Twenty-First Century Creativity: An Investigation of How the Partnership for 21st Century Instructional Framework Reflects the Principles of Creativity

REFERENCES

• 21st Century Skills Map. (2008). Creativity and innovation: English. Tucson, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_english_map.pdf
   Google Scholar
• 21st Century Skills Map. (2009). Creativity and innovation: Science. Tucson, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21stcskillsmap_science.pdf
   Google Scholar
• 21st Century Skills Map. (2011). Creativity and innovation: Math. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Math_Map.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184. doi:10.2307/256995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, L. (2014). Visual–spatial ability: Important in STEM, ignored in gifted education. Roeper Review, 36, 114–121. doi:10.1080/02783193.2014.884198
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify creatively gifted mathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 37–47. doi:10.1177/0162353213480433
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, M. (2009). Approaches to the teaching of creative and non-creative mathematical problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 55–79. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9112-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244. doi:10.1177/003804070407700302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E., Pearson, P. D., & Woulfin, S. L. (2010). Reading policy in an era of accountability. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 561–593). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi:10.4324/9780203840412.ch24
   Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 5–30. doi:10.1002/RRQ.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298–338. doi:10.3102/0002831207302501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craft, A. (2008). Creativity in the school. Retrieved from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/creativity-in-the-school/
   Google Scholar
• Cremin, T. (2006). Creativity, uncertainty and discomfort: Teachers as writers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 415–433. doi:10.1080/03057640600866023
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dedoose. (2014). Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (Version 5.0.11). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants. Retrieved from http://www.dedoose.com/
   Google Scholar
• Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418–446. doi:10.1002/pam.20586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80, 285–313. doi:10.1177/003804070708000401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18, 7–22. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feldman, D. H., & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and education: An American retrospective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 319–336. doi:10.1080/03057640600865819
   Google Scholar
• Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 101–113. doi:10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z
   Google Scholar
• Glaveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69–81. doi:10.1037/a0029528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurement used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (1st ed., pp. 53–76). New York, NY: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-5356-1_3
   Google Scholar
• Hong, E., Peng, Y., & O’Neil, H. J. (2014). Activities and accomplishments in various domains: Relationships with creative personality and creative motivation in adolescence. Roeper Review, 36, 92–103. doi:10.1080/02783193.2014.884199
   Google Scholar
• Hong, M., & Kang, N. (2010). South Korean and the U.S. secondary school science teachers’ conceptions of creativity and teaching for creativity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 821–843. doi:10.1007/s10763-009-9188-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, L., Krueger, K., Adams Becker, S., & Cummins, M. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1–37. doi:10.1080/03057260708560225
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Loveless, A., Burton, J., & Turvey, K. (2006). Developing conceptual frameworks for creativity, ICT and teacher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2005.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnussen, R., Hansen, S. D., Planke, T., & Sherson, J. F. (2014). Games as a platform for student participation in authentic scientific research. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 12, 259–270. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org
   Google Scholar
• Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 236–260.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57, 1893–1906. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133–152. doi:10.3102/01623737009002133
   Google Scholar
• Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Minocha, S. (2009). Role of social software tools in education: A literature review. Education and Training, 51, 353–369. doi:10.1108/00400910910987174
   Google Scholar
• Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353–364. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 319–352. doi:10.3102/0162373707309219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill, D., & Wilson, A. (2013). Playing it safe: Teachers’ views of creativity in poetry writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 101–111. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 112–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
   Google Scholar
• Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in school science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27, 45–60. doi:10.1080/02635140802658842
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14, 1–172. doi:10.14507/epaa.v14n1.2006
   Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No 107–110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Pang, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2012). Recent transformations in China’s economic, social, and education policies for promoting innovation and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 247–273. doi:10.1002/jocb.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2014a). FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-faq
   Google Scholar
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2014b). Our history. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/our-history
   Google Scholar
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2014c). Our mission. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/our-mission
   Google Scholar
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2014d). Resources for educators. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/resources/for-educators
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University Law Review, 79, 932–989. doi:10.2139/ssrn.476463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2010). Educational creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 250–264). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5, 233–267. doi:10.1080/02680939008549074
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, P. C., & Leonard, A. R. (1985). Creativity in art and science. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 19(3), 5–19. doi:10.2307/3332640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. W. (Ed.). (1958). The second 1957 University of Utah research conference on the identification of creative scientific talent. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Directions manual and scoring guide. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creative problem solving: Overview and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 301–312. doi:10.1007/BF02213375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, C. S. (2007). Creativity as capital in the literacy classroom: Youth as multimodal designers. Literacy, 41, 79–85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00461.x
   Google Scholar
• Zenasni, F., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 61–73. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01080.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar