FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND DEEPER LEARNING … · CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND...
Transcript of FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND DEEPER LEARNING … · CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND...
1 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND DEEPER
LEARNING WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
RESEARCH SERIES
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING
AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE
INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Research & Information Services
Toronto District School Board
November 2017
Report No. 17/18-11
2 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
About this Project: This report is the result of an I2Q pilot project implemented by the Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC), TDSB Teaching and Learning Department and TDSB Research and Information Services led by Research Coordinator Erhan Sinay.
TITLE: Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research Series: Creativity and Innovation in Teaching and Learning: A Focus on Innovative Intelligence (I2Q) Pilot Program
AUTHORS: Erhan Sinay, Ashley Nahornick, and Dimitris Graikinis
Copyright © Toronto District School Board (November 2017) Cite as: Sinay, E., Nahornick, A., & Graikinis, D. (2017). Fostering global competencies and deeper learning with digital technologies research series: Creativity and innovation in teaching and learning: A focus on innovative intelligence (I2Q) pilot program (Research Report No. 17/18-11). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board. Reproduction of this document for use in the schools of the Toronto District School Board is encouraged. For any other purpose, permission must be requested and obtained in writing from: Research & Information Services Toronto District School Board 1 Civic Centre Court, Lower Level Etobicoke, ON M9C 2B3 Fax: 416-394-4946 Every reasonable precaution has been taken to trace the owners of copyrighted material and to make due acknowledgement. Any omission will gladly be rectified in future printings. R02(STEM\2016-17\Deep Learning and GC Reports\Research Series 7\GC Research Series – Fostering Creativity and Innovation I2Q)es.1485
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 9
Students’ Innovative Characteristics ........................................................................................ 10
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions of Implicit Conceptions of Creativity ................... 10
Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors .................................................................. 10
School and District Support of Teaching Innovative Thinking .................................................. 11
Teachers’ and Administrator’s’ Perception about the Effectiveness of the Professional
Learning Workshops ................................................................................................................. 11
Policy Implications .................................................................................................................... 12
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION - BACKGROUND AND RATIONAL ...................................................... 15
Building Innovative Capacity at the TDSB – A Pilot Study ........................................................ 15
SECTION II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................................................... 18
Creativity and Innovative Thinking as They Relate to Education: School Supports ................. 18
Creativity ............................................................................................................................... 18
Innovation and Innovative Thinking ..................................................................................... 19
Creativity in the Classroom ................................................................................................... 20
Teachers’ Perceptions and Conceptions of Creativity .......................................................... 21
School Supports of Innovative Teaching ............................................................................... 22
Best Instructional Practices Promoting Creativity and Innovation ........................................... 23
Trends in Learning Sciences ...................................................................................................... 26
21st Century Learning Global Competencies ........................................................................ 26
21st Century Learning Global Competencies and Creativity ................................................. 27
Innovative Teaching Practices .................................................................................................. 28
SECTION III: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 34
Participants ............................................................................................................................... 34
Professional Learning ................................................................................................................ 35
Data Collection Procedures and Study Surveys ........................................................................ 35
Safeguards for Confidentiality .................................................................................................. 38
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................ 38
4 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Data Analysis Strategy .............................................................................................................. 39
Conceptual Research Framework ............................................................................................. 40
SECTION IV: SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 42
Demographics of Participants ................................................................................................... 42
Students’ Demographics ....................................................................................................... 42
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Demographics ...................................................................... 43
Students’ Innovative Characteristics ........................................................................................ 45
Professional Engagement after Graduation ......................................................................... 45
Family Member Owning a Business ...................................................................................... 46
School Subjects and Creativity .............................................................................................. 47
Creativity ............................................................................................................................... 47
Risk-Propensity ..................................................................................................................... 50
Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 51
Leadership ............................................................................................................................. 52
Energy ................................................................................................................................... 53
Problem-Solving .................................................................................................................... 55
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions, Conceptions, and Behaviors about Creativity and
Innovative Teaching .................................................................................................................. 56
Perceptions and Implicit Conceptions of Creativity ............................................................. 57
Overall Creativity Results ...................................................................................................... 57
Creativity in School ............................................................................................................... 58
Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors .............................................................. 59
Creativity Fostering Teaching Strategies .............................................................................. 61
Teaching Styles ...................................................................................................................... 61
School and District Support of Innovative Teaching ................................................................. 63
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions about the Workshop Effectiveness ..................... 65
SECTION V: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 68
SECTION VI: RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 70
School Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 70
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 5
Make the Classroom a Place of Creativity and Innovation ................................................... 70
Allow Students to Focus on One Thing at a Time ................................................................. 70
Focus on Improving Student Risk-Propensity ....................................................................... 70
District Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 71
Continue Providing Ongoing Professional Learning on Creativity and Innovation: Educator
Professional Learning Improves Student Creativity ............................................................. 71
Continue the Ideaction Workshops ...................................................................................... 71
Provide Additional Professional Learning Opportunities ..................................................... 71
Schools Should Feel More Open to Change.......................................................................... 72
Create Stronger Connections for Creativity and Innovation in Ontario Ministry Of Education
Curriculum ............................................................................................................................. 72
Schools/Districts Should Provide More Opportunities for Partnerships for Teachers Beyond
School .................................................................................................................................... 72
Methodological Recommendations .......................................................................................... 72
SECTION VII: POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 73
Official Policy and Policy Coordination ..................................................................................... 75
Leadership and Supports .......................................................................................................... 76
Contemporary Learning Environments ..................................................................................... 76
Professional Learning ................................................................................................................ 77
Professional Learning in Ontario .............................................................................................. 77
Professional Learning Models ................................................................................................... 78
Assessment of Learning Skills & Global Competencies ............................................................ 79
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 82
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................... 91
Teachers’ Teaching Styles ......................................................................................................... 91
6 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
This publication contains pages that have been left intentionally blank for proper pagination when printing.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank and acknowledge the support and contributions of the following authors in this study: Research Framework, Proposal Development, Survey Design, Analysis and Charts:
Margaret Douglin, Research Assistant
Gerty Chiau, Research & Information Analyst, Research & Information Services, Toronto District School
Board
Helen Fisher, Central Coordinating Principal, Model Schools for Inner City, Toronto District School Board
Simona Emiliani, Co-ordinator, Elementary, Model Schools for Inner City, Toronto District School Board
Claude Legrand, The author of Innovative Intelligence and Managing Partner of Ideaction Inc.
Permissions to use and adapt all or part of their survey tools:
Chang Zhu, Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Elizabeth Chell, Professor of Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Kingston University, United Kingdom and
Rosemary Athayde, Senior Researcher, Kingston University, United Kingdom
Robert H. Ennis, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Panagiotis G. Kampylis, Researcher, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, S
Eleni Berki, University of Tampere, Department of Computer Sciences, Tampere, Finland
Pertti Saariluoma, University of Jyväskylä, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems,
Jyväskylä, Finland
Romina Cachia & Anusca Ferrari, The European Commission's Joint Research Centre
Yonghong Cai, Professor in Education at Beijing Normal University in China
Di Wang, Faculty of Education , Beijing Normal University , Beijing , China
Nadine Engels, Professor, Vrije Universiteit, Brussel.
Soh, Kay-Cheng, Senior Fellow, Psychological Studies, National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore.
8 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) currently nurtures creativity and innovation through
many pockets of innovative programs in educational technology, entrepreneurial thinking, and
global learning and competences. The present research aims to monitor in 2014-15 and in the
subsequent years (2015-17)1 of the implementation of the Innovative Intelligence (I2Q) Pilot
Program. The I2Q Pilot Program, which runs in the TDSB’s Model Schools for Inner Cities
(MSIC)2, is filled with explicit training for teachers and administrators on teaching children the
skills and behaviors of innovative thinking. In addition, in this report we are reporting on the
Grade 5 and 7 TDSB students’ innovative characteristics, the TDSB teachers’ and administrators’
perceptions, conceptions, and teaching strategies about creativity and innovative teaching, and
the school/district support of creativity and innovation. We also studied the empirical research
on the best instructional practices promoting the students’ creativity, innovation, and
innovative thinking and the current trends in learning sciences. To provide recommendations to
TDSB educators, policy decision makers, and researchers, we triangulated all of the findings
with this focus-intervention study.
The study design included a program and control group. The teachers and administrators of the
program group participated in professional learning sessions provided by Ideaction on teaching
innovative thinking and innovative problem solving compared to the control group who did not.
Students in Grade 5 and 7 were asked a series of statements about innovative characteristics of
young people. The students of the program group included those whose teachers and
administrators participated in professional learning sessions provided by Ideaction. The
students of the control group received regular teaching from teachers and administrators who
did not participate in professional learning sessions. Following is a brief summary of the results
of the study and summary of conclusions to the following research questions:
What are the innovative characteristics of students in Grades 5 and 7?
What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and implicit conceptions of creativity?
What are the teachers’ creativity-fostering teaching behaviors?
How does the school/district support innovative teaching?
What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the workshops provided by Ideaction?
1 These timelines are based on the partnership agreement between TDSB and Ideaction in 2014-15. 2 For more information on the MSIC Schools please visit: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/community/modelschoolsforinnercities.aspx
10 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Students’ Innovative Characteristics
Overall, students in both the program and control groups believe creativity is important and
would describe themselves as creative, they feel they are good at putting ideas together to
come up with something new, and they like accomplishing difficult tasks. In addition, almost
three-quarters of the students would describe themselves as energetic, but even with that in
mind, many students said they do not like having a lot of things on the go.
Approximately three quarters of students would describe themselves as risk-takers and the
students in both the program and control groups enjoy working on problem-solving activities.
Specifically, they find it rewarding to help others solve problems, they like working on problems
in a variety of ways, and they like working on problems as a team. Nonetheless, there were
some statistical differences among the results for the students in the program and control
groups.
Students in the program group, whose teachers participated in the professional learning on
creativity and innovation, felt more comfortable telling others what to do, demonstrated a
stronger affinity to take on leadership roles, were more willing to encourage others to follow
their ideas when working in a group, and enjoyed being the leaders of a group.
The results also show a statistical difference among program and control group in the likelihood
of students being creative in different school subjects. Students in the program group believe
that it is more likely for students to express their creativity in environmental studies, language
arts, mathematics, and science than the students in the control group.
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions of Implicit Conceptions of Creativity
Teachers and administrators were asked about their perceptions of creativity. Overall, teachers
and administrators believe creativity is a fundamental skill accessible to all students in all
subject areas. Nearly all teachers and administrators believe: (1) everyone can be creative, (2)
creativity is a fundamental skill, and (3) creativity is important in a wide range of subject areas.
In addition, teachers and administrators believe students can be creative in variety of subject
areas, however, some felt it was more difficult for students to be creative in Foreign Languages.
Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors
Teachers in the program and control groups had very similar creativity-fostering teaching
behaviors. The most common teaching strategies among all the teachers to foster creativity
included: (1) problem-solving, (2) inquiry learning, (3) high-level questioning, and (4) open-
ended questioning.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 11
All of the teachers in the program and control groups believe creativity in the classroom does
not foster “chaos” in the classroom. They also invariably believe that creativity in the classroom
does not lead to negative standardized testing results.
Many teachers, in both groups, discussed how they strive to create a collaborative classroom as
a way to foster creativity, but fewer teachers focused on giving student opportunities to
improve their judgement and evaluation skills. Teachers in the control group were more likely
to agree with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom is not facilitated by the
Ontario Ministry of Education”, than teachers in the program group.
School and District Support of Teaching Innovative Thinking
Overall, teachers felt the school/district support teaching innovative thinking. Teachers in both
the control and program groups felt school leaders are willing to listen to their thoughts and
ideas. Even so, the results showed a few differences between teachers in the control and
program group including the following: many teachers in the program group felt schools are not
open to change, many teachers in the program group felt that in their school, and teachers do
not work as a team. Teachers in the program group felt their schools do not create
opportunities for partnerships beyond schools, whereas teachers in the control group felt their
schools did.
Teachers were also asked to discuss any professional learning opportunities they would like to
see to help improve creativity fostering teaching and the following were suggested:
demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, time to try the various activities and ways
to modify/simplify the program for younger students. However, there were also a few teachers
who indicated they have not had any discussion or professional learning about creativity fostering
teaching. This could be something the program implementation team could focus on.
Based on these results, TDSB schools seem to be providing a supportive environment for
innovative teaching behaviors, but the district could focus on improving the number of
opportunities for professional learning, on partnerships, and on the maintenance of a school
environment open to change.
Teachers’ and Administrator’s’ Perception about the Effectiveness of the Professional Learning Workshops
Overall, the teachers in the program group felt very positive about the professional learning
sessions provided by Ideaction. Ninety-five percent (95%) of teachers strongly agreed or agreed
that the professional learning was overall beneficial and 89% of teachers in the program group
believed that attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat
12 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
positive impact on them. In addition, 100% of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they
gained new information on creativity and innovation from the workshops.
Policy Implications
Building innovation capacity for teaching and learning at schools across Canada will allow
school districts to remain leaders in education. However, “Innovation is not just about ideas
that don’t have any framework” (Malloy, 2016a). For innovation to take place, schools need
long-term strategies. The TDSB currently nurtures creativity and innovation through many
pockets of innovative programs and the cultivation of these student global competencies are
part of its current policy. The narrative for innovation for the TDSB was put forward by the
Director of Education in the spring of 2016: Unleashing Learning is a new vision for learning at
the TDSB, which provides the framework where student creativity, together with the other
global competencies of critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration and
leadership, and global citizenship and character can flourish (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: TDSB’s Unleashing Learning: A New Vision for Learning
Source: Malloy, 2016b, p. 11
Capacity, however, by its very nature is built on existing organizational structures and ways of
knowing. As new promising approaches and initiatives to increase teaching and learning
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 13
emerge, the TDSB can take advantage of the experience and the brilliant work currently present
at the system level. As the TDSB’s Director acknowledges, there is already much innovation
built in the TDSB: “We are not starting at some new path; we are not moving to some new
direction that it doesn’t have a significant platform. Build on what has been, we are moving
forward” (Malloy, 2016a). There are several avenues at the district and school level that can be
pursued to foster creativity and innovation within Unleashing Learning.
a. A Well-Articulated View for the Future is essential in fostering creativity in students. In
Ontario, a well-organized push is in process to improve creativity and innovation. Investments
in technology and innovative teaching practices are seen as a vehicle for increasing the
opportunities for student-centered work. The TDSB is pursuing these aims through many
pockets of innovation. Examples can include the Teaching and Learning Educational Technology
Plan and additional initiatives that further develop entrepreneurship skills in its students and
teachers.
b. Official Policy and Policy Coordination must promote creativity and innovation. As official
policy is the engine behind any change, it must be placed at the forefront of promoting
creativity and innovation. Specifically, the types of professional learning available, assessment
practices used, and curriculum policies in place must align themselves, along with adequate
funding, to this goal.
c. Leadership and Supports must guide administrators, teachers, parents, students, and
communities towards the goal of creativity and innovation. This happens through transparent
and authentic reportage of progress to all stakeholders by leadership. Support of leadership is
essential. One of the best support mechanisms is coaches who act as agents of change by
training teachers to enact specific initiatives and lead changes in school culture. Along with
quality leadership, resources and support staff are imperative to promote creativity and
innovation.
d. Contemporary Learning Environments are important to grow as a means to develop
creativity and innovation. The environments must support diverse ideas and perspectives and
allow students the opportunity to learn from trying new things and struggling with tasks that do
not have an immediate solution. Further, the physical environment should provide
collaborative spaces for group project work, connected classroom capabilities, and seamless
technological integration.
e. Professional Learning is crucial for any initiative to take hold as teachers must be trained in
order to achieve specific goals such as increased creativity and innovation. Professional learning
gives teachers and administrators new ideas and practices and helps create a sense of
14 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
belonging and purpose affiliated to the topic of the professional learning. With programs such
as the Teacher Learning and Leadership Program, Ontario is at the forefront of promoting
professional learning.
f. Professional Learning Models must be employed through the year in an organization looking
to carry out complicated initiatives. Both formal, (including professional learning days, school
based initiatives, and visits to other schools) and informal (learning partnerships, study groups,
personal learning networks) professional learnings have each been shown to promote growth
in areas such as creativity and innovation. The combination of formal and informal professional
learning is essential to have teachers and administrators explore new ideas, try new things, and
grow as educators.
g. Assessment of Learning Skills including assessment of 21st century skills is imperative. As
many of the 21st century skills are not easily quantifiable, new methods to assess them are
required. With this in mind, standardized testing needs to have components beyond merely
memorization and recall and ideally include critical thinking, inquiry, and problem solving
elements. To best assess these skills, research has shown that the assessments must be
sufficiently complex, authentic, and connected to real world examples.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 15
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION - BACKGROUND AND RATIONAL
Successful schools and school systems around the world promote personalized, student-
centered, and skills-based instructional practices to improve students’ innovation and creativity
skills. The concepts of innovation and creativity are increasingly gaining attention among
educational scholars and practitioners (Amabile, 1989; Gustina & Sweet, 2014; Robinson, 2001;
Sawyer, 2006; Vygotsky, 2004). Past research indicated that there is a relationship between
creativity and learning (e.g., Karnes et al, 1961; Torrance, 1981), and creativity can be viewed as
a panacea for the economy, the individual, the society, and the education (Craft & Jeffrey,
2001). In addition, highly creativity capital is valued in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) fields and creativity is linked to a nation’s prosperity (Brink, 2014; C21
Canada, 2012; European Union [EU], 2009; Florida, 2002; National Academy of Sciences, 2007;
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2000; Partnership for 21st
Century Skills [P21], 2004).
Teachers can play a significant part in nurturing students’ creativity and innovation and their
importance of employing innovative teaching to increase students’ creativity has been widely
acknowledged in the literature (Ayverdi, Asker, Öz Aydın, & Sarıtaş, 2012; Beghetto, 2005;
Esquivel, 1995; NACCCE, 1999; Sharp, 2004; Simplicio, 2000). Learning experiences which lead
to creative products and creative processes could be delivered by teachers who are well
prepared to do so. Teachers need to be reminded that “creativity is not mysterious, elitist or
inaccessible” (Simmons & Thompson, 2008, p. 606) and those teachers who are unprepared
may need training to explain what it takes to use innovative teaching leading to the cultivation
of student creativity and innovation.
Building Innovative Capacity at the TDSB – A Pilot Study
As the largest and most diverse school district in Canada, the Toronto District School Board
(TDSB) is an ambitious organization running several pilot programs in educational innovation
(e.g., educational technology, entrepreneurial thinking and global learning - see Sinay, 2014;
Sinay, Resendes & Graikinis, 2015). Taking advantage of the existing innovative capacity and in
an effort to evaluate how the teaching staff can teach innovative thinking/innovative problem
solving to children, the TDSB entered into a three year (2014-17) partnership with Ideaction, a
North American innovation consulting and learning service which has developed and
implemented innovation programs for industries.3 The partnership offers explicit training to
teachers on teaching students the skills and behaviours for innovative thinking. The underlying
assumption is that we can teach classroom teachers and administrators how to teach and foster
3 For further information on Ideaction please see http://www.ideaction.net/
16 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
innovative thinking skills to students (P. Legrand, personal communication, March 11, 2016). By
training how to teach and foster innovative thinking skills to students, one could transform the
existing classroom “into an environment that is infused with excitement, curiosity and genuine
student learning” (Simplicio, 2000, p. 675). Similar partnerships in the past aiming in training
teachers in infusing creativity in their classrooms, reported overwhelming gains in the
willingness of participating teachers to undertake creative approaches in their teaching. For
example, the Creative Partnerships (2010) project in England was formed to support teachers
and related personnel in innovative teaching. It showed that if there is a supportive
environment, teachers and pupils can deliver meaningful results regarding creativity: 92% of
the teachers reported as being more effective in the classroom after attending the Creative
Partnership project. Assuming that the training provided by Ideaction to TDSB’s teachers is
effectively carried out, gains in student innovative thinking and innovative problem solving are
expected, as well as “recognizing there would be a significant impact on the teachers” (C.
