Creativity, Design and The Approaches to Technology
Mohd Hafnidzam Adzmi1*, Zahari Ishak1, Che Aleha Ladin1
1 Faculty of Education, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 February 2022 | Published: 1 March 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijarti.2022.4.1.2
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This article aims to discuss the importance of creativity and design in education.
The discussion starts with an overview of the Malaysian creative economy to justify the importance of creativity as a precursor to innovation. Afterwards a brief discussion on Dewey and Piaget’s implicit view of creativity and how it is conceptually can be conceived in education. Then, a discussion on design as mode of creative learning followed by the challenges of using technology in design and creative activities. The article ends with suggestions on the approaches to technology while maintaining the virtues of creativity and design.
Keywords: Creativity, Design, Technology, Education
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Creativity can provide economical advantages. Unlike the industrial age, the creative economy allows the potential of its labourers to use information and knowledge along with other resources and capitals. The spread of information with current technologies enables a creative person such as designers to increase its production through meaningful ideas. And thus the argument of an emergent class of creative individuals who uses information creatively as the key ingredient in business and innovation (Florida, 2012).
The rapid growth of technologies spurred the revolution of global industries. The fourth industrial revolution (4IR) is thought as a phase of shifts that is fundamentally profound in our societies today. For instance, it is much more obvious today to see the role of Articial Intelligence in making decisions in white-collar jobs that can help that allow innovative opportunities (Schwab, 2016).. As innovation plays a role in thriving economies, it is important that creativity is highlighted as a means for future economies.
From an educational standpoint, we can see that leading higher learning instutions encourages creativity. Some of these institutions promote creativity through the development of products, engage in interdisciplinary learing while overcoming the limits of present technologies (Wired, 2015). These institutions are guided by principles that resembles creativity as a center stage of its core identity (Ito & Howe, 2016). In terms of learning, classroom becomes much more open where students are emboldened to build and play and sometimes reverting to how children naturally learns (Resnick, 2017). Therefore, it is common that cbeing creative is nurtured in leading academic institutions despite the many different interpretations of creativity (Brown, 2009).
Locally in Malaysia, creativity is still a concept that requires further interpretation. This is evident through reports that suggest that creativity is still not seriously taken as an important factor in learning. Despite the nation’s moderation towards the use of technology, our talents in terms of utilizing it creatively is still way behind from neighbouring countries such as Singapore (Florida et al., 2015). While having enough infrastructure to thrive in an innovative economy, it is clear that Malaysia still lacks the required creative talent.
Creativity can become a prime mover for the digital economy which is relatively young in Malaysia. Reports suggest that the digital economy in 2015 managed to contribute RM42.1b in revenues. Under this particular industry, the development of creative content and technologies managed to provide RM0.85b in revenues while recording lesser expenditures (Malaysian Digital Economy Corporation [MDEC], 2015). This shows how being creative maximizes ideas from creative talents as the prime resource for production and thus infers the need of creativity in education. This makes sense as Institute of Higher Learning are a place to nurture creativity due its attraction as a place that provides an opennes to explore ideas and are tolerant among young and ‘up-and-coming’ creative individuals (Florida, 2012).
2. Creative Experience From The Perspective Of Dewey And Piaget
The criteria of a good aim in education must reflect its surroundings. Dewey puts it "the aim set up must be an outgrowth of existing conditions” (2004, p. 100). The previous discussion shows that technology is the condition that we currently live in. And therefore, the educative process should ensure the growth of the individual along with his relationship with technology.
Experience is an essential factor in education, and for students to grow with technology, the proper attributes and qualities of experience need to be defined.
Dewey defines the criteria of experience based on the principles of continuity and interaction (2008, p. 51). Within this context, Continuity implies an organic way of experience by which past experiences with technology is understood and modified to fit the present and future. If students were to grow with technology so that he or she can contribute to the working environment (e.g. Digital industry), the approach must go beyond the ‘user to object’
relationship. In other words, the shift must change from mere users to creators. From using apps to manage their time or to communicate, the student must then develop to understand better ways in which these examples of activity could evolve and extended through interacting with or creating newer technologies or objects.
