions of student creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1088396

Kaplan D (2019) Creativity in Education. Teaching for Creativity Development. Psychology 10:140–147. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.102012

Kapoor H, Kaufman JC (2020) Meaning-making through Creativity during COVID-19. Front Psychol 11:595990. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.595990

Kaufman JC, Beghetto RC (2009) Beyond Big and Little. The Four C Model of Creativity. Rev Gen Psychol 13(1):1–12

Kettler T, Lamb KN, Willerson A, Mullet DR (2018) Teachers’ perceptions of Creativity in the Classroom. Creativity Res J 30(2):164–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446503

Klieme E et al (2007) Expertise zur Entwicklung nationaler Bildungsstandards. Eine Expertise [Expertise on the development of national educational standards. An expertise]. BMBF, Bonn

Kumar A, Chahar MS (2016) Creativity in relation to students’ perceived classroom goal structure and academic self-efficacy. International Education and Research Journal (IERJ) , 2 (12). Retrieved from http://ierj.in/journal/index.php/ierj/article/view/542 (March 28, 2023)

Leone D (2001) Die Förderung der Kreativität in der Berufsschule. [The promotion of creativity in vocational school]. Z für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik 97(3):375–403

Lubart TI, Zenasni F, Bardot B (2013) Creative potential and its measurement. Int J Talent Dev Creativity 1(2):41–51

Machali I, Wibowo A, Murfi A, Narmaditya BS (2021) From teachers to students creativity? The mediating role of entrepreneurial education. Cogent Educ 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1943151

Matraeva AD, Rybakova MV, Vinichenko MV, Oseev AA, Ljapunova NV (2020) Development of Creativity of students in higher Educational Institutions: Assessment of students and experts. Univers J Educational Res 8:8–16. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080102

Mayring P, Fenzl T (2019) Qualitative inhaltsanalyse [Qualitative content analysis]. In: Baur N, Blasius J (eds) Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 2nd edn. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Mullet DR, Willerson A, Lamb KN, Kettler T (2016) Examining teacher perceptions of creativity. A systematic review of the literature. Think Skills Creativity 21:9–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001

Papaleontiou- Louca E, Varnava-Marouchou D, Mihai S, Konis E (2014) Teaching for Creativity in Universities. J Educ Hum Dev 3(4):131–154. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v3n4a13

Pavlović J, Maksić S (2019) Implicit theories of creativity in higher education. A constructivist study. J Constructivist Psychol 32(3):254–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2018.1477639

Pfeiffer SI, Wechsler SM (2013) Youth leadership. A proposal for identifying and developing creativity and giftedness. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas) 30(2):219–229. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-166X2013000200008

Piske FHR, Stoltz T, Vestena CLB, de Freitas SP, de Fátima Bastos Valentim B, de Oliveira CS, de Oliveira Machado Barby AA, Lopes Machado C (2016) Barriers to Creativity, identification and inclusion of Gifted Student. Creative Educ 7:1899–1905. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.71419

Rauner F (2019) Kreativität. Ein Merkmal der modernen Berufsbildung und wie sie gefördert werden kann [Creativity. A characteristic of modern vocational education and training and how it can be promoted]. Lit Verlag, Berlin

Robinson K (2011) Out of our minds. Learning to be creative. Capstone, West Sussex, UK

Runco MA, Jaeger GJ (2012) The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Res J 24(1):92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Siburian J, Corebima AD, Ibrohim, Saptasari M (2019) The correlation between critical and creative thinking skills on cognitive learning results. Eurasian J Educational Res 81:99–114. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.81.6

Silvia PJ, Kaufman JC, Pretz JE (2009) Is Creativity Domain-Specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychol Aesthet Creativity Arts 3:139–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014940

Simonton DK (2012) Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria seriously. A quantitative three-criterion Creativity Definition and its implications. Creativity Res J. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676974

Skiba T, Tan M, Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL (2010) Roads not taken, New Roads to take. In: Beghetto RA, Kaufman JC (eds) Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 252–269

Sternberg RJ (2006) The nature of creativity. Creativity Res J 18:87–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10

Tang M, Hofreiter S, Reiter-Palmon R, Bai X, Murugavel V (2021) Creativity as a Means to Well-Being in Times of COVID-19 pandemic. Results of a cross-cultural study. Front Psychol 12:601389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.601389

Weinstein EC, Clark Z, DiBartolomeo DJ, Davis K (2014) A decline in Creativity? It depends on the Domain. Creativity Res J 26(2):174–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901082

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2020) The future of Jobs. WEF, Geneva

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Vocational Education and Training, Lucerne University of Teacher Education, Canton of Lucerne, Frohburgstr. 3, Lucerne, 6002, Switzerland

Silke Fischer

Research and Development, Swiss Federal University for Vocational Education and Training (SFUVET), Canton of Berne, Kirchlindachstr. 79, Zollikofen, 3052, Switzerland

Antje Barabasch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SF: conceptualisation, data collection, data analysis, writing, editing. AB: conceptualisation, editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silke Fischer .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

“The authors declare that they have no competing interests.”