Legrand, personal communication, March 11, 2016).
The agreement with Ideaction aims at providing professional learning opportunities for
teachers and administrators in the Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC) program developing
their creativity by teaching innovative thinking/innovative problem solving processes. In
addition, the agreement aims at developing learning modules for use in the classroom and
Ideaction will be responsible to initiate and deliver the “Ideaction Innovative Thinking Skills
Professional Learning Modules” (IITSPLM) during the 2014-15 school years. According to
Ideaction, the overall outcome of these actions will be: a) the development of strategies for
teachers “to teach student innovative skills through the curriculum delivered” and b) the
development of students’ higher order thinking skills4. In 2014-15, “Grade 5 and Grade 7
students from 11 Model Schools participate in a pilot project in partnership with Ideaction. The
project targets teachers and students how to think innovatively while problem-solving” (TDSB,
2016b, para.10). “For the I2Q program, the focus will [be] clearly on innovative
thinking/innovative problem solving”5. According to Legrand, the “I2Q includes some elements
that most people call creativity (or the generation of ideas) but it [is] more than just
creativity”6.
4 Information on this is taken from the Memorandum of Understanding (2014) between the TDSB and Ideaction and Model Schools for Inner Cities – Ideaction Innovative Thinking Skills Professional Learning Modules Implementation Plan. 5 Personal Communication, March 11, 2016 6 Personal Communication, March 11, 2016
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 17
This research aims to monitor the IITSPLM during the 2014-15 school year and the subsequent
years (2015-17). In doing so, we will also review the current literature and triangulate the
current systematic knowledge with what we will learn from this pilot study. More specifically,
this first year study intends to answer the following research questions:
What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and implicit conceptions of creativity?
What are the teachers’ creativity-fostering teaching behaviors?
How does the school/district support innovative teaching?
What are the innovative characteristics of students in Grade 5 and 7?
What are the teachers’ and principals’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the professional learning workshops provided by Ideaction?
18 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
SECTION II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In this section, the review of the literature will summarize relevant research in the area of creativity
and innovation in teaching and learning. The literature review will focus on the following three
areas:
Creativity and innovative thinking as they relate to education: School supports
Best instructional practices to promote students’ creativity and innovation, and
Trends in learning science research.
Creativity and Innovative Thinking as They Relate to Education: School Supports
Creativity
Creativity is a multidimensional concept that has elicited numerous ways to define it. Within the
educational context a clear understanding of creativity is important. Often, creativity is viewed by
teachers through the limiting scope of exclusively artistic or intellectual acuity (Moran, 2010). The
disadvantage with unclear or misguided scope can lead to the view that some people are creative
inherently while others are not (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). Clear understanding of what
creativity is within the educational context provides educators with the tools to aid students in
producing innovative projects, solving problems, and contributing original and useful ideas.
There are varied ways to define creativity. Some useful definitions exist. Anderson’s (1992) view
was that creativity is “nothing more than seeing and acting on new relationships, thereby
bringing them to life” (p. 445). This view point, which notes the importance of originality,
encompasses part of a more nuanced theory of creativity. Originality is commonly associated
with most definitions of creativity (Fouche, 1993), but it isn’t the full picture.
Researchers have combined originality of a product, practice, or idea with the concept of
effectiveness (Cropley 2001, Runco, & Jaeger, 2012). The essence of this view is that in order for
creativity to be present, originality must be connected to achieving some type of tangible end
which has been described in varied literature as being worthwhile, appropriate, and relevant
(Cropley, 1967; Jackson & Messick, 1965; Kneller, 1965).
Originality must be moored with objective social and physical reality in order for creativity to be
present. Gardner (1989) noted, “Creativity is best described as the human capacity to regularly
solve problems or to fashion products in a domain, in a way that is initially novel but ultimately
acceptable in culture” (p. 14). Without a purpose beyond simple originality or novelty,
creativity cannot exist (Cropley, 2001). Heinelt (1974) coined the term quasi-creativity to
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 19
describe when originality exists without effectiveness. An example of quasi-creativity would be
the unstructured creativity of day dreams (Besemer & Trefinger, 1981).
The combination of both these attributes, originality and effectiveness, is well articulated in the
description of creativity posited by Cachia and Ferrari (2009) which maintain creativity “as a
product or process that shows a balance of originality and value. It implies the ability to make
unforeseen connections and to generate new and appropriate ideas.” (p. iii).
Innovation and Innovative Thinking
Creativity and innovation are interrelated, but often mistakenly used interchangeably. Deeper
review of the concepts shows a subtle yet important distinction. Innovation can be defined as a
process, an idea, or a product which “is directed toward achieving a sustainable outcome that
can improve what people do or how they do it” (Weiss & Legrand, 2011, p. 7).
While creativity can be perceived as the infinite source of innovation, innovation can be
perceived as the application and implementation of creativity (EU, 2009; Ferrari, Cachia, &
Punie, 2009; Craft, 2005). Put into other words, creativity is the act or capability of conceiving
of something original, while innovation is the implementation or creation of something new
that has value to others (Hunter, 2013). These acts can be separated as creativity involves
generating original concepts, ideas, and processes while innovation involves actually
implementing the artefacts of creativity.
Both creativity and innovation are affected by the environment where they are expressed and
there are resisters and assisters to creativity, for example, people that either promote or hinder
the creative impetus in individuals (Trefinger, 1995). Similarly, for creativity fostering learning
environments in educational settings to occur, the presence of enablers (conditions or support
mechanisms) must be in place. Examples of enablers include: culture, curriculum, teaching and
learning format, teachers, assessment, technology, and tools development (EU, 2009; Ferrari,
Cachia, & Punie, 2009; Craft, 2005).
Weiss and Legrand (2011) focus on the innovation concept as a process, not an outcome. They
argue that innovation takes place “when people use innovative thinking” and define innovative
thinking as “the process of solving problems by discovering, combining, and arranging insights,
ideas, and methods in new ways” (p. 7) in other words, as “implementing new ideas to create
positive change” (C. Legrand, personal communication, March 11, 2016). According to the same
authors, for innovative thinking to take place by people, several enablers need to be in place,
such as leadership support, supportive culture and organization practices, and skills
development.
20 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Creativity in the Classroom
Contemporary classrooms promote creativity to help prepare students for a rapidly changing
world. Whereas, in the past individuals assimilated to one set of conditions that often remained
constant, present realities require people to adapt several times during their lifetime (Cropley,
2001). It appears that skills learned today are experiencing progressively shorter periods during
which they are valid and do not need to be updated. As a result, schools have been tasked to
help facilitate creative mindsets which allow their students to remain mentally flexible and
adaptable in order to learn new skills on their own (Cropley, 2001).
More flexible, creative thinking and problem solving styles are being promoted in schools.
Guilford (1950) discussed the difference between convergent thinking (that is using existing
information to find one correct answer) and divergent thinking (which generates creative ideas by
exploring many possible solutions). He contended further that schools needed to not only
promote convergent thinking, as they had done historically, but also divergent thinking.
Divergent and convergent thinking was first linked to creative problem solving by Guilford (1959)
and later by others (Dillon, 1982; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Jay & Perkins, 1997; Newell,
Shaw, & Simon, 1962; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). The work of Mumford and his colleagues
suggest that the tensions created during divergent and convergent thinking create new original
categories of creative individuals (Baughman & Mumford, 1995; Mumford, Supinski, Baughman,
Constanza, & Threlfall, 1997; Mumford, Supinski, Threlfall, & Baughman, 1996).
Innovative mindsets and the promotion of innovators is another area current trends in
education are set to explore. Kirton’s original work (1985; 1987; 1989) addressed creativity as a
problem solving process where people are distinguished as adaptors (those who seek to solve a
problem by using knowledge and skills already known to them) and as innovators (those who
seek to solve a problem by reorganizing and rearranging the same problem). Articulating this
point, Kirtron (1976) pushed for the proposal that “everyone can be located on a continuum
ranging from an ability to ‘do things better’ to an ability to ‘do things differently,’ and the ends
of this continuum are labeled adaptive and innovative, respectively” (p. 622). He proposed that
both adapting and innovating are part of the creative problem solving process. However,
innovators and ideators reorganize and restructure current data based on changing variables
and are able to detect opportunities where others fail to do so. Innovators also appear to be
characterized among other things, by higher self-regulation, resilience, confidence, high energy
and confidence.
Cho’s (2003) Dynamic System Model of Creative Problem Solving Ability is another problem
solving process model which assumes that creativity consists of cognitive, affective, and
environmental factors. Creative individuals exhibit both cognitive and personality attributes.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 21
The foundation of the model includes domain-specific knowledge, general knowledge and skills,
and motivation. Ennis’ (2012) contribution to the creative problem solving process is in the area
of critical thinking. To him, critical thinking is defined as “reasonable and reflective thinking
focused on deciding what to believe or do” (para.1). Ideal critical thinkers display a series of
dispositions such as, open-mindedness, desire to be well-informed, judging credibility of
sources, identifying reasons and assumptions, formulating hypotheses, designing experiments,
and drawing conclusions based on evidence.
Cropley (2009) suggested that teachers who foster creativity learning environments provide
sources of inspiration for modeling creative teachers. He summarized the literature and found
that the creativity-fostering teachers are those who:
Encourage students to learn independently
Have a cooperative, socially integrative style of teaching
Do not neglect mastery of factual knowledge
Tolerate “sensible” or bold errors
Promote self-evaluation
Take questions seriously
Offer opportunities to work with varied materials under different conditions
Help students learn to cope with frustration and failure
Reward courage as much as being right. (p. 138)
Teachers’ Perceptions and Conceptions of Creativity
As it was emphasized in the beginning teachers play an important role in nurturing students’
creativity. Examining their perceptions and conceptions about creativity, provides significant
insights about the way they perceive creativity in the classroom.
Cachia and Ferrari (2010) using an online survey tool, examined if teachers from 32 European
Union countries perceive creativity as an important characteristic of education and if they
embrace creativity in their teaching. Analyzing the results, the authors reported on the creative
practices in each European country and argued “that there is a discrepancy between how
teachers perceive” (Cachia & Ferrari 2010, p. 9). Similar results have been found by others
(Fasko, 2001; Kampylis, Berki, & Saariluoma 2009; Runco, 2003a; Westby & Dawson, 1995).
Kampylis et al. (2009) studied the in-service and prospective Greek teachers’ conceptions of
creativity using a self-reported 62 item questionnaire found that the majority of teachers (80%)
reported that they do not feel well-trained to facilitate the creativity of the students. Dikici
(2012) examined the perceptions of creativity by Turkish pre-service teachers using the What
22 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Do You Think of Creativity scale. The author found differences produced by gender, socio-
economic status, and the location in which the teachers grew up in. Similar results were
reported by Seng et al., (2008) on teachers from Hong Kong and Singapore. The results
collected by Newton and Beverton (2012) from pre-service teachers in England showed that
their conceptions about creativity were limited too, since they were “unable to distinguish
clearly between the concept of creativity, an example of its occurrence in the classroom, and
what feature of that example made it creative” (p. 165).
Using the Creativity-Fostering Teacher Index (CFTI) developed by Soh (2000), Edinger (2008)
studied the creativity fostering teacher behaviors in secondary school classrooms in the United
States (US). The results suggested that Grade 9 and 10 teachers moderately used creativity-
fostering behaviours and that both personal and environmental factors could potentially
influence their behavior. Using a mixed-method approach, Dishke-Hondzel (2013) examined the
Ontario teachers’ perceptions about creativity, the strategies they employed, and their
experiences. Using the CFTI, 22 Grade 5-7 teachers were measured against their creativity-
fostering behavior and structured interviews were completed with 12 teachers together with
classroom observations. The analysis of the results revealed that the teachers’ perceptions, the
dynamics of the interconnected nature of the school, the uncontrolled school environment, and
the expectations by the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), influence teachers’
attempts to maintain creativity fostering teaching environments.
School Supports of Innovative Teaching
It is very important here to define innovative teaching and provide the distinction between
teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Teaching creatively can be defined as “using
imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting and effective” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 89)
while teaching for creativity refers to the ways teachers employ with the intention to develop
students’ creative thinking, competency (perception, attitude, skills), and behavior (NACCCE,
1999). In a classical study, Jeffrey and Craft (2004), effectively attempted to provide evidence to
avoid the dangers of dichotomous thinking between the two practices. In attempting to
examine if teachers can teach students to be creative, someone could examine if teachers are
creative in their own teaching. They concluded that the two apparent distinctions are closely
related and interdependent.
Assessing the current support received by the school is considered important during the
development of creativity fostering teaching environments. Zhu, Wang, Cai, and Engels (2013)
investigated the teachers’ core competencies in relation to their innovative teaching
performance and concluded that besides their core competencies required (learning
competency, educational competency, social competency, and technological competency),
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 23
school support is essential in supporting, cultivating, and maintaining the sustainable growth of
innovative teaching.
Best Instructional Practices Promoting Creativity and Innovation
Past research indicates that there are many ways to improve creativity in the classroom and in
particular, instructional practices can play a significant role in developing students’ creativity
and innovation. Figure 2 summarizes the research-based instruction driving student creativity
and innovation.
Figure 2: Summary of Research-based Instruction Driving Student Creativity and Innovation
Promote Creativity as a Skill Accessible to All Students: Creativity is a skill and as such, it
should be accessible to all students. While creativity is often thought as something for people
with exceptional ability or geniuses this should not be the case (Stokes, 2006). On the same line
of reasoning, Weisberg (1993) maintains that creativity is just an extension of normal thinking
and it is a myth to think only geniuses are creative. He investigated the work of some of the
most well-known and creative people in history such as Isaac Newton and Thomas Edison, and
he suggested that creativity can be available to everyone, it just needs to be cultivated.
Research suggests that with practice, motivation, and involvement, students can develop
creative skills ( Silver, 1997; Torrance & Torrance, 1973) . Simmons and Thompson (2008), as
well as others (Silver, 1997), argue that creativity could be accessible to all. Cronin (1989),
based on her research on misconceptions of creativity in elementary school classrooms, points
Make The Classroom a Place of Investigation
Provide Ample Time
Provide Creative Learning Experiences
Use Classroom Assessments Which Promote Understanding
& Self-Improvement
Promote Creativity as a Skill Accessible To All Students
24 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
out that creativity is a skill that can be taught to students. To her, creativity is no different from
any other skill, it can be studied and it can be practiced.
Make the Classroom a Place of Investigation: Creative thinking can be developed my making
the classroom a place of investigation. Piggott (2007) suggests having students get “stuck” with
problems as a way to develop creativity. When students are given the opportunity to get
“stuck”, it pushes them to try new and unusual things, which can lead to creative thinking. As
stated previously, creativity can be viewed as part of the problem-solving process (Kirton, 1987,
1989), since the process of solving problems is similar to the process of “ discovering,
combining, and arranging insights, ideas, and methods in new ways” (Weiss & Legrand, 2011, p.
7). Problem-solving activities are a great way to stimulate creativity, create connections, come
up with hypotheses and make conjectures (Davis & Rimm, 1985; Karnes et al., 1961;
Subotnik,1988). To develop creativity and innovation the classroom should be more than a
place of right or wrong answers. Cropley, Priest, and Cropley (1997) investigating the impact of
creativity instruction to engineering students, argued that students need to be encouraged to
make mistakes in order to try something new and unusual and teachers should reward courage
as much as being right.
Many researchers explain that the classroom can be made a place of investigation by supporting
and reinforcing unusual ideas and responses of students (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1985;
Nickerson, 1999; Sternberg & Williams, 1996). Ginsburg (1996) examining an in-depth case study
of a six-year-old girl’s mathematical learning, upholds the importance of using students’ mistakes
as a way to go beyond standard material. The work by others (Midgley, 2002; Nickerson, 1999),
support the idea that if students believe the only thing that is important is getting a high grade,
then students will avoid being creative. Therefore, students should feel their ideas especially the
unconventional ones are welcome in the classroom. By making the classroom a place of
investigation creative and innovative thinking can be stimulated.
Provide Ample Time: Classroom scheduling should allow for ample time for students to grapple
with interesting and challenging problems. Silver (1997), defends the idea that creativity needs
to be associated with long periods of work and reflection as to allow students with ample time
to develop their creative and innovative ideas. It takes time and concentration to develop
creative ideas, since not all creativity occurs immediately (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1985).
Students want to be challenged and they just need to be given the opportunity and therefore
ample time is required.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 25
Provide Creative Learning Experiences: One of the most important instructional practices to
promote creativity and innovation is to provide students with learning experiences that lead to
creative products. Ayverdi, Asker, Oz Aydin, and Saritas (2012), examined the relationship
among creativity and STEM education to better understand how to develop creative individuals
and found that using activities that require creativity in science and technology can help
develop creativity in students. Aktamis and Oemer (2007) and others (Demirci, 2007) found
“creative tasks” push students to be creative and innovative. Hoffman and Brahier (2008)
maintain a similar viewpoint, that the classroom needs to offer more than formulas and
algorithms and they suggest having students work on open-ended problems and creative
activities as a way to gain different perspectives and promote new ways of thinking. Teachers
who use creative teaching methods provide an environment for creativity to flourish. Fasko
(2001) reviewing past research on student creativity and innovation, found teachers who use
direct methods of teaching creativity such as inquiry, discovery, or problem-solving teaching
methods give students more opportunities to develop creativity through learning experiences
that lead to creativity and innovation. This argument is echoed by others (Cropley,1997;
Sternberg & Williams,1996), who reiterate that teachers who foster creative learning
environments provide excitement in the classroom to allow for creative thinking.
Use Classroom Assessments Which Promote Understanding and Self-Improvement:
Assessment practices can greatly influence student creativity and it is important for the right
assessments to be used to motivate students (Beghetto, 2005). To develop creativity in the
classroom assessment practices should promote understanding and self-improvement. Some
assessments, such as tests, have been said to greatly diminish creative thinking, since students
often feel there is immense pressure to get a high score on the examination and do not think
critically when working on the questions (Crocco & Costigan, 2007).
Assessment pressure should be reduced to promote creativity. Beghetto (2005) explains in his
article on the relationship between assessment and creativity, that if students feel pressure by
an assessment, their willingness to be creative is reduced. He suggests teachers try to reduce
assessment stress and emphasize to students the goal of the activity as well as provide ways for
the students to find personal connections.
The focus of assessments should be to build student understanding. Runco (2003a) and Fasko
(2001) explain that assessment should not put too much of an emphasis on grades, but rather
assessments should help students build their understanding which in turn will allow students to
be creative. In fact, some researchers suggest self-evaluation to foster creativity, or even
directly assesses creativity as way to promote creativity (Sternberg & Williams,1996), while
others provide empirical evidence that classroom assessment practices that focus on
26 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
understanding and self-improvement motivate students to be more interested in learning and
help with skill development (Pintrich, 2003; Nickerson, 1999; Stipek, 1998)
For assessment purposes, social comparisons in the classroom can be a barrier for student
creativity. This includes displaying the work of the best students or charting student
achievement in a visible place (Beghetto, 2005). Visible performance structures in the
classroom can overemphasize the importance of getting the highest grades and in turn stress to
students that they should avoid mistakes or unconventional thinking (Midgley, 2002). Rather,
teachers should be focusing on assessment practices that promote creativity, innovation, and
critical thinking. Lastly, teachers can kill creative thinking if they apply one or more of the
following: have students work for an expected reward, set-up a competitive situation, focus on
evaluation, watch too closely and give students restrictive choice situations (Hennessey &
Amabile, 1987).
Trends in Learning Sciences
This section will focus on trends in educational research at the local and international levels. The
main trends in learning science will focus on 21st century global competencies and innovative
teaching practices.