Experience needs direction as it is two-sided. In one side, experience provides pieces of information that support further learning; on the other end, knowledge is not guaranteed (Dewey, 2008). And therefore, growth should be aligned by discriminating the past experiences against the interaction of newer technologies to discover meaningful experiences for future references. It is therefore essential to have more in-depth interaction with technologies to bring forth internal states of the mind. Using technologies only to satisfy specific needs is static, creating on the other end allows us to interact with technologies by interrogating its boundaries and thus provides a basis for discriminating experiences. As technology, especially computers are expected to exponentially change due to its growing capacity (Moore, 2015), interacting by creation will induce deeper learning; as overcoming complex technologies to create, require complex reasoning and thinking. As an example, the development and interests in ‘digital arts’
parallels the evolution of computer technology that allows graphic manipulations (Paul, 2008).
This shows that newer technologies provide newer problems and opportunities. Other examples are the development of software and applications that inspire ‘generative art’ (Bailey, 2020).
This is typical of an early phase of innovation whereby creative individuals (computer scientists and designers) creatively interact with technologies of their time to explore new avenues.
We can argue now that being creative is the appropriate quality of experience needed if we were to grow with technology in education. This leads to the question: does being creative or creativity allows us to develop knowledge? If we are to conceive knowledge as an assemblage of facts, perhaps there is no need for creativity. In Dewey’s philosophy, however, knowledge is developed through speculation and wonder as we are not an all-knowing being (Baldacchino, 2014). As creativity is a pursuit of originality and effectiveness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), gaining new knowledge is possible as originality implies something that has never existed before. In some sense, creativity is also experimental as unique and novel creations, and artefacts require it to be useful or practical. To balance these two involves experimentation and exploration. Moreover, experimenting in education can be viewed as a process of originating and testing of ideas even at the expense of scientific rigour (Marzano & Kendall, 2007, p. 51).
This fits the contrarian nature of creativity. In Dewey’s point of view, an experimental inquiry has the characteristics of “overt doing” that involves “definite changes in the environment or in our relation to it”. This activity is “directed by ideas” that stems from the need to satisfy problems. And after these are fully grasp in meaning, the property of knowledge or “being known” emerge (Dewey, 1988, p. 70). The interaction of overt activity with the environment makes us more aware of anomalies which in turn can become an impetus towards discoveries to the extremes of paradigm shifts and revolutions (Kuhn, 2012). As for creating with technologies, this will lead to the creation of new methods, techniques, understanding and possibly innovation.
Similarly, from Piaget’s standpoint, the development of new knowledge or schemas is a result of adaptation, which he believed is the essence of intellectual functioning and development (Pulaski, 1971). Notably, during adaptation, the process of equilibration is called forth to reconcile or balance the processes of assimilation and accommodation. Equilibration happens when the mind is faced with anomalies that result from the failures to accommodate assimilated ideas to the environment (Piaget, 2001). Although Piaget did not mention creativity explicitly, a review of his theories by Ayman-Nolley (2010) states that creativity can happen with the significant difference is that it is dominated by accommodation. This is because using technologies is, for the most part is about realizing and manifesting ideas into physical forms.
When ideas cannot be accommodated, the process calls forth new ideas to be assimilated to understand problems or predicting solutions. Equilibration, or by redefining and connecting existing schemas, knowledge and ideas on technologies, can gradually construct new knowledge. In this regard, creating with digital technologies can become a thrust in equilibration as making use of or testing the technology at hand provides a space to understand or discover new problems and solutions.