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fischer, S., Barabasch, A. Conceptualizations and implementation of creativity in higher vocational teacher education – a qualitative study of lecturers. Empirical Res Voc Ed Train 15 , 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-023-00144-y

Download citation

Received : 01 November 2022

Accepted : 26 May 2023

Published : 05 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-023-00144-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Teacher education
• Empirical study
• Vocational education and training

Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking in Science Education

• First Online: 31 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin 6  

947 Accesses

1 Citations

What does it mean to redesign teaching and learning within existing science curricula (and learning objectives) so that students have more space and appropriate tasks to develop their creative and critical thinking skills? The chapter begins by describing the development of a portfolio of rubrics on creativity and critical thinking, including a conceptual rubric on science tested in primary and secondary education in 11 countries. Teachers in school networks adopted teaching and learning strategies aligned to the development of creativity and critical thinking, to these OECD rubrics. Examples of lesson plans and pedagogies that were developed are given, and some key challenges for teachers and learners are reflected on.

The analyses given and the opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD and of its members.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Many project-based science units/ courses initially develop “Driving Questions” to contextualise the unit and give learners opportunities to connect the unit to their own experiences and prior ideas.

Adler, L., Bayer, I., Peek-Brown, D., Lee, J., & Krajcik, J. (2017). What controls my health . https://www.oecd.org/education/What-Controls-My-Health.pdf

Davies, M. (2015). In R. Barnett (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education . Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking . England: Penguin.

Google Scholar  

Ennis, R. (1996). Critical thinking . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ennis, R. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37 (1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Facione, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . Research findings and recommendations prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED315423

Feynman, R. (1963). The Feynman lectures on physics . (Volume I: The New Millennium Edition: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat.). Basic Books.

Feynman, R. (1955). The value of science. In R. Leighton (Ed.), What do you care what other people think? Further adventures of a curious character (pp. 240–257). Penguin Books.

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world, change the world . Corwin Press and Ontario Principals’ Council.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5 (9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487 .

Hitchcock, D. (2018). Critical thinking. In Zalta, E.N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition). Retrieved from : https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-thinking .

Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO . Currency: America’s leading design firm.

Lubart, T. (2000). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (3–4), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07 .

Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. In OECD education working papers, 86 . Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4dp59msdwk-en .

Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2017). Teaching creative thinking: Developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically . England: Crown House Publishing.

McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education . New York: St. Martin’s.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 (3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850 .

Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2014). Creativity in 21st century education. Prospects, 44 (4), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9322-1 .

Paddock, W., Erwin, S., Bielik, T., & Krajcik, J. (2019). Evaporative cooling . Retrieved from : https://www.oecd.org/education/Evaporative-Cooling.pdf

Rennie, L. (2020). Communicating certainty and uncertainty in science in out-of-school contexts. In D. Corrigan, C. Buntting, A. Jones, & A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Values in science education: The shifting sands (pp. 7–30). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Runco, M. A. (2009). Critical thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 449–452) . Academic.

Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., & Samela-Aro, K. (2020). Learning science: The value of crafting engagement in science environments . United States: Yale University.

Book   Google Scholar  

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigm. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–14). England: Cambridge University.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms. Technical manual research edition; Verbal Tests, Forms A and B, Figural Tests, Forms A and B . Princeton, NJ: Personnel.

Torrance, E. P. (1970). Encouraging creativity in the classroom . United States: W.C. Brown.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking in education: What it means in school . Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Directorate for Education and Skills, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France

Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Amanda Berry

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Cathy Buntting

Deborah Corrigan

Richard Gunstone

Alister Jones

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2021). Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking in Science Education. In: Berry, A., Buntting, C., Corrigan, D., Gunstone, R., Jones, A. (eds) Education in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_3

Published : 31 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85299-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85300-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

BTLSC Seminar: “Fostering Creative Thinking in Higher Education: Strategies for Classroom Implementation” from the perspectives of a Psychologist, Philosopher, and Educator”, Linnea McCully, 12:30Noon April 17 2024 (EN)

We invite you to the forthcoming “Fostering Creative Thinking in Higher Education: Strategies for Classroom Implementation” seminar. The seminar is scheduled for the 17th April at 12:30 via Zoom.

Abstract: What role can creative thinking play in university classrooms? This seminar will delve into the importance of integrating creative thinking into classrooms. We will define creative thinking, explore its significance, and learn practical ideas for implementation. Participants will gain insights into fostering an environment conducive to innovation and originality within academic settings.

We look forward to your presence at this gathering.

Information for:

• International Students
• Exchange Students
• Faculty / Staff
• Prospective Students