21st Century Learning Global Competencies
There are many national and international organizations which research, conceptualize, and
advocate on the importance of skills and global competencies that today’s students need to
develop during their studies. For Canada, the primary goal of education is to ensure that our
students are prepared for success in the modern world. The scope of this study does not allow
expanding the literature review to all these international studies and it will focus only on the
Canadian context.
Competencies – a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes – are part of all the student learning
frameworks proposed in different Canadian provinces. Twenty-first (21st) century global
competencies are considered fundamental competencies students should possess in order to be
prepared for the future and can help position youth for success in the global environment. Pan-
Canadian 21st century/global competencies are still an evolving concept. Alberta’s Framework for
Student Learning (2011) outlines the relationship among the fundamental skills of literacy and
numeracy and the competencies students need to acquire during their studies. Creativity and
innovation is part of the global competencies together with critical thinking and problem
solving, communication, collaboration and leadership, and lifelong learning and well-being
(Alberta Education, 2011). British Columbia’s framework for cross-curricular competencies
(2013) and Quebec`s cross-curricular competencies are still evolving but creativity or creative
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 27
thinking are already part of their proposals. Other provinces (New Brunswick Department of
Education, Nova Scotia School Boards Association, Prince Edward Island), have also included in
their learning frameworks creativity and innovation and regard them as important
competencies for their students (for review see Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016).
Ontario’s Renewed Vision for Education focuses on ways to increase student achievement. The
document recognizes creativity and innovation as important attributes of graduates (Ontario
Ministry of Education, 2014). The Ontario Ministry of Education (2016) in a systematic review of
the competencies required by Ontario students states that “changing times are transforming
the nature of competencies that have been valuable throughout history” (p. 5) and although
the importance of some competencies remain the same, new competencies are considered
relevant and some others are evolving to be integrated in a more sophisticated framework of
competencies needed for Ontario’s students. For Ontario, 21st century global competencies and
skills are in addition to the foundational skills of literacy and mathematics. The Ministry
maintains that the emerging frameworks of competencies worldwide are still evolving and need
to be reviewed periodically. Despite these precautions, the Ministry recognizes creativity and
innovation as core competencies for students together with entrepreneurship, critical thinking
and problem solving, communication and collaboration, metacognition, and local, global and
digital citizenship (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016). C21 Canada, an advocacy group for
learning in education, maintains that the Canadian educational landscape must focus on
literacy, numeracy, science, life skills, and 21st century competencies. According to the same
group, 21st century competencies include creativity and innovation together with critical
thinking, collaboration, effective communication, building character, culture and ethical
citizenship, and comfort with technology (C21 Canada, 2012).
21st Century Learning Global Competencies and Creativity
Creativity and innovation are at the heart of 21st century global competencies because of how
important these skills are for learning and personal development (Bellanca & Bellanca, 2010;
Trilling & Fadel, 2012). Many researchers argue that creativity and innovation improve
reasoning, memory, problem-solving abilities, and engagement, because the skills associated
with creativity and innovation are analyzing, evaluating, creating, and refining existing problems
(Guilford, 1967; Hondzel-Dishke, 2013; Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Torrance & Torrance, 1973).
Robinson (2011) suggests creativity needs to be nurtured in educational environments in order
to foster student engagement and greater student satisfaction. In addition, together with
innovation, creativity is considered a fundamental part of entrepreneurial activity. According to
the Ontario Ministry of Education (2016), students equipped with such competencies are able
to contribute to the solutions of complex problems, take risks while thinking and creating, and
discover through inquiry activity (p. 56). By extension, creativity and innovation are valued
28 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
components of STEM education as they give students ways to integrate their learning with the
ability to create new ideas and products.
Innovative Teaching Practices
A major trend in educational research is the effect of innovative teaching and learning practices
on creativity and innovation. As a result, many new approaches emphasizing student-centered
learning have been developed. This section of the literature review will examine trends in
educational research on innovative teaching practices including: a) experimental learning, b)
authentic learning, c) teaching for successful intelligence, d) teachers are curators of
innovation, and e) student-centered learning.
a. Experiential Learning: is the process of learning through experience and this type of learning
has become a trend in learning science research both locally and internationally. The idea of
experiential learning started in the 19th century as a way to move away from traditional
teaching methods, such as direct instruction. Lately, experiential learning has gained more
popularity and acceptance in education and is considered an excellent way to promote
creativity and innovation in schools.
In experiential learning, the learners create their knowledge through first-hand experience,
instead of hearing or reading about others’ experiences and knowledge (Casanovas, Miralles,
Gomez, & Garcia, 2010; Kolb, 1983; Patrick, 2011). This process of using experience as a
method of learning allows the student to make sense of new information and relate ideas
without the need for direct instruction.
There are two types of experiential learning: field-based and classroom-based learning. Field-
based learning has a long and important history in education and has been integrated in post-
secondary education since the 1930’s. Field-based experiential learning includes
apprenticeships, internships, practicums, and field-trips (Lewis & Williams, 1994). In field-based
learning, students need to extend their skill and understanding from the classroom in
meaningful ways to their uses in real-world experiences (Rogoff, 1991). Many skills including
creativity, social interaction, and higher order thinking are learned through apprenticeship or
field-based experiences (Collins, 1987). Casanovas, Miralles, Gomez, and Garcia (2010)
investigated the effect of experiential learning on student success. They examined the effect of
experiential learning versus no experiential learning training with 85 groups and found the
experiential learning training significantly increased student fluency, flexibility, and creativity
(Casanovas et. al., 2010).
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 29
On the other hand, classroom-based experiential learning is about giving students a “hands-
on” approach to learning and includes such things as case-studies, simulations, role-playing,
and cooperative learning at school (Lewis & Williams, 1994) and it has been growing in
popularity since Chickering and Gramson (1987) recommended active learning as an essential
art of excellence in undergraduate teaching. This type of experiential learning involves
connecting learning and broader culture, puts the student in control of their learning, and
improves student engagement (Kolb, 1983, Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007). In addition
to this, research on classroom-based experiential learning has shown positive benefits in
students’ engagement and improving understanding (Kolb, 1983; Kuhlthau, Maniotes, &
Caspari, 2007).
In Ontario, the Ministry of Education considers experiential learning an important part of the
education experience (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2000). Recently, the Canadian Council of
Learning conducted detailed review of research on experiential learning and student success
for Ontario’s Ministry of Education (Canadian Council of Learning, 2009). They reviewed 514
studies and found experiential learning programs have positive benefits on student retention,
drop-out rates, improved self-esteem, and engagement (Canadian Council of Learning, 2009).
In surveying Ontario teachers, Hondzel-Dishke (2013) found that teachers believe that
experiential teaching allows students to take ownership of their learning, make deeper
connections, and learn through mistakes. The same author identified experiential learning,
together with collaboration and differentiated instruction, being used by a number of Ontario
teachers “as a primary way of engaging and tailoring instruction to allow for creative
expression” (Hondzel-Dishke 2013, p. 114).
b. Authentic Learning: Another global trend in teaching practice connected to creativity and
innovation is authentic learning. Authentic learning is about providing students with
multidisciplinary real-life problems and activities (Lombardi, 2007). The goal of authentic
learning is to develop students’ ability to work through real-life problems, synthesize
information, improve their flexible thinking, and develop patience with messy problems
(Lombardi, 2007). Often in classrooms, students solve questions by applying a single formula or
algorithm, but in real-life, problems are complex and require multidisciplinary thinking
(Schoenfeld, 1992).
Research on authentic learning has gained popularity and continues to search for the benefits in
the classroom. Newmann, Marks, and Gamora (1996) conducted a large study investigating the
effect of authentic pedagogy on achievement results with elementary, junior high, and high
school students. They observed 504 lessons, analyzed 234 assessment tasks and sampled student
work to find that schools with a focus on authentic learning had higher levels of academic
30 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
achievement among the sampled students (Newmann, Marks & Gamora, 1996). Their study
suggests authentic learning fosters understanding, comprehension, and student success.
Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001) conducted another large scale study on the benefits of
authentic learning. In this study, they investigated the effect of authentic pedagogy on
students’ mathematical abilities and achievement on standardized tests. The researchers
studied 2,128 students in 23 Chicago schools and found authentic learning to make higher than
normal gains on standardized test scores. Their research suggests that authentic pedagogy is an
excellent way to build student comprehension and understanding in STEM subjects.
Authentic learning is becoming an integral part of STEM education too. Researchers have
created a checklist of 10 design elements for teachers to bring authentic learning in science
learning in the classroom. They include: 1) real-world relevance, 2) ill-defined problems, 3)
sustained investigations, 4) multiple sources and perspectives, 5) collaboration, 6) reflection, 7)
interdisciplinary perspective, 8) integrated assessment, 9) polished products, and 10) multiple
interpretations and outcomes (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2002). Overall, authentic learning
allows students to develop content skills, while going beyond standard material to cultivate
flexible and creative thinking.
c. Teaching for Successful Intelligence: The fundamental idea of teaching for successful
intelligence is that instruction should match students’ analytical, creative and practical abilities
and involves capitalizing on student strengths and compensating for their weakness (Sternberg
& Grigorenko, 2003). Teaching for successful intelligence involves teaching to students’
analytical, creative, and practical skillsets to achieve best student results. Sternberg,
Grigorenko, Ferrari, and Clinkenbeard (1999) conducted a study on 326 high school psychology
students to examine the effect of teaching for successful intelligence. The study examined the
effect of placing students in a psychology course that best matched their analytical, creative, or
practical abilities. Data revealed that students placed in a group best matching their abilities did
better and suggested that playing to students’ strengths by teaching for successful intelligence
helps teachers reach a larger cross-section of students than traditional teaching.
Based on Sternberg and Grigorenko’s previously summarized research, to teach based on
successful intelligence and in order to promote creativity and innovation teachers should do the
following: (1) provide examples that cover a wide range of topics, (2) give students multiple and
diverse assessment options, and (3) match assessment to student life goals.
d. Teachers are Curators of Innovation: Recently, there has been a trend in viewing teachers as
curators of learning. Some researchers see the role of teachers as curator of ideas, similar to that
of a museum curator, responsible for the creation of an environment of carefully selected
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 31
relevant and important information to inspire students (Siemens 2007; Trilling & Fadel, 2012;
Weisgerber & Butler, 2012).
This focus of positioning teachers as designers of innovation can be seen in innovative schools
in the United States. For example, High Tech High is famous for this practice to provide a
culture of inventing, tinkering, and investigation (New Technology High School, n.d.). At Napa
New Tech High School in Northern California the classrooms are a hybrid between a corporate
board room and a media production studio with the teachers acting as curators of learning
(High Tech High, 2012). The importance of creating a culture of investigation in a contemporary
learning environment is discussed elsewhere (Trilling & Fadel, 2012). By making teachers
curators of learning and innovation, a classroom environment emerges where creativity and
innovation thrives.
e. Student-Centered Learning: Student-centered (reciprocal teaching, student-directed, or
student-paced) learning is a growing trend in education research and became popular following
the works of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Carl Rogers, and Maria Montessori
(Hondzel-Dishke, 2013). Today, many curriculum guidelines encourage teachers to provide an
active, individualized learning experience to students (Iowa Core, 2013; Jones 2007). This type
of learning takes place in an active and individualized learning environment where the students
are the constructors of their own learning rather than receivers of information. In literature,
there is evidence that student-centered learning has been used to increase student
engagement, develop deeper understanding and foster a desire to learn, to increase motivation
and student ownership of their learning, and to increase comprehension and test scores (Akers,
1999; Means & Olson, 1995; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Trilling & Fadel, 2012). Examples of
student-centered learning include: inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, and design-
based learning. In the following section, each of these topics will be examined in further detail.
Inquiry-Based Learning: is an approach where students make investigations, look for
information, and ask questions and it has become a major part of the educational landscape in
Canada (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013a). Boaler (1997) examined the impact of inquiry-
based learning in mathematics education in a longitudinal study over three years. She found the
traditional forms of mathematics education develop procedural knowledge that cannot be
applied to unfamiliar situations. Her study also suggests that inquiry-based learning can help
students develop connections and more flexible thinking.
Other researchers have found inquiry-based learning to improve student achievement by
providing students with opportunities for exploration, creativity, and building connections
(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014). Fasko (2001) conducted a comprehensive review of the
32 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
literature on creativity in the classroom and found teachers who use inquiry-based teaching
practices provide students with opportunities to develop creativity, improve flexible thinking,
and promote originality. Similarly, Hattie's (2008) work on a meta-analysis on inquiry-based
learning found this teaching approach effective in improving student achievement.
Problem-Based Learning: Problem-based learning originated in medicine with McMaster
University in 1972, where medical students were given case studies and complex medical
problems to solve rather than attend lengthy lectures. The goal was to develop students’
intrinsic interest and deeper understanding and creating a greater sense of ownership of
learning (Barrows, 1996). Problem-based learning is based “on solving complex, real-world
problems” (Trilling & Fadel, 2012, p. 111) in small groups using a case study approach and its
impact has been verified by a number of studies. Problems are given at the start of a topic and
before formal instruction to actively engage the learners to develop skills about finding
information, identifying important information, and identifying missing information (Woods,
2005; 2006). The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University (1992) studied 700
students from 11 school districts in the United Stated on the effect of problem-based learning
and found students experienced large gains in understanding, problem-solving and having
positive attitudes in mathematics. Similarly, Shepherd (1998) found that the elementary school
students who engaged in problem-based learning scored significantly higher on critical thinking
tests than those students who did not participate in problem-based learning. In another study,
improvement on standardized test scores and learning development was found in 9 out of 10
schools that implemented problem-based learning (New American Schools Development
Corporation, 1997).
To develop students’ conceptual knowledge and creativity in mathematics for Ontario students
in Grades 1-7, the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat developed a research-into-practice series
on problem-based learning (MacMath, Wallace, & Xiaohong, 2009). In the same research series,
the investigators found students often developed procedural fluency in mathematics, but
struggled with solving new problems or making mathematical connections. The authors
suggested using problem-based learning in the classroom to check student understanding,
extend student thinking, and build creativity.
Design-Based Learning: In design-based learning the students are the constructors of
knowledge through creating. Although in its relative infancy, this type of student-centered
learning is quite popular in science education in elementary and upper secondary school
education as a way to support scientific learning, for making observations, and for using
information to support arguments and explanations (Kolodner, 2002; Kolodner et al., 2004). It
appears that the designed-based learning approach in secondary school education results in
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 33
gains on reasoning and self-direction. The program Science by Design, developed by the
University of Michigan, has students design and create boats and greenhouses to learn about
scientific principles (Trilling & Fadel, 2012). The researchers suggest that their program allows
students to apply information in new situations, make connections, develop understanding, and
engage meaningfully in the curriculum material. Similarly, Mehalik, Doppelt, and Schuun (2008)
compared traditional script inquiry versus design-based system approach in students in Grade 8
in an urban school district and suggested the superiority of design-based approach in
“knowledge gain achievements in core science concepts, engagement, and retention [and] … in
low-achieving African American students” (p. 71). The benefits of design-based science
education have also been linked with gains in the academic achievement for students in Grade
7 in a specific physics unit (see Ercan & Sahin, 2015).
34 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
SECTION III: METHODOLOGY
The study included a program group and a control group. Toronto District School Board (TDSB)
teachers and administrators who participated in the professional learning sessions led by
Ideaction were part of the program group, whereas TDSB teachers and administrators who did
not participate in these learning sessions were part of the control group. Surveys were given to
participating teachers, administrators and their students, as well as control group participants
and their students. Responses from the control and program groups were compared and
contrasted by evaluating survey responses to questions on innovative characteristics of
students, perceptions of creativity, creativity-fostering behaviors, school/district support of
innovative teaching, and the nature of professional learning training provided. The study was
both qualitative and quantitative in nature, using open-ended responses and numerical survey
questions for analysis. This section addresses the methods and processes that were used in the
study.
Participants
In total, 11 Model Schools for Inner City (MSIC) schools intended to participate in the I2Q Pilot
Program. Two of the schools did not participate fully in the program and one school didn’t
participate in the survey study7. This resulted in eight program group schools which
participated both in the program and the survey study. In the present study, 13 TDSB public
schools participated during the 2014-15 academic school year (eight schools were program
participants and five schools were part of the control group). The participant pool was made up
of teachers, administrators, and students from these 13 schools. The schools in the program
group were selected by the program implementation team among the TDSB’s MSIC based on
their socio-economic status (SES) and desired interest. Schools in the control group were
selected from the MSIC schools with similar characteristics with the ones in the program group
using data on achievement and school SES as well as the professional judgment of the program
implementation team.
7 This information was provided and confirmed by the program coordinators and verified in the data submissions.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 35
In total, 628 students participated in the study with each student participant completing a
survey on innovative traits of young people. There were 251 students in the control group and
377 students in the program group. Student results presented here represent randomly
selected students in the program and control groups ensuring the same proportional
representation based on student age.8, 9 Similarly, 27 teachers and administrators (13 were in
the control group and 14 were in the program group10) participated in the study by completing
a survey on creativity and innovation.
Professional Learning
The professional learning training on creativity and innovation was provided by Ideaction, an
innovation consulting and learning service that strives to bring innovation into the daily lives of
the organizations they work with11. Ideaction created a four part professional learning series on
teaching and learning innovative thinking for the TDSB. The goal was to develop the teachers’
and administrators’ strategies regarding innovative thinking / innovative problem solving skills
in students, and develop the students’ higher order thinking skills in STEM subjects.
Data Collection Procedures and Study Surveys
Researchers compared the answers from the control and program groups which included
teachers, administrators, and students by evaluating survey responses and classifying themes
on creativity and innovation.
All participants in the control and program groups were invited to complete an electronic
survey on creativity. Surveys were sent out to teachers and administrators in the control and
program groups and to the students of the teachers in the control and program groups.
Participants were told the findings from the survey would be used to improve the teaching and
learning experiences in schools; that their responses would be kept confidential; and they were
given as much time as they needed to work through the 15 minute survey.
Teachers in the program and control groups were asked to complete a survey (a series of open-
ended, Likert-scale or select the best option type of questions), on their perceptions of
creativity, creativity fostering teaching environments, and offer their opinion about the
school/district support of innovative teaching. Only the teachers who participated in the
8 Based on the number of classes that participated in I2Q within the 8 schools in the program group, approximately 400 students were expected to participate from the Grades 5 and 7. This was approximately 94% of the students in the program group. This is based on the numbers provided by the program coordinators. Each classroom was estimated to have an average of 20 students (R. Alison, personal communication, November, 2015). 9 For the details on the overall student demographics used in this study please refer to section IV of this report. 10 From the participating schools in this study, in total 14 teachers and 12 administrators were expected to participate in to the I2Q program in 2014-15. Based on this, the program group represented 54% of the teachers and administrators in the program group (R. Alison, personal communication, November, 2015). 11 For further information on Ideaction please see http://www.ideaction.net/
36 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
program group were administered a survey on their opinion on the professional learning
training provided by Ideaction. Administrators in the control and program groups were invited
to complete an electronic survey asking them about their opinions on creativity and school
support of innovative teaching. This survey was a shorten version of the teacher survey and was
the same for both groups. The survey included questions about their perceptions of creativity
and their opinions on school support for creativity. The students of the teachers in the control
and program groups were invited to complete an electronic survey on the innovative
characteristics of young people. The survey included 25 statements about creativity and there
were five questions on demographics.
All surveys were created by the TDSB Research team based on the work of experts in the field.
The teacher and administrator surveys were based on creativity research, creativity fostering
teaching behavior, and school support on innovative teaching. Items selected for this study are
based on the existing reliability and validity analysis of the surveys in the literature (e.g., Soh,
2015). In addition, feedback received by the I2Q implementation team and Ideaction were used
in further revising the items for the I2Q program.