As technology becomes the environment in which we do business, it is crucial as well it becomes part of education. With creativity as an anchor of education and technology, the learning of new skills can occur. Furthermore, while creativity rests on the ability to create something new and novel, it can also lead to innovation that becomes the primary concern in a world where economies are increasingly affected and dependent on digital means. Being creative is much more complex than just receiving knowledge, as knowledge alone is not sufficient for creativity. And for this reason, education (especially in a digital environment) can benefit a lot from creativity as it is an application of knowledge in novel ways (Blessinger &
Watts, 2017).
3. Design As A Mode Of Creative Learning
As of now, the need for creativity in education to nurture talent in the innovation economy is explained. In what activity it is best to encourage it? What are the kinds of activities that will enable or provoke our creative abilities in education? This section argues that Design is a suitable mode of learning when it comes to creativity. The reason for this is that Design has its unique way of knowing or as Cross puts it “the designerly ways of knowing” (2001). He believed that just like the arts and the sciences, Design has its own intellectual culture. This does not mean that Design is an isolated practice. On the contrary, Design can be inclusive of other disciplines and knowledge. This is due to the underlying intellectual culture of Design in this discussion that pertains heavily to creativity. The culture underlying the design process in this discussion are: 1) designers tackle ill-defined problems; 2) solves problems through a solution-focused strategy; and 3) thinking constructively (Cross, 1982).
Design is unlike the sciences whereby problems are well structured. In the design process, a certain kind of stimuli is needed before a problem can occur, such as project briefs or benchmarking. Studies have shown that well-defined benchmarks or cues tend to frame the creation of products and therefore does not encourage new creation, while an open brief — whereby only goals are set — tends to evoke more unique ideas (Bonnardel & Zenasni, 2010;
Dahl & Moreau, 2002). Open briefs which are typical in the design process brings forth spaces of solutions and problems that are open. On the contrary, concrete problems might not yield new solutions and thus, uncreative. In dealing with open problems or spaces shows the similarity between certain aspects of Design and creativity. Navigating through the problem and solution space is comparable to problem finding skills in creativity that ranges from constructing, identifying, defining, discovery, perception, and generation of problems (Runco, 2007, p. 16). Facing ill-defined problems, therefore, provokes a different approach to problems and can reshape or multiply its goals. In other words, ill-defined problems will encourage designers to “pursue a satisficing path” (Simon, 1956). An observation notes that ill-defined problems are vague with various degrees of representational qualities. And credits are given to the solution-monitoring process or a solution-focused strategy that might play an essential role in creative thought (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994).
Perhaps, what drives the redefinition of ill-defined problems is strategies that focused on solutions. Hence the belief that all design-related fields revolve sketching, as it allows unique ideas to externalized problems and solutions for further evaluation (Locher, 2010). Prototyping is another step or methods used in Design other than sketching whereby ideas are tested, refined and applied iteratively, and at times involves technologies such as the CAD system (Puccio &
Cabra, 2010). These two examples and its symbiotic relationship shows the character of solution-focused strategy, whereby ideas are expressed and tested externally without the need for scientific accuracy that favours concrete problems. A study by Goldschimdt (2016) indicates that ideas move forward through the creation of new ideas on top of existing ones (forelinks) or conform to the previously created ones (backlinks). Forelink represents divergent thinking as ideas are elaborated; while backlinks are convergent as ideas are re-examined.
These two moves happen concurrently along the design process showing the back-and-forth modes of thoughts striving for solutions that are akin to the cyclic process pf Piaget’s adaptation explained earlier (assimilation and accommodation). Perhaps other thinking processes related to creativity can happen that might represent an amalgam of ideas, information, knowledge, and skills. Nevertheless, it does not hinder the fact that time — as shown in the cyclical process of adaptation, and the concurrent backlinks and forelinks—is
invested in a typical design project and indicates that solutions or innovative products are gradually constructed and developed.
It is important to note that the concurrent movement through problems and solution spaces shows the iterative nature of the design process (Brown, 2008). Therefore, the tackling of ill- defined problems and a solution-focused strategy are reciprocal; the focus on solutions is a result of vague problems or vice versa. The interplay of these two elements that progressively shape solutions and understanding of problems implies the construction of knowledge or constructive thinking. It has long been held that divergent and convergent thinking —a common predictor for creativity responsible for producing ideas (Guilford, 1956)— happen concurrently which reflect the equilibration of constructive thinking.
If technology is brought into the design process, the use of technology becomes a part of the ill-defined problems. And therefore, as the explanation above mentioned, the design process will open new avenues in which we can creatively identify further understanding of what current technology can offer. Furthermore, the inclusion of technology as a part of the creative process in Design might yield the development of new skills; as we are bound to the design process, so does our actions to experiment solutions — solution focused— towards questions that are raised from problems. Therefore, Design can become a vehicle in which creativity is nurtured.
4. Challenges Of Technology
4.1 Critique of technology
Despite the usefulness of technologies, critiques persist in the way how it shapes society.
Marcuse (1964) believed how technology can become an instrument for social control. As a product of the sciences, it carries a positivistic attitude that blends with the needs of the capitalist system. From this point, it is argued that technological advancement is pursued to gain more profit. The controlling effect came with conformity, in other words, society needs to conform to the efficiency of technology in order to continue producing which in turn gives profitable returns. This is how a technology is rationalized. In the context of education, using technology in this sense will degrade the creative process of ideation to favour a more efficient approach. This is because technology is used for the sake of what the technology can offer instead of conforming to ideas and problems.
Based on the argument put forth by Marcuse, some have argued for a more democratic control of technology. Feenberg believed that initially, technology is value neutral as it carries social requirements to gain an economic advatange (Feenberg, 2017). Despite its potential to fulfill the needs of society, technology can de-contextualized users. Instead of ideas becoming the subject of concern, the reliance towards technologies makes it a subject and ideas are degraded into mere objects.
Before Marcuse and Feenberg, Heidegger put forth similar arguments. He urged the understanding of the essence of technology to understand its limitations and bounds as it is both a ‘human activity’ and ‘means to an end’(Heidegger, 1977). Therefore, it is important to frame technology properly in our everyday lives. Therefore, In the context of creative learning, the use of technology should not hinder the process of ideation that becomes the primary concern of creativity. Any attempts to use technology should highlight the importance of retaining original ideas instead of substituting it with efficiency. This is because, efficiency is efficient as it is tested and tried, and therefore not original – and hence uncreative.
4.2 The butterfly defect
For computer technologies, the features embedded within it are abundant. These features, although associated with certain task are non-linear. This means, that despite providing interfaces with labels and instructions, the use of these features is not a step-by-step action.
Therefore, the act of using computers becomes a simple exploration to find appropriate features (Salomon & Almog, 1998). The absent of step-by-step indications hinders deep focus which obscures objectives. For instance, the use of features begins with an exploration towards a feature, and subsequent actions are determined by other features that are oftenly trivially introduced. This is believed to be a shallow approach to the use of technology. While doing something trivial might lead to originality, it does not account for appropriateness as appropriation requires addressing problems that are properly understood. This means that along the way, the decisions that are made based on trivial features are not reasonably justified.
Salamon and Almog (1998) made an allegory of this behaviour dubbed the ‘butterfly defect’, which like a butterfly, it drifts from one surface to another without every really touching it.
The use of trivial features is also implicitly implied by Kay (1991). A pioneer in the development of the graphical-user-interface (GUI), he believed that the need for convention and quality can be blurred at times when using computers. As features are fragmented, users might opt to use computers as it is conventional rather than as a means to find quality solutions.