The survey questions examining the teachers’ and administrators’ opinions of creativity were
based on the work of Kampylis et al. (2009), who developed and tested a questionnaire for
teachers on their conceptions and understanding of creativity. In addition to this, the work of
Cachia & Ferrari (2010) who conducted research for the Commission of the European Union on
creativity and innovation of teachers in Europe, was used to create the TDSB survey questions
on teacher perceptions of creativity.
The survey questions examining creativity fostering teaching behavior were based on the work
of Soh (2000), who developed and validated a 45 item self-rating scale based on nine creativity
fostering behaviors. The survey questions looking at school support of innovative teaching was
based on the work of Zhu et al. (2013), who investigated teachers competencies in innovative
teaching. The authors developed and tested a questionnaire on teachers’ innovative teaching
performance, which was used to develop the questions on teachers’ innovative teaching
practices in the present survey.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 37
Table 1: Teacher and Administrator Survey Items and Their Associated Constructs Used During 2014-15
Table 1: Teacher and Administrator Survey Items, Constructs and Source
Questions on the Survey
Items # Constructs Source
Section A 1 1 Creativity fostering teaching behaviour (open-ended)
TDSB Research Team
Section A 2-11 10 Opinions on creativity Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Kampylis et al., 2009
Section A 12 1 Opinions on creativity TDSB Research Team
Section B 1-21 21 Creativity fostering teaching behavior Soh, 2000
Section B 22-23 2 Creativity fostering teaching behaviour TDSB Research Team
Section C 1-9 9 School support on innovative teaching Zhu et al., 2013
Section C 1-4 4 Professional learning TDSB Research Team
Section C 5 1 Perceptions about the project TDSB Research Team
Section D 8 Demographics TDSB Research Team
Total Items 57
38 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
The survey on the innovative characteristics of students looked at six different themes: (1)
creativity, (2) risk-propensity, (3) self-efficacy, (4) leadership, (5) energy, and (6) problem-solving
in young people. The statements were significantly based on the work of Chell and Athayde
(2009), who developed questions on identifying and measuring the innovative characteristics of
young people and on the work of Cho (2003), Lin (2010), and Ennis (2002, 2011, 2012).
Table 2: Student survey items and their associated constructs used during 2014-15
Table 2: Innovative Characteristics of Students Survey: Items, Constructs and Source
Questions on the Survey
Items # Constructs Source
1-6 6 Creativity Chell & Athayde, 2009
7-8 2 Risk-propensity Chell & Athayde, 2009
9-11 3 Self-efficacy Chell & Athayde, 2009
12-15 4 Leadership Chell & Athayde, 2009
16-19 4 Energy Chell & Athayde, 2009
20-25 6 Problem Solving Cho, 2003; Ennis, 2002, 2012, 2011
26 1 Opinions on creativity Kampylis et al., 2009
D1-D4 4 Demographics TDSB Research Team
Total Items 30
Safeguards for Confidentiality
The identity of each participant remained confidential. Permission was obtained from
participants before participation. The study was completed under the approval of the Research
Ethics Board at the TDSB. All data were stored on a password-protected computer and backed
up to at least two locations. All paper copies were digitally scanned and then shredded. Data
were stored on a computer with an uninterruptible power supply.
Limitations of the Study
This research study intended to provide descriptive analysis and findings needed to further
improve the I2Q program by the implementation team. This is the first step of the three years of
research design as outlined in the conceptual framework of this study. Pre-program design with
randomized control groups was not implemented due to labor distribution in the 2014-15
school year, as well as the workload of the leading educators. The effects on student learning
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 39
outcomes, engagement, belonging, and overall skills and competences was suggested to be
studied after the full implementation of the Ideaction program (i.e., in the third year of the
program implementation).
Data Analysis Strategy
The data in this focus study were grouped and analyzed for the following research questions:
What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and implicit conceptions of creativity?
What are the teachers’ creativity-fostering teaching behaviors?
How does the school/district support innovative teaching?
What are the innovative characteristics of students in Grade 5 and 7?
What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the professional learning workshops provided by Ideaction?
To answer research question one (1), the teacher and administrator responses from the control
and participant groups to questions on perceptions of creativity were compared. The responses
to a series of statements about creativity in general were bucketed and used to look for
themes. To answer research question two (2) the responses from the control and program
participant groups were examined and compared for themes on how teachers foster creativity
in students. Responses to a series of statements about teaching behaviors fostering creativity
were analyzed for an overall picture of how teachers foster creativity.
To answer research question three (3) the responses of teachers and administrators to a series
of questions on school support for innovative teaching were examined and further compared. A
“Teacher/Administrator” was determined by adding together each individual teacher or
administrator responses to the nine questions. In addition to this, questions that differentiated
between “our school” and “our school leaders” were examined in how educators perceived the
school/district to support innovative teaching.
To answer research question four (4), the student responses to questions on creative
characteristics in young people were used to develop “a love of creativity score”, and to better
understand areas of strength and areas of development with creativity in young people. The
statements looked at six different themes: (1) creativity, (2) risk-propensity, (3) self-efficacy, (4)
leadership, (5) energy, and (6) problem-solving in young people. Correlations to gender, family
ownership of a business, or school subjects students find creative were examined.
40 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
To answer research question five (5), the relationship between the number of sessions
attended, what was learnt from the sessions, perceptions of creativity, and perception of
support of creativity was analyzed.
The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and parametric T-test to identify possible
significant differences (*, p<0.05) between the two student groups.
Conceptual Research Framework
The Ideaction partnership with the TDSB will be extended over three years (2014-17). The effects
of the training provided by Ideaction to teachers and the administrators and the effectiveness of
the Ideaction modules to be utilized as tools to drive the innovative thinking/problem solving of
TDSB students, could be monitored using both qualitative and quantitative approaches over the
three year period. The TDSB’s partnership with Ideaction presents a unique opportunity to lay the
ground of a general approach in studying creativity and innovative thinking at the TDSB. This
general approach into studying these two variables could be linked to Ideaction’s partnership and
at the same time be independent of the deliverables of the partnership. The TDSB can gain from
this partnership and at the same time continue its own research program in studying creativity
and innovation at its own schools. The general approach to study these two important variables
could lay the baseline for future studies on related issues.
It has been previously suggested that a broad conceptual framework which is inclusive enough
to enhance the relationship between research and practice could be most appropriate for a
large public school board such as the TDSB. Based on Pasteur’s Quadrant, the Stokes Research
Matrix has been forwarded as a basic framework that brings the idea that pure applied science
and pure basic science could be brought together in such a way as to have meaningful
significance as a use-inspired basic research on society
(see Figure 3). Based on the Stokes Research Matrix it
can be hypothesized that “research reviews using
narrative synthesis approach and case studies with
empirical evidence [could] be employed to study” the
effects of the interventions on creativity and innovative
thinking/innovative problem solving on TDSB teachers
and students (Sinay, 2012, p. 1). The findings of such an
approach could be utilized to drive recommendations
for the TDSB to consider policies regarding creativity
and innovative thinking in its schools and for public
education in general.
Figure 3: The Stokes Research Matrix
Pure Basic Research
(Bohr)
Use-Inspired Basic
Research (Pasteur)
Pure Applied
Research (Edison)
Considerations of Use?
Qu
est
for
Fun
dam
enta
l
Un
der
stan
din
g?
Source: Stokes, 1997, p. 73
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 41
The proposed research framework in studying creativity and innovative thinking in TDSB
schools is summarized in Figure 4 and is based on previous concepts and frameworks used in
the same area (Sinay 2012; Sinay, 2014; Sinay et al., 2015). The surveys are selected from
published literature studies which attempt to monitor individual attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors of students, teachers, and administrators related to creativity and innovative
thinking12.
Figure 4: Summary of the Research Framework in Studying Creativity and Innovative Thinking/ Innovative Problem Solving in TDSB Schools
Note: This framework is based on previous concepts (Sinay, 2012; Sinay, 2014; Sinay et al., 2015)
12 These partnership initiatives were proposed as three years program. This current research study captures the findings from the first year.
Key
Res
earc
h Q
ues
tio
ns
Phase IIPerceptions and Implementation
Phase I
Creativity &
Innovation
Teaching
Attributes
High-Quality Professional
Development Phase III
Change & Outcomes
Educators’ & Students’Attitudes, beliefs, opinions, knowledge, practices, self-efficacy
Teachers’ competencies
Students’ achievement
Sustainable implementation
of Creativity and Innovation Education
TDSB Teachers’ Creativity Teaching & Student Innovative Thinking & Creativity Map
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Quantitative & Qualitative Data GatheringSurveys, classroom observations, interviews,
classroom visits, document analyses
Data Analyses & formation of interrelated themes
Rearrangement of themes & comparison of emergent theory with existing theory
Use – inspired basic research
Triangulation
Knowledge CreationRelevant to improve overall education& contribute to the public well-being
Strategic DirectionsMake every school an effective school;
Build leadership within culture of adaptability, openness & resilience;
Form string & effective relationships and partnerships;
Build environmentally sustainable schools that inspire teaching & learning;
Identify disadvantage and intervene effectively
Evidence of implementation
Data to drive action
42 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
SECTION IV: SURVEY RESULTS
Demographics of Participants
Students’ Demographics
Thirteen (13) TDSB public schools participated in the study. Eight (8) schools were part of the
program group and five schools were part of the control group. In total 494 students are
represented in the analysis of the present study.13
The control and program groups were equally split among females and males (52% females and
48% males in the control group and 50% females and 50% males in the program group) (see
Figure 5).
Overall, most of the students were between 10-12 years old. Both the program and control
groups had the same proportional representations. Both the control and program groups were
made up of 80% of students aged 10-12 (see Figure 6).
13 Student results presented here represents randomly selected students in the program and control groups ensuring the same proportional representation based on student age. For more details on the study participants please refer to Section III: Methodology.
Figure 5: Students’
Gender
48% 50%
52% 50%
Control Group (244)
Program Group (246)
Female
Male
Gender
10 years,
18% 11 years,
26%
12 years,
36%
13 years,
20%
Control Group (247)
10 years,
18% 11 years,
26%
12 years,
36%
13 years,
20%
Program Group (247)
What is your age?
Figure 6: Students’ Age
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 43
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Demographics
Gender: Twenty seven (27) teachers and administrators participated in the study. Each
educator participant completed a survey on creativity and innovation. There were 13 teachers
and administrators in the control group and 14 teachers and administrators in the program
group. The control and program groups had similar gender breakdowns. The gender breakdown
was as follows: 62% females
and 38% males in the control
group and 64% females, 29%
males in the program group14
(see Figure 7).
Position held in the School: Teachers and administrators were asked what their position was in
the school. The majority of the respondents were
classroom teachers with, 77% of the control group and
77% of program group working as classroom teachers.
The position of principal made up the second most
popular choice, with 15% of the teachers and
administrator in the control group and 15% of the
teachers and administrator in the program group
working as principals. There was also one person in both
the control and program groups that held a different
position than teacher or administrator. In the program
group, this individual worked as a librarian, and in the
control the individual selected the option of “Other”
(see Figure 8).
14 The Missing is not included in the chart.
Figure 7: Participants’ Gender
Figure 8: Position in the School
Participants' Gender
Male38%Female
62%
Control Group (13)
Male 29%
Female 64%
Program Group (13)
Excellent
Good
36%
36%
Program Group (14)
Program Group (14)
C3. Quality of the sessions that you
PrincipalClassroom
teacher LibrarianOther
15%
77%
0% 8%
15%
77%
8% 0%
Chart Title
Control Group (13) Program Group (13)
Position in the school
44 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Teaching Experience: Teachers were asked about their
teaching experience. Most of the teachers in this study
were experienced educators. In fact, most of the
teachers had more than 6 years teaching experience.
The program group had a more experienced group of
teachers than the control group, with 71% of the
program group having 11 or more years teaching
experience, compared to 50% of the control group. The
control group and program groups both had a large
number of teachers with 6-10 years of teaching
experience; with 50% of teachers in the control group
and 21% of teachers in the program group with 6-10
years of teaching experience (see Figure 915).
Highest Level of Education: Teachers and administrators were asked about their highest level
of educational attainment. The majority hold a Bachelor’s degree or Bachelor’s plus additional
credits. Sixty-one percent (61%) of the control group and 57% of the program group earned a
Bachelor degree or a Bachelor degree plus credits. The remainder of the teachers and
administrators (39% of the control group and
43% of the program group), hold a Master’s
degree or a Master’s degree
plus credits. There was one
individual in the program group
who holds a certificate of
advanced study (see Figure 10).
15 Percentages may not add up to a 100 due to rounding.
Figure 9: Teaching Experience
Figure 10: Highest Level of Education
The highest level of education you have completed
Bachelor's
Degree,
15%
Bachelor's
Degree
plus
credits,
46%
Master's Degree,
15%
Master's Degree
plus credits,
15%
Certificate
of
Advanced
Study, 0% Other, 8%
Control Group (13)
Bachelor's
Degree,
36%
Bachelor's
Degree
plus
credits,
21%
Master's Degree,
14%
Master's Degree
plus credits,
21%
Certificate
of
Advanced
Study, 7% Other, 0%
Program Group (14)
3-5 years6-10 years
11 or more years 0%
50%50%7%
21%
71%
Chart Title
Control Group (12) Program Group (14)
Years in total have you been teaching
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 45
Summary: The study included 27 teachers and administrators divided among a program and
control group. There were 13 teachers and administrators in the control group and 14
teachers and administrators in the program group. The program and control groups had similar teaching experience with all but one of the teachers having more than 6 years of teaching experience, the majority of educators in both groups taught Grade 5, taught a variety
of subjects areas, had similar educational backgrounds (the majority of teachers’ and administrators’ highest level of education was a Bachelor’s or Bachelor’s plus credits and
had similar gender and age breakdowns. The majority of educators were female, aged 30-49.
Teaching Concentration Area: The teachers in this study taught a wide range of subject areas
including Language Arts, Visual Arts, Social Sciences, Mathematics, and Science. For the control
group the most common teaching areas included Language Arts (69%), Visual Arts (62%), Social
Science (62%), and Mathematics (54%); whereas, for the program group the most common
teaching areas included Science (43%), Mathematics (43%), and Language Arts (36%). The most
noticeable difference between the two groups was the number of teachers who taught
Language Arts (69% of the control as opposed to 36% of the program group taught Language
Arts) and the number of teachers who taught Visual Arts (62% of the control group vs 21% of
the program group).
Students’ Innovative Characteristics
Professional Engagement after Graduation
Students were asked what they were likely to do when
they completed their education. The most common
response included work in a profession, such as doctor,
lawyer, or teacher when they finish school (51% of
students in the control group and 51% of students in the
program group expressing this viewpoint). The least
popular choice among students was to work in a small
business (6% of students in the control group and 5% of
students in the program group) (see Figure11). There
were also 21% of students in both the control and
program groups who selected “Other”, indicating they
hope to do something other than work in a profession. The students who selected “Other”
were asked to specify what they would like to do when they finish their schooling. The most
Figure 11: What Students would do After
Finishing Their Education
10% 10%6% 5%
12% 13%
51% 51%
21% 22%
Control Group (242)
Program Group (242)
Other
Work in a profession
Have my own business
Work in a small business
Work in a large organization
What are you likely to do when you complete your education?
46 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Summary: Students were asked what they were likely to do when they completed their education. The most common response was that they would like to work in a profession, such as doctor, lawyer or teacher when they finish school, with 51% of students in the control group and 51% of students in the program group expressing this viewpoint. Students were also asked about whether anyone in their family ever owned a business. The most common response for students in the control and program groups was to have an aunt or uncle who owned a business, with 31% of students in the control group and 32% of students in the program group having an aunt or uncle who owned a business. Students were also asked which school subjects they consider it likely for a student to be creative. Students believe they are most likely to be creative in the Arts. Other subject areas they feel they can be creative in are: Music, Physical Education, Science and Language Arts.
Summary: The study included 494 students in Grades 5 and 7 divided among a program and control group. There were 247 students in the control group and 247 students in the program group. The program and control groups had equal gender breakdowns, and the majority of students in both groups were aged 10-12.
common responses were athlete (29% - basketball player, football player, and soccer player),
entertainer (13% - singer, model, actor or actress), or artist (11%).
Family Member Owning a Business
When students were asked about whether anyone in
their family ever owned a business, the most common
response was to have an aunt or uncle who owned a
business (31% of the control group vs 32% of the
program group). On the other hand, having a sibling
who owned a business was by far the least common
response for both the control group (2%) and program
group (4%) (see Figure 12).
Figure 12: Family Member owning a Business
Mother or female guardian 19% (48) 17% (42)
Father or male guardian 27% (67) 34% (84)
Grandmother or Grandfather 17% (41) 18% (45)
Aunt or Uncle 31% (77) 32% (80)
Sister or Brother 2% (5) 4% (9)
Cousin 9% (23) 12% (29)
Other 10% (25) 8% (19)
C ont ro l
Group
Program
Gro up
Has anyone in your family ever owned a
business?
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 47
School Subjects and Creativity
In order to better understand the students’ viewpoints
on creativity, students were asked about which school
subjects they would consider likely for a student to be
creative. The majority of the responders believe
students are likely to be creative in The Arts (78% of the
control group vs 83% of the program group strongly
agreed or agreed). The response rate to The Arts was
more than 20% greater than any other subject area.
Other subject areas students felt they can be creative
include: Music, Physical Education, Science, and
Language Arts. On the flip side, the school subjects that
students felt they were less likely to be creative in were:
Foreign Languages (15% of the control group vs 19% of
the program group), Geography (12% of the control
group vs 13% of the program group), and Social
Sciences (13% of the control group vs 18% of the
program group) (see Figure 13).
The students in the program and control groups were
asked a series of questions about innovative
characteristics of young people. The questions looked at six different themes: (1) creativity, (2)
risk-propensity, (3) self-efficacy, (4) leadership, (5) energy and (6) problem-solving in young
people. The results for each theme are presented in the following section.
Creativity
In general, students in the program group scored slightly higher in most of the statements on
creativity. The overall creativity measures between the control group and program group were
not statistically significant, but the results show students felt very strong about being creative.
Almost three-quarters of the students in the program and control groups strongly disagreed or
disagreed with the statement “I am not a creative person”, thus indicating students felt very
strongly about being described as creative. The statement “I am not a creative person” elicited
the largest number of strongly disagrees (29% of the control group vs 27% of the program
group strongly disagreed), compared to all of the other questions for both the program and
control groups. This result indicates that creativity is being fostered in the study classrooms
since students have developed a strong sense of creativity. This is an important result because
Figure 13: School Subjects Considered
Creative
The Arts 78% (193) 83% (205)
Computer Studies 38% (95) 38% (93)
Environmental studies 11% (28) 21% (53)
Foreign Languages 15% (37) 19% (48)
Geography 12% (29) 13% (31)
History 19% (48) 20% (50)
Language Arts 35% (86) 44% (108)
Mathematics 35% (87) 45% (110)
Music 59% (145) 65% (160)
Physical Education/Health 45% (112) 43% (107)
Science 43% (105) 53% (131)
Social Sciences 14% (34) 17% (42)
Other 7% (18) 3% (7)
Please tell us the school subject or
subjects in which you consider it likely for
a student to be creative.
C ont ro l
Group
Pro gram
Gro up
There is a significant difference between groups
(p<0.05)
48 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
when creativity is nurtured in educational environments it can foster greater student
engagement and student satisfaction (Robinson, 2011). Creativity is at the heart of the 21st
century competencies and they are needed to help position our youth for success in the global
environment (see Figure 14).