If this is the case, then it can hinder creativity. Additionally, an eminent researcher in creativity research has warned the ‘double-edged sword’ nature of technology. Although it opens new avenues in creative expressions, its use still required thoughtful considerations (Osborn, 2017, 37:47). This is also echoed by other researcher who argued that technologies such as the computer-aided-design (CAD) systems can constraint or inhibit creativity, and highlights the still trusted process of ‘sketching’ among designers as it provides more freedom to express ideas (Locher, 2010).
5. Creative Approaches to Technology
The challenges to technologies in creativity and design begs us to understand the proper approach. The importance of proper distinctions on approaches to technology might yield insights into its introduction and exposure in education especially in the fields of creativity and design. Magner (2017) mentioned two approaches to technology in the context of creativity.
The advent of computer programs to aid designers shows that meaningful objects and artefacts can be created through the use of technology. Despite the critique towards technology in previous sections, the rich and tangible experience of using computer programs to test ideas and finding solutions is attractive to designers. ‘Sketching’ that uses hand-movements cannot provide the accuracy that a computer program can provide. Therefore, the products made is consistent and thus allow for mass productions. The complexities and sophistication of current programs, coupled with the ease-of-use features, allows the design process to be iterated more rapidly. This is evident through the use of computer programs aligned with present technology such as 3-dimensional printers that allow the creation of physical products on the fly.
Therefore, create through technology, ideas should be supported instead of supplanted by technology.
Another approach proposed by Mager (2017) is the concept of creating with technology.
Current technology is smart that it can even correct our wrongdoings. In fields such as application and games development, the creation of strongly typed programming softwares allows designers to code or program more complex experessions. While some programs are designed to aid in correcting what we do, others have put an effort in creating programs that is
accessible to a broad range of age groups. Programs such as ‘scratch’ (https://scratch.mit.edu/) helps young children to develop games by matching several programming statements. Instead of technology becomes a means to develop meaningful artefacts, creating with technology allows us to explore our ideas in-line with what the technology can offer.
These two approaches is also argued by Lubart (2005), which stated that computers can become real partners in the quest for creative experessions or in carrying out everyday tasks. Perhaps the partnership between humans and computers should be a hybrid relationship. By defining technology in this sense, future technologies should be designed in such a way that it is intelligent enough to appreciate ideas and acknowledge the need of human interventions.
6. Conclusion
From the discussions, we can see how Design fits the way in which creativity is put forth. More research needs to be done to understand how creativity is carried out in classrooms, studios, lab or any educational setting. With creativity, perhaps Design can be studied objectively or observed directly whereby findings of creativity research can be used to understand the nature of Creative Design with technology as its context. It may be that Design can be studied through the aspects that have guided creativity research. Therefore, insights in Creative Design in Education can be explored through the creative aspects proposed by Rhodes (Rhodes, 1961):
1) persons (how personalities affect creativity); 2) process (how Creative Design facilitates thinking, learning, perception and communication); 3) press (how creative ideas are accepted by their environment) and; 4) products (the study of objects made as a result of creativity).
Another perspective of creativity research that can guide creativity is through the understanding of creative fulfilment from novice to eminent creators such as the Four-C Model of Creativity that is proposed by Kaufman and Beghetto (2009). Although creativity is a human trait, we should also consider how culture is involved in shaping the creative activity. As cultural norms and their formation can explain how creativity and ingenuity is successfully integrated into society (Glaveanu, 2014, p. 27). And with a multicultural country such as Malaysia with its aspiration of thriving digital economies, understanding through culture can give meaningful vision for policymakers and government agencies to stimulate the growth and education of Creative Designers and thus boost the nations’ economy through innovation.
References
Ayman-Nolley, S. (2010). A Piagetian perspective on the dialectic process of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 267-275.
Bailey, J. (2020, January 8). The Tools of Generative Art, From Flash to Neural Networks.
Retrieved from Art in America: https://www.artnews.com/art-in- america/features/generative-art-tools-flash-processing-neural-networks-
1202674657/?fbclid=IwAR0fz-BpnnrLJu0-
9fpMBZ_tt8jdPoKILJGldjjZ6WY96Kn69_Q0vAmLX9M
Baldacchino, J. (2014). Knower Makers. In J. Baldacchino, & P. Gibbs (Ed.), John Dewey:
Liberty and the Pedagogy of Disposition (pp. 37-46). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Blessinger, P., & Watts, L. S. (2017). History and nature of creative learning. In L. S. Watts,
& P. Blessinger (Eds.), Creative Learning in Higher Education: International Perspective and Approaches (pp. 3-13). New York: Routledge.
Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The impact of technology on creativity in Design: An Enhancement? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 180-191.
doi:doi:10.111/j.1467-8691.2010.00560.x
Brown, T. (2008, June). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from www.hbr.org
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design : How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: HarperCollins.
Cross, N. (1982). Design as a discipline: Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science.
Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.
Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002, Feb). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47-60.
Dewey, J. (1988). The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953: 1929 - "The Quest for Certainty", Volume 4; Volume 1929 (reprint ed.). (J. A. Boydston, Ed.) Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and Education. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Dewey, J. (2008). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.
Feenberg, A. (2017). A critical theory of technology. In U. Felt, R. Fouche, C. A. Miller, & L.
Smith-Doer, Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 635-663). Cambridge, Massachusettes: MIT Press.
Feist, G. J. (2017). The Creative Personality: Current Understandings and Debates. In J. A.
Plucker, Creativity & Innovation: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 181-198). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.
Florida, R. (2012). The Rise of The Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R., Mellander, C., & King, K. (2015). The Global Creativity Index 2015. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Martin Prosperity Institute. Toronto:
Martin Prosperity Institute.
George, S. (2006). The philosophy of technology. In S. George, Religion and technology in the 21st century: faith in the e-world (pp. 23-41). London, England: Hershey, Pa.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2014). Thinking through Creativity and Culture : Toward an Integrated Model. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115-122.
Guilford, J. (1956, July). The Structure of Intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The Questions Concerning Technology and Other Essays. (W. Lovitt, Trans.) New York: Harper Perennial.
Ito, J., & Howe, J. (2016). Whiplash: How to Survive Our Faster Future. New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.
Kay, A. C. (1991, September). Computers, Networks and Education. Scientific American, 3(265), 138-149.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (50th Anniversary Edition ed.).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Locher, P. J. (2010). How does a visual artist create an artwork? In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J.
Sternberg, The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 131-144). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lubart, T. (2005). How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the Special Issue. International Journal of Human-Computer studies, 63, 365-369.
Magner, T. F. (2017). Technology and creativity. In J. A. Plucker, Creativity & Innovation:
Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 277-294). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.
Malaysian Digital Economy Corporation. (2015). MSC Malaysia Annual Industry Reports.
Retrieved June 30, 2018, from Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation:
https://www.mdec.my/assets/migrated/pdf/2015-MSC-Malaysia-Annual-Industry- Report-final.pdf
Marcuse, H. (1964). One dimensional man. London: Routledge.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Moore, G. E. (2015, September 28). Progress in Digital Integrated Electronics. Retrieved
January 2020, from IEEE Milestones Wiki:
http://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/images/5/5e/Moore_1975_IEEE_Speech.pdf
Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem Construction and Cognition: Applying Problem Representations in Ill-Defined Domains. In M. A. Runco, Problem Finding, Problem Solving and Creativity (pp. 3-39). Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Paul, C. (2008). Digital art : Revised and expanded edition. New York: Thames & Hudson world of art.
Piaget, J. (2001). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Routledge Classics.
Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2010). Organizational Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J.
Sternberg, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 145-173). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Pulaski, M. A. (1971). Understanding Piaget: An introduction to children's cognitive development. New York: Harper & Row.
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers and Play. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: research, development and practice.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1).
Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A Matter of Reciprocal Relations, Teachers College Record, 100(2), 222.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. UK: Portfolio Penguin.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138.