When students were asked a question on being inventive (“I would like to invent something
that is new to the world”), the results showed students in the program group had more of a
desire to be inventive than students in the control group (41% vs. 35% strongly agreed -
program vs. control group respectively). In addition, 89% of the students in program group
agreed or strongly agreed on the statement “I like putting ideas together to come up with
something new”, compared to 86% of the students in the control group. Chell and Athayde
(2009) noted that the culture and ethos of a school can impact the students’ ability to develop
skills for innovation. Perhaps, in this case, students in the program group whose teachers
participated in the professional learning on creativity and innovation with Ideaction, were able
to create a learning environment that developed their students desire to invent something new
in the future.
For both the program and control groups, students strongly expressed that they like the feeling
of accomplishing difficult tasks and putting ideas together to come up with something new. The
statement with the highest percent “agrees” for the students in both the program and control
groups agreeing was “I am good at having ideas” These two statements (i.e. like the feeling of
accomplishing difficult tasks and putting ideas together to come up with something new)
elicited such strong responses because possibly students want to be challenged. Silver (1997)
explains that by making the classroom a place of investigation, creative and innovative thinking
can be stimulated. This opinion is echoed by Cropley (1997) and Sternberg and Williams (1996),
who emphasize those teachers who foster creative learning environments, provide excitement
in the classroom. Problem-solving activities are a great way to stimulate creativity and give
students the challenge they desire (Davis & Rimm, 1985; Karnes et al., 1961; Subotnik,1988).
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 49
Figure 14: Student Creativity
I am not a creative person
I like the feeling of accomplishing diff icult tasks
I have a strong imagination
I like putting ideas together to come up w ith something
new
I w ould like to invent something that is new to the w orld
Creativity
I am good at having ideas
Control Group Program Group
34%
2%
2%
1%
4%
3%
8%
37%
8%
12%
10%
16%
14%
16%
19%
45%
47%
59%
38%
59%
44%
10%
46%
39%
30%
41%
25%
32%
247
247
246
247
247
246
1480
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
32%
3%
2%
3%
5%
2%
8%
41%
9%
12%
11%
17%
18%
18%
18%
47%
53%
56%
43%
56%
45%
9%
41%
33%
30%
35%
25%
29%
244
245
243
241
245
244
1462
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
Summary: In general, students in the program group have slightly higher percentages of students (2%-3%) agreeing or strongly agreeing on the creativity statements. The results demonstrate no statistical significant difference on overall creativity results among the students in the program and control groups; nonetheless, the results show notable findings. Most importantly, the results show students felt very strong about being creative. The results also show students in the program group had more of a desire to be inventive. These included an important result between the control and program groups over the statement “I would like to invent something that is new to the world,” with program group having 41% of students strongly agreeing with the statement and the control group having 35% of students strongly agreeing with the statement. Perhaps, in this case, students in the program group, whose teachers participated in the professional learning on creativity and innovation, created a learning environment that developed their students desire to invent something new in the future. Other notable findings include: for both the program and control groups, students expressed: (1) that they would describe themselves as creative, (2) that they like the feeling of accomplishing difficult tasks, and (3) I am good at having ideas.
50 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Risk-Propensity
Although not statistically significant, overall risk-propensity results were slightly higher for the
students in the program group than the students in the control group. Both groups showed
interesting findings about the Grade 5 and 7 students’ outlook on risk (see Figure 15). Nearly a third
of the students in both the program and control groups would describe themselves as “a risk-
taker”. Both the students in the program and control groups displayed high levels of agreement
with the statement “I would describe myself as a risk-taker” (61% of the control group vs. 68% of
the program group strongly agreed or agreed). This is an important result because as Chell and
Athayde (2009) explain, risk-propensity is an important attribute needed for innovation and
innovators and entrepreneurs typically have high risk-propensity, meaning they are more risk-
tolerant.
Many students in the study are willing to take on some risk. About 60% of students in the
program group and 57% in control group disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “I
try not to take part in sports where there is a bit of danger” (see Figure 15). According to the
work of Chell and Athayde (2009), sports help students understand better risk and foster
leadership skills. Students need to be encouraged to take on some risk, and understand that it
is okay to learn from their mistakes. The same authors also suggest students should receive
additional lessons on risk awareness in order to improve their understanding and willingness to
take risk. Risk-taking is an important aspect of creativity.
Figure 15: Risk-Propensity
I try not to take part in sports w here there is a bit of
danger
Risk-propensity
Program Group
I w ould describe myself as a risk-taker
Control Group
34%
9%
21%
26%
23%
25%
25%
47%
36%
15%
21%
18%
247
245
492
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
24%
9%
17%
32%
29%
31%
28%
44%
36%
15%
18%
16%
244
244
488
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
Summary: The overall risk-propensity results between the control and program groups showed no statistical difference, but about a third of the students n the program and control groups would describe themselves as a risk-taker. This is an important result because as Chell & Athayde (2009) explain risk-propensity is an important attribute needed for innovation.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 51
Self-Efficacy
Students were asked to respond to three statements about their beliefs in their ability to
achieve specific results, otherwise known as self-efficacy: (1) People think that I am very
confident, (2) I feel quite comfortable telling other people what to do, and (3) I feel confident
that I can do what is asked of me.
Students in the control and program groups showed high overall self-efficacy, with students in
the program group displaying slightly higher percentage agreeing or strongly agreeing on the self-
efficacy statements. Overall, 71% of the control group and 74% of the program group responses
were closer to the agreed or strongly agreed categories for all the three self-efficacy statements
(only 5% of the students in the control group and 6% of the students in the program group
strongly disagreed with the three self-efficacy statements) (see Figure 16). Self-efficacy is
important regardless of the subject area and a fundamental component of leadership and
personal development (Chell & Athayde, 2009).
Students in both the program and control group believe they are perceived as confident: 71%
of the control group vs 74% of the program group strongly agreed or agreed with the statement
“People think that I am very confident”. Students’ responses to the statement “I feel confident
that I can do what is asked of me” showed that students display great confidence too (90% of
students in the control group vs. 89% of students in the program group strongly agreed or
agreed) (see Figure 16).
However, the following self-efficacy result showed a statistical difference among the students
in program and control groups: “I feel quite comfortable telling other people what to do”. It
appears that schools which participated in the professional learning sessions have created a
classroom structure better supporting self-efficacy. Students whose teachers participated in the
professional learning sessions were more comfortable telling other what to do (14% of the
control group vs 24% of the program group strongly agreed) (see Figure 16). Experts have
suggested that schools can develop student self-efficacy through encouragement, teaching
through experience, and allowing students to make mistakes (Chell & Athayde, 2009).
Figure 16: Self-Efficacy
People think that I am very confident
I feel quite comfortable telling other people
what to do
Self-efficacy
I feel confident that I can do w hat is asked of me
Control Group Program Group
4%
10%
1%
5%
22%
30%
10%
21%
47%
37%
56%
47%
27%
24%
33%
28%
243
246
244
733
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
5%
12%
2%
6%
24%
37%
8%
23%
51%
37%
65%
51%
20%
14%
24%
20%
241
241
245
727
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
There is a significant difference between groups (p<0.05)
52 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Leadership
When students were asked about their leadership qualities, 59% of students in the control
group and 63% of students in the program group responded that they agreed or strongly
agreed with the four leadership statements. The results showed overall statistical differences in
leadership between the program and control groups as well as for certain leadership qualities,
including the students’ desire to take on leadership roles and encouraging others to follow their
ideas.
The students in the program group, whose teachers attended professional learning on
innovation and creativity, demonstrated a stronger affinity to take on a leadership role. A
statistically significant result between the control and program groups was revealed over the
statement “I really like being a leader of a group” (65% of the control group vs 72% of the
program group strongly agreed or agreed) (see Figure 17). Research emphasizes the importance
of strong leadership skills for innovation and success of youth in the global environment (Chell
& Athayde, 2009; Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, 2008). It may be the case that
students whose teachers received additional training on innovation and creativity are better
able to develop their leadership skills.
The results also demonstrate that the students in the program group are more inclined to
encourage others to follow their ideas. The statement “When I am working on a group project, I
try to encourage others to follow my ideas”, revealed a statistical difference between the
students in the control and program groups (17% of the control group vs 24% of the program
group strongly agreed) (see Figure 17). A key component of leadership is the ability to convince
others of your vision, a critical skill for the innovation process (Chell & Athayde, 2009).
Another notable finding included the students’ electability as a team leader or captain: 57% of
the students in the control group and 55% of the students in the program group disagree or
strongly disagree with the statement “I am often chosen to be the team leader or captain” (see
Figure 17).
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 53
Figure 17: Leadership
Energy
Almost three-quarters of the students would describe themselves as energetic. The overall
energy results between the control and program groups showed no statistical difference,
except the results corresponding to a statement related to the students’ reaction when they do
not have the necessary time to finish a task.
Students in the program and control group were asked whether people would describe them
as energetic and a large number of students would say that they were energetic (73% of the
control group and the program group agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 18). Energy is
important for drive, enthusiasm, motivation, hard-work, persistence, and commitment, and
thus, it is a good thing that our students would be described as energetic (Chell & Athayde,
2009). According to the same authors, a typical inventor would possess high energy among
other characteristics, making energy an important characteristic to be targeted for cultivation.
I really like being leader of a group
I am often chosen to be the team leader or captain
I enjoy getting people to follow me
Control Group
Leadership
When I am working on a group project, I try to
encourage others to follow my ideas
Program Group
7%
12%
10%
3%
8%
21%
43%
32%
18%
28%
36%
30%
35%
55%
39%
36%
15%
23%
24%
24%
246
246
246
246
984
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
8%
14%
9%
4%
9%
27%
43%
35%
23%
32%
39%
30%
41%
56%
42%
26%
12%
15%
17%
17%
244
246
244
245
979
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
Summary: The results on student leadership demonstrated important findings about young people’s desire for leadership and to encourage others to follow their ideas. Students in the program group, whose teachers attended professional learning on innovation and creativity, demonstrated a stronger affinity to take on leadership roles and encouraging others to follow their ideas. Research suggests, leadership skills are important for innovation and success of our youth in the global environment (Ministry of Research and Innovation, 2008). The results also demonstrate that students in the program group are more inclined to encourage others to follow their ideas. A key component to leadership is being able to convince others of your vision and according to Chell and Athayde (2009) such a skill is critical for the innovation process.
There is a significant difference between groups (p<0.05)
54 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
An even larger percentage of students said “If my friends give up something, I will continue it
until it is finished” with 82% of the students in the control group and 78% of the students in the
program group agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement. Conversely to that, the
results showed a that a high number of students do not like having a lot of things on the go,
with 42% of students in the control group and 36% of students in the program group
disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement “I like having a lot of things on the go”
(see Figure 18).
The results also demonstrated that students in the program group are more inclined to feel
frustrated if they are not given enough time to complete a task, in comparison to students in te
control group. The statement “I feel frustrated if I do not have the time to complete the tasks
set”, revealed a statistical difference between the two groups.
Figure 18: Energy
Program Group
People often describe me as energetic
I feel frustrated if I do not have the time to
complete the tasks set
I like having a lot of things on the go
If my friends give up on something, I w ill continue it until
it is f inished
Energy
Control Group
5%
4%
3%
9%
5%
22%
22%
19%
27%
23%
37%
43%
50%
43%
44%
36%
30%
28%
22%
29%
244
246
246
245
981
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
6%
5%
2%
10%
6%
20%
14%
16%
32%
21%
43%
42%
54%
42%
45%
30%
38%
28%
16%
28%
244
243
245
245
977
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
There is a significant difference between groups (p<0.05)
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 55
Problem-Solving
Students were asked six different statements about problem-solving. The results demonstrated
certain similarities among the program and control groups but also uncovered important
differences on how students understand and solve problems in different ways.
Students felt strongly that it is rewarding to help other students to solve problems. The
statement of “I find it rewarding to provide my help to other students when they solve
problems” elicited the largest number of strongly agrees and agrees compared to all of the
other questions for both the program and the control groups (86% of the control group vs 89%
of the program group agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 19). Chell and Athayde (2009)
stress the importance of desire of support in problem solving when students work on projects
in groups: students develop the important skill of teamwork.
Problem-solving is an important part of developing creativity skills (Kirton, 1987; Kirton, 1989).
The results of the present study show an important difference between the control and
program groups over the statement “I understand problems differently from my friends”, with
28% of students in the program group strongly agreeing with the statement, compared to 18%
of students in the control group (see Figure 19). Based on these results, students whose
teachers attended professional learning on creativity and innovation are being given more
opportunities to think differently and try different things when solving problems. Classroom
practices should promote students’ understanding and self-improvement, encourage their
critical thinking critically, and allow them to try different things.
Summary: Control and program groups showed no statistical difference in overall energy scores, but almost three-quarters of the students would describe themselves as energetic, with 73% of students in the control group and the program group saying that people would describe them as energetic. Conversely to that, the results showed that a high number of students do not like having a lot of things on the go, with 42% of students in the control group and 36% of students in the program group disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement “I like having a lot of things on the go.” In addition to that, the results also demonstrate a statistically significant results that students in the program group are more inclined to feel frustrated if they are not given enough time to complete a task, in comparison to students in the control group. Energy is an important characteristic, for drive, enthusiasm, motivation, hard-work, persistence and commitment, fundamental characteristics of inventors (Chell & Athayde , 2009).
56 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Students in the control group appear more likely to strongly agree with the statement “When I
am faced with a problem, I have several different ways to solve it”, than the students in the
program group (23% vs. 17% strongly agreed- control vs. program group respectively) (see
Figure 19).
Other interesting findings had to do with the fact that students in the program and control
group expressed that they like working on problems as a team. Eighty six (86%) and 84% of the
control and program group students respectively agreed or strongly agreed with the statement,
“I like to work with other students as a team when we solve problems.” This was the second
highest percentage of agreement in both groups of students (see Figure 19).
Figure 19: Problem Solving
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions, Conceptions, and Behaviors about Creativity and Innovative Teaching
Teachers and administrators from (13) TDSB schools were asked a series of questions about: (1)
perceptions of creativity, (2) creativity-fostering teaching behavior, (3) school/district support
of innovative teaching, and (4) effectiveness of workshops on creativity and innovation.
I like to ask many questions before I try to f ind possible
solutions to a problem
I like to w ork w ith other students as a team w hen w e
solve problems
Program Group
Problem Solving
I understand problems differently from my friends
When I am faced w ith a problem, I have several
different w ays to solve it
It is easy for me to focus on the main question asked
w hen I am faced w ith a problem
I f ind it rew arding to provide my help to other students
w hen they solve problems
Control Group
4%
4%
5%
4%
5%
2%
4%
14%
24%
26%
23%
11%
8%
18%
54%
55%
54%
51%
44%
56%
52%
28%
17%
15%
22%
40%
34%
26%
247
247
246
247
247
247
1481
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
4%
4%
5%
5%
4%
3%
4%
15%
20%
27%
22%
9%
11%
17%
63%
53%
50%
47%
50%
56%
53%
18%
23%
18%
26%
36%
30%
25%
241
246
244
245
244
246
1466
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Respons
Response
Summary: The results demonstrated certain similarities and differences among the program and control groups’ problem-solving attributes. Similarities among the students in the control and program groups were that they felt strongly that they: (1) find it rewarding to help others solve problems, (2) like working on problems in a variety of ways, and (3) like working on problems as a team. However, the differences among the program and control groups focus on that students in the program group understand problems differently than their friends, and students in the control group are more likely to solve problems in different ways than the students in the program group.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 57
The teacher and administrators in the program group participated in professional learning
sessions provided by Ideaction on creativity and innovation while teachers and administrators
in the control group did not participate in the professional learning session. Results will be
discussed in the following section.
Perceptions and Implicit Conceptions of Creativity
The participants in the program and control groups were asked a series questions using open-
ended, Likert-scale, and “select all that apply” type of questions to better understand their
perceptions and implicit conceptions of creativity. Also, the participants were asked questions
looking at the creativity fostering teaching behavior including: (1) creativity in school subjects,
(2) creativity for all, (3) creativity assessment, (4) teaching creativity, and (5) sociocultural and
environmental factors influencing creativity. Results for each theme will be examined.
Overall Creativity Results
Teachers and administrators were asked 10 different statements about their perceptions of
creativity. The results demonstrate that teachers and administrators truly believe “everyone
can be creative”. Teachers and administrators had near unanimous agreement with the
statement “everyone can be creative.” The absolute majority (100%) of the participants in the
control group strongly agreed or agreed and 92% of the participants in the program group
strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “everyone can be creative.” As such, this
statement is a driving statement for the teachers’ and administrators’ results on creativity.
Much in the same way, all the teachers and administrators in the study believe that creativity is
accessible to all and all disagreed that creativity is a characteristic of only eminent people.
According to Cachia and Ferrari (2010), teachers should recognize the importance for all
students to be creative. Based on these results, TDSB teachers recognize the importance of
creativity and believe that all students can be creative. Teachers and administrators also felt
strongly that creativity is important in a wide number of subject areas. In fact, the statement
“creativity is only relevant to visual arts, music, drama and artistic performance” elicited a large
number of strongly disagrees for both the participants in the program and control groups.
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of teachers and administrators in the program group and 62% of
teachers and administrators in the control group strongly disagreed with the statement (see
Figure 20).
Other interesting findings included the response to the statement “creativity is a fundamental
skill that can be applied to every school subject” (100% of the control group vs 92% of the
program group agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 20). According to Cachia and Ferrari
58 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
(2010), schools have a duty to provide students with an education that focuses on creativity
and innovation just as much as learning specific knowledge of a given subject area.
Figure 20: Creativity Fostering Teaching Behavior
Creativity in School
Teachers and administrators were asked about which school subjects they consider it likely for
a student to be creative. Both the participants from the program and control groups
unanimously agreed (100%) that the Arts for being the school subject for student creativity to
be displayed. Nonetheless, participants in both groups believe that creativity can be fostered in
a wide range of subject areas, not just The Arts (all of the other school subjects were
considered as likely for students to manifest their creativity (and they received around 70%
positive responses in both groups). Responders from the program and control groups believe
that students can also foster creativity in Computer Science, Environmental Science,
Geography, History, Language Arts, Mathematics, Music, Physical Education/Health, Science
and Social Science. On the flip side, the one school subject that teachers and administrators felt
there were less likely to be creative in was: Foreign Languages (46% of the control group and
50% of the program group). This was the only subject area with less than 70% agreement (see
Figure 21).
Control Group Program Group
Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements regarding creativity.
Creativity can be assessed
Creativity can be taught
Sociocultural and environmental factors influence creative
performance
Creativity - Overall
Creativity is only relevant to visual arts, music, drama and artistic
performance
Creativity is a skill that can be applied to every school subject
Everyone can be creative
Creativity is a fundamental skill to be developed in school
Creativity is an inborn talent
Creativity is a characteristic of eminent people only (such as
Einstein & Michelangelo)
79%
7%
7%
14%
50%
7%
7%
19%
21%
7%
79%
50%
14%
7%
14%
21%
7%
21%
21%
7%
57%
64%
57%
26%
86%
71%
71%
21%
29%
21%
33%
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
126
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Response
62%
8%
15%
77%
8%
19%
23%
54%
23%
15%
8%
8%
15%
15%
8%
31%
23%
62%
31%
62%
26%
15%
77%
92%
69%
8%
23%
54%
31%
41%
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
117
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Response
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 59
Figure 21: School Subjects Teachers and Administrators Consider Likely for Students to Manifest Their Creativity
Teachers’ Creativity-Fostering Teaching Behaviors
Teachers and administrators were asked four statements about encouraging creativity in the
classrooms and about teaching strategies to foster creativity and innovative thinking:
encouraging creativity in the classrooms: (1) is not facilitated by the Ontario Ministry of
Education mandated curriculum, (2) is not facilitated by having different needs and behaviors of
the students, (3) will have negative effects on standardized testing, and (4) fosters “chaos”
during instruction (see Figure 22).
One of the most important findings about teachers’ creativity-fostering teaching behaviors was
that creativity does not foster “chaos” in the classroom. Teachers and administrators in the
program and control groups felt very strongly that encouraging creativity in the classroom does
not foster “chaos” during instruction, and in fact, none of the participants believe that creativity
Summary: Program and control group results illuminated important findings about teachers implicit perceptions of creativity. This included near unanimous agreement that everyone can be creative, creativity is important in a wide range of subject areas and that creativity is a
fundamental skill. In addition to this, teachers and administrators believe students can be creative in all subject areas, except Foreign Languages.
Control Group (13) Program Group (14)
The Arts 100% 100%
Computer Studies 85% 93%
Environmental studies 69% 79%
Foreign Languages 46% 50%
Geography 77% 71%
History 69% 71%
Language Arts 92% 93%
Mathematics 85% 93%
Music 100% 93%
Physical Education/Health 69% 86%
Science 77% 93%
Social Sciences 92% 86%
Other 8% 0%
Subjects in which you consider it likely for a
student to manifest his or her creativity.
60 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
fosters “chaos” in the classroom. This indicates that the surveyed participants in the present
study have positive attitudes towards creativity in the classroom (see Figure 22).
Another notable finding was that participants believe that creativity in the classroom does not
lead to negative standardized testing results. Responding to the statement “encouraging
creativity in the classroom will have negative effects on standardized testing”, teachers and
administrators showed a disagreement (15% of the control group vs 7% of the program group
agreed or strongly agreed) (see Figure 22). This is an important result, since according to Cachia
and Ferrari (2010), teaching and assessment are often geared towards preparing pupils for
assessment tests. Most current assessment methods, including standardized testing, place a
strong emphasis on knowledge and recall and do not directly take into account creativity and
innovation. The results of the present study show that teachers and administrators throughout
the TDSB recognize the importance of creativity in the classroom and on student success.
The results also showed that the teachers in the control group, more than the teachers in the
program group, felt that the Ontario of Ministry of Education encourages creativity in the
classroom. Fifty-four per cent (54%) of the control group vs 21% of the program group agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom is not facilitated
by the Ontario Ministry of Education’s mandated curriculum” (see Figure 22). Research
demonstrates that teachers and administrators sometimes feel curriculum does not support
creativity and innovation because assessment tools, such as standardized testing, do not test
creativity. In addition to that, teachers often feel a lack of time or support in the classroom may
attribute to these feelings (Cachia & Ferrari, 2010).
Figure 22: Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom
Control Group (13) Program Group (14)
is not facilitated by the Ontario Ministry of Education 54% 21%
mandated curriculum
is not facilitated by having different needs and behaviours 15% 21%
of the students
w ill have negative effects on standardized testing 15% 7%
fosters "chaos" during instruction 0% 0%
Encouraging creativity in the classroom.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 61
Control group participant #7, explained I give students “As much freedom to express themselves and their thought process as possible.” In the same way, program group participant #15 wrote, “allow [sic] students to be expressive without restraint.” On the other hand, some participants focused on the importance of student-directed learning. Participant #9 explained “3 part-lessons, students directed learning and learning centers” are classroom strategies that they use to foster creativity and innovative thinking".
For example, Program Group Respondent #15, discussed the importance of “Allowing students to [sic] be expressive without restraint,” Control Group Respondent #7 explained give the students “As much freedom to express themselves and their thought process as possible.” In the same way, some teachers and administrators discussed the importance of focusing on encouraging students to question. For example, Control Group Respondent #13 explained “I focus on inquiry” to foster creativity in students and Program Group Respondent #16 suggested “How to…? questioning”, as a means to foster creativity.
Creativity Fostering Teaching Strategies
To further examine the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and implicit conceptions of
creativity, the participants were asked about the kinds of teaching strategies which foster
creativity in the classroom. The most common suggestions for participants in both the control
and program groups were: problem-solving, inquiry learning, high-level questioning, and open-
ended questioning. The most common responses for the program group were problem-solving,
high-level questioning, and group discussion. Other responses, included inquiry based learning,
question creation, visualization, and divergent and convergent thinking. On the other hand, for
the control group the most common responses were problem-solving, high-level questioning,
open-ended problems, and 3-part lessons. Other responses included brainstorming, freedom to
express themselves, student directed learning, and think-pair-share. Additional notable
creativity fostering teaching techniques included: giving students’ freedom and student-
directed learning.
Teaching Styles
Teachers were asked a series of questions examining how their teaching styles promote: (1)
independent thinking, (2) integration of
ideas, (3) motivation, (4) judgment, (5)
flexibility, (6) self-evaluation, (7)
questioning, (8) opportunities for
exploration, (9) allow for failure, (10)
critical thinking, and (11) collaboration.
Overall, the results demonstrate that
teachers in the program and control groups
are supporting all 11 areas of teaching in
their classroom. In fact, the overall scores
for each of the categories ranged from a
mean of 5.91 out of 6 for supporting
collaboration in the classroom, to a low of
a mean 4.83 out 6 for supporting students’
ability to judge their thoughts and ideas.
Based on these results, teachers seem to
supporting a variety of teaching styles16.
16 Please refer to Appendix A for the analysis on the teaching styles.
62 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
The results reveal important findings for two aspects of teaching: collaboration and judgment.
Teachers in both the program and control groups had the highest level of agreement with the
statement that they provide regular opportunities for collaboration in the classroom: (mean
score 5.91/6 for the control group vs 5.5/6 for the program group agreed or strongly agreed).
Based on these survey results, teachers appear to understand and support the importance of
providing opportunities for group and teamwork in the classroom.
Teaching styles which promote “judgment” (such as, asking follow-up questions to make
students think, not immediately giving your viewpoint to the students, and/or commenting on
student ideas only after they have explored them on their own), received the lowest ratings in
both groups examined (mean score 4.86/6 for the control group vs 4.83/6 for the program
group agreed or strongly agreed). While these scores are not inherently low compared to all the
other categories, teachers and administrators could work towards promoting more student
judgement in the classroom (see Appendix A).
Summary: Teachers were asked different statements about encouraging creativity in the classrooms and about teaching strategies that they use to foster creativity and innovative thinking. Results from the program and control groups illuminated important findings for two individual statements about creativity fostering behavior. These included a significant result that all of the teachers in the program and control groups believe creativity in the classroom does not foster “chaos” in the classroom. Another significant result was that teachers believe that creativity in the classroom does not lead to negative standardized testing results. The results were as follows: the program group had 7% of teachers agree with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom will have negative effects on standardized testing”, compared to the control group which had 15% of teachers agree. Other notable findings include: teachers in the control group were more likely to agree with the statement “encouraging creativity in the classroom is not facilitated by the Ontario Ministry of Education’s mandated curriculum. In addition to this, the common teaching strategies to foster creativity includes: (1) problem-solving, (2) inquiry learning, (3) high-level questioning, and (4) open-ended questioning. As well, as teachers highly cultivate collaboration in the classroom, but should work towards improving student judgement.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 63
School and District Support of Innovative Teaching
Teachers were asked their opinion on how the school/district supports innovative teaching by
responding to nine statements (six related to “our school” and three related to “our school
leaders”). In addition, teachers and administrators were asked their opinion on what types of
professional learning support for creativity fostering teaching would they find helpful (see
Figure 23).
Overall, teachers in both the control and program groups showed a high agreement for overall
school support for innovative teaching (76% of the control group vs 67% of the program group
agreed or strongly agreed) with only 8% of teachers in the control and program groups
expressing strong disagreement with the statements (see Figure 23). This is an important result
because according to Zhu et al. (2013), the school environment can play an integral role in
supporting innovative teaching and school environments, including leadership and professional
relationships, are important factors in influencing teacher attitude and behavior. Based, on
these results, TDSB schools are providing a supportive environment that seems to be
strengthening and encouraging the development of innovative teaching behaviors.
The statement “our school creates opportunities for partnerships beyond school”, received
strong agreement amongst teachers in the control group (92%), but not as much with teachers
in the program group (69%). In addition, the teachers in the control group felt strongly that
their school offered opportunities for involvement in sports, arts, and business communities.
Other noteworthy results regarding school support that demonstrate important differences
among the teachers in both the program and control groups included the following statements:
“most teachers in our school are open to changes in teaching” (69% of the control group vs 38%
of the program group agreed or strongly agreed), and “the teachers in my school really work as
an innovative team” (77% of the control group vs 46% of the program group agreed or strongly
agreed) (see Figure 23).
On the other hand, questions related to school leaders’ support for innovative teaching showed
very similar results among the two group participants. For example, 84% of the teachers in the
control group and 86% of teachers in the program group agree or strongly agree with the
statement “our school leaders are willing to listen attentively to teachers’ thoughts”.
Furthermore, 92% of teachers in the control and 85% of teachers in the program group believe
“school leaders in our school encourage and support individual teachers’ development” (see
Figure 23). According to Darling-Hammond (2010), in order for systems to build strong teaching
and learning environments there is a need for strong support of ongoing learning opportunities
for students, teachers, and schools alike. Based on these results, teachers in the program and
64 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
control groups feel that TDSB school leaders are doing quite well at creating an infrastructure to
provide ongoing support and learning for the teachers.
Lastly, teachers were asked to discuss any professional learning opportunities they would like
to see to help improve creativity fostering teaching and the following were suggested:
demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, time to try the various activities, and
ways to modify/simplify the program for younger students. Nonetheless, there were also a few
teachers who indicated they did not have any discussion or professional learning about
creativity fostering teaching. This could be something the TDSB could focus on.
Figure 23: School Support for Innovative Teaching
Control Group Program Group
The teachers in my school really w ork as an innovative team
Our school provides opportunities for teachers to w ork
outdoors and beyond the classroom (e.g., galleries, museums)
Our school creates opportunities for partnerships beyond
school (e.g., involvement w ith sports, arts, and business
communities)
Our school leaders and teachers provide high quality
professional learning needed by the Board to foster creativity
and innovation in teaching and learning in my school
School Support on Innovative Teaching - Overall
Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements regarding your school
support for innovative teaching.
Our school leaders are w illing to listen attentively to teachers`
thoughts
School leaders in our school encourage and support individual
teachers` development
Usually I can get the resources I need for my teaching from my
school (e.g., books, multimedia teaching resources)
Our school provides enough time for teachers to plan and
implement innovative teaching activities
Most teachers in our school are open to changes in teaching
14%
8%
15%
15%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
38%
62%
54%
15%
23%
15%
24%
50%
54%
69%
38%
38%
46%
69%
46%
69%
53%
36%
31%
15%
8%
8%
23%
8%
14%
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
118
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Response
8%
8%
15%
23%
8%
8%
8%
8%
15%
23%
23%
15%
31%
8%
23%
16%
46%
54%
62%
38%
54%
69%
46%
92%
77%
60%
38%
38%
8%
15%
15%
8%
23%
16%
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
117
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Agree StronglyAgree
Response
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 65
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions about the Workshop Effectiveness
Teachers and administrators who participated in the creativity workshops provided by
Ideaction were asked a series of questions about their perception of the effectiveness of the
workshops provided by Ideaction. The results indicate that the educators who participated in
the Ideaction workshops strongly agreed or agreed the workshops had a positive or somewhat
positive impact (89%), they gained new information on creativity and innovation (100%), and
the presenters were knowledgeable about the subject matter (100%) (see Figure 24). This is in
addition to 90% and above of the teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing that the professional
learning sessions provided them with: relevant content, appropriate materials, and that they
would be able to apply what they have learned to their teaching practice (see Figure 25).
Summary: Teachers in the control and program group felt that the school/district supports innovative teaching overall. However, the results also showed a few differences between teachers in the control and program group including: (1) on schools creating partnerships opportunities,(2) many teachers in the program group feeling schools are not open to change, and (3) many teachers in the program group in their school do not work as a team.
On the other hand, teachers in the control and program group feel that school leaders are willing to listen to their thoughts and ideas.
Teachers were asked to discuss any professional learning opportunities they would like to see to help improve creativity fostering teaching and the following were suggested: demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, time to try the various activities and ways to modify/simplify the program for younger students. At the same time, there were also a few teachers who indicated they have not had any discussion or professional learning about creativity fostering teaching. This could be something the TDSB could focus on.
66 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
When the program participants were asked whether they would like to see the Ideaction
workshops continued at their schools, the majority of the teachers (57%) agreed, while 14% of
teachers said they would not like the program continued (see Figure 26). When the teachers
were asked about the quality of the professional learning sessions, almost three-quarters of the
teachers felt the professional learning sessions were of excellent or good quality. Even more so,
no teachers rated the sessions as poor (the lowest rating was fair: 21% of the teachers
responded this way). Ninety five percent (95%) of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that
overall the professional learning was beneficial (see Figure 27).
Figure 24: Impact of Attending Professional Learning
Rate each of the following related to the professional
learning sessions you attended on Creativity Fostering
Teaching Environments?
a) The content w as relevant
b) The presenters w ere know ledgeable about the topic
c) The teaching materials w ere appropriate
d) I have gained new information and know ledge from the
sessions
e) I w ill be able to apply w hat I learned in the sessions to my
teaching practice/w ork
Professional Learning - Overall
9%
8%
9%
5%
55%
36%
67%
58%
64%
56%
36%
64%
25%
42%
27%
39%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Figure 25: Overall Impressions of Professional Learning
Professional learning sessions you attended,
and what impact did the sessions have on your
teaching/work?
% of Attending
Session
a) August 18, 2014 (Introduction to the program) 71%
b) November 21, 2014 (Debriefing the program thus
far)64%
c) Exploration Classrooms (across the city on
different dates)7%
Other sessions 7%
Impact of Attending Professional Learning - Overall
11%
13%
11%
33%
50%
100%
42%
56%
38%
100%
47%
No Impact Somewhat Positive Impact Positive Impact
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 67
Figure 27: Quality of the Sessions you Attended
ExcellentGood
Fair
NotApplicable
36%36%
21%7%
Program Group (14)
Program Group (14)
Quality of the sessions that you attended
Figure 26: Would you like to see Creativity Fostering Teaching Environments Continued at your School
Would you like to see Creativity Fostering Teaching Environments
continued at your school?
Yes ,
33%
Not Sure,
67%
Control Group (9)
Yes, 57%
No, 14%
Not Sure, 29%
Program Group (14)
Summary: Overall, the teachers in the program group felt very positively about the professional learning sessions provided by Ideaction. Ninety-five percent (95%) of teachers strongly agreed or
agreed that overall the professional learning was beneficial. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of teachers and administrators in the program group believe that attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat positive impact on them. In addition to this, the results show 100% of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they gained new information on creativity and innovation about creativity and innovation from the workshops
68 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
SECTION V: CONCLUSION
Overall, there are many important conclusions that arise from this study, including those at the
classroom and school/district level. The main findings that emerged from this research center
on the importance of:
making the classroom a place of investigation,
providing opportunities for ongoing teacher professional learning on creativity and innovation, and
allowing for innovative teaching practices.
Overall, students in both the program and control groups believe creativity is important, would
describe themselves as creative, they feel they are good at putting ideas together to come up
with something new, and they like accomplishing difficult tasks. Students also expressed that
they like when they can be creative. Teachers can develop student innovation and creativity
through encouragement, teaching through inquiry, and allowing the classroom to be a place of
investigation.
The study also studied the innovative characteristics of students in Grades 5 and 7. Based on
the results of the study the innovative characteristics of students were: creativity, high energy,
not liking having too many things on the go, taking risk, and enjoying collaborative problem-
solving.
The results indicate that teachers and administrators believe creativity is a fundamental skill
accessible to all students in all subject areas. Teachers and administrators continue to strive to
create and foster educational environments that develop student creativity and innovation.
The most common teaching strategies to foster creativity included: problem-solving, inquiry
learning, high-level questioning, and open-ended questioning. In addition, many teachers, both
in the program and control group, discussed how they strive to create a collaborative classroom
as a way to foster creativity. Based on the results of the study, the main recommendations for
the classroom include: making the classroom a place of creativity and innovation, allow
students to focus one thing at a time, focus on improving student risk-propensity.
Overall, the teachers in the program group felt very positively about the professional learning
sessions provided by Ideaction (95% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that overall the
professional learning was beneficial and 89% of the teachers and administrators believe that
attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat positive impact on
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 69
them). In addition to this, the results show 100% of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that
they gained new information on creativity and innovation from the workshops. Teachers
expressed the desire to see more ongoing professional learning on creativity and innovation
such as: demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities, additional time to try the various
activities, and ways to modify/simplify the professional learning for younger students.
Overall, teachers felt that the school/district supports innovative teaching. Teachers in both the
control and program groups felt school leaders are willing to listen to their thoughts and ideas.
In addition to this, there is a lot that can be done at the district/school level to foster creativity,
innovation and innovative thinking in our schools. This includes: (1) continuing to provide
ongoing professional learning on creativity and innovation, (2) continuation of the Ideaction
workshops, (3) provision of additional professional learning opportunities, (4) willingness of
schools to be open to change, and (5) creation of stronger connections to creativity and
innovation in the Ontario Ministry of Education curriculum.
Additional, recommendations for future research include the following: continuation of crafting
an innovative vision of the future maintaining and upholding official polices, providing inspiring
leadership, making professional learning a top priority, supporting contemporary learning
environments, and assessing and evaluating 21st century global competencies.
70 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
SECTION VI: RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations arise from this study that can be highlighted for the teachers and
administrators to foster creativity and innovation in teaching and learning. These include
classroom and district recommendations.
School Recommendations
Make the Classroom a Place of Creativity and Innovation
The results indicate there is a need for creativity and innovation in the classroom. Overall, TDSB
students believe creativity is important and would describe themselves as creative and they like
when creativity is fostered. Creative thinking can be developed by making the classroom a place
of investigation. Teachers can develop student innovation and creativity through
encouragement, teaching through inquiry, and allowing the classroom to be a place of
investigation. Problem-solving activities are also another way to stimulate creativity, create
connections, come up with hypothesizes, and make conjectures (Davis & Rimm,1985; Karne,
1961; Subotnik, 1988).
Allow Students to Focus on One Thing at a Time
Many TDSB students said they do not like having a lot of things on the go. According to Silver
(1997), creativity is often associated with long periods of work and reflection. Students should
be given ample time to develop their ideas on one thing at a time. Having too many things on
the go does not appear to provide them enough time for reflection and incubation to be
creative and innovative.
Focus on Improving Student Risk-Propensity
A large of number of TDSB students would describe themselves as willing to take risks. Chell and Athayde (2009) explain risk-propensity as an important attribute needed for innovation and there are activities, such as sports, which help students better understand risk and foster leadership skills. Students need to be encouraged to take on some risk and understand that it is acceptable to learn from their mistakes. The same authors also suggest students should receive additional lessons on risk awareness in order to improve their understanding and willingness to take risk.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 71
District Recommendations
The following are recommendations derived from the findings of this study which can be
highlighted for the Central Office and the program implementation team:
Continue Providing Ongoing Professional Learning on Creativity and Innovation: Educator Professional Learning Improves Student Creativity
The present results indicate the TDSB should continue providing continuous professional
learning opportunities on creativity and innovation. By providing teachers with professional
learning on creativity and innovation, students are greatly benefited. Students who had
teachers attending professional learning on creativity and innovation, had more of a desire to
be inventive, more comfort in telling others what to do, stronger affinity to take on leadership
roles, stronger ability to convince others of their ideas, and were able to understand problems
differently than their peers. Based on this, the TDSB should continue providing similar
professional learning to develop student creativity and innovative thinking.
Continue the Ideaction Workshops
Based on the results of the study, TDSB should continue with the Ideaction I2Q Pilot Program.
The overwhelming majority (95%) of teachers who attended the Ideaction workshops strongly
agreed or agreed that overall the professional learning was beneficial and 89% believe that
attending the professional learning by Ideaction had a positive or somewhat positive impact on
them. These teachers and administrators felt the workshops had a positive impact, they gained
new information on creativity and innovation, and the presenters were knowledgeable about
the subject matter.
Provide Additional Professional Learning Opportunities
Teachers indicated that they would like more professional learning on creativity and innovation
in addition to that provided by Ideaction. Demonstration workshops, co-teaching opportunities,
time to try the various activities, and suggestions on ways to modify/simplify the Ideaction
program for younger students could be included in these sessions. Teacher knowledge plays a
large role on student achievement and investing in supporting ongoing teacher learning is one
of the most important variables for a successful education system (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Hill, 2000). Regular professional learning is thus essential in providing teachers and
administrators with new knowledge, practices, and ideas.
72 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Schools Should Feel More Open to Change
The results indicated that schools need to be more open to change (see Figure 18). The TDSB
should try to focus on fostering a school environment willing to try new things and incorporate
changes.
Create Stronger Connections for Creativity and Innovation in Ontario Ministry Of Education Curriculum
Based on the study results, it appears that the Ontario Ministry of Education should strive to
create stronger connections to creativity and innovation. The results showed that the teachers
in the control group, more than the teachers in the program group, felt Ontario’s Ministry of
Education encourages creativity in the classroom (see Figure 22). Cachia and Ferrari's (2010)
research provided evidence that teachers sometimes feel curriculum does not support
creativity and innovation, because assessment tools and outcomes do not test creativity.
Schools/Districts Should Provide More Opportunities for Partnerships for Teachers Beyond School
Schools and districts should strive to create more opportunities for partnerships for teachers
beyond the school. The teachers in the control group in the present study felt strongly that
their school offered opportunities for involvement in sports, arts, and business communities;
however teaches in the program group felt more opportunities are needed (see Figure 23).
Methodological Recommendations
Recommendations derived from the findings of this study and which can be highlighted for
future research in this area include the following: 1) Student learning characteristics such as
academic achievement, engagement, and belonging could be included in the design of any
study in order to make it more comprehensive and to better understand the innovative
characteristics of young people. For the first year of monitoring the I2Q program, such factors
were not considered because of the unavailability of the standardized assessments due to labor
distributions. 2) It may be beneficial to provide an incentive, such as a small gift certificate, for
teachers in order to complete the study in an effort to increase completion rates.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 73
SECTION VII: POLICY IMPLICATIONS
What needs to be done at the district and school levels to foster creativity and innovation? This
part of the study is based on the triangulation of the results of the I2Q focus study and the
systematic knowledge from the related research literature described in this study in order to
inform policy on what needs to be done at the district and school levels to foster creativity and
innovation in our contemporary educational environments. A pictorial representation of our
suggestions is summarized in Figure 28.
Figure 28: Policy and Supports to Sustain a Framework for Creativity at the TDSB
Assessment of Skills & Global Competencies
Professional Learning
Official Policy
& Policy Coordination
Leadership
& Supports
Contemporary
Learning Environments
Framework For
Creativity
74 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
A well-articulated vision for the future is essential in achieving educational success and
fostering creativity and innovation in school environments. Such a vision acts as a basic
framework through which educational change can happen. Trilling and Fadel (2012) are
respected global education experts and suggest that visions for the future need to be
thoughtfully developed and shared among educators, districts, community, parents, and
students.
Indeed, this is exactly what the Ontario’s Ministry of Education attempted. In 2013, parents,
students, teachers, support staff, system leaders, and government officials came together to
discuss a renewed vision for education in Ontario. The result of these discussions led to the
following renewed goals for education: 1) achieving excellence, 2) ensuring equity, 3)
promoting well-being, and 4) enhancing public confidence (Ontario Ministry of Education,
2014). Innovation and creativity are integral parts of the renewed goals for achieving
excellence. To achieve success, Ontario will invest in technology and in innovative teaching
practices, expand learning opportunities outside the classroom, and explore different models of
learning such as project- based learning.
The TDSB is the largest and one of the most diverse school boards in Canada. We serve
“approximately 245,000 students in 588 schools throughout Toronto, and more than 160,000
life-long learners in our Adult and Continuing Education programs” (TDSB 2016, para.1)
continually motivated to provide effective educational teaching and learning experiences and
meeting the needs of 21st century students. The TDSB continues to establish well thought-out
visions for the future recognizing the importance of innovation and creativity in learning.
Currently, there are many TDSB projects and initiatives to explore the cultivation of the student
global competencies: the I2Q project is a pioneer activity which aims in fostering student creativity
and innovation in the classroom. However, a number of other new activities and initiatives are
currently underway in our district. For example, “Global Learning and Teaching with Educational
Technology” report focuses on supporting the needs of the global learner in the digital world by
improving global learning and technology in TDSB schools and by underlying the importance of
creativity and innovation for the identification and solution of problems (Sinay, 2014, p. 21). This
includes: 1) building dependable Information Technology infrastructure along with providing
appropriate technical support, 2) expanding internet access to all schools, 3) establishing Bring
Your Own Device (BYOD) policies, and 4) providing teachers and administrators with
professional learning opportunities on technology in the classroom (Sinay, 2014). This strategic
vision is just one way the district continues to support and develop creativity and innovation in
the schools. Another TDSB initiative, the Mobile Computing Strategy 2.0 (MCS 2.0), TDSB’s one-
to-one laptop initiative runs for its third year of implementation and represents one of the
attempts of the district to invest in the digital fluency of its students and teachers (Sinay,
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 75
Graikinis, & Presley, 2016). A third TDSB initiative focuses on the vision of building the students’
entrepreneurial skills. The Board, in a joint initiative with the MaRS Discovery District, built an
educational program on entrepreneurial thinking and its implementation is currently underway.
The goal is to embed entrepreneurial thinking into the K-12 curriculum as well as to offer
related professional learning sessions for teachers and administrators (Sinay, Resendes, &
Graikinis, 2015). Currently, we are focusing on TDSB Vision for Learning to build a framework
for theoretical foundation and developmental evaluation Global Competencies in Deeper
Learning Environments enabled by pervasive digital technologies17
Official Policy and Policy Coordination
In order for creativity and innovation to be fostered, official policy within the district and schools must
promote the students’ global competencies. Bell and Stevenson (2006), whose work focus on school
change, explain that education policy drives school change, economic prosperity, and social
citizenship. This is because official policy sets the stage for the framework and guides educational
objectives, standards, assessment, and curriculum documents. Therefore, it is important that the
district and school policy are in place to support creativity and innovation. Furthermore, in order for
creativity and innovation to be fostered, policies must be coordinated, consistent, and aligned. This
means all official policies for creativity and innovation at the provincial, district, and school levels must
be aligned and coordinated with other education policy such as professional learning, assessments,
standards, and curriculum polices (Trilling & Fadel, 2012). In addition to official policy and policy
coordination, there needs to be adequate funding to support change. Darling-Hammond (2010)
argues for change to occur, the education systems need to have: 1) developed teaching policies, 2)
consistent long term reforms, and 3) adequately and equitably funded schools (Darling-Hammond,
2010). Thus, it is imperative that the district ensures all official policies are aligned, consistent, and
funded in its efforts to support innovation and creativity.
The TDSB has adopted a new vision for learning, Unleashing Learning, which includes creativity as
one of its core global competencies together with critical thinking and problem solving,
communication, collaboration and leadership, and global citizenship and character (see Figure 4).
The policies adopted need to allow room for experimentation and “although we need system
expectations around how we are going to proceed, those expectations need to be … broad enough
so that creativity can happen, but clear enough so you can actually tell our communities how we
are improving” (Malloy, 2016a).
17 This framework will be published as part of the “Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research Series”
76 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Leadership and Supports
Successful educational programs and educational change require coordinated and distributed
leadership efforts. This holds true in promoting creativity and innovation. In particular,
education leaders must strongly and continually lead administrators, teachers, parents,
students, and the community towards the same goals, which in our case is creativity and
innovation. Leaders must be honest about progress and regularly communicate their progress
to stakeholders. This means communicating both successful and unsuccessful endeavors and
being forthcoming about challenges to administrators, teachers, parents, students, and
community members (Trilling & Fadel, 2012).
In addition, the need for adequate leadership support which is equitably distributed, accessible,
and non-judgmental at the district and school levels is essential. Teachers cannot work in
isolation and need leadership support: “administrators, teacher educators, researchers, and
policymakers must all understand the issues, take initiative and commit to supporting students
and teachers” (Allexsaht-Snider & Hart, 2001, p.2). One way to support leaders is through
coaching and in Ontario, coaches have been used as agents of change (Fullan & Knight, 2011).
For example, literacy coaches have been placed in low-performing schools as a way to improve
results and lead changes in school culture. The literacy coaches spend their time working with
educators developing lessons, observing instruction, and collaborating with teachers and
administrators. Overall, after implementing literacy coaches, literacy rates have gone up 14%
across the 4,000 elementary schools surveyed and positive changes in school culture have been
observed. The district needs to continue to support schools with coaches by making them
available and accessible to all schools.
Contemporary Learning Environments
Contemporary learning environments are places of learning that meet the challenges of 21st
century learning by accommodating flexible learning interactions and supporting technology.
Trilling and Fadel (2012) argue for schools to be learning laboratories, where learners can
experiment, and grow. In order to create this type of environment both the social and physical
environments need to support flexible learning and the use of technology. School districts and
individual schools should be focusing on contemporary learning environments as a way to
develop creativity and innovation.
Social structures in contemporary learning environments need to allow for diverse ideas and
perspectives to promote creativity and innovation (Hondzel-Dishke, 2013). According to Runco
(2003a), a leading creativity researcher and cognitive psychologist, social influences from
colleagues, parents, students, and administrators contribute greatly to the social climate in
educational environments. School districts and schools need to allow for experimentation, allow
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 77
teachers and students to try new things and allow for some degree of failure when trying new
things (Hondzel-Dishke, 2013). On top of that, districts need to focus on building positive
relationships between administrators, teachers, students, parents, and the community by better
understanding their emotions and relationships (Brooks, 2011).
The physical environment is central in supporting flexible learning in contemporary learning
environments. This includes providing space for project work, collaboration spaces, and having
connected classrooms (Trilling & Fadel, 2012). As a part of the physical environment, seamless
technology integration is also considered technology infrastructure needs to be in place (Trilling
& Fadel, 2012).
Professional Learning
For successful education change to take place, professional learning needs to be a top priority
at the district and school levels. Trilling and Fadel (2012) explain that some of the most
important variables for a successful education system is supporting ongoing teacher learning
and investing in teacher education. This is because teacher knowledge plays a large role on
student achievement. Regular professional learning is thus essential in providing teachers and
administrators with new knowledge, practices, and ideas.
Professional learning can also help with creating a sense of belonging and engagement among
teachers and administrators (Allexsaht-Snider & Hart, 2001). Professional learning sessions give
teachers and administrators an arena to have discussions with experts and colleagues on
classroom practices, teaching practices, gather new resources, and keep valuable teachers
engaged and up to date (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Professional Learning in Ontario
In Ontario, educator professional learning is highly valued and supported in a variety of ways.
The Ontario Government views professional learning as a way for teachers to be continually
and actively engaged in improving their practice (Ministry of Education, 2009). Highlights of
some of the professional learning opportunities include: 1) formal mentoring programs for new
teachers, 2) additional qualification programs for teachers to learn new subject areas, 3)
designated professional learning days, and 4) informal opportunities such as collaborations with
outside organizations (Ministry of Education, 2004). The Ministry of Education also offers a
program to experienced teachers called the Teacher Learning and Leadership Program, which
gives teachers an opportunity to participate in a project-based professional learning
opportunity.
78 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Even with all of these well-thought professional learning opportunities, there is always room to
improve. The Ontario Ministry of Education has suggested that there is a need for more formal
mentoring programs, ensuring professional learning workshops connect to the everyday lives of
students and teachers, giving educators more autonomy in selecting professional learning
opportunities, and increasing the number of professional learning days in the school year
(Ministry of Education, 2004).
In Ontario, three primary environmental factors have been identified as influencers of creativity
fostering learning environments in the classroom and among them is time and money and
support from colleagues and administrators (Hondzel-Dishke, 2013). It appears that in order to
promote creativity and innovation, professional learning opportunities must align with these
needs, be widely available, and be connected to classroom practices.
Professional Learning Models
It is important for the district and individual schools to support continuous professional learning through
a variety of professional learning models as a way to foster creativity and innovation in schools.
Professional learning can be supported through both formal and informal endeavors that embed
reflection and learning into the daily practice of teachers and administrators (Lieberman, 1992).
District and schools can support professional learning through formal professional learning
initiatives, such things as: 1) professional learning days initiated by the district, 2) school-based
initiatives, 3) school-based curriculum projects, and 4) visits to other schools (Northern
Territory Government, 2013). Each of these initiatives is a structured way to engage and
support teachers by sharing goals, engaging in teaching and learning dialogue, bringing in new
resources, and empowering teachers (Nussbaum-Beach & Hall, 2011).
In the same way, informal professional learning models are an important factor in supporting
continuous learning. Informal professional learning models allow for ongoing and self-directed
learning that enhances and supports formal learning initiatives by giving teachers and
administrators control of what they learn and when they learn. Informal professional learning
initiatives include such things as: 1) learning partnerships, 2) study groups, (3) mentors, and 4)
personal learning networks, such as joining a teaching feed, blog, or listserv (Northern Territory
Government, 2013). These professional learning initiatives allow for self-directed learning and
personalized learning. Teachers get to select their own resources, develop deep collaboration
among colleagues, and establish meaningful interactions in which they can develop insights
that inform future practice, such as fostering creativity and innovation (Nussbaum-Beach &
Hall, 2011).
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 79
The Ontario Government believes in the importance of professional learning communities as a
way to improve student achievement. It sees professional learning as a continuous way for
teachers and administrators to inform their practice in structured and meaningful ways. It
suggests administrators and teachers to: 1) reflect and learn together, 2) review student work
and relevant data, 3) plan for student success, and 4) focus on students who are struggling
(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007).
In order to foster creativity and innovation, school districts and schools need to support and
foster ongoing professional learning through a variety of formal and informal initiatives to give
teachers and administrators ways to get to explore new ideas, try new things, and grow as
educators.
Assessment of Learning Skills & Global Competencies
The importance of assessment in the change process lead some educators to declare that it is
not the written curriculum that matters, but rather the assessed curriculum (Crocco & Costigan,
2007; Ravitch, 2011; Yong, 2012). There is a wealth of information in the literature for the
assessment of 21st century student skills but not for global competencies. Although the terms
skills and competencies are used interchangeably most of the times in the literature, they do
not refer to the same aspects of student acquisition of abilities. While skill can be defined as the
“ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems”
(Cedefop, 2014, p. 227), a competency is defined as an entity which includes skill and “involves
the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources
(including skills and attitudes) in a particular context” (OECD, 2003, p. 4). There is an urgent
need to develop a clear view on the assessment of 21st century student skills and global
competencies since these are included in major secondary school education learning
frameworks. Because the assessment of global competencies is still an evolving area, most of
the information on this section focuses on the assessment of 21st century student skills.
In a seminal paper, Ananiadou and Claro (OECD, 2009) acknowledged that there are no clear
assessment policies for the formative or summative assessment of 21st century skills and
competencies in the countries surveyed, but noticed that these skills and competencies are
often integrated into major curricular reforms. It appears that the skills and global
competencies should not be assessed in isolation and more than one skill and global
competency might operate in a given environment. This greatly encourages the use of
portfolios of desired outcomes in the assessment process. On the same line, Soland, Hamilton,
and Stecher (2013) suggest that assessment is not specific and should vary from site to site
based on a number of guidelines the authors provide, such as: a) the assessment requires
abundance of time, b) use of innovative assessments such as simulations or remote
collaborations, c) determination of assessment based on the purpose of the assessment, d)
80 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
assessment is context and culture-based, and e) difficulties might be encountered with ill-
defined global competencies.
There is more information in the literature on 21st century skill assessment and it is reasonably
argued that 21st century skills, as a fundamental part of education today, needs to be evaluated
on valid and widely acceptable ways (Greenstein, 2012). These skills include creativity and
innovation, critical thinking, collaboration, effective communication, building character, culture
and ethical citizenship, and comfort with technology (C21 Canada, 2012). According to the
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, the first questions districts should ask themselves is: “is the
district considering, developing, or adopting achievements tests that include 21st century
skills?” and schools should ask themselves “are educators in the school using classroom
assessments that measure 21st century skills?” (P21, 2007, para. 5). Once these questions are
considered, it is important to examine the specifics for the assessment of 21st century skills. P21
(2009) recommends 21st century skills needs to be incorporated in large-scale assessments,
such as standardized tests and they should include placing greater emphasis on critical thinking,
problem-solving, and creativity in standardized testing, rather than memorization and recall.
Districts and schools should provide educators with rubrics, checklists, and professional
learning on assessing 21st century skills and these resources should be shared freely.
When evaluating 21st century skills it is important to ensure the assessment tasks are
sufficiently complex, authentic, and connect to the real-world (Greenstein, 2012). Research
indicates that the level of complexity of the assessment is key to assessing 21st century skills (Lai
& Viering, 2002) and student motivation is diminished if the task does not require meaningful
understanding, reasoning, or critical thinking (Lai & Viering, 2002). P21 (2009) suggests using
open-ended authentic tasks that integrate technology as a way to assess critical thinking,
problem-solving, global understanding, and leadership ).
In Ontario, the EQAO conducts province-wide standardized testing on reading, writing, and
mathematics in Grades 3, 6, and 9 (EQAO, 2015). The EQAO testing is used to provide students,
parents, educators, and the public with reliable information on student achievement (Desbiens,
2011). It is widely-accepted that in the majority of the current standardized testing models the
main focus tends to be on recall and comprehension. Longo (2010), an education researcher
who examines the implications of standardized testing on creativity, explains that the key to
enhancing creativity and innovation is inquiry and therefore, it is important for standardized
tests, including the EQAO, to have a greater focus on inquiry, creativity, and innovation. The
EQAO, as well as the No Child Left Behind in the US, have been widely criticized for their anti-
authentic teaching and learning assessment practices. In 2013, Hondzel-Dishke concluded that
the current EQAO standardized environment affects Ontario teachers who are interested in
sustaining creativity in their classrooms. “The pressure teachers felt to meet the preparation
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 81
expectations for EQAO set for them by the school administration and the Board of Education
seemed to influence the ways in which teachers felt they had to run their classrooms and
changed the methods they used in order to foster creativity in their students” and “Some
teachers spoke of EQAO testing as a barrier to creativity throughout the school year as they
tried to incorporate EQAO-style testing into their regular classroom assessments and activities.”
(p. 104-105). Attitudes of teachers towards EQAO testing were mixed and some teachers
viewed the preparation of their students for testing requiring “them to take time away from
what was perceived to be more meaningful classroom activities, and that it is incongruous with
developing creative students.” (p. 115).
82 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
REFERENCES
Akers, J. (1999). Confronting the realities of implementing contextual learning ideas in a biology classroom. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-041999-163152/unrestricted/Aktitle.pdf
Aktamis, H., & Ergin, O. (2007). Investigating the relationship between science process skills and scientific creativity. University Journal of Education, 33, 11–23.
Alberta Education. (2011). Framework for student learning: Competencies for engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/curriculum/framework.aspx
Allexsaht-Snider, M., & Hart, L. E. (2001). Mathematics for all: How do we get there? Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 93–101.
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. New York: Crown Publishing Group, Inc.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.
Anderson, J.V. (1992). Weirder than fiction: The reality and myths of creativity. Academy of Management Executives, 6(4) 40-47. Retrieved from http://coral.wcupa.edu/other/creativity.pdf
Ayverdi, L., Asker, E., Öz Aydın, S., & Sarıtaş, T. (2012). Determination of the relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and academic achievement in science and technology courses. İlköğretim Online, 11, 646-659. Retrieved from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol11say3/v11s3m6.pdf
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (68), 3–12. DOI: 10.1002/tl.37219966804
Baughman, W.A., & Mumford, M.D. (1995). Process-analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37-62
Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69, 254–263.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teacher’s response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 1-9. ? The Educational Forum, 69, 254–263.
Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy, process, themes and impact. London: Routledge.
Bellanca, J. A., & Bellanca, J. (2010). 21st Century skills: rethinking how students learn (1 Ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex, and setting paper. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Brink, S. (2014). Canadians and 21 Century skills. Paper prepared in support of the work of C12 Canada: Canadians for 21 century learning and innovation. Retrieved from: http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PIAACDec3.pdf
Brooks, D. (2011, March 7). The new humanism. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html
Brophy, D.R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 123-150.
Brophy, D.R. (2001). Comparing the attitudes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3 & 4), 439-455.
Business Council of Australia. (2010). Action plan for enduring prosperity: full report. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from http://www.bca.com.au/publications/action-plan-for-enduring-prosperity-full-report
C21 Canada (2012). Shifting minds: A 21st century vision of public education for Canada. C21 Canada. Retrieved from http://www.c21canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Shifting-Minds-Revised.pdf
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 83
Canadian Council of Learning. (2009). The impact of experiential learning programs on student success. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ocea.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=45&pageid=1051
Cachia, R., & Ferrari, A. (2010). Creativity in schools: A survey of teachers in Europe. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC59232.pdf
Casanovas, M., Miralles, F., Gomez, M., & Garcia, R. (2010). Improving creativity results and its implementation in organizations using creative techniques through experiential learning training. In 5th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p.121). Academic Conferences International Limited.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin. Retrieved from www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/SevenPrinciples.pdf
Chell, E., & Athayde. R. (2009). The identification and measurement of innovative characteristics of young people. Development of the youth innovation skills measurement tool. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Retrieved from http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/5985/2/Chell-E-5985.pdf
Cho, S. (2003). Creative problem solving in science: Divergent, convergent, or both? In U. Anuruthwong & C. Piboonchol (Eds.), 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on giftedness. (pp. 169-174). Bangkok, Thailand: October Printing.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.
Craft, A. & Jeffrey, B. (2001). Introduction. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.) Creativity in Education (pp. 1–13). London and New York: Continuum
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). Anchored instruction in science and
mathematics: Theoretical basis, developmental projects, and initial research findings. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 244-273). New York: SUNY Press.
Collins, A. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Technical Report No. 403.
Council of Canadian Academies. (2009). Innovation and business strategy: Why Canada falls short. The Expert Panel on Business Innovation. The Council of Canadian Academies. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved from http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/inno/(2009-06-11)%20innovation%20report.pdf
Creative Partnerships. (2010). About creative partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.creative-partnerships.com/about/
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535.
Cronin, L. L. (1989). Creativity in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 56(2), 34–36.
Cropley, A. (2001). Creativity in education & learning. A guide for teachers and educators. Albion, Oxon: Routledge Falmer.
Cropley, A. J. (1967). Creativity. London, UK: Longmans, Green.
Cropley, J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: general principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.) Creativity Research Handbook (Volume ), pp. 83-114). Cresskill, N. J.: Hampton Press.
Cropley, D. H., Priest, S., & Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity and innovation in engineering students. Australasian Association for Engineering Education, 9th Annual Conference, December 1997.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Daro, P., & Burkhardt, H. (2012). A population of assessment tasks. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 3(1) 19-25.
84 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. City: Prentice-Hall.
Demirci, C. (2007). Access creativity in science education and its impact on attitude. University Journal of Education, (32), 65–75.
Desbiens, B. (2011). Student testing: Why Ontario’s on the right track. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/Research/pdf/E/EQAO_StudentTesting_OntarioOnTrack.pdf
Dikici, A. (2012). Perceptions of creativity by Turkish student teachers. International Journal of Educational Reform, 21(4) 292-310.
Dishke-Hondzel, C. (2013). Fostering creativity: Ontario teachers‘ perceptions, strategies, and experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario
Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 97-111.
Edinger, M. (2008). An exploratory study of creativity -fostering teacher behaviors in secondary classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The College of William and Mary. Williamsburg, VA.
EQAO. (2015). E. Q. and A. O. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/categories/home.aspx?Lang=E
Ennis, H.R. (2002). An outline of goals for a critical thinking curriculum and assessment. February 20, 2002. Retrieved from: http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/outlinegoalsctcurassess3.html
Ennis, H. R. (2011). Robert Ennis academic site. September 6, 2011. Retrieved from: http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/
Ennis, H. R. (2012). Definition of critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.net/definition.html
Ercan, S., & Sahin, F. (2015). The usage of engineering practices in science education: effects of design based science learning on students` academic achievement. Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics, 9(1), 128-164.
Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 185-20.
EU. (2009). European Ambassadors Manifesto. Retrieved http://www.create2009.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Manifesto/manifesto.en.pdf
EU. (March 3, 2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0159:FIN:EN:PDF
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3), 317-327.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Xxx: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie. G. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education. Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. Literature review on innovation and creativity in E&T in the EU member states (ICEAC). European Commission, Institute for Prospective technological Studies.
Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure and everyday life. NY: Basic Books.
Fouche, K. K. (1993). Problem-solving and creativity: Multiple solution methods in a cross-cultural study in middle level mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership. xxxxxx
Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. New York: Basic.
Getzels, J.W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.
Ginsburg, H. P. (1996). Toby’s math. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 175–202). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 85
Graikinis, D. (2014). Creativity and innovative thinking fostering learning environments at TDSB schools. assessing teachers’/administrators’ perceptions, conceptions, and self-efficacy about creativity and innovative teaching and students’ innovative characteristics. Internal draft research proposal. Unpublished manuscript. Policy, Research and Information Services. Toronto, Ontario. Toronto District School Board
Greenstein, L. (2012). Assessing 21st Century skills: A Guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning (1Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc.
Guilford, J.P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. Anderson, (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation, (pp. 142-161). New York: Harper.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x
Guilford, J.P. (1973). Characteristics of creativity, Illinois State Office Of The Superintendent Of Public Instruction, Gifted Children Section. Springfield, IL. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED080171
Gustina, C., & Sweet, M. (2014). Creatives teaching creativity. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 3(1), 46-54.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (1 Ed.). London, New York: Routledge.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and learning. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association.
Hill, P. (2000). The federal role in education. In Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000 (pp. 11–57). Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/26432
Hoffman, L. R., & Brahier, D. J. (2008). Improving the planning and teaching of mathematics by reflecting on research. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(7), 412–417.
Hondzel-Dishke, C. (2013). Fostering creativity: Ontario teachers‘ perceptions, strategies, and experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario
Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: learning and non-learning in school and beyond (1 Ed.). London: New York: Routledge.
Iowa Core. (2013). Literature review student-centered classrooms. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education. Retrieved from www.gwaea.org/iowacorecurriculum/docs/StudCentClass_LitReview.pdf
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75–101.
Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33, 309–329.
Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D.N. (1997). Problem finding: the search for mechanisms. In M.A. Runco (Ed.), The Creativity research handbook, Vol. 1, (pp. 257-294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Differences between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77-87.
Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers' conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15-29.
Karnes, M. B., McCoy, G. F., Zehrbach, R. R., Wollersheim, J. P., Clarizio, H. F., Costin, L., & Stanley, L. S. (1961). Factors associated with underachievement and overachievement of intellectually gifted children. Champaign, IL: Champaign Community Unit Schools.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629.
Kirton, M. (1985). Adaptors, innovators, and paradigm consistency. Psychological Reports, 57, 487–490.
Kirton, M. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive style and personality. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.),
86 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 282–304). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Kirton, M. J. (1989). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-solving. London: Routhledge.
Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development (1 Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: FT Press.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3).
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P.J., Crismond, D., Barbara Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., … Ryan, M. (2004). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design™ into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided Inquiry: learning in the 21st century. Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.
Lai, E., & Viering, M. (2002). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Integrating Research Findings. National Council on Measurement in Education. Vancouver, BC: Pearson.
Lewis, L., & Williams, C. (1994). Experiential learning: a new approach. In L. Jackson and R.S. Caffarella (Eds.), Experiential Learning: A New Approach (pp. 5–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lieberman, A. (1992). Practices that support teacher development: transforming conceptions of professional learning. Innovating and Evaluating Science Education NSF Evaluation Forums, 67–78.
Lin, C. Y. (2010). Analyses of attribute patterns of creative problem solving ability among upper elementary students in Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI number: 3414144
Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st Century: An overview. Educause Learning Initiative 1(2007):1-12.
Longo, C. (2010). Fostering creativity or teaching to the test? Implications of state testing on the delivery of science instruction. The Clearing House: A Journal
of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 54–57.
MacMath, S., Wallace, J., & Xiaohong, C. (2009). Problem-based learning in mathematics. What works? Research into Practice, Research Monograph #22. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_problem_based_math.pdf
Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive flexibility testing experiential learning theory. Management Learning, 33(1), 5–33.
Malloy, J. (April 19, 2016a). Our way forward [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/85835292
Malloy, J. (2016b). Unleashing learning: A vision for learning in TDSB. Retrieved from http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/AboutUs/Director/docs/UnleashingLearning_April19.pdf
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role within constructivist classrooms. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED383283
Memorandum of Understanding. (2014). Memorandum of understanding between Toronto District School Board _ ModelSschools for Inner Cities and Ideaction Inc. Unpublished internal manuscript. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board
Midgley, C. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, N.J: Routledge.
Moran, S. (2010). Creativity in school. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 319-359). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Mumford, M.D., Supinski, E.P., Baughman, W.A., Constanza, D.P., & Threlfall, K.V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 73-85.
Mumford, M.D., Supinski, E.P., Threlfall, K.V., & Baughman, W.A. (1996). Process-based measures of
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 87
creative problem-solving skills: III. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 395-406.
NACCCE. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Retrieved from sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf
National Academy of Sciences, (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
New American Schools Development Corporation. (1997). Working towards excellence: Results from schools implementing New American Schools design. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED420896)
New Technology High School (n.d.). New Technology High School. Retrieved from http://newtechhigh.org/
Newell, A., Shaw, J.C., & Simon, H.A. (1962). The process of creative thinking in contemporary approaches to creative thinking. In H.E. Gruber, G. Terrell, and M. Wertheimer, Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 63-119). New York: Atherton.
Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: conflict or coexistence? (Improving Chicago’s School). Chicago, Illinois: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/p0a02.pdf
Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamora, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312.
Newton, L. & Beverton, S. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity in elementary school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 165-176 2012 doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.02.002
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.
Northern Territory Government. (2013). What is professional learning? Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from
http://www.education.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/4201/WhatIsProfessionalLearning.pdf
Nussbaum-Beach, S., & Hall, L. R. (2011). The connected educator: learning and leading in a digital age. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
OECD. (2000). Knowledge management in the learning society. Education and skills. Paris: OECD Publication Service. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/knowledge-management-in-the-learning-society_9789264181045-en
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2000). Cooperative education and other forms of experiential learning. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/coop/cooped.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2004). Teacher excellence - unlocking student potential through continuing professional development. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/partnership/potential.html
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). Professional learning communities: A model for Ontario schools. Author: Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/plc.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Teacher professional development. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/develop.html
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013a). Capacity Building Series. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/capacityBuilding.html
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Achieving excellence: a renewed vision for education in Ontario. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/excellent.htm
Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. (2008). Seizing global opportunities: Ontario’s innovation agenda. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/seizing-global-opportunities-ontarios-innovation-agenda
88 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
P21. (2004). U.S. students need 21st
century skills to compete in a global economy. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf
P21. (2007). Assessment of 21st century skills. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/Assessment092806.pdf
P21. (2009). Assessment: A 21st century skills implementation guide. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21-stateimp_assessment.pdf
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Patrick, F. (2011). Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: multidisciplinary approaches: multidisciplinary approaches. IGI Global.
Piggott, J. (2007). Cultivating creativity. mathematics teaching incorporating micromath. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ768909
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–86.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96.
Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: how testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. Presented at the Annual Conference Proceeding of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Perth, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ref/pdf/Reeves.pdf
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: learning to be creative. Westford, MA: Capstone.
Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context (Reprint edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Runco, M. A. (2003a). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317-324.
Runco, M. A. (2003b). Creativity, cognition and their educational implications. In Handbook of Creativity (pp. 25–56). Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation: Oxford University Press, USA.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically : problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In Handbook for Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334-370)New York: MacMillan. Retrieved from hplengr.engr.wisc.edu/Math_Schoenfeld.pdf
Seng, K. Q., Keung, H. K., & Cheng, S. K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity: A comparison of student-teachers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 38(1), 71-86.
Sharp, C. (2004). Developing young children’s creativity: what can we learn from research? National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/55502/55502.pdf
Shepherd, N. G. (1998). The Probe Method: A problem-based learning model’s effect on critical thinking skills of fourth and fifth grade social studies students. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/117976/
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: changing roles for educators and designers. Presented at the ITFORUM. Retrieved from itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 29(3), 75–80. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 89
Simmons, R., & Thompson, R. (2008). Creativity and performativity: The case of further education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 601-18.
Simplicio, J. S. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to become effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675-680.
Sinay, E. (2012). The impact of TDSB laptop program on teachers and students. A research proposal. Theoretical framework, methods, and analytic strategy. Unpublished manuscript. Policy, Research and Information Services, Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board.
Sinay, E. (2014). Global learning and teaching with educational technology in the Toronto District School Board. (Research Report No. 14/15-01). Toronto, Ontario: Toronto District School Board.
Sinay, E., Resendes, M., & Graikinis, D. (2015). Fostering entrepreneurial thinking and entrepreneurship learning in the Toronto District School Board: Assessing teachers’ and administrators’ attitudes, perceptions, knowledge, skills and practices and students’ mindset and self-efficacy. (Research Report No. 14/15-29). Toronto, Ontario:: Toronto District School Board.
Soh, K. C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behaviour: A preliminary validation study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 118-134.
Soh, K. (2015). Creativity fostering teacher behaviour around the world: Annotations of studies using the CFTIndex. Cogent Education, 2, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2015.1034494
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2003). Teaching for successful intelligence: Principles, procedures, and practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 207–228.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory Into Practice, 43, 274–280.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Ferrari, M., & Clinkenbeard, P. (1999). A triarchic analysis of an aptitude-treatment interaction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(1), 3–13.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity? Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum.
Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn: from theory to practice (3 Ed.). Boston: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Stokes, P. D. (2006). Creativity from constraints the psychology of breakthrough. New York: Springer Pub. Co. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10265319
Subotnik, R. F. (1988). Factors from the structure of intellect model associated with gifted adolescents’ problem finding in science: Research with Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(1), 42–54.
Tardif, T.Z., & Sternberg, R.J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R.J. Sternberg, (Ed.), The nature of creativity, pp. 429-440, New York: Cambridge University Press.
TDSB. (2016a). Innovative Teaching and Learning Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Community/ModelSchoolsforInnerCities/Initiatives/InnovativePractices.aspx
TDSB. (2016a). About us, our students. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/AboutUs/Innovation.aspx
TDSB. (2016b). Innovative Teaching and Learning Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Community/ModelSchoolsforInnerCities/Initiatives/InnovativePractices.aspx
TDSB. (2016c). About us, our students. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/AboutUs.aspx
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications (2nd ed.), pp. 99–108). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, J. P. (1973). Is creativity teachable? (No. 20). Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
90 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED505548
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2012). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from https://yasamboyuogrenme.wikispaces.com/file/detail/21st+CENTURY+SKILLS.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97.
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Weisgerber, C., & Butler, S. (2012). Re-envisioning pedagogy: Educators as curators. Talk given
at the SXSWedu (South by Southwest Education) Conference, Austin, TX.
Weiss, D., & Legrand, C.P. (2011). Innovative intelligence. The art and practice of leading
sustainable innovation in your organization. Mississauga, Ontario: Wiley & Sons Canada Ltd.
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1-10.
Woods, D. (2005). Problem-based learning, especially in the context of large classes. Retrieved from http://chemeng.mcmaster.ca/problem-based-learning
Woods, D. (2006). Preparing for PBL. Retrieved from http://www.chemeng.mcmaster.ca/pbl/pblbook.pdf
WEF. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. Geneva: Switzerland. A report of the Global Education Initiative. Retrieved from www.gvpartners.com/web/pdf/WEF_EE_Full_Report.pdf
Yong, D. (2012). Adventures in teaching: A professor goes to high school to learn about teaching math. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 59(10), 1408–1415.
Zhu, C. Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers’ innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 9-27.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 91
APPENDIX A
Teachers’ Teaching Styles18
Control Group
Program Group
Teaching Styles
never(1) to
all the
time(6)
N
never(1)
to
all the
time(6)
N
I leave open-ended questions for my students to find the answers
for themselves 5.36 11
5.55 11
I teach students the basics and leave room for individual learning 5.36 11
4.58 12
a) Independence Overall 5.36 11 5.04 12
In my class, students have opportunities to share ideas and views 5.55 11
5.58 12
Students in my class have opportunities to do group work regularly 5.45 11
5.17 12
b) Integration Overall 5.50 11 5.38 12
My students know that I expect them to learn the basic knowledge
and skills well
5.45 11
5.42 12
18 Categorization of these constructs are based on the items of the Creativity Fostering Teacher Behaviour Index studies from the following sources. Items used by permissions. Sources: Soh, 2000; Soh, 2015;. Cropley 1997.
92 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Control Group
Program Group
Teaching Styles
never(1) to
all the
time(6)
N
never(1)
to
all the
time(6)
N
c) Motivation Overall 5.45 11 5.42 12
When my students suggest something, I follow it up with questions
to make them think further 5.18 11
5.08 12
I do not give my view immediately on students' ideas, whether I
agree or disagree with them 4.55 11
5.00 12
I comment on students' ideas only after they have been more
thoroughly explored 4.82 11
4.42 12
d) judgement 4.85 11 4.83 12
I encourage my students to ask questions freely even if they
appear irrelevant 5.45 11
5.50 12
I encourage my students to think in different directions even if
some of the ideas may not work 5.45 11
5.67 12
I like my students to take time to think in different ways 5.45 11
5.25 12
e) Flexibility Overall 5.45 11 5.47 12
10. My students know that I expect them to check their own work
before I do 5.64 11
5.50 12
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 93
Control Group
Program Group
Teaching Styles
never(1) to
all the
time(6)
N
never(1)
to
all the
time(6)
N
18. In my class, students have opportunities to judge for
themselves whether they are right or wrong 5.27 11
5.25 12
f) Evaluation Overall 5.45 11 5.38 12
When my students have questions to ask, I listen to them carefully. 5.64 11
5.50 12
I listen to my students' suggestions even if they are not practical or
useful 5.36 11
5.33 12
My students know I do not dismiss their suggestions lightly 5.55 11
5.33 12
g) Question Overall 5.52 11 5.39 12
My students are encouraged to do different things with what they
have learned in class 5.27 11
5.17 12
I do not mind my students trying out their own ideas and
deviating from what I have shown them 5.45 11
5.33 12
h) Opportunities Overall 5.36 11 5.25 12
I encourage students who have frustration to take it as part of the
learning process 5.00 11
5.50 12
I help my students to draw lessons from their own failures 5.55 11
5.33 12
94 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM
Control Group
Program Group
Teaching Styles
never(1) to
all the
time(6)
N
never(1)
to
all the
time(6)
N
I encourage students who experienced failure to find other
possible solutions 5.45 11
5.50 12
i) Frustration Overall 5.33 11 5.44 12
I encourage my students to think critically in assigned materials
presented in my class 5.45 11
5.33 12
j) Critical Thinking 5.45 11 5.33 12
I provide opportunities for collaboration and team work at least
several times per month 5.91 11
5.50 12
k) Collaboration 5.91 11 5.50 12
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENCE (I2Q) PILOT PROGRAM 